All Talk, No Action

The last weeks have been a whirlwind of all sorts of happenings in ukraine.

The zelstein regime broke two temporary ceasefires, a 30-day infrastructure ceasefire, and an Easter ceasefire.

Russians were under no illusion that ukrops will honor these, and agreed to these token gestures as a way to show, and prove to everyone that the ukrainian regime is incapable of honoring any agreements, so there is no sense in entering into anything with them.

Violating these agreements played into Russian hands, which has now made a strong case for not having to give anyone anything. And the whole time, Trump and his handlers ignored ukrainian violations as if they never happened.

So ukraine has only made its situation worse, and Trump looks like a chump for thinking that the urkops can keep their word.

It seems like the combined west doesn't care if ukraine breaks any promises to, and agreements with Russia, as long as kiev doesn't cross the west.

Because for all the talk and fluffy rhetoric about 'US understanding this,' or 'Trump respecting that,' the main aim of the Trump regime and the EU is the preservation of the kiev regime, and the reconstitution of its armed forces for another confrontation with Russia later down the line.

US wants a total and indefinite ceasefire in ukraine without agreeing to any permanent terms or agreements with Russia. Trump is incapable of even making any agreement into a law. He just wants an open-ended, ambiguous gentleman's handshake agreement that promises Russia no permanent settlement of the conflict that will be valid until he leaves office, just like the rest of his presidential decrees.

And Trump leaves, the next oddity in the white house will be free to tear up any agreement he made with Russia and throw it away. And then what?

Trump desperately wants a deal by the end of April because he is approaching a May deadline when all aid to ukraine agreed to by the previous Biden regime comes to a stop. 

So Trump will either have to honor that dealine and stop all aid, or approve more aid. If he does this, and he most likely will if he doesn't get his deal by next month, he will make the ukrainian conflict his own, and Russians will simply stop dealing with the US and roll over what remains of ukraine. 

Trump will also lose face in front of his supporters, and the rest of his years in office will be very uncomfortable.

What has Trump done during all these weeks of talking?

Did Trump allow Russian consulates in the US that were order closed in the past 8 years to reopen? No.

Did Trump allow Russian diplomatic property that was confiscated to be given back to Russians? No.

Did Trump lift restrictions for Russian airliners to fly to the US? No.

Did Trump lift any of the sanctions that were slapped on Russia as part of the RussiaGate hoax that was proven to be untrue? No.

Trump hasn't done anything but talk. Foreign policy is his purview as he is the president. Yet he appears to be incapable of making any independent decisions, even simple ones, to show that he is serious about repairing ties with Russia.

And since the US started this entire mess, it is on its leaders to make the first move toward normalization of relations.

Russians will not agree to some lame, watered-down agreement that settles nothing permanently, and leaves the post-maidan regime in place and allows the west to rearm the ukrop military.

Neither US or EU can afford to individually support ukraine. They cannot even do it together anymore.

If the US pulls the plug, the EU will have to, as well. All the bluster about sending 'peacekeeping forces' to ukraine, and the EU continuing to support ukraine with money and weapons it doesn't have is just futile PR.

The only option Trump has is to walk away from ukraine, stop all aid and assistance, and let Russia handle it.

Exp-cuses

*exp-cuse - to explain and excuse incompetence and failure at the same time in order to save face

 

Whenever the west suffers military defeats and humiliation, as it has in ukraine, or tries to justify and excuse its crimes and mass abuses, it makes up myths to cover these up.

After the US loss in Vietnam, this phenomenon was fully on display with all sorts of bitter war hawks going on about how if Nixon did this, or that, and gave the US military more time, they would have defeated the Vietnamese.

This is also where we get the BS that winter, and not Russian soldiers drove Napoleon from Russia in 1814. How is it that the Russian winter decimated French ranks, but not Russian ones is never explained.

In the 1940s, Nazi Germany also indulged in myths to *exp-cuse their loss to the Soviets. They blamed bad, muddy roads for their predicament. And again, why is it that bad, muddy Russian roads stopped the Germans but not the Soviet Army?

Another myth-this time a Britoid imperialist one- is that the Irish potato blight resulted in mass starvation of Irish peasants. No. The Irish famine was caused by British imperial policy of mass commodity extraction from the Irish countryside. At the time of the Irish famine, Ireland was producing a lot of food other that potatoes. So blaming the starvation on a potato bug is nonsense, and a feeble attempt to cover up what qualifies as ethnic cleansing.

Another myth is that Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul 2 defeated the USSR and ended the cold war. They didn’t. Soviet Union was dissolved by internal agreement from the top. There was no Russian Maidan, as many assume.

A recent myth is that US cutting off of aid from ukraine is responsible for recent Russian successes. This is not true. Russian operations, AD systems, and airstrikes destroyed ukrop capabilities to fight. 

Also, recently the New York Times penned a pathetic screed to basically cover up the abject failure the combined west suffered at the hands of Russia by the *exp-cuse that ukraine’s failures were due to kiev not doing exactly as told by the pentagon and NATO, and that if they did, ukraine would have defeated Russia. 

To the US, EU, and NATO, Russia’s better trained, equipped, and prepared military forces, and good strategic planning had nothing to do with Russian successes. No one in the west will ever admit this was the case. The myth that the US military is the best must be maintained, regardless of how untrue it is.

Another old myth that has been around since the 1980s, is how the US-made Stinger shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles defeated the Soviet air force in Afghanistan and turned the tide of the war in the western-sponsored Afghan Mujahideen rebels favor.

But the Stingers were only briefly effective against low-flying aircraft, like helicopters. They could not target jets because they were out of range. Also, after a brief period of the Afghan rebels scoring hits, Soviet helicopter pilots adapted their flying tactics to those missiles and the Stinger lost its effectiveness.

The US runs on myths. And it is the belief in those myths that is the source of its miscalculations and blunders.  

When those myths are exposed, new myths are made up to cover up all the contradictions and failures.

This will only cause the US, and the combined west to fail even more.