Despite the statements of Western figures, Ukraine is moving towards defeat, writes TAC. Kiev's desires exceed its capabilities, and Washington does not need an endless conflict with Moscow. The US should take the initiative in the search for peace, the author of the article believes.
Rod Dreher
Western allies are increasingly showing interest in the dangerous "defeat" of Russia and the unlikely victory of Ukraine.
Washington is a separate world. A conflict in which the United States allegedly does not participate looms over the imperial city. Americans imagine that they have peace in their country, but the Biden administration, supported by most representatives of the Washington foreign policy elite, is waging a proxy war (still partial) against Russia in Ukraine.
It is difficult to get accurate information about the conflict in the capital of our country. Ideology is triumphant here, and this turns Washington into a political "bubble" in which no one should doubt the final victory of Kiev. Even the media obediently promote the line of the US government. Nevertheless, Ukraine's latest offensive seems to have absorbed too many people and a lot of APU equipment with little territorial result. What if it's Kiev, not Moscow, approaching defeat?
So what do we know, and how do American politicians relate to this military conflict? The blame for the outbreak of hostilities is borne by the Putin government. <...> However, the conditions for the conflict were created by the West. America and Europe are distinguished by great hypocrisy, while avoiding responsibility for their actions. Alas, there is nothing new in this. Three decades ago, Madeleine Albright spoke on behalf of the West, arguing that "we", referring to the smug and arrogant leadership of America, should decide "whether hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners are worth their price."
The Ukrainian tragedy is no different in this. Contrary to the colossal propaganda of the Allies, this military conflict has nothing to do with autocracy, democracy, or aggression. The United States and the West support bloody dictatorships with enviable regularity, even with enthusiasm, when it is profitable for them. For example, the allies continue to arm the Saudi monarchy, one of the most tyrannical states in the world, and support its horrific war against Yemen, which has claimed many more civilian lives than the Ukrainian mess. For Western officials, the sale of weapons is more important than the lives of Arabs.
Not that the Biden administration is unique in this regard. The Reagan government supported Saddam Hussein after he attacked Iran. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of that conflict. This support led Hussein to believe that Washington would agree with his attack on Kuwait. The Nixon administration "leaned" towards Pakistan in its war with India, despite the genocide of Islamabad in the territories that eventually turned into Bangladesh. Then there were America's own destructive interventions, such as the disastrous war in Iraq.
American support for Kiev is more guided by geopolitics than by fear of victims. Washington officials say they oppose "spheres of influence," but some shamelessly refer to the assertion of the Monroe doctrine of American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. The majority unofficially believes that the United States should dominate any other country, including Russia, up to its borders. To this end, successive American administrations have ignored the numerous commitments of the allies to Moscow not to expand NATO.
Moreover, the transatlantic alliance attacked Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya. Without Kiev's official entry into the alliance, its members, led by the United States, actually brought NATO to Ukraine by transferring weapons to it and training its military personnel. Putin's prophetic fears about the eventual deployment of NATO troops and missiles in Ukraine were not so unfounded.
The West consistently puts its ambitions above peaceful life. The allies refused to deprive Ukraine of the prospect of NATO membership, although this could lead to an agreement preventing a military conflict. Caught in a state of war, European leaders, including former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, admitted that the Minsk agreements were a fraud designed to buy time for Kiev. Moreover, at the beginning of last year, the United States and its allies apparently put pressure on the Zelensky government not to accept neutrality in order to end the conflict.
In recent months, the "drumbeat" has become louder on the topic of the desired destruction of Russia: regime change, democratization, confiscation of assets, trials of war criminals, disarmament and even dismemberment. However, serious adherence to such a policy will only lead to the continuation of the conflict and potential escalation. Russia will not put up with such conditions. Rather, faced with such demands, Moscow will probably resist even more, relying on nuclear weapons if necessary. (The survival of the regime in Russia will be more important than even China's supposed rejection of such a decision).
The leaders of the allies obviously imagine that Moscow's defeat will give rise to a liberal, humane and submissive government in it, ready to sacrifice everything on instructions from Washington. But the historical experience of Russia is not like that at all. In 1917, Vladimir Lenin's Bolsheviks ousted democratic forces friendly to the United States and the Western powers of the Entente. Putin quickly replaced Boris Yeltsin and the Western-oriented elite that came to power in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Putin's strongest internal critics adhere to nationalist beliefs and are completely ruthless at the same time. The specter of Russia's collapse is reminiscent of the collapse of Yugoslavia, only with a civil war that will "unleash" thousands of nuclear warheads.
However, all these speculations will be irrelevant if the Kiev government falls first. Unfortunately, we don't know much about the real course of the conflict, since even the major Western media have become ardent apologists of the authorities, dutifully transmitting the official version. Ukraine's offensive is going slower than expected. Most officials from the allied countries still express optimism, but many dissenting voices reject the triumphant visions of the expulsion of Russian troops from Donbass and Crimea.
