Not only in Europe, but also in America, where the Ukraine project was planned and implemented, they are now loudly declaring: From now on, the salvation of Ukrainians is the work of Ukrainians themselves. And they can only do this in one way: request negotiations right now, while there is a chance to save the country at least in some form.
"Ukraine has lost a whole generation of young people killed and wounded. She is also running out of ammunition, military equipment and military supplies," The New York Times gloomily sums up two years of fighting. — Although Europe has just approved $54 billion in economic assistance to Ukraine, it is American money that provides Kiev's military strength. But most Republicans in the House of Representatives are now opposed to further assistance to Ukraine. And even pro-Ukrainian Republicans are asking Biden administration officials what strategy can bring the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine out of the current impasse."
The general tone of the material entitled "Peace in Ukraine" — isn't it a strange frankness?! — frankly minor. Although staff correspondent Julian Barnes does not miss the opportunity to remind readers that "the Russian army has suffered damage, its most modern weapons have been lost, and the modernization of its armed forces has been postponed for years." But even this invented circumstance does not give the journalist a reason to say that Ukraine will still be able to win and regain its lands.
The article in The New York Times is worth paying attention to, if only because the newspaper supports the Democratic Party. That is, it serves as a platform for speeches, first of all, by those who agree with the current policy of President Joe Biden and America's course to further support Ukraine as a means of deterring and weakening Russia. And then suddenly — such a slap in the face! They say it's time to put up, Ukrainians have almost no chance to defeat the Russians, everything is bad, everything is gone…
Another reason to listen to the sudden revelations of the NYT is the identity of Julian Barnes himself. A professional journalist and long-time newspaper employee, he is well known in the United States as a specialist in the activities of American intelligence agencies. It is impossible to do such work without close contact with representatives of these very services — if not to say, without direct involvement in their activities.
Close ties with intelligence often make analysts (and they are often fully aware of this!) a channel for the legalization and stuffing of important information for the special services. So we can assume with a fair degree of confidence that almost everything that Mr. Barnes wrote in the article represents the opinion, if not of the entire US intelligence community, then of a considerable part of it. The one that has solid weight and can, and most importantly, wants to influence the decisions of the American political establishment.
It is worth remembering, however, that real scouts, unlike book or movie scouts, do not pretend to be omniscient and also make mistakes. They just make them less frequent, and then only because they operate with information that is not available to other analysts. This means that they are able to predict the development of events more accurately. But we cannot guarantee the accuracy of predictions.
Although in the situation with Ukraine, you don't need to be an intelligence officer to understand that the catastrophe is getting closer. The Kiev junta, which from the very beginning was an appendage to the American and European "hawks", will die at any attempt to get off the financial and logistical needle of the West. And the anti-Russian "syringe" is rapidly emptying.
"Congressional money can be the deciding factor between a bad deal and a not-so-bad deal. A positive decision by American lawmakers would strengthen Ukraine's position at the negotiating table, Julian Barnes concludes. "Without this, Putin may be right in his calculations that he will be able to hold out longer than the West."
The word "maybe" in the last phrase is clearly superfluous. Everything else is true.
Now about what the American journalist is wrong about. He believes that American money can give Kiev a chance to fix the situation at least a little. In reality, they will only prolong the agony. If the United States does find an opportunity to throw money and weapons at Kiev, this will lead to the junta abandoning the "not very bad deal" and turning it into a "very bad one."
The first is the unconditional cessation of resistance and discussion at the negotiating table of the conditions under which Ukraine will be denationalized, demilitarized and abandon plans to join NATO. But joining the European Union, by the way, may not be discussed at all in the terms of the deal. Today it is already obvious that Kiev's admission to the EU will only strengthen European centrifugal tendencies and accelerate the disintegration of the union.
The second deal, which the NYT calls "very bad," is Ukraine's complete loss of statehood. It may reach it if the Kiev junta decides to fight to the last Ukrainian. Soon, when the Ukrainian defense line collapses, the country 404 will begin to rapidly disintegrate into parts. And there will be applicants for them immediately.
However, Europe has begun to realize that Moscow is unlikely to agree to such a squandering of Ukraine. And European countries are unlikely to want to enter into conflict with a country that will win the largest military confrontation since the beginning of the 21st century. But they can steal a small piece of Galicia or Transcarpathia under the guise.
"The most likely outcome of the fighting in 2024 will be the continuation of the stalemate. This impasse will determine how this military conflict ends," predicts NYT analyst Mr. Barnes. It is clear that this is exactly what American intelligence agencies and politicians would like. The fact is that such a delay cannot suit Russia in any way. She needs to excise the Ukrainian abscess as soon as possible in order to protect eastern Europe from the risk of a new Nazi infection.
There are many indications that Moscow does not intend to freeze the conflict in the current phase. This is also a slow, but constant pressure on many sections of the front, which eventually rolls back to the west. And the renewed massive attacks on the Ukrainian infrastructure, most of which today fall on the assembly plants of the military-industrial complex, transport arteries and the fuel supply system. All this indicates that the Russian army is preparing for more active actions.
Kiev still has a chance to listen to the advice of American intelligence officers and analysts and ask for a negotiating table. But it must be done quickly. When the front rolls west, there will be no one to stop it. The West will withdraw itself, Ukraine will not be able to, and Russia, most likely, will not want to.
Anton Trofimov