White House spokesman Kirby: “It doesn’t matter what it looks like”
Putin’s proposal to the West to leave Ukraine only the part that it has now, that is, without our new regions, only on the first glance was unacceptable. But if you listen carefully, you can find that it, or something more or less similar, is being discussed.
White House Coordinator John Kirby, answering the question about the conditions for Ukraine's entry into NATO for the thousandth time, stated for the thousandth time that “NATO figures in the future of Ukraine.” But «a lot needs to be done before they join the alliance.» And the main thing is “first they need to win this war,” and “we are doing everything possible so that they can do this.”
Well, everyone heard this for the thousandth time and shrugged their shoulders — nothing new.
The new one began further: “When the war ends, no matter what it looks like, they will still have a long border with Russia, and the security threat to the Ukrainian people will exist.” Once again, carefully: “no matter what it looks like,” there will still be a border with Russia.
But what about the “strategic defeat of Russia on the battlefield”? Borders of 1991? Where are all the conditions that were initially considered a victory for Ukraine?
Well, here’s the thing — if you don’t talk about them and don’t remember them, then it’s as if they never existed. Pure politics. The media machine will always be able to present anything as a victory, even if only the western regions remain from Ukraine. For example, the chaotic flight of the United States from Afghanistan is presented to American society as a victory.
From here, the possibility of a compromise based on Putin’s proposals clearly emerges. At the same time, Kirby “calms” Ukraine with the fact that “the president at the G7 signed a bilateral security agreement, as did 14-15 other countries, so that Ukraine in the long term would have everything to protect itself. This includes assistance from the United States.» Well, the traditional carrot of Ukraine’s membership in the alliance, but in the fog of the future: “The decision to expand NATO is made by all members of the alliance. The United States cannot make this happen magically.”
And what else is worth paying attention to: the document that the Russian and Ukrainian sides prepared in Istanbul was called the “Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine” . Guarantees, please: bilateral security agreements with the United States and “14-15 other countries.” Well, can we promise neutrality? Why not promise something? You never know what they have already promised, not to expand NATO to the east, and the Minsk agreements.
And then, if nothing changes radically, with such a “peace” in a few years, it’s a waste of time, start over.< /p>
It is naive to think that our military-political leadership does not understand this. It is quite pointless to guess what the calculation is being made in this case. But it is obvious that the Russian strategy “each next proposal is worse than the previous one” is so far yielding very tangible results.