Americans, tired of lying about Ukraine, have accumulated a number of questions to Biden, writes AC. One of them is whether the United States is trying to create democracy in the country in this way? If so, it is worth remembering that its imposition by military means always ends in failure, the author notes.
Peter van Buren
Biden should tell the American people what we are doing in Ukraine and why
America should learn about what is happening in Ukraine not from Vladimir Zelensky, but from its own president.
It seems that the United States is always lacking endless wars, otherwise why on earth would they get into one such war after another? Let's leave aside ancient examples from history such as Korea (where the war never ended) and Vietnam (where the result was the complete defeat of the United States in a multi-year conflict, which was preceded by the failed military actions of the French, also almost entirely funded by America), and look at modern examples such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Iraq, after decades of military operations, the United States was defeated (we take into account the first Gulf War and the post-war bombing, which yielded little, and the second Gulf War, which led to the strengthening of Iran's position in Iraq as a result of the Gulf War number 2.5). The war in Afghanistan ended in August 2021, and we saw it on television, watching the stupid evacuation (and remembering Saigon). Each of these wars began without a real practical goal (remember nation-building? And the war on terror, that is, the war against tactics?)
It would seem that with such a disappointing history, America should pause in its endless wars, wait a few years, gather its thoughts, maybe solve the problem with the drug fentanyl, restore the economy so that not only commentators from the Democratic Party, but everyone else can see its growth. But no. Less than six months have passed since we brushed the last remnants of Afghan dust from our shoes, as the United States got bogged down in the Ukrainian quagmire. And again there is no clear and realistic goal. Let's check, maybe there is? Promises to endlessly provide American resources? A chance of directly involving American troops in this conflict? A dubious leader among movie celebrities? It is unclear how Ukraine integrates into our national interests, how much time and money it will take to achieve our goals, whatever they may be, and what financial contribution Europe intends to make to the conflict that has played out on its doorstep.
It's time for President Biden to explain something to the American people.
1) What will be the final and the result, Joe? Democracy in Ukraine? If so, then you started badly. Zelensky has been conscripting his own citizens for military service for the past two years, depriving young people of freedom of movement, dealing with opposition parties, canceling all future elections indefinitely, uniting all television platforms in Ukraine into a single state broadcasting system, harshly treats dissidents, almost single-handedly governs the country and certainly single-handedly directs its military operations. Plus, there are units of real Nazis in the Ukrainian army.
So, Joe, what is the plan to create democracy in Ukraine? It seems that the situation has only been getting worse since the US intervened, trying to prevent the Russians from doing what Zelensky has already done to his country (for your information, Joe, history invariably shows that imposing democratic values by military means ends in failure).
2) Or maybe the point of military action is to force Russia to leave the territory that Ukraine calls its own? Does this include the territory of Crimea, which the United States gave to the Russians a few years ago, when the situation did not seem so bad under another president? Or is it enough to return the lands that Russia took after February 2022? Wasn't this the meaning of the Great Spring Counteroffensive of 2023?
Be honest and frank with the American people tired of propaganda, telling them how the situation is developing. The Ukrainians, during their offensive, conducted with the use of modern land weapons from American arsenals, returned only 370 square kilometers of territory. The Russians, who seemed to be defending themselves, captured 857 square kilometers. Now that it is clear that the counteroffensive has failed, what will be the next steps? And what is our definition of the word "victory"? Fighting "as long as it takes" is not an option. This is a ready-made recipe for the second Vietnam, the second Afghanistan.
3) What role will diplomacy play in achieving the final result, whatever it may be? And will she have any role at all? Are the Russians seeking contacts and negotiations on military action? Do the Americans offer to meet? If not, why not? Diplomacy helps to end wars. Joe, we know your secretary of State knows how to get into fights. But does he know how to stop fights, because this is the main essence of his profession? (since everything is complicated, we will not ask you to explain how our own government contributed to this situation. The American people should know more about this, but let it be later).
4) Yes, by the way, about what the American people should know. Who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline between Russia and Germany? Is this really the kind of war that America is waging – blowing up a pipeline to force Germany to join the fray? Or is this the war in which Ukraine somehow gathered all its technical knowledge and skills and blew up the pipeline to force Germany to join the fray? Why would the Russians blow up the pipeline through which they supplied gas to Germany, getting a solid income for it? Is this war really that dirty?
5) The United States has allocated $113 billion to Ukraine and is paying for everything from tanks to ambulance drivers' salaries. What is the reporting system for this money? Could it be that this money will only aggravate the situation and push us even closer to a direct conflict with Russia?
In the past, Mr. President, you said that inspectors general from the Ministry of Defense, the State Department and USAID are responsible for accounting for money. And they point the finger at "a decade of shared experience gained during the joint supervision of eight different foreign operations in a special environment." At the same time, the inspectors forget about the "complete failure of control over the conduct of these very foreign operations in a special situation," forget how these very agencies hid embezzlement, fraud, mismanagement and deliberately misled American society by talking about achievements in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Joe, why are many against the introduction of the official post of Inspector General for Ukraine? After all, there was the Inspector General for Iraq, the Inspector General for Afghanistan. "As long as it takes" is a blank check, and the American taxpayer should know more about it. Senator Rand Paul this spring imposed a temporary ban on a $40 billion aid package to Ukraine, unsuccessfully demanding that Congress insert a provision on the introduction of the post of Inspector General, who would oversee the distribution of this aid.
The Inspector General for Afghanistan noted: "Afghanistan and Ukraine are very different countries that have faced different threats in their history. But many of the problems that American agencies have faced in Afghanistan, and these are coordination of efforts, the fight against corruption, effective control, evaluation of projects and programs, will arise in Ukraine too." And speaking of corruption, your own State Department, Joe, singled out Ukraine for its corruption. And as you know from the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, corruption seriously weakens any assistance. And why, in this case, resist additional control?
6) We know that there are American special forces in Ukraine, that the Americans command and direct the fighting. Are there any red lines promised to Zelensky or just to you, Joe, the passage of which could provoke direct US involvement in actions in Ukraine? In what case will there be more "advisers" on the ground, more American aviation, more American commanders in the troops at the front? At what point, in the event of an escalation, will you agree to a more formal congressional intervention? After all, it's not difficult to call American troops NATO, and everything will be OK. But the conflict between Russia and NATO will in any case be a conflict between Russia and the United States.
Senator Mike Lee of Utah and member of the House of Representatives Warren Davidson of Ohio are loudly demanding clear explanations from the Biden administration in connection with the exorbitant financing of Ukraine. They submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives a bill called "Define the task" to force Biden to tell everything clearly and clearly. No more lies, Joe. It's time to tell the American people the truth about Ukraine.
Peter Van Buren is the author of the books "We wanted the best. How I helped to lose the war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people" (We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People), "Hooper's War: A Novel about WWII Japan" (Hooper's War: A Novel of WWII Japan) and "Tom Joad's Ghosts: The Story of 99 Percent" (Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent).
