The US is almost done playing with Ukraine
Kiev will eventually be defeated and its current leaders don’t care, they can simply leave the country

By Andrey Sushentsov

Since the beginning of the first military phase of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, Kiev has been actively supported by the United States and its allies. The West’s strategy in the structural confrontation with Russia is aimed at inflicting a defeat on our country without getting directly involved in the conflict. The scenario of hybrid confrontation is not new for Washington. In the Middle East it uses hybrid tools against Iran; to oppose China it utilizes Taiwan and its other partners in the region – the Philippines, South Korea, Japan. In confronting Moscow, the US and its allies in Western Europe have also found a convenient instrument – Ukraine, a large state in close proximity to Russia with a large army. Western countries supply this instrument with arms and intelligence and send military advisers and trainers.

The ‘Ukrainian instrument’ will be used for several adventures and then, when its resources are exhausted, it will be abandoned as it will become useless. Such a scenario calls into question the state of Ukraine’s own future. However, this issue does not seem to be on the Kiev government’s radar. Dependent on Western support, it has effectively abandoned its real national interests. For this reason, the authorities in Kiev are unwilling or unable to take steps towards a real settlement. They believe that as long as the front holds, the crisis can continue – and they see the advantage of privileged relations with the US. The downside is that the United States sees Ukraine as an expendable resource for its own interests.

Either the authorities in Kiev do not understand that the interests of the US and those of Ukraine are different and will eventually diverge, or they are trapped because they’ve staked all their political capital on a war scenario. When a country becomes a tool, its authorities do not take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It does not matter whether they win or lose: if they win, they will be convinced of their political foresight and superiority; if they lose, they will simply leave the country. If the conflict is not resolved, Ukraine faces the prospect of becoming a militarized, unstable enclave in Eastern Europe, constrained in its development and dependent on instructions from Washington.

We can see that there is a lot of hope for Ukraine in Western countries, even though its defeat is inevitable. That’s why the news obsesses about tales of the US authorizing Kiev to use some kind of new weapon or to provide fresh military supplies or intelligence.

For Russia, these are sensitive and painful steps that will cause human casualties on our side. But the overall dynamics of the conflict are extremely negative for Kiev. Ukraine’s own resources are limited, and the army divisions currently being formed, according to Ukrainian and Western sources, are not getting sufficient modern equipment. The pace of Russian troop advances is increasing by the day – even though Moscow is not inclined to make excessive efforts to achieve its goals in this conflict. All this points to a noticeable depletion of the ‘Ukrainian resource’.

The possibility of a radical change in the strategic situation cannot be completely ruled out: if the Ukrainian front collapses, the direct involvement of individual NATO countries in the conflict will be possible. At the moment, however, as Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has said, Western European states have “no desire” to become directly involved.

The inevitable defeat of Ukraine will be a major blow to the reputation of the US, and Washington will do its best to avoid it. Sun Tzu, the author of the ancient Chinese treatise ‘The Art of War’, proposed the maxim that there are three types of war: the best option is to defeat the opponent’s plans, the second is to defeat his alliances, and the third is to defeat him on the battlefield. At the present stage, the military conflict is being fought in all three dimensions.

For the US, the situation on the battlefield in the Ukrainian theatre is not going well. In the midst of an election cycle, officials have no real success to speak of. The US strategy is to push Russia to make some indiscreet move that will upset our plans and destroy our alliances. Washington will constantly be looking for ways to inflame tensions and push Moscow up the escalation ladder.

In this context, the calm, firm line that Russia is now taking in international affairs is a demonstration of confidence and strength. This is how we will achieve our goals.

This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.

https://www.rt.com/russia/606823-us-is-almost-done-playing/

-------------------

Russia Forces Carrying Out 'Cascade' Offensive Strategy on Battlefield - Experts

Retired Russian Army colonel and seasoned military analyst Viktor Litovkin suggested that the term “cascade offensive” may denote multiple echelons simultaneously attacking and securing positions, with each wave moving in succession.

“A cascade attack does not have to be a frontal assault. It could involve flanking maneuvers or be executed along the entire front line,” he stated.

Litovkin also identified significant challenges faced by Ukrainian forces, including lack of ammunition, manpower, and air and artillery support, as well as the inability to reinforce their ranks.

He pointed out that Russian forces maintain a relentless barrage on supply routes, complicating the situation further. Additionally, he warned that many Ukrainian soldiers “lack the desire to fight and are insufficiently trained.”

“Victory in this conflict on the fighting spirit of those shedding blood on the battlefield. If the Ukrainian army does not have any fighting spirit left, then it is impossible to continue,” Litovkin concluded.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20241031/russia-forces-carrying-out-cascade-offensive-strategy-on-battlefield---experts-1120737637.html

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

“It’s hard to do cartoons without ridicule…”

         Gus Leonisky

FIRST A RETURN TO PAST EVENTS:

Saturday, 29 June 2024

America’s AP (Associated Press) Model for Corrupt ‘News’ Media: Lying About History

Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

A corrupt news-medium is one that’s fake, propaganda instead of honest news-reporting. Here’s an example:

The AP headlined on June 28th, “Ukraine spent years trying to build a Western-style democracy. Then Russia invaded the country”.

