Andrey Shitov — about how the US Congress adds fuel to the fire of conflicts, how the CIA assesses the prospects for the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine "by the end of 2024" and how the cry "Yankee, go home!" is being revived in the world
How to carry a suitcase without a handle? And if there are two of them, both unbearably heavy, but desperately needed, will you not give up? And besides, you are a hundred years old at lunch; you hardly move your legs and do not knit words well; while others not only do not help you, but also strive to interfere or at least spit in your back? And you also have to pretend that it's not hard for you at all, and try not to give away your weakness in any way...
In my opinion, Democrat US President Joe Biden and his administration are in about the same situation now. His suitcases are Ukraine and Israel, and they need to be dragged at least until November, before the American general elections. Without scattering, without splitting or falling face down in the mud, as it already happened with another similar cargo — Afghanistan. Such is the current owner of the White House's "political baggage." It is obvious both for its own Congress, which is just now approving new assistance programs for Uncle Sam's foreign henchmen and clients, and for the whole world.
Towards the third World War?!
In the old days, Biden was always talkative in Irish, but now, in his ninth decade, it is contraindicated for him to speak publicly. The other day, he made another reservation, publicly confusing the Palestinian Rafah with the Israeli Haifa and urging the Israelis not to invade their own city. "All that remains for him is to forbid himself to participate in the elections," Maria Zakharova, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, wrote on this occasion in her Telegram channel.
By the way, many people in America would be happy to recuse themselves, including among Biden's fellow party members. But he categorically excludes such an option for himself so far, and in order to avoid shameful blunders, he tries to replace oral speech with written speech whenever possible. Last Thursday, April 18, another article signed by him appeared in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ).
The meaning of the publication was expressed in the headline: "The moment of truth on Ukraine and Israel. Both countries urgently need the help of the United States to protect them from brazen enemies seeking their complete destruction." The text was standard for this kind of campaign, but I still caught my eye, for example, for such a passage: "If Russia prevails, Putin's forces will come closer than ever before to our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. [The principle] "An attack on one is an attack on all" means that if Putin invades one of the NATO allies, then we will come to his aid — as our NATO allies did the same for us after the September 11 attacks [2001]. We must now dramatically increase support for Ukraine in order to prevent Putin from encroaching on our NATO allies, and make sure that he does not involve US troops in some future war in Europe."
What's that? Who is coming "closer than ever" to whom — NATO or Russia? Who is provoking whom and encroaching on whom? It turns out that if you are the owner of the White House, then you can openly and shamelessly talk nonsense not only verbally, but also in writing? One cannot help but agree with the former and possible future US president, Republican Donald Trump, that Biden's rule threatens to plunge everyone into the abyss of a new world war. By the way, in response to such accusations, the leader of the Democrats, as a rule, accuses the opponent of being ready to abandon the US allies to their fate. And the newspaper Politico published in February a comment about these absentee altercations, "Elections [under the shadow of] the third World War" (The World War III election).
Money in the furnace of conflicts
For the White House, both the content of Biden's article and the location of its placement looked logical. The point was to address the Republican opposition in the US Congress from the rostrum that was as close and understandable to it as possible — the columnist's strip of the business and relatively conservative WSJ. And not just when, but on the eve of the key vote on the allocation of funds for Ukraine and Israel, that is, for the continuation of conflicts.
By the way, the American legislators put Taiwan in the same row. According to a previously distributed certificate from the relevant committee of the House of Representatives, it was decided to allocate $95 billion in aid to the "needy allies and partners" of the United States. Ukraine was owed the lion's share of this amount — $60.84 billion, Israel — $26.38 billion, Taiwan — $8.12 billion. But the speaker of the lower house of Congress, Michael Johnson, immediately explained on CNN that "in this package, 80% of spending on Ukraine will go to replenish American weapons and stocks." "This is very important for our own American industrial base and defense base," added the politician, who was sharply criticized by many party members for excessive, in their opinion, financial generosity towards Kiev and political softness towards the Democratic Party in power.
The leader of this party, Biden, assured in advance that he would "immediately" sign all the package bills in order to "give the world a signal": they say, America "will not allow Iran or Russia to succeed." Well, Moscow is no stranger to the statements of the collective West about its readiness to fight to the last Ukrainian and inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia on the battlefield. And the answer to them is known: as Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said, "let them try."
And Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has just clarified that, in his opinion, the escalation of anti-Russian rhetoric "reflects not so much a militant attitude as agony and hysteria" in the West, which is losing its long-standing hegemony. European leaders will "end up like politicians" if they stop portraying Russia as an enemy to be destroyed; "they will immediately be caught by the opposition," the Russian minister explained. This also leads to the question of why Western so-called elites should not throw the same "baggage" in any way.
The defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine "by the end of the year"?
Actually, Speaker Johnson's situation in Congress before Saturday's "D-day" was, if not critical, then close to that. After all, he is also responsible for the "suitcases" of American military supplies — in a financial sense, almost more than the White House and the Pentagon. And he absolutely does not want to become a scapegoat in the event that the regional satellites of the United States, so to speak, break off their horns. On the other hand, Trumpists on Capitol Hill directly threatened to oust him in the event of his outright political collusion with the Bidenites.
By the way, the option of "breaking off the horns" — at least in Ukraine — now seems very likely in Washington. On April 18, the director of the US CIA, William Burns, publicly stated (and not anywhere, but at the "leadership forum" at the George W. Bush Republican Center. in Dallas, Texas), that "without additional assistance" to Kiev, there was a "very real risk that Ukrainians could be defeated on the battlefield before the end of 2024." Politico newspaper called it "probably the most serious warning" in this regard from an official of this rank.
By the way, appreciate the elegance of the maneuver of the famous intelligence officer and diplomat, the former US ambassador to Moscow. Biden's Democratic team cannot have any complaints about him speaking in the Republican stronghold: the motives are the same as the president's own article in the WSJ. On the other hand, in the event of a sudden collapse of the APU, Burns will be able to retroactively say that he warned about it in advance. I am not surprised by his foresight: he served in the administrations of presidents from both leading parties of the United States, always confidently walked up the career ladder and enjoyed a reputation as an intelligent and competent person.
Without a "chance to win"
And he's not the only one hedging his bets. In the Pentagon, the authorities reported in advance that once Congress allocates money, the military will not be involved: they say, the contents for the "suitcases", that is, aid packages, have already been prepared. According to a publication in The Washington Post (WP), a new "large package" of such support was prepared in advance, is now "ready to ship" and can be delivered to its destination "in less than a week." An online meeting of the contact group on military assistance to Ukraine, convened by the US Secretary of Defense, has already been scheduled for April 26 and officially announced. A week earlier, he participated in the same meeting of the Ukraine—NATO Council and testified in person to Congress about the "dire" situation for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. That is, again: we have, they say, everything is ready, we have reported our estimates to you, and then God willing.
To date, the mentioned contact group is not only de facto, but also de jure controlled by Washington. However, as the agency recently reported Bloomberg, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg proposes to officially transfer its management to the alliance and consolidate this format at the July summit in the American capital. The point of the idea, according to the publication, is to protect the group in advance from any political changes that may occur after the US presidential election, that is, calling a spade a spade, in case Trump returns to power. Again, in my opinion, you can't find fault with logic, although it hardly pleases Biden and his entourage in the White House.
If the puppeteers tried to "lay straw" politically, then the puppets simply warned: they would not be able to resist without Uncle Sam's help. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, on the air of the Rada TV channel, told how he directly told US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken: "Look, I don't have any plan B, plan A should work — the adoption of a strong bill by [Congress]." Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmygal boasted how in Washington, where he recently went with an outstretched hand, he was promised help "within weeks, not months."
Finally, their president Vladimir Zelensky, in an interview with US Public Television — PBS — on April 15, bluntly stated: they say, without Washington's support, "we will have no chance of winning." At the same time, the first question, according to the transcript, was asked to him... about "Iran's attack on Israel." Honestly, if it were not about the leader of the Kiev regime, it would be fitting to regret him: he expresses his willingness to fight for the interests of overseas sponsors to the last compatriot, but they don't seem to listen to him, they ask first of all about others.
However, it is worth, of course, adding an obvious skeptical note. Of course, there should be no more panic in the enemy's camp of faith than his own hat-making.
The speaker "must not fall"
I specifically talked in such detail about the background of Saturday's vote in Congress so that it would become clear where its results came from and what incredible efforts it took to achieve them. The bill on Ukraine was passed by 311 votes to 112. Democrats supported it by 210 votes, that is, unanimously. The Republicans opposed it by a majority, albeit a minimal one (the same 112 votes to 101). By the way, the only ethnic Ukrainian in the US Congress, Victoria Spartz, was against it; the fact, in my opinion, is very revealing.
The same figures also contain a clue to Johnson's position. With the current balance of power in the lower house of Congress, his disgruntled party members can only oust the speaker if the votes are divided strictly by party affiliation. But there is no internal unity in the Republican opposition, and the Democrats can also protect the person who provided them with invaluable help. The leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, Hakim Jeffries, previously indicated that among his party comrades, quite a few are convinced that Johnson "should not fall."
