The only problem with this reasoning is that it doesn’t count on Russia’s determination to remove NATO’s negative influence from Ukraine. Writes Drago Bosnic
On 12 June, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated that the US-led “defensive alliance” wants to “strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table”, but also added that any peace deal would involve “tough negotiations and compromises”, apparently including territorial and sovereignty concessions.
“Peace is possible,” Stoltenberg said, adding, “The only question is what price are you willing to pay for peace? How much territory, how much independence, how much sovereignty… …are you willing to sacrifice for peace?” Stoltenberg did not specify what terms Ukraine should accept, noting that “it’s for those who are paying the highest price to make that judgment”, while NATO and the political West continue weapons shipments to the Kiev regime to “strengthen their hand” when a peace deal is eventually negotiated.
Although the NATO Secretary-General did not directly propose which territory under the control of the Kiev regime should be ceded, he still implied it. Stoltenberg brought up the example of Finland, stating that the country gave up Karelia to the Soviet Union as part of a peace settlement during the Second World War. He described the Finnish-Soviet peace deal as “one of the reasons Finland was able to come out of the Second World War as an independent sovereign nation”. This is quite obviously a euphemistic way to prepare the public in the political West for the “shocking” notion that Ukraine is losing. Of course, this was pretty obvious to the world, which wasn’t exposed to a media monolith of blatant lies and fake news about Ukraine supposedly “winning the war”.
Naturally, it isn’t the first time something like this is happening. In fact, it was only last year, in September, that the “defensive alliance” fled Afghanistan after suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Taliban, which even decided to give NATO some leeway and didn’t interfere as NATO personnel and former puppet government employees were desperately trying to cling on to the last departing aircraft. At the time, both the United States and NATO also tried shifting the blame to the embattled Afghan puppet government and the former president Ashraf Ghani, all in order to avoid responsibility for the complete collapse of the 300,000-strong NATO-led Afghan military which, despite being trained and supported by the “defensive alliance”, collapsed in mere weeks after losing to barely 70,000 under-equipped Taliban.
The situation in Ukraine now seems to be heading in the same direction for the political West. With the Kiev regime forces suffering hundreds of casualties on a daily basis, a fact which even president Zelensky himself admitted, a complete defeat of what’s left of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Donbass seems all the more likely. The Russian military and the DNR/LNR People’s Militia forces are making steady gains all across the frontlines, with most successes happening in Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, and the surrounding areas. In addition, the allied troops have been making headway towards Slavyansk, after which comes Kramatorsk, with both cities being of crucial strategic importance to controlling not just the Donetsk People’s Republic (former Donetsk Oblast), but the entire region of Donbass itself.
The leadership in the political West is well aware of the negative implications of a complete military defeat for the Kiev regime forces, so they’re desperate to try and convince its puppets in Kiev to effectively capitulate and somewhat alleviate yet another strategic defeat and an even bigger embarrassment for the “defensive alliance”. Naturally, the Kiev regime realizes this could mean political suicide, not to mention that it could also lead to a coup, as the Neo-Nazi elements of the regime are too galvanized and Russophobic to accept anything but a “complete defeat of Russia”. Sadly (for them), this is only a fantasy. But it is a fantasy they were fed for nearly a decade, precisely by the “defensive alliance” which installed them to run Ukraine after it was hijacked in 2014.
However, NATO is not concerned that this could lead to another coup, as it believes it still controls the strategic aspect of political processes in Kiev. Even in the case that the Neo-Nazi elements directly take power, the “defensive alliance” believes it would still possess the crucial leverage to dictate what any new regime in Kiev would do.
Yet, the reason why NATO wants Zelensky to stay in power is his public image, which is an entirely artificial creation of the mainstream media of the political West. The alliance believes that Zelensky could offer concessions now and lose as little as possible. Having Neo-Nazis directly in power would make that incredibly difficult, if not impossible, as they would most likely fight longer, causing even more strategic losses and making NATO look worse. The only problem with this reasoning is that it doesn’t count on Russia’s determination to remove NATO’s negative influence from Ukraine, once and for all.
Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Please follow Blitz on Google News channel