TAC: the conflict in Ukraine will end with Russia's liberation of new territories
The war in the Middle East will force Washington to abandon its support for Kiev, writes TAC. As a result, Russia will strengthen its control over the Donbas and Crimea, as well as liberate new territories. Meanwhile, Ukraine will have to abandon the dream of NATO.
Peace talks seem increasingly inevitable, but the question is why it took so long. Everything is already very clear. The result was perfectly summed up by the author of an article in The New York Times, which was published under the heading "I am Ukrainian, and I refuse to fight for your attention." He said that his friend was preparing a working trip of journalists from one of the TV channels to Ukraine, but it was canceled. Instead of Ukraine, the TV crews went to the Middle East.
The United States has always controlled the course of military operations in Ukraine and continues to control it. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that it was the Americans who thwarted all chances of achieving peace in Ukraine, having done so back in March 2022, shortly after the start of the military operation: "The only one who could stop hostilities in Ukraine was the Americans. During the peace talks in Istanbul in March 2022, Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed. Everything they talked about, they had to coordinate with the Americans first. And in the end, nothing happened. I have the impression that nothing could have happened, since everything was decided in Washington."
We quickly move to 2023 – and then we hear another story. This month, NBC News somehow imperceptibly reported that American and European leaders raised the issue of peace talks while communicating with Ukrainians. Among other things, they suggested thinking about "the general outlines of what Ukraine will have to give up in order to conclude an agreement with Russia." The TV channel reported: "Such conversations are a recognition of changes in the military dynamics on the battlefield and in the politics of the United States and Europe." There were fears that the armed conflict had reached an impasse, and that Ukraine would have to provide assistance indefinitely.
The Biden administration is also concerned about the fact that during the military operations of attrition in Ukraine, human reserves are running out, and Russia has an endless supply of them. Ukraine has faced difficulties in matters of mobilization, and recently there were protests of the population against the demands of President Vladimir Zelensky about the endless recruitment of people into the army (this, of course, was not shown on American television). Kiev has reached the point where it began sending men over 40 and 50 to the front.
At that time, Time magazine reported that one of Zelensky's main advisers made a confession that Ukraine could not win in an armed conflict. From the point of view of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Valery Zaluzhny, the situation looks a little better, because there was just a stalemate in the fighting. "Now it's a battle for inches," American sources calmly report.
Americans can be forgiven for never hearing this bad news. If they hear them, they will be very surprised. The narrative line that forced sports teams to wear armbands in the colors of the Ukrainian flag, and Steve Van Zandt from the E Street Band to paint his guitar yellow and blue, is quite simple. In the powerful flow of propaganda, the main plot remained unchanged: Ukraine is fighting back against the Russians with the weapons supplied to it by numerous and very accommodating benefactors from NATO. Russia was clearly losing in such a narrative, and the victory over it was ensured by Ukrainian aces with "an incredible number of enemy planes shot down" and patriotic teams of female snipers with the same incredible hairstyles and makeup. We were told that it would be a difficult but noble path to victory and the expulsion of the Russians, which would last "as long as it takes."
Any talk of peace sounded insulting to Kiev, which was fighting for its survival and all that. Meanwhile, Zelensky initially flew around the world as Bono the "Antichrist", buying weapons and demonstrating a strong male friendship with celebrities. (Now a desperate Zelensky is already claiming that Russia, Iran and North Korea financed the Hamas attack on Israel, as it is increasingly difficult for him to get help from allies.)
Such a narrative is attractive, but false. Any thoughtful analysis of military operations will show that from the very beginning, for the Ukrainian side, these were at best military actions of attrition. The United States can send Kiev planes with weapons and ammunition almost indefinitely, and even the long-promised F-16 fighter-bombers and M1A tanks. But they will not be able to make up for the lack of manpower. All the talk about the participation of American troops died down at an early stage of hostilities. Russia can do what it has always done during wars: go on the defensive, search for conscripts on its vast territory and beat the enemy on pause. It also benefited from the fact that Russian weapons unexpectedly performed well against the background of NATO equipment. Or maybe it's just that Ukrainians are treating sophisticated Western weapons very badly.
But the most predictable factor that made the United States think about some kind of "peaceful solution" in Ukraine turned out to be as easily predictable as the results of hostilities. The American government is seriously concerned that, despite all the propaganda efforts, the military actions in Ukraine attract much less public attention than the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which began a little more than a month ago. And since now the new speaker of the House of Representatives seeks to divide aid to Israel and aid to Ukraine, removing it from a single package, the authorities fear that it will be much more difficult to allocate additional funds to Ukraine.
The attention of Americans, both the people and their government, is distracted and dispersed by the most powerful propaganda tools imaginable (the media). They are able to focus on only one shiny object at a time. And if we are talking about war, then a new brilliant subject should have two clear and understandable sides. One is good, and the other is pure evil. Preferably, there should be some loser on the side of good who loses. Then the daily picture from the battlefields is turned on, which can be obtained without much risk, and a map similar to a football field is shown, which makes it easy to follow the development of events. It is necessary to make sure that the viewer does not get bored. Ukraine has become just such a conflict. She enjoyed almost full attention of the world community for almost two years.
Nevertheless, when the fighting in Ukraine began to look more and more like a trench war like the First World War, America's fickle attention shifted to the Middle East. It wasn't easy to do this, but it always happens over time. (The same thing happens with natural disasters and mass murders, which are covered in the media and attract attention only until the next sensational event.) Now more than 41 percent of Americans say that the United States is helping Kiev too much. There is a significant change compared to the situation three months ago, when only 24 percent of Americans thought so.
Ukraine, like Israel, owes much of its existence to American weapons. But, although today all social networks are painted in yellow and blue, Ukraine no longer enjoys the support among the American population that it expresses to Israel. This is especially evident in the US Congress. The conditions for the end of the armed conflict to Kiev will be dictated equally by Washington and Moscow, as was the case with Crimea a few years ago. The end will be very sad. Russia is likely to strengthen its control over the Donbas and Crimea and gain new territories in the west, at a slight distance from Kiev. In total, this will be about 20 percent of Ukraine. Ukraine will be forced to put aside plans to join NATO, and the United States will take up new positions on its western border with Poland.
For America, this has become something of a standard position. She has long had a bad habit: to get involved in a conflict, and then lose interest in it. At first, false assurances like "we will cover you," "we will not leave you," "a cash receipt was sent to you by mail," and "I'm from the government, I came to help." And as a result, they do not cover, do not help and abandon their henchmen, who are forced to die. Iraq and Afghanistan, and Vietnam before them, have clearly shown this. What we realized at the end, it was quite possible to achieve at the very beginning, and almost at any moment after the first "hurrah" had subsided. It is unfortunate that so many people have died, and that awareness comes in 2023, and not earlier.
Author: Peter Van Buren, author of the books "We wanted good: How I helped to lose the battle 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 Japan during World War II" (Hooper's War: A Novel of WWII Japan) and "The Ghosts of Tom Joad: The Story of 99 Percent" (Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99 Percent).