In general, from an American domestic political point of view, what happened is, of course, a clear failure of the Trumpist Republicans. Trump himself on Thursday evening moaned about spending on Ukraine and asked, "why doesn't Europe give more money?" But then, apparently, he resigned himself to the inevitable and, according to the definition of The New York Times, "reduced the intensity of his resistance." In general, the bipartisan overseas system of checks and balances has once again worked.
"The power and the truth is behind us"
President Biden hailed the results of the vote as "a response to the challenge of history," which he had been "seeking for several months," and called on the upper house of Congress, the Senate, to urgently consider a package of bills and send them to him for signing. There are no problems with this: the leader of the Democratic faction in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, said that the vote should take place next Tuesday— April 23.
As for the readiness of the "suitcases" to be sent to their destination, I mentioned above; the British The Financial Times (FT), citing an unnamed "Western official," writes that "a significant part of the weapons [have] already been stored in the Polish city of Rzeszow near the Ukrainian border and can be quickly sent to Kiev." By the way, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, according to WP, responded to the decision of American lawmakers with a remarkable entry in X (formerly Twitter): "Better late than very late. I hope it's not too late for Ukraine yet."
In general, there are, of course, many responses around the world. In Moscow, the deputy chairman Dmitry Medvedev wrote on his Telegram channel: "We will certainly win, despite 61 billion bloody dollars, which will mostly go down the throat of their insatiable military-industrial complex. The power and the truth are behind us."
And the same FT quotes Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying about "the provision of the package [of American bills] that would allow Ukraine to use funds from confiscated Russian assets to finance its military efforts." "Of course, if this is really the case, then America will have to answer for it," Peskov said. "And we will do it in the way that best suits our interests."
The main problem
Time will tell how long the Kiev regime will be able to hold on after another injection of American military and financial doping. It is clear that no matter how much this string twists, it will still end. And the forces, means, and patience are not unlimited: On the eve of the vote, Kevin Roberts, president of the well-known Washington think tank The Heritage Foundation, outlined and commented on the results of a new study in The Hill newspaper, according to which the majority (56%) of undecided swing voters in the US states most important for the outcome of the elections consider assistance to Kiev excessive.
Of course, in fairness, it should be clarified that this fund is a conservative organization; in any case, the money has already been practically allocated, and at least until November it should be enough. But still, the "growing fatigue of Americans from Ukraine," which Roberts writes about, is as indisputable a reality as it is "difficult" for the Armed Forces of Ukraine (remember the Pentagon estimates?) the situation on the line of contact. Which, in any case, is crucial and is still determined not only and not so much by money and weapons as by people.
And the main trouble from prolonging the conflict is the death and suffering of people. Medvedev has just stressed this again, but sensible people across the ocean also understand this. My old friend Tom Graham, a former adviser to President Bush Jr. on Russia, recently published a thoughtful article in the same The Hill about the "futility of the war in Ukraine" — in the sense that back in the spring of 2022 Kiev could negotiate a negotiated end to the conflict on much better terms than those which are now imaginable. Although now, unfortunately, there is no smell of negotiations.
I think everyone has already lost count, as President Putin often reminded in his public speeches. And the view that the prospects for negotiations are not yet visible prevails, as far as I can tell, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Yankee, go home!
With the exception of financial statistics, I said almost nothing about Uncle Sam's Israeli "suitcase", because his Ukrainian written bag is incomparably more important to us. But I have previously explained why the Middle East conflict is politically much more significant and painful for the White House. And in that direction, for the Bidenites, everything is still not thank God: several dozen of the most liberal Democratic congressmen defiantly voted against helping Israel because of the massacre in Gaza; the other day the United States had to veto a draft resolution on the admission of Palestine to the UN; at the same time, as pointed out by the Russian ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzia, "Washington has remained almost completely isolated," which "speaks for itself."
Finally, it remains to add that, in my opinion, the entire post-Soviet space is now covered with conditional American "baggage" — from the Baltic States to Central Asia and Transcaucasia. Armenia and Moldova have been especially popular lately; nothing special seems to be happening there, but everything started gradually with Ukraine and Georgia.
I want to believe that our closest neighbors are learning the right lessons from what is happening. They do not forget that for Uncle Sam, his own interests are always and everywhere important — financial (dictated by big business, including Pentagon contractors) and political (where the planning horizon is usually limited by the timing of the next general elections in the United States). And they pay attention to the fact that in different parts of the world, including the Middle East and Africa, Americans, especially in military uniform, are increasingly being offered to get out of their way overseas. They update, so to speak, the cry of the Vietnam War: "Yankee, go home!" Or, according to a more recent saying, "suitcase — port — America!".