First, before discussing that alleged news-report, its headline itself is already feeding into a thoroughly false U.S.-and-allied ‘historical’ narrative about how and when (allegedly 24 February 2022) this war began; so, the first necessity here, is to state, while documenting by means of links through to its sources (all of which will be either the primary sources, or else articles that themselves link down through to the primary sources) the actual documented history of this war, so that any reader here can verify, on one’s own (without needing to rely upon this, or any other, alleged account, as being an ultimate source on the facts regarding this matter), each allegation within this history, and so to reasonably disconfirm that headline, on one’s own, rather than on any authoritarian basis — here is that history:

The war in Ukraine started in 2014, as both NATO’s Stoltenberg and Ukraine’s Zelensky have said. It was started in February 2014 by a U.S. coup which replaced the democratically elected and neutralist Ukrainian President, with a U.S. selected and rabidly anti-Russian leader, who immediately imposed an ethnic-cleansing program to get rid of the residents in the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the overthrown President. Russia responded militarily on 24 February 2022, in order to prevent Ukraine from allowing the U.S. to place a missile there a mere 317 miles or five minutes of missile-flying-time away from The Kremlin and thus too brief for Russia to respond before its central command would already be beheaded by America’s nuclear strike. (As I headlined on 28 October 2022, “NATO Wants To Place Nuclear Missiles On Finland’s Russian Border — Finland Says Yes”. The U.S. had demanded this, especially because it will place American nuclear missiles far nearer to The Kremlin than at present, only 507 miles away — not as close as Ukraine, but the closest yet.)

Ukraine was neutral between Russia and America until Obama’s brilliantly executed Ukrainian coup, which his Administration started planning by no later than June 2011, culminated successfully in February 2014 and promptly appointed a rabid anti-Russian to impose in regions that rejected the new anti-Russian U.S.-controlled goverment an “Anti-Terrorist Operation” to kill protesters, and, ultimately, to terrorize the residents in those regions in order to kill as many of them as possible and to force the others to flee into Russia so that when elections would be held, pro-Russian voters would no longer be in the electorate.

The U.S. Government had engaged the Gallup polling organization, both  before  and  after  the  coup,  in order to poll Ukrainians, and especially ones who lived in its Crimean independent republic (where Russia has had its main naval base ever since 1783), regarding their views on U.S., Russia, NATO, and the EU; and, generally, Ukrainians were far more pro-Russia than pro-U.S., pro-NATO, or pro-EU, but this was especially the case in Crimea; so, America’s Government knew that Crimeans would be especially resistant. However, this was not really new information. During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup.

In other words: what Obama did was generally successful: it grabbed Ukraine, or most of it, and it changed Ukrainians’ minds regarding America and Russia. But only after the subsequent passage of time did the American billionaires’ neoconservative heart become successfully grafted into the Ukrainian nation so as to make Ukraine a viable place to position U.S. nuclear missiles against Moscow (which is the U.S. Government’s goal there). Furthermore: America’s rulers also needed to do some work upon U.S. public opinion. Not until February of 2014 — the time of Obama’s coup — did more than 15% of the American public have a “very unfavorable” view of Russia. (Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, that figure had already risen to 42%. America’s press — and academia or public-policy ‘experts’ — have been very effective at managing public opinion, for the benefit of America’s billionaires.)

Then came the Minsk Agreements (#1 & #2, with #2 being the final version, which is shown here, as a U.N. Security Council Resolution), between Ukraine and the separatist region in its far east, and which the U.S. Government refused to participate in, but the U.S.-installed Ukrainian government (then under the oligarch Petro Poroshenko) signed it in order to have a chance of Ukraine’s gaining EU membership, but never complied with any of it; and, so, the war continued); and, then, finally, as the Ukrainian government (now under Volodmyr Zelensky) was greatly intensifying its shelling of the break-away far-eastern region, Russia presented, to both the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance against Russia, two proposed agreements for negotiation (one to U.S., the other to NATO), but neither the U.S. nor its NATO agreed to negotiate. The key portions of the two 17 December 2021 proposed Agreements, with both the U.S. and with its NATO, were, in regards to NATO:

Article 1

The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties. …

Article 4

The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.

Article 5

The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.

Article 6

All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.

And, in regards to the U.S.:

Article 2

The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 3

The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

Article 4

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Any reader here can easily click onto the respective link to either proposed Agreement, in order to read that entire document, so as to evaluate whether or not all of its proposed provisions are acceptable and reasonable. What was proposed by Russia in each of the two was only a proposal, and the other side (the U.S. side) in each of the two instances, was therefore able to pick and choose amongst those proposed provisions, which ones were accepted, and to negotiate regarding any of the others; but, instead, the U.S. side simply rejected all of them.  

On 7 January 2022, the Associated Press (AP) headlined “US, NATO rule out halt to expansion, reject Russian demands”, and reported:

Washington and NATO have formally rejected Russia's key demands for assurances that the US-led military bloc will not expand closer towards its borders, leaked correspondence reportedly shows.

