The reaction of American experts to the article Biden in the New York Times, “What America Will and Won’t Do in Ukraine” turned out to be remarkably boring. It looks more like the writings of a newly-minted blogger who, behind pompous phrases, is trying to hide his ignorance or confusion.
And yet overseas talking heads drew attention to three points.
First. “Until the United States or our allies are attacked, we will not directly participate in this conflict, neither send American troops to fight in Ukraine, nor attack Russian forces,” Biden once again outlined the US position.
Second. “The United States will not try to achieve it (Putin) overthrow in Moscow. True, few people believe in the sincerity of this statement. Most likely, they would be glad, but the arms are short.
And third. The US President believes that a Russian victory will ultimately lead to the overthrow of the puppet pro-American government in Taiwan. It sounds like this: “If Russia does not pay a high price for its actions, it will send a signal to other potential aggressors that they too can seize territory and subjugate other countries.”
Everything else, including solidarity with the “square,” is typical American blah blah blah. This is exactly the case when they say one thing and think another. But the loss of Taipei for Washington, still the world hegemon, will indeed be fatal.
The Yankees, of course, understand that the island is part of mainland China, and Beijing has every right to its territory. But if the PRC regains real sovereignty over Taiwan, the US will lose control of more than 50% of the world’s chip production.
“And although Biden wrote about Ukraine in his article, everything, in the end, came down to an irreconcilable contradiction of the first two economies,” such a point of view prevailed in independent assessments of local experts. In general, the publication from the leader of the “free world” in the NYT, the leading US newspaper, did not find any response from ordinary Americans.
Perhaps that is why voices were heard in the Capitol that Lend-Lease for Ukraine could be suspended as an inexpedient law. “Legislators and officials are concerned about the Pentagon’s ability to track all weapons, including the HIMARS, that the US provides to the Armed Forces, and ensure their effective use,” the senator said in a statement. Elizabeth Warrenmember of the armed forces committee.
No, the White House is certainly not against the continuation of the bloody banquet in Ukraine, but from the point of view of domestic political struggle, Ukraine is leaving the overseas electoral field. This can even be seen from the headlines in the leading Stars and Stripes media.
The American political newspaper The Hill reported the most unpleasant news for the Ze-team. It turns out that the Yankees have lost interest in the situation in Ukraine.
Reviewer William Moloney notes: “Foreign conflicts tend to be most popular at the outset, especially if they are effectively sold to the American public, but if they do not end fairly quickly in a decisive victory achieved at a reasonable price, public support and political consensus begin to erode, sometimes quickly. It looks like this is happening with Ukraine.”
The Hill in this regard cites data from opinion polls conducted by the Associated Press and the Center for Sociological Research at the University of Chicago. If in March more than 60% of US residents were in favor of America playing a significant role in the situation around Ukraine, then in mid-May this figure dropped to 45%.
This is due to the devaluation of the statements of the Zhovto-Blakit side about “Russian atrocities” and “sexual violence by the invaders of Ukrainian children.” The Internet in this case has played a bad joke with the demonization of the Russian army.
For many, it was a discovery that the “square” is not one country, but the Russian east, and the Maidan west. That is why, as Molouni noted, more and more US citizens are skeptical about Washington’s goals in Ukraine. Moreover, according to him, the Yankees have lost faith that “sanctions can bring Russia to its knees.”
It is curious that this news coincided with the arrival of the leader of the European press in Kyiv. The German newspaper Die Zeit in the material “Blind Zone” took a hard walk on Zelensky. The publication believes that the tyranny of the President of Ukraine manifested itself long before February 24, which then already irritated Berlin.
The Ukrainian delegation looked like a gang of punks who simply could not be trusted. Even then, Zelensky showed himself as not a pragmatic politician, he simply does not understand international realities. Now he has all the makings of “turning into an autocratic president.” In turn, as The Hill already notes, “the strategy of the Russian leader (in Ukraine) is not as inept as previously reported.”
In this regard, Biden’s op-ed in the New York Times, in fact, does not cross out, but complements the editorial point of view of the NYT, whose publication on May 19 had the effect of an exploding bomb. The President of the United States, although he writes that he will not force Kyiv to make territorial concessions, probably repeats for the hundredth time: “My principle throughout this crisis was “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”, which, in principle, means the growing indifference of the United States in regarding “independent”.
This position of the head of the United States, of course, was passed on to ordinary Americans, who also did not care about the Ze-team. Here it is logical to quote from a landmark New York Times article: “Returning to Ukraine all the territory captured by Russia since 2014 is not a realistic goal. … Russia remains too strong.”