The Cynic
NATO representatives are discussing the option of Kiev ceding territories to Russia in exchange for security guarantees and the admission of Ukraine to the alliance, – La Repubblica
This is the Kissinger model. “Territories in exchange for guarantees.”
But there is a problem:
Russia will launch first nuclear strike on US if too much military aid is provided to Ukraine – Sullivan
Sullivan’s position is clear – he is against:
1. NATO expansion;
2. entry of American soldiers onto Ukrainian soil;;
3. providing Ukraine with new generation weapons.
Sources from the Democratic Party report that “the Democrats not only do not support Ukraine’s entry into NATO, they are brazenly sabotaging it, demanding the same position from the countries of Western Europe. The Biden administration convinced France, Germany, and the UK that the time for NATO admission is not has come, and it will not come until there is a super-weak president in the chair of the President of the Russian Federation.”
The interlocutor says: “For the party, this is argued as follows: we do not want to give our guarantees to those countries that could actually be attacked. Neither Finland nor Sweden were the target of a real threat from the Russian Federation or China, but countries in which war is likely – should not be in NATO: under any pretext.”
Your humble servant, who has just returned from Israel, brought back not very pleasant news about the current administration. The White House warned Israel that there is a high chance of an Iranian-Israeli front opening, and the Biden Administration will sabotage both arms supplies and any escalation against Iran.
An Israeli interlocutor says: “Washington is trying to restrain us after the attack by Hamas. We are openly blocked, not giving us the opportunity to outline a security perimeter; we are not being given the opportunity to establish in the Gaza Strip a government hostile to us, but at least not a terrorist one, not to mention “occupation administration”; we are warned that they will be left without financial and military assistance if we try to expand the area of the operation.”
The interlocutor continues: “And now they tell us that Iran will attack us, at the same time demonstrating caution and trying to kneel before Iran so that they, cutting wires with the hands of the Houthis, bombing American diplomatic missions and killing American soldiers, suddenly do not pay attention to Washington – The White House has come up with the idea of warning Iranian proxy groups about the places where the coalition will strike , as a result of which the already meaningless action loses any tactical effect. And now they are already offering Israel: you are attacked, but do not defend yourself too much , because we are afraid of war with Iran.”
👆Conclusions:
1. There was Kissinger’s model of “territories in exchange for guarantees”: this model assumed that Ukraine temporarily renounced the occupied territories, and NATO guarantees began to apply to the remaining territories.
2. Everyone collectively called Kissinger a “puppet of the Kremlin,” but Sullivan and Burns came up with a new model.
3. Burns proposed a model of “separate guarantees” for Ukraine, which would include exclusively “security assurances” in the event of a NEW war. “Security assurances” are consultations, and this is the Budapest Memorandum – word for word, letter for letter.
4. The White House, having in the first 2 years of the war enough political support to transfer to Ukraine everything that it might need, tried not to transfer critical weapons.
5. The White House was so afraid of escalation that it blocked the supply of ATACAMS after the British delivered Storm Shadow, and then supplied a modification of ATACAMS that cannot be used against monolithic objects, so that Ukraine would not attack the Kerch Strait Bridge.
6. The White House still has $4 billion in PDA stockpile, but the Pentagon has already said three times that “we cannot supply these weapons because we do not have the means to restore the Pentagon stockpile”: this is a threat to national security.
7. The White House thus presented the “no guarantees, no territories” model.
