quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It tends to make one feel rather wise to be ahead of the curve, and it seems that my unpopular position has become worthy of consideration by those formerly Ukraine supporters waving their little flags at those of us who saw through this folly.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
My opinion hasn't changed. Solidly not our problem

quote:

When the US was conducting final negotiations with Russia regarding nuclear disarmament of Ukraine in 1994, Russia was already beginning its war against Chechnya and preparing annexation of Crimea — the latter stopped only by the timely deployment of Ukrainian forces. The US regarded Russian “interests in its near abroad” as “legitimate” and, as US Deputy Secretary of State Nelson Strobridge Talbott admitted, “shut down” Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk‘s pleas for genuine security guarantees in exchange for nuclear disarmament.

...

The Ukrainian Parliament adopted the Treaty under threats from the US, including threats of international isolation, as well as Russian threats to cut oil and gas supply to Ukraine. The Treaty was adopted contrary to Ukrainian public opinion in 1993, when, according to the independent research center “Democratic Initiatives,” 45.3% preferred “nuclear-weapon status” for Ukraine, whereas 35% selected disarmament.

...

In the early 1990s, Ukraine insisted numerous times on the threat from Russia during negotiations with the US, but the Clinton administration decided to “recognize Russian interests” in Ukraine.

In particular, the unearthed papers show the USSR’s last foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, saying during the talks with then-President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk that “just one nuclear missile” in Ukrainian hands would have been enough to safeguard its independence from Russia.

In April 1993, Kravchuk confided to then-Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze his “main headache” that “Moscow and the US together have been twisting my arms painfully” in “demanding [the] transfer [of Ukraine’s nuclear weapons] to the Russian Federation.”

...

The history of nuclear disarmament of Ukraine under US pressure becomes even more striking, given that the US knew about Russian intentions to subjugate Ukraine under its control and even considered the Russian invasion of Ukraine possible. Following the final trip to Moscow ahead of the Budapest memorandum, Talbott asked then Secretary of State Warren Christopher rhetorically:

“Do we have good answers to questions about what we’ll do if reality refuses to follow the script we’re writing for it? What if Russia invades Ukraine?”

The question was never considered seriously enough in a theoretical hope that in the future when needed, such a possibility of invasion could be negotiated away with Moscow. Generally, the new imperial ambitions of Moscow were ignored by the US leaders, blinded by the strongly desired illusion of the seemingly democratic new Yeltsin’s Russia.

quote:

ROBBY SOAVE, THE HILL: Are we reaching the point that many non-interventionists or skeptics of increased and permanent U.S. support to Ukraine... long predicted, where Ukraine has no choice but to have a conversation with Russia about what the future of the contested region will be?

DAVID SACKS: Yeah, that's exactly the point that we've reached. What you've really seen over the past week or so is that the narrative dam around the reality of Ukraine has completely broken and the truth is now pouring out.

It started with that Time Magazine article where Zelensky's own aides and advisors said that he was "delusional," for this, what they said, "messianic belief in their ultimate victory." One of his advisors said they are out of options, they are not winning, but "try telling him that."

That wasn't the end of it, you had this NBC News story basically saying the war was deadlocked and in a stalemate. But even more than that, officials said that if Ukraine didn't negotiate by the end of the year, the situation would become urgent. You could almost hear the panic in these unnamed officials' voices.

Then you had the New York Times just the other day talking about an open rift that has developed between Zelensky and his commander-in-chief, Zaluzhny.

Zaluzhny did an interview with The Economist in which he said the was is a stalemate. Zelensky disagreed with that in a press conference and so now the two are openly at odds with each other in the press.

So what you see now is there is no agreement within even the Ukrainian senior leadership, between Zelnsky and his advisors, and between Zelensky and his top general, about what is happening in the war.

I think now the truth has broken out, which is that Ukraine is not winning this war, the counteroffensive has been a failure, and if they don't start doing something different, they're headed for disaster.

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY: Why do you think we're getting this news now, that we're getting the Time Magazine piece now? Certainly, circumstances on the ground haven't been tony for Ukraine for a very long time, if ever. Do you think this is really about the United States making a choice about which of two ongoing wars it wants to throw its resources behind, and this is all being provoked by the fighting in Gaza? Or do you think it is being driven by the frustration with people inside his own regime, like this general who has been speaking out? To what do you attribute the change in tenor?

DAVID SACKS: I think that if Zelensky continues with this strategy of insisting on advances, there is a great fear on the part of the administration and within his own general corps that Ukraine will collapse.

Remember, since the counteroffensive began on June 4, Ukraine has basically been on the offensive for about five months. They've been hurling their troops and weapons at these fixed Russian fortifications now with huge casualties and huge losses. And the thing that the Time profile makes clear is that these orders to advance, this insistence to continually be on offense, to make progress of even just a few meters a day, is coming directly from the office of the president [of Ukraine].

And what some of the sources say is even if the U.S. comes through with more weapons and ammunition, the Ukrainian army does not have the personnel to use them. They say they do not have the manpower.

I think there is a great fear now that if Zelensky continues with this delusional strategy, the Ukraine side will collapse. And I think the Biden administration is very interested in avoiding a situation like that, a collapse, before the election. So I think they are quite unsure what to do now, and you are seeing administration officials now speaking more honestly about the situation because they see the urgency here.