Thursday, it was reported that various Nat-sec Nutsacks, including Council on Foreign Relations majordomo Richard Haass, met in April with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. And, news of this royally pissed off the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry's official spox on Twitter:
So, a group of anonymous US tankies discussing Ukraine with Russia behind Ukraine’s back? There’re another words to describe it: treason, betrayal, and pure imperialism.
— olexander scherba🇺🇦 (@olex_scherba) July 6, 2023
And, he got ROASTED. Many, like me, from outside the Nat-sec Nutsacks point of view, noted that Americans can't be traitors to Ukraine, as well as laughing at him for the "tankies" angle. (Per Janis Joplin, "tankie" is just another word for nothing left to lose.) The Nat-sec Nutsacks and #BlueAnon types chided him for lack of gratitude.
And, per the actual story, Haass et al is not a traitor or tankie to the Nat-sec Nutsack world, or even to Warmonger Joe:
The discussions have taken place with the knowledge of the Biden administration but not at its direction, and the former officials involved in the Lavrov meeting briefed the White House National Security Council afterward, two of the sources said.
THAT is surely what really has Scherba quaking in his boots. (Always look for fear behind anger.)
Then, there's this:
Signs are mounting that the U.S. and its allies are eager for Moscow and Kyiv to move toward peace talks in the fall after Ukraine’s ongoing counteroffensive is completed.
Erm, it's already pretty much completed, and pretty much unsuccessful. That, too is why Scherba (and his ultimate boss, Zelensky, despite calm exterior) have fear in the veins.
Indeed, the NBC piece links to a Foreign Affairs piece by Haass and co-author Charles Kupchan expecting the "vaunted Ukrainian counteroffensive"™ to peter out. (Those are among the "anonymous ... traitors and tankies."
Then, there's Michael McCaul, claiming that there's no Track Two people in Russia who have Putin's ear sufficiently. First, how does he know that? Or is that just wishful thinking? Second, per the story, with Lavrov's involvement in the April meeting, at least, its actually 1.5 Track.
But, that stupidity pales compared to this:
Matt Dimmick, a former Russia and Eastern Europe director at the National Security Council, said that even discussing potential deals with Russia without Ukraine’s taking the lead could ultimately undercut Kyiv’s leverage.
“Ukraine doesn’t need and want intermediaries to start coming in and crafting cease-fire solutions and then enticing Europe and the U.S. to elbow Ukraine in that direction,” Dimmick said. “Ukraine realizes their path to a secure future is driving right through Russian defenses and leaving Russia no choice but to come up with their own way out of Ukraine.”
Yeah, because that's not fucking happening.
Kupchan has also written for Responsible Statecraft, which had an overview piece
What we really have is a pawn in the imperium's chess game refusing to accept it's a pawn.
Via Counterpunch, from inside Russia, Boris Kagarlitsky recently laid out four basic terms for peace. But, can they be met? SHOULD they?
St. Clair notes that both Brazil's Lula and South Africa's Ramphosa have been rebuffed, and that China's Xi benefits more from an ongoing frozen war. And, Putin would reject No. 3, the abandonment not only of the Donbas but also Crimea. So would I. If you have Putin pull back to pre-invasion lines but staying in the Donbas, and certainly the Crimea, I would accept that, if tied with the other three? Would Putin? Maybe. Would Zelensky? No, and therein lies naivete from a modified Kagarlinsky.
No comments:
Post a Comment