The US