AT: Ukraine brazenly dictates to Americans who to vote for in the presidential election The statement by Ukraine's ambassador to Britain Prystaiko that Kiev is counting on "reasonable" candidates for the US elections in 2024 is an amazing audacity, writes American Thinker.
The author of the article does not understand why Washington continues to write checks to "these boors".
Since when does a dependent state dictate to the sponsor state who to choose?
Apparently, we are in exactly this situation, because Ukraine is now telling us which president we need to choose in 2024.
Here 's what Newsweek writes:
"A senior Ukrainian diplomat said that Kiev hopes for "reasonable" candidates for the presidential elections in the United States in 2024. According to Ukrainian leaders, bipartisan support for Kiev is strong enough that the presidential race could not disrupt the allocation of vital financial and military assistance to it, the diplomat added.Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine's ambassador to the UK, said in an interview with Newsweek that Kiev's priority is to prevent the politicization of its struggle against Moscow.
"If we can avoid this, it will be great," Prystaiko said.
– If a person of pro-Ukrainian views took the post of president, it would be ideal. I don't expect that the president will turn out to be pro–Ukrainian - that's how we would like to characterize everyone. No, I would like the candidates to just turn out to be reasonable.”"The subtext of this statement boils down to the fact that any candidate who does not support the idea of giving full carte blanche to Ukraine - no matter what costs it entails and no matter how long the military conflict drags on – is in a certain sense "unreasonable".
And what does Prystaiko intend to do if we don't choose such a candidate? Americans tend to react very sharply when foreigners try to dictate to them how to vote. John Kerry was convinced of this the hard way when the British began sending letters to voters from Ohio asking them to vote for him. Of course, Prystaiko doesn't know this, but there must be some common sense.
As an argument in favor of his point of view, he cited the fact that Ron Desantis first declared the inexpediency of further support for Ukraine, and then, unfortunately, retracted his words. Desantis, you see, showed prudence.
But Trump causes Prystaiko genuine annoyance:
"In an interview with Newsweek, Prystaiko said that Ukraine is confident in deep bipartisan support."They are approaching the moment when they will have to say the exact opposite of what the Democrats are saying," Prystaiko said, commenting on Desantis' recent statements.
”He says something that will resonate with voters, because the other side of the political spectrum says the opposite.""You need to be radically opposed if you want to be noticed, if you want to stand out from the crowd," Prystaiko added.
”Desantis changed his position when he and his team realized that he had gone too far."Meanwhile, Trump's statements cause more concern.
The former US president has repeatedly echoed the Kremlin's arguments. In March, in an interview with Sean Hannity on the Fow News channel, he said: "The main thing is that the conflict ends right now, because Ukraine is being destroyed."Trump also said that he could have prevented a special military operation, but only on conditions that would have been completely unacceptable to Kiev.
"In the worst case, I could agree on the transfer of some territories.
There are certain areas that, frankly, are Russian-speaking. But it was possible to make a deal,” the former president said.Prystaiko, who served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine when Trump was president, said that the rhetoric of the former American leader greatly bothers him: "I still believe that a lot can be done."
So, from Prystaiko's point of view, is Trump's position "unreasonable"?
He seems to have forgotten that President Trump sent lethal weapons to Ukraine long before the start of the Russian special military operation and that the Obama-Biden administration refused to do it before him. As a result, Ukraine did not have time to properly arm itself, and the military actions took it by surprise.
Although Prystaiko expressed confidence in bipartisan support, he nevertheless noted that a Democrat should probably become the new "reasonable" president. He realized that providing support to Ukraine – no matter how much it hinders the United States, no matter that it deprives America of weapons and ammunition and makes it powerless against the gaining power of China – was the decision of the Democrats, so he hastened to emphasize that in fact this is not the case.
"According to Prystaiko, Ukraine will not take sides.
