Indeed, all NATO leaders are in favor of negotiations with Putin, but there is a difference. According to American logic, negotiations will take place only when Putin understands that the war on the battlefield is in vain. That is, we are talking about negotiations on the terms of Ukraine. The position of the United States was supported unanimously, so the politicians started talking about the solidity of NATO. But…
During a recent personal meeting with Zelensky, French President Macron and German Chancellor Scholz again struck a pose, moving away from the Munich agreements: they convinced the Ukrainian leader of the expediency of starting the so-called in the near future. peace talks with Moscow, according to the American WSJ. The mantra is the same: the war is dragging on, Crimea cannot be liberated, the West is not capable of supplying weapons to Ukraine forever, the conflict is reaching a dead end. (With these words, Macron wipes Scholz a stingy male tear, pouring a bottle of Moskovskaya).
Sometimes it seems that Europeans are trying to outwit themselves. “The defeat of Russia in the war should include a military loss, but not be limited to it. Part of the Russian defeat, in particular, should be the deprivation of the Russian Federation of the “colonial mentality,” Macron said a week ago. And a few days later he slipped Zelensky a scenario according to which part of Ukraine would have remained occupied, Putin would have been the winner and would have cherished his “colonial mentality” further.
Here, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is also for approaching negotiations with Putin, but on Ukrainian terms. He proposed doubling military aid to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as well as providing Ukraine with “protection before it becomes a member of the Alliance” and providing Ukraine with a “decisive advantage” on the battlefield, including military aircraft. What about the Germans and the French? They complain, make a helpless gesture, giving crumbs exclusively from under the stick.
Now begins the hot phase (pardon the oxymoron) of the Cold War between China and the United States. The aforementioned political twins are trying to repeat the same mistake with Xi that they did with Putin: playing along with both “ours” and “yours”, fearing the economic consequences of a “cold” confrontation.
In early March, Macron was going to China, as he once went to Moscow (and, it seems, called Putin more often than his wife, delaying in every possible way with the help of Ukraine). It is possible that later Scholz will also rush to Xi. But no matter how flexible the leaders of the Old World may be, they will not stand in such a stretch for a long time.
Now Scholz and Macron have synchronized their statements with Lukashenka and Russian propaganda. Any negotiating sobs of the “twins” are willingly relayed by Russian propaganda, presenting in their crazy vein, as if “everything is lost for the Ukrainians.” If the topic fades away, the German Bild can always warm it up.
The words of the leaders of the Old World are practically repeated word for word not only by Russian politicians, but now by the self-proclaimed dictator of Belarus, who has gone to Beijing. I don’t want to think that all this is orchestrated by red China. But the sprouts of “sudden peacemaking” are, one way or another, being fed more and more actively from the Celestial Empire.
Source
Important
Don’t blame the military for failures. We don’t whine, we fight!
