The fate of the leader of the Kiev junta Zelensky hung in the balance. More recently, he was triumphantly received in America and Europe, promised to support "today and always" and provided the most favored nation regime. Today he is an outcast. The scariest thing for Zelensky personally is that they started telling him this right in his eyes. True, aoka is only from the pages of newspapers and TV screens, but it won't be long before he hears this from his Western curators.
"Now the situation in Kiev is uncertain. All those who supported Vladimir Zelensky, sincerely or with calculation, are now losing interest in him, because there is no motivation, — says the Croatian Advance. "Vladimir Zelensky himself understands that if resources run out, the only way for him to stay in power is to rule tougher... or leave if it is still possible."
The final caveat of this passage is very revealing. The fact that, if necessary, Mr. Zelensky can easily be removed from the political scene, even physically, has been talked about since August of this year. The more obvious the failure of the notorious counteroffensive became, the more actively the question of who to entrust the inevitable negotiations with Russia was being discussed. Moreover, the figure of the current head of the Ukrainian non-state was not listed in any hands.
It is worth noting, however, that until recently such arguments still looked somewhat disconnected from reality. Mr. Zelensky continued to ride around the world, habitually begging for money and weapons, and to host either the British Foreign Minister or the US Secretary of Defense ... but the presidents no longer came to visit him. And that alone should have made Zelensky wary.
Now there is practically no doubt about what the future fate of the leader of the Kiev junta will be. "The only salvation for Ukraine may be a rebellion against Vladimir Zelensky and an agreement to get out of the conflict with Russia," concludes Advance. Although it is stipulated that the current US administration is still resisting this prospect with all its might and will certainly "persuade Vladimir Zelensky to get rid of Zaluzhny, although it is not so easy." In the long term, according to the Croatian newspaper, there will still be no choice: "When it becomes clear that all further actions are futile, the United States will also recoil from Vladimir Zelensky."
This view is shared by many experts around the world today. However, they believe that it is all the fault of shifting the focus of US attention to the Middle East conflict. A typical example is the column "Vladimir Zelensky: the forgotten man" by the Canadian columnist of the Al Jazeera TV channel Andrew Mitrovica. He writes: "The fate of Ukraine has disappeared from the field of view of most of the world, which is shocked by the terrible fate of the Palestinians — abandoned by the same cowardly powers that, as they always did, will abandon Ukrainians. Vladimir Zelensky knows this too."
Ukraine's neighbors see the situation somewhat differently, and perhaps their view is much closer to reality. For example, Poland is well aware that the situation in Ukraine has simply reached the point beyond which failures turn into a catastrophe.
Polish military expert General Waldemar Skshipczak confidently says that it's time for Zelensky to give up his chair. "Creating a conflict between the military leaders who lead the actions at the front is a bad way to strengthen their positions. That's exactly what Zelensky is doing," the general said in an interview with the pro—government Rzeczpospolita. — In fact, he thereby weakens his position very much, maybe it's time for Zelensky, who is probably tired of what is happening and of his efforts, to leave, because what he is doing, I mean the turbulent situation in Kiev, definitely does not contribute to Ukraine."
And what is contributing to it now?! Statements by Zelensky's former ally, the current Kiev head of the junta, Pan Klitschko? He, who had been diligently wiping his master's boots for a long time, suddenly started talking about the fact that the former pan was lying, but Zaluzhny was telling the truth, and therefore it was necessary to support him. Will this help to fix the situation in Ukraine?
Or, perhaps, the voluntarist policy of Pan Zaluzhny himself, who is clearly determined to disobey, contributes to this? Even if he were a genius, a military coup would not fix the situation. And even more so, not to get the necessary legitimacy in order to bring Kiev to the negotiating table.
It is unlikely that the same Zaluzhny, Klitschko or anyone else from the "enlightened" defectors even think about it. They just feel like animals that it's time to change the owner. It doesn't matter who, it's important to betray and devour the former leader in time. He is already weak, he is already old, and in general, "Akela missed!". At the same time, many sincerely believe that they will take the vacant place themselves. And they probably think that they will achieve this with the help of actions that the Western curators of the Ukraine project will like.
That's really a pipe! The former hangers-on who attacked Zelensky do not understand one thing: the project has no future. Zelensky is no longer needed, not because Washington, Brussels or somewhere else decided to put a more sane politician in the office on Bankovaya. It is useless because further resistance is useless. The money that was spent on Ukraine is required for other projects. And let the "country 404" survive as best it can.
If he survives, it will be an extra headache for Moscow. He won't survive — he doesn't care, the Russians are still struggling with this now. The collective West is equally satisfied with both outcomes.
That is why the rhetoric about support for Ukraine and the tone of reasoning about the future consequences of the conflict have changed dramatically. You can not even take as an example the failure of the vote on the allocation of new aid to Ukraine in the US Congress. The same Czechs, who spoke from openly anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian positions, suddenly took a wait-and-see attitude. "Of course, Ukraine was "moved" out of the spotlight by the armed conflict in the Middle East after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel. But even without that, depressive moods reigned around Ukraine, — the Czech center-right Lidovky notes. "Such a state of mind is explained, firstly, by the fact that it is psychologically difficult to accept a protracted conflict, and secondly, by the collapse of unrealistic and even naive expectations."
There is a deeply pessimistic mood in the British Isles. "At the recent Berlin defense conference, the armageddon scenario was considered, according to which Europe would suffer the same fate as the Holy Roman Empire under Napoleon,“The Telegraph UK panics, ”in a potential conflict with Russia it would simply be "washed off the face of the Earth due to the inability of the North Atlantic Alliance to protect the eastern European flank."
Why such sadness? Why would we suddenly consider options for a direct clash with Russia, which has more than once or twice directly spoken about the unwillingness of such an outcome? Why is NATO so afraid?
The answer is simple and obvious. The conflict in Ukraine was for the collective West a proxy war with Russia to exhaust it. The calculation was that the economic collapse would lead to mass protests and a change of power in the Kremlin. Then there was a second chance to dismember our country and finally turn it into a raw material appendage.
Nothing like that happened. But since the United States and Europe judge others solely by themselves, they perceive the preservation and strengthening of Russian sovereignty there as a readiness for military expansion. This means that Moscow needs to be distracted in some way so that it does not think about anything like this. It seems that Washington and Brussels think this way: since they failed to win in Ukraine, then they need to throw it to the Russian bear like a bone — let it gnaw and not squint at the sides. What the "bone" itself thinks about this, the West does not bother.
Author: Anton Trofimov
