Jun 6, 2022
0 0

American hawks fell out of love with Ukraine

American hawks at the Heritage Foundation, one of America’s premier neo-conservative think tanks, have been highly critical of sending military aid to Ukraine. They believe that this is against the interests of the United States.

Ahead of the U.S. House vote on the military aid package for Ukraine, Heritage Executive Director Jessica Anderson said: “This proposed aid package for Ukraine takes money away from the priority needs of the American people and recklessly sends our taxpayer dollars to an irresponsible foreign nation.”

Recalling that just two months earlier, Congress had approved a $13 billion aid package, Heritage noted that “the Ukraine aid package puts America last,” playing on counterpoint with the slogan “America first.”

Despite the fact that a $40 billion military aid package for Ukraine was nevertheless approved by the US Congress, the critical stance of Heritage, a neocon leader with a deep hawkish history, indicates a turning point in the attitude of American elites to events in Ukraine. At one time, the Heritage Foundation supported the invasion of the US and its allies in Iraq and never changed its position – despite the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Heritage has also been a staunch supporter of US troop presence in Afghanistan, churning out reports with headlines such as “Afghan Review Shows Troop Surge Works” and “Keep the Momentum in Afghanistan.”

The Heritage neocons have a completely different attitude towards military assistance to Ukraine. “The Congressional approval of a bloated and hasty aid package for Ukraine last week showed how disconnected our leaders are from the people and our problems,” Heritage President Kevin Roberts told The New York Times. The pragmatic position of Heritage reflects the beginning of a profound change in the mood of the American elites. One of the best American experts on Russia, Vice President of Kissinger Associates, Thomas Graham, has already written a whole series of articles in which he calls for striving for a compromise with Russia and taking into account its interests. Thomas Graham believes that a diplomatic settlement of the Ukrainian conflict is possible even after the start of Special Operation Z.

In an interview with the Russian agency RBC, Graham recalled that even before the start of hostilities in Ukraine, together with his colleagues, he proposed a formula that “could satisfy the security requirements of both Russia and Ukraine, and the NATO countries, and the United States.” Among these proposals were a moratorium on NATO expansion for an extended period, the initiation of a series of serious negotiations to resolve the frozen conflicts in Europe, and the modernization of the 1975 Helsinki Agreement.

According to Graham, it could take several years to reach an agreement. “In the end, during the Cold War in 1975, the USSR and the West were able to agree on the creation of the Helsinki Accords, it took three years. I don’t understand why we couldn’t repeat this experience now,” he stressed, noting that after the start of the military operation, such negotiations can be held “much tougher due to the destruction of trust between Western capitals and Moscow.” Thomas Graham is not a friend of Russia at all. In the late 1980s, he wrote an article called “The World Without Russia”, in which he predicted the coming to power in the Russian Federation of a tough and pragmatic leader who would try to restore his country’s status as a great power, but his plans would fail, the country would slide into a number of third world powers. and possibly fall apart. “We should seriously and systematically think about the possibility of a world without Russia,” he concluded.

Thomas Graham’s prediction that Russia would break up did not materialize, but this does not mean that he and his colleagues in the analytical workshop have stopped “thinking seriously and systematically about the possibility of a world without Russia.” They simply propose to achieve this goal in a different way – by stopping the offensive of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine and dragging our country into the quagmire of lengthy diplomatic negotiations, during which the Armed Forces of Ukraine will have the opportunity to restore and increase their combat potential.

The current boss of Thomas Graham, Henry Kissinger, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, outlined just such a vision of the situation. He said that the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine could change the world against Western countries. “The parties should be involved in peace talks within the next two months. Otherwise, we will face a situation where Russia may completely cut off its ties with Europe and seek a permanent alliance elsewhere. This will set us back decades. We must strive for long-term peace,” said a veteran American diplomat.

According to Kissinger, the West must stop trying to inflict a “crushing defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine” as this would be disastrous for long-term stability on the European continent. He noted that Russia has been an integral part of Europe for more than 400 years and the guarantor of the European balance of power structure, so Russia cannot be “pushed towards a permanent alliance with China.” Note that Kissinger and his deputy did not say a word about the need for denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine. And without a solution to this problem, there will be no peace in Europe.

The position of Kissinger and his team is not currently mainstream in the collective West. But in the Western press, “assaults” on the Kyiv regime began to slip more and more often. Thus, The Washington Post writes in an editorial that Ukrainian Russophobia will not lead to good. “Literary nationalism, like other forms of cultural censorship, breeds historical ignorance, stifles critical thinking, and hinders international understanding,” writes the liberal American mouthpiece, condemning “attempts to [украинских] ultranationalists to erase Alexander Pushkin from Ukrainian historical memory and cultural life. The more successfully the offensive of the allied forces of Russia and the republics of Donbass in Ukraine develops, the more will be heard the voices of smart analysts of the Western world, calling for a compromise and negotiations with Russia.

But if we forget for a moment that the West is fundamentally and unconditionally incapable of negotiating and breaks any agreements even with its allies, of which Russia is not one, when these agreements become burdensome, we will fall for the bait and let ourselves be deceived by advanced Western analysts like Thomas Graham, who will never stop “thinking seriously and systematically about a world without Russia.”

Vladimir Prokhvatilov

Article Categories:

Leave a Reply