U.S. intelligence documents recently published by many news organisations in western mainstream media have exposed the extent to which pro - war propaganda and disinformation suggesting Ukraine was winning the war have been used to prop up what is now seen to be a US & NATO led effort to weaken Russia and effect regime change.Now the truth is out it looks more likely some western governments are facing regime change campaigns as citizens, tired of sky - high energy costs, soaring food prices (both directly related to the conflict,) and of being lied to as ruling elites pursue policies that can only benefit maybe one tenth of one per cent of the population (and that is probably a gross over estimate.)
T,his picture of a town in eastern Ukraine summing up the extent of Ukraine's 'victory', this image was not reported by mainstreram media of course. (Picture: Pinterest)
A commentary on the current status of the conflict in Ukraine published by the Washington Post last week must have traumatised people who have only been reading about the Ukraine war in The Washington Post and other Western media. Under the headline:
story admits, probably for the first time in mainstream media, that readers and audiences have been gossly misled about the
course of the war, that essentially what mainstream media has been
reporting about Ukraine has been a pack of lies: namely that Ukraine is
winning the war or at least holding its own in what has really been a one sided conflict. Reports that Ukraine is about to launch an major counter - offensive that will lead to a
final victory have also been discredited by classified information contained in the leaked 'Top Secret' documents.
The second paragraph of the article makes
clear the leaked intelligence reports show the long-planned (or hyed, previous experience suggests the Ukrainian military do not waste much energy on planning,) counter - offensive by Ukrainian forces will fail miserably — “a marked departure from the Biden
administration’s public statements about the vitality of Ukraine’s
military.” ,and also very different from what is being spun in british and European medias where claims that the Ukrainian assault will take back Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, without much difficulty have proliferated in the past few months.
In other words, U.S. and NATO officials and governments have been lying about the state of the war to the public and news organisations, many of which claim their mission is to hold politicians and public servants to account, have faithfully reported every word of the propaganda narratives without a hint of skepticism.
The Post that, the leaks will likely “embolden critics
who feel the United States and NATO should do more to push for a
negotiated settlement to the conflict,” as if that would be a bad thing.
However, writing in the uber-Establishment mangazine Foreign Affairs, former State Department official Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, write that “it is difficult to feel sanguine about where the war is headed. The West Needs a New Strategy in Ukraine: A Plan for Getting From the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table,” they say, adding:
“The best path forward is a sequenced two-pronged strategy aimed at first bolstering Ukraine’s military capability and then, when the fighting season winds down late this year, ushering Moscow and Kyiv from the battlefield to the negotiating table.”
The article does not mention the leaks, though it was published after the disclosures made clear that the Ukrainian offensive, intended to break through Russia’s land bridge to Crimea, would fail.
As mentioned above, the west's commitment to the idea of total military victory for Ukraine seems to be shifting. The entrenched attitude that before negotiating,
Ukraine needs to launch its offensive to gain back some territory,
“imposing heavy losses on Russia, foreclosing Moscow’s military options,
and increasing its willingness to contemplate a diplomatic settlement.” is being toned down and the article admits the Russian military’s numerical superiority allied to the fact that Ukraine is “facing
growing constraints on both its own manpower and help from abroad,” make any territorial gains or military victories for Ukraine increasingly unlikely.
This being the case we should remind ourselves Moscow was ready to cut a deal with Kiev one month after Russia’s intervention but the West, with its strategy of lengthening the war to weaken Russia, dispatched the UK's then Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Kiev to tell Zelensky and his neo - Nazi masters in no circumstances must they negotiate with Russia. Why would Moscow accept a deal now when Ukraine is at its weakest and Russia, having withstood the best war effort the NATO alloes can muster, is poised to make significant gains on the battlefield while having outplayed the west politiclly and economically and enhanced its influence in South East Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America?
The Foreign Affairs piece admits, “This diplomatic gambit may well fail.
“Come the end of this fighting season,” the article says, “the United States and Europe will also have good reason to abandon their stated policy of supporting Ukraine for ‘as long as it takes,’ as U.S. President Joe Biden's autocue has put it.”
what comes next? Can NATO allies now engage in a strategic dialogue with
Russia on arms control and the security concerns of Moscow over efforts to admit Ukraine into the west's mulual aid treaty?
Incredibly this is what Russia was asking for before its February 2022 intervention and it was rebuffed by NATO and the U.S. Now a Foreign Affairs article is recommending it. Surely there can be no better sign that Ukraine has lost or is about to lose this war?