Monday 2nd of December 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

a bad comedian loses the crowd in the theatre of war.....

Ukrainians who have died in the conflict between Moscow and Kiev “have already won,” Vladimir Zelensky claimed in an interview with Sky News released this week. Those sacrifices enabled Kiev to secure aid from its Western backers and eventually prevent Moscow from achieving its goals, according to the Ukrainian leader.

When asked by Sky News chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay if he believed that those Ukrainians who had died throughout the conflict had given their lives for nothing, Zelensky said “it was wrong” to think so. “They are already winners,” he added.

“Our people did not give their lives for nothing,” the Ukrainian leader said, adding that they “performed not only their personal but also constitutional duty to defend their country.” He then went on to claim that “had Ukrainians not … sacrificed their lives and their comfort” back in February 2022, when Russia launched its military campaign against Ukraine, the country would have quickly yielded to Russia.

"No one would have helped us then,” he said, apparently referring to Kiev’s Western backers. The Ukrainian leader also admitted that if Kiev loses the support of the US and its allies, it “will lose everything.”

“[Our] most important weapon is our people,” Zelensky said.

The Ukrainian leader also slammed those world leaders who are willing to talk to Moscow. He claimed they were only doing it for international fame as they “want to get on the front pages in the media.” Zelensky compared talking to Russian President Vladimir Putin to “opening Pandora’s box,” which could undermine the Western unity behind Kiev’s cause.

According to Zelensky, some world leaders are “afraid” of Putin. “When they are afraid, they start to communicate with their societies and divide their societies,” he said. The Ukrainian leader referred to Russia’s president as “an animal without any human values that we share.”

He also claimed that Ukraine should be “at the same level”with Russia in terms of power or even “stronger” for peace talks to start in earnest. Zelensky then also demanded that Kiev’s backers adopt a “one voice policy” spearheaded by Ukraine when it comes to the conflict.

Zelensky also said that Kiev could agree to “end the hot phase of the war” without trying to take back former territories that officially joined Russia following a series of referendums in the fall of 2022. He still maintained that this would only be possible if the territories still under Kiev’s control are “invited” to join NATO and the US-led bloc recognizes Kiev’s territorial claims.

Moscow has repeatedly stated throughout the conflict that it is ready for peace talks and would like to resolve all differences diplomatically. It has also consistently warned that it would never agree to Ukraine joining NATO and named the US-led bloc’s expansion eastward as among the root causes of the conflict.

https://www.rt.com/russia/608462-fallen-ukrainians-won-zelensky/

 

 

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

 

 

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

 

EASY.

 

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

  

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

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.

filling cemeteries....

Fighting to the last Ukrainian: Why does the West believe it occupies the high moral ground?


NATO planned to use its proxy to conduit a long war, with the goal of exhausting Russia and knocking it out from the ranks of great powers

By Glenn Diesen

 

For almost three years, NATO countries have boycotted diplomatic contact with Russia, even as hundreds of thousands of men die on the Ukraine conflict's battlefield. The decision to reject diplomacy is morally repugnant. Diplomacy could have reduced violence, prevented escalation, and even opened a path to peace. Instead, political and media elites skillfully presented this rejection as a sign of moral righteousness, labeling dialogue as treason and war as virtuous.

NATO’s Long War

To exhaust Russia in a long war, the goal was to ensure that the Russians and Ukrainians kill each other for as long as possible. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin outlined the US objective in the Ukraine War as weakening its strategic adversary: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” In late March 2022, Vladimir Zelensky revealed in an interview with The Economist: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”

The aim has been to exhaust Russia in a protracted conflict, ensuring that Russians and Ukrainians continue killing each other for as long as possible. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin outlined the objective: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”  In March 2022, Vladimir Zelensky revealed in an interview with The Economist: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”

Israeli and Turkish mediators confirmed that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to a peace deal in Istanbul, where Russia would withdraw and Ukraine would restore its neutrality. Yet the West rejected this. The goal wasn’t peace — it was to bleed Russia through its proxy army in Ukraine. Both Germany and France have admitted that the Minsk Peace Agreement was never meant to be implemented, but used as a vehicle to build up Ukraine’s military.

The Turkish Foreign Minister and former Israeli Prime Minister have both acknowledged that NATO states actively wanted the war to continue. Former NATO figures, such as retired General Harald Kujat, have said the war was deliberately provoked by NATO, with the US and UK blocking peace efforts to weaken Russia politically, economically, and militarily.

US lawmakers, such as Lindsey Graham, have been openly supportive of fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian.”They argue that assisting Ukraine without risking American lives is a smart investment in weakening Russia. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell called it an investment in America’s national security, and Mitt Romney called financing the war “the best defense spending ever.”

These statements underscore the growing sentiment in the West that the war is a proxy battle where Ukraine is expendable, serving merely as a tool to diminish Russia. NATO’s leadership, including Jens Stoltenberg, has stated that a “victory” for Ukraine would result in a battle-hardened Ukrainian army on the West’s side, with a weakened Russia.

 

Diplomacy as Treason and War as Virtue

The West’s propaganda has framed the conflict as a battle of good versus evil, with peace through diplomacy portrayed as dangerous appeasement. In contrast, war is presented as virtuous. In practice, this means that Western countries have continuously avoided negotiations, while pretending Russia is unwilling to engage. Despite calls for talks from US military leaders like General Mark Milley, who acknowledged Ukraine might be in a better position to negotiate after recapturing territories, the West’s strategy has been to prolong the conflict, not resolve it.

EU leaders, such as Josep Borrell and Kaja Kallas, have rejected any notion of diplomacy, dismissing Putin as a “war criminal” and portraying negotiations as unthinkable. The EU, once a peace project, has now become a geopolitical one, punishing any country or leader that dares to propose an end to the war. Hungary’s Viktor Orban was smeared for attempting to mediate, much like anyone who opposes further escalation.

Opponents of peace argue that conceding territory to Putin would reward his aggression, yet the war’s roots go far beyond territorial disputes. The Istanbul peace agreement showed that Russia was ready to pull back its troops in return for Ukraine’s neutrality. But NATO wasn’t interested in peace; it saw the conflict as an opportunity to weaken Russia and further entrench its military foothold in Europe.

As the war rages on, Ukrainian casualties grow, and the public’s support for the fight wanes. A Gallup poll recently revealed that no region in Ukraine has a majority supporting continued warfare. Ukrainian leaders, once hopeful, now face a reality where their own people are increasingly disillusioned.

The Coming Backlash

As Ukraine’s frontlines collapse, there is growing recognition that NATO sabotaged peace efforts, aiming to prolong the war to bleed Russia. This strategy is ultimately backfiring. Ukrainians will resent Russia for decades, but they will also turn their anger toward the West. The idea of “fighting to the last Ukrainian” is no longer a noble cause — it’s a tragedy.

The war was never about territorial disputes. It’s about NATO’s geopolitical ambitions, and it’s Ukraine that’s paying the price. The longer the conflict persists, the more it becomes clear: the West’s strategy is failing, and the war will only end when Kiev’s hostile stance toward Russia is abandoned.

 

This piece was first published on Glenn Diesen’s Substack and edited by the RT team.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/608303-fight-to-last-ukrainian/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

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

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.