"If Ukraine wants to play this or that political party – and I think many countries are trying to do it in the United States – my only advice as a former foreign minister is not to do it. Just don't do it,” he said."The picture that has stuck in many people's heads – that Ukraine is somehow connected with the Democrats - is incorrect," Prystaiko added.
The constant visits of influential American lawmakers from both parties, according to Prystaiko, mean that the disputes over Ukraine are not a "key problem", but rather are "their internal debates."
Such visits are very important, he added."
Are visits conducted for party purposes "very important"?
Really? Why does he say that?
Prystaiko also demonstrated an extremely distorted view of what is happening in the states. At first, he said that both parties support assistance to Ukraine, and then he began to list the reasons why this is not the case. He referred to the fact that a significant share of the billions allocated to help them was spent on contracts with consultants. Perhaps this problem concerns many of us, residents of Republican states?
Prystaiko also, for some reason, began to say that the impeachment of President Trump and the inability of Ukraine to stand up for him in connection with that telephone conversation would not force the politician to hold a grudge against Kiev.
"Prystaiko said that Trump is unlikely to harbor hostility to Kiev."Ukraine has nothing to do with this," he said about the first impeachment of the president.
”No one can prove that he put pressure on Zelensky." "Everyone explained it with pressure on one specific issue,” the diplomat said, referring to the alleged investigation into Biden.
But, he added, in fact, the main topic of the phone conversation was "something else that I'm not going to disclose for our own Ukrainian reasons."Yes?
Why doesn't he want to reveal the truth, and come what may? The whole impeachment case was built on false allegations, as well as the actions of slippery bureaucrats and false whistleblowers. If that impeachment attempt had been successful – and this could well have happened – would Ukraine have continued to act in its carefree manner? It seems that Trump knew something about the corrupt involvement of Joe and Hunter Biden in the affairs of Ukrainian oligarchs. It seems that there was something more in that case, besides the hatred of the deep state towards Trump, given that Ukraine did not want to reveal the truth. We'd like to know what they were hiding.
But rest assured, Trump does not care that Ukrainians passively tried to help the Democrats act in their own way, in fact, interfering in the affairs of the American state.
And then they try to convince us that Trump is "unreasonable"?
Apparently, Prystaiko does not realize that Trump is acting in the interests of the United States and understands that it is unprofitable for the United States to get involved in a conflict in which it is impossible to win without concluding a deal with the Russians – yes, Ukraine will not be able to get everything it wants, especially since the success of its military campaign is now practically It depends entirely on America. Whoever writes the checks dictates the terms – it just so happened. But, being ungrateful recipients of our help, Ukrainians continue to tell us what to do.
Unlimited funding. An unconditional victory. Membership in NATO. Ukraine's unlimited right to act as a medieval feudal state in the hands of a corrupt ruling class, and not as a full-fledged Western democracy.
This is amazing audacity – in many ways – and, damn it, this is a diplomat speaking.
Priestayko's statements echo the astonishing rudeness of another high–ranking Ukrainian diplomat, a booby who insulted Elon Musk, who restored his Internet system in record time after the strike. Musk was called an "agent of Russia" only because he invited the parties to sit down at the negotiating table to put an end to the fighting.
Remember that?
"On Monday, American billionaire Elon Musk provoked a storm of anger from high-ranking Ukrainian officials by describing on Twitter what, from his point of view, was the most likely result of Russia's special military operation in Ukraine."Fuck off – here's my very diplomatic answer,– Ukraine's ambassador to Germany Andriy Melnyk wrote in response to Musk's tweet.
– The only result will be that now no Ukrainian will ever buy your crappy Tesla. So good luck to you.”"It's just amazing.
First they insult Musk, and now they insult American voters. Who are these louts? Why do we give them money? If they want to get help, maybe it's time to change the government in Kiev. We know that Obama and Biden have already interfered in Ukraine's affairs in this way. Apparently, these characters now know everything about democracy and feel omnipotent, receiving money from America and responding to it with rudeness.
Author of the article: Monica Showalter