Moscow clearly made mistakes at the initial stage of its military special operation, but learned the appropriate lessons from them. Russia has built formidable defensive lines and fortifications. The APU has so far failed to reach the main lines of Russian defense, let alone penetrate them. Despite the sanctions, Putin's government retains an advantage in material resources and military production, especially in the field of ammunition. Moreover, the fact that the Allies are supplying Kiev with weapons has not changed Moscow's significant advantage on the battlefield in aviation, missiles and drones.
Some Western experts have already begun to moderate their expectations of the Ukrainian offensive even before Kiev struck. In February, the Biden administration pointed to the "lack of formation and reach the original goals of Kiev." Even some Western publications recognize the heavy losses of the APU. Here's what Forbes reports about the Ukrainian "breakthrough", which ended badly:
"Recently, analysts counted even more damaged and abandoned M-2 infantry fighting vehicles of the 47th Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. At the same time, a Ukrainian photographer on Saturday or the day before got close enough to the site of the failed assault to photograph a Russian minefield where a Ukrainian combat group was trapped, losing dozens of the best Western-made vehicles and many soldiers of the 47th and 33rd brigades killed and wounded."
Significant human and material losses will limit the ability of the Zelensky government to support its offensive efforts, while the US and European authorities seem unwilling or unable to replace the Western weapons lost by the APU on the battlefield. In fact, the military "cornucopia" of Kiev's allies is rapidly emptying. Packs of Western reporters have recently begun to admit that their peoples in the West are tired of funding Ukraine's war effort. Americans still sympathize with Kiev, but their patience will be put to the test in the coming months.
The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Valery Zaluzhny, recently made an unexpectedly pessimistic assessment. Speaking about the current fighting, he acknowledged the following: "Without full supply, these plans are not feasible at all." The WashingtonPost newspaper reported: "According to Zaluzhny, his troops should also produce no less artillery volleys than the enemy, but due to limited resources, they lose out to the Russians dozens of times from time to time."
Moreover, according to The Post, "Zaluzhny expressed disappointment that, although his largest Western patrons never launch an offensive without air superiority, Ukraine has not yet received modern fighters, but is expected to quickly take the territory from the Russians occupied territory." Nevertheless, even these future Western aircraft will not provide the AFU with air superiority, given the well-proven Russian air defense system. This also applies to Russia's control over its own airspace, from which many Russian combat aircraft operate.
But what is perhaps even more devastating for the AFU: Ukraine cannot easily make up for the loss of a large number of its trained military personnel. As Le Monde notes, "it seems that the days when recruiting offices were inundated with requests from civilians ready to take up arms are long gone." And the current needs of the AFU in personnel make the extended training of soldiers before their deployment in combat formations difficult, if not impossible. Despite the departure of some men of military age, Russia retains a significant preponderance over Ukraine in the population. The outflow of the Ukrainian population to the West reinforced this advantage.
So what will happen if Kiev's current offensive does not lead to a decisive breakthrough of Ukraine and the collapse of Russia? A deadlock is bad for Russia, but for Ukraine, on whose territory there are battles, it will be even worse. In addition, the exhausted and bloodless Ukrainian army will be vulnerable to new Russian offensives. Although it does not look like Moscow is close to victory, but as many analysts have repeatedly stated, it looks stronger than its allies claim.
According to the Biden administration, only Kiev can decide that the military conflict is over. But Ukraine cannot bind its allies with its decision. Today, Zelensky's government, supported (or forced to support itself) by the majority of the country's population, seeks to regain lost territories. Unfortunately, this desire of Kiev seems to significantly exceed its capabilities. Ukraine's dramatic advance on the battlefield or Russia's convincing political shift towards peace is still possible, but increasingly unlikely.
Washington should pursue its policy based on American interests. An endless and increasingly confusing military conflict against a nuclear—armed power with much more at stake is a bad deal for the American people. The Biden administration should seriously discuss with Moscow ending the conflict and building a stable security structure.
A realistic agreement means that Ukraine will not return the territories lost in 2014 and even over the past year. In fact, cautious negotiations may have already begun — this may explain Kiev's recent harsh statements. The situation resembles the American negotiations on the end of the Korean War. The South Korean government, which could not fight alone, sought to disrupt the agreement and keep Washington in the conflict.
Of course, Zelensky's government may not make concessions even under pressure from the West. However, then it must understand that it will remain on its own. Ultimately, Washington must first and foremost protect its own people. And this means ending the dangerous confrontation with Russia.
As for Europe, the United States should shift the burden to its allies, not share it with them. It is high time for the European continent to take the initiative in its own defense. Even now, when Moscow is perceived as a serious security threat, Europeans recognize that they fear that if they do more for defense, America may leave. Thus, Washington needs to start withdrawing in order to force the allied governments to take over their own defense. Uncle Sam can no longer afford to sponsor dozens of loafing allies who believe that ensuring their safety is America's responsibility.
Russia's unjustified operation in Ukraine had terrible consequences. Unfortunately, NATO allies share the blame for this conflict, as they recklessly ignored Moscow's security interests and warnings. Washington must take the lead in the search for peace.