According to documents seen by Spanish daily El Pais and published on Wednesday morning, Moscow's calls for a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted as a member of NATO were dismissed following several rounds of talks between Russian and Western diplomats. …

The US-led bloc denied that it posed a threat to Russia. …

The US similarly rejected the demand that NATO does not expand even closer to Russia’s borders. “The United States continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy.”

NATO-U.S. was by now clearly determined to get Ukraine into NATO and to place its nukes so near to The Kremlin as to constitute, like a checkmate in chess, a forced defeat of Russia, a capture of its central command. This was, but in reverse, the situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable, Biden is not; and, so, we again stand at the brink of WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (Biden — no better than Obama), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink in order to become able to achieve world-conquest.

Russia did what it had to do: it invaded Ukraine, on 24 February 2022.

Here, then, is the opening of the text of that AP ‘news’-report, “Ukraine spent years trying to build a Western-style democracy. Then Russia invaded the country”:

28 June 2024, Kyiv, Jill Lawless. 

As an investigative journalist, then an activist, and later a lawmaker, Yehor Soboliev sought to expose corruption in business and government as a way to defend Ukraine’s budding democracy.

Now, as a soldier battling Russia, he’s had to put those aims on hold as he fights alongside some of the people he once tried to bring down.

Once an investigative journalist, then an activist, and later a lawmaker, Yehor Soboliev speaks during an interview with Associated Press in Kyiv, Ukraine, on May 3, 2024. In all of these roles, he sought to expose corruption in business and government as a way to defend Ukraine’s budding democracy. (AP Photo/Alex Babenko)

“Till the victory, we are on the same side,” said Soboliev, a lieutenant in a front-line drone unit. “But maybe — definitely — after the victory, we should separate ourselves from each other. And we should continue that fight in making our country more honest, more responsible, more serving to its citizens.”

Ukraine has spent years trying to build a Western-style democracy, although not without some bumps along the way as it shed habits from its Soviet past. …

The article doesn’t blame the U.S. Government for this, but the Soviet Government, and it presents Vladimir Putin as the stand-in for it, and the villain, as-if the U.S. Government had not forced him to invade Ukraine on 24 February 2022. It ignores the relevant history, and focuses instead on a probably sincere but misinformed Yehor Soboliev and personalizes the matter without presenting any of the relevant historical facts, which perhaps neither Soboliev nor the AP ‘journalist’ (propagandist) are aware of (or else hide, and thus lie to deny).

There is nothing exceptionally bad about that article, because it’s merely a normal U.S.-empire international ‘news’-report. “Uncomfortable” historical truths are banned from all of the U.S.-and-allied international ‘news’-media. Like every empire, it’s an international dictatorship, no authentic democracy, at all.

RFK Jr. was essentially correct when he said: “Everybody realizes they’re not living in a democracy anymore. They’ve lost sovereignty of their lives, and their futures, as a result, are hopeless. I think it all flows from a cynicism and despair that flows from this corrupt merger of state-corporate power.” However, he certainly exaggerates with his “Everybody,” because by far the majority of U.S. voters are still preferring the astoundingly corrupt Trump and the even more corrupt Biden to be the next President; they’ve not yet recognized that a second American Revolution is needed, if this country — and the entire world — isn’t to fall into an unprecedented abyss. The purpose, right now, of all the propaganda is to hold off that realization long enough so that America’s billionaires will be able to (with either Trump or Biden) lock-in the end-game that they are looking for.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

https://archive.is/H4U3N#selection-215.0-955.247

-------------------------------

31 October 2024, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

Like all neocons (supporters of expanding the U.S. empire to include all countries), the popular mainstream so-called ‘progressive’ media commentator Mehdi Hassan supports the — and click here to see the documentation of what’s being said in the remainder of this paragraph — bloody coup against Ukraine that U.S. President Barack Obama’s Administration started to plan by no later than June of 2010 and started to implement inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013, and then finally culminated by the coup itself during 20-26 February 2014 overthrowing and replacing the existing democratically elected neutralist President of Ukraine, and illegally replacing him by the U.S.-selected new and rabidly anti-Russian regime which promptly started the civil war in Ukraine against the residents in the regions of Ukraine that had voted more than 75% for that democratically elected neutralist Ukrainian President, aiming to eliminate enough of these voters so as to assure that in future Ukrainian elections, ONLY anti-Russians would be voting.

Here is from a recent interview of Hassan on Turkey’s TRT TV; where Hassan speaks falsely, I add links there to the evidence which shows that he DOES speak falsely on that point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmDvAP53h4k&t=733s

“Mehdi Hasan: Why another Trump presidency will make the Middle East even worse | The InnerView”

TRT World, 28 October 2024

........

PS: If you like this article, please email it to all your friends or otherwise let others know about it. None of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media will likely publish it (nor link to it, since doing that might also hurt them with Google or etc.). I am not asking for money, but I am asking my readers to spread my articles far and wide, because I specialize in documenting what the Deep State is constantly hiding. This is, in fact, today’s samizdat.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

https://theduran.com/the-ignorant-neocon-commentator-mehdi-hassan/

=========================

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

“It’s hard to do cartoons without neoconic BS…”

         Gus Leonisky