Top Ukrainian & Former US Officials Are Panicking That $100 Billion in Aid Isn’t Enough
Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexey Reznikov and Ambassador to the UK Vadim Prystaiko tried guilting NATO into sending more arms by emphasizing Ukraine’s status as that group’s proxy in the hopes of swaying popular Western perceptions to its side, while the second-mentioned also contributed to former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s fearmongering that the failure to do so would leave Russia in control of extremely strategic territory. All four top officials shattered prior narratives by either admitting Ukraine’s proxy role and/or acknowledging the success of Russia’s special operation thus far.
Zelensky’s trip to DC last month wasn’t the success that the US-led West’s Mainstream Media (MSM) spun it as being as evidenced by the panic that’s since taken hold of top Ukrainian and former US officials. They’ve begun an information warfare offensive alleging that the approximately $100 billion in American aid that Kiev’s received thus far supposedly isn’t enough to completely dislodge Russia from that former Soviet Republic’s pre-2014 borders, let alone defend against any forthcoming offensives.
Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexei Reznikov told national TV last week (video here, news item here, analysis here) that “Today, Ukraine is addressing [the] threat (of Russia). We’re carrying out NATO’s mission today, without shedding their blood. We shed our blood, so we expect them to provide weapons.” This was followed up by Ukrainian Ambassador to the UK Vadim Prystaiko telling Newsweek something similar in spirit shortly thereafter.
According to him, “The West now has a unique chance. There are not many nations in the world who would allow themselves to sacrifice so many lives, territories and decades of development for the purpose of defeating the archenemy…This is what I mean: All hands on deck, every single thing we can spare to help Ukraine win.” He also expressed concern that the West might pressure Kiev to agree to a ceasefire with Russia if the present stalemate isn’t soon broken.
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice then jointly authored an opinion piece for the Washington Post (paywalled for some here but republished in full here) on Saturday dramatically headlined that “Time is not on Ukraine’s side”. Their narrative is completely contrary to the “official” one that’s popular among most Westerners claiming that Russia will inevitably collapse the longer that its special operation drags on for.
Instead, Gates and Rice warned that “Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass”, which would result in Russia retaining “much of [Ukraine’s] mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land” if the Line of Control (LOC) is frozen. This is an important point that was also reaffirmed by Prystaiko.
In his previously cited interview with Newsweek, he predicted that “If we stop right now for any sort of peace negotiations, the Russians will try to keep their land grabs, whatever they’ve managed to achieve up until now. And most of these areas are quite crucial. For example, this land bridge to Crimea.” Taken together, he, Gates, and Rice all recognize that Russia’s special operation has been very successful with respect to the strategic on-the-ground gains that it’s achieved contrary to the MSM’s claims.
With that in mind, those two extremely influential former US officials said that “The only way to avoid such a scenario (of Russia retaining those gains) is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south.” They also ridiculously compared the Ukrainian Conflict to World War I, World War II, and 9/11.
These three latest information warfare pieces from those four current and former officials prove that a new perception management offensive has been launched over the past week. The emerging narrative is that Kiev urgently requires a dramatic scaling of military aid from the US-led West’s Golden Billion otherwise that de facto New Cold War bloc is doomed to be defeated in its anti-Russian proxy war that it’s waging through that former Soviet Republic.
Reznikov and Prystaiko tried guilting NATO into sending more arms by emphasizing Ukraine’s status as that group’s proxy in the hopes of swaying popular Western perceptions to its side, while the second-mentioned also contributed to Gates’ and Rice’s fearmongering that the failure to do so would leave Russia in control of extremely strategic territory. All four top officials shattered prior narratives by either admitting Ukraine’s proxy role and/or acknowledging the success of Russia’s special operation thus far.
The untold sums invested in the Golden Billion’s anti-Russian information warfare campaign over the past 10,5 months were thus all for naught after just three perception management products discredited everything that they’ve claimed up until this point. The only reason why Reznikov, Prystaiko, Gates, and Rice would vindicate President Putin’s reason for launching the special operation with respect to Ukraine’s status as a NATO proxy and admit its successes thus far is because they’re very desperate.
The New York Times (article here and analysis here) exposed the limitations of NATO’s military-industrial complex in late November, which was another unexpected smashing of the MSM’s hitherto “official narrative” and reinforced the popular Russian perception that time is indeed not on Ukraine’s side. Unless NATO members further reduce their stockpiles below the level required for ensuring their minimum national security needs, which is militarily and politically risky, then Kiev could be in trouble.
The reason for this prognosis is that its forces are burning through a bunch of ammunition and arms at an unsustainable rate without barely producing any of their own. In fact, Gates and Rice both candidly admitted in their opinion piece that “Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States”, yet that same de facto New Cold War bloc can’t indefinitely keep up the pace, scale, and scope of its existing support.
This “politically inconvenient” fact adds credence to the scenario that all four top officials either suggested or explicitly touched upon regarding Western pressure on Kiev to agree to a ceasefire with Russia in order to retain the territory that’s still under its control instead of risk losing it the longer that the conflict continues. In full defiance of the MSM’s false expectations this entire time, Russia hasn’t run out of ammo, arms, or troops and is thus capable of launching another offensive in the coming future.
This isn’t a so-called “pro-Russian conspiracy theory/cope or wishful thinking” like those associated with the SBU-backed fascist troll network “NAFO” might instinctively claim upon becoming aware of this assessment, but the official warning shared last month by Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny. He told The Economist (paywalled here and reported on by Ukrainian media here) that Russia is preparing a new offensive “as soon as January, but more likely in the spring.”
Without tens of billions of dollars’ worth of more of emergency military aid to Kiev from its Western patrons, there’s a high probability as implied by those four top Ukrainian and US officials that Moscow could break through the LOC and/or successfully establish a new front elsewhere in that former Soviet Republic. Either, let alone both, of those outcomes would put the Golden Billion’s proxies in a much more disadvantageous position the next time that Moscow offers them an olive branch.
The only two ways to realistically avert that scenario are for the West to either capitulate to their demands for tens of billions of dollars’ worth of more emergency military aid or pressure Kiev to agree to a ceasefire that freezes the LOC in order to not lose more territory but at the expense of tacitly recognizing Russia’s strategic on-the-ground gains. Both have their respective pros and cons, but the US has yet to decide on what it’ll do, ergo the latest information warfare offensive aimed at influencing it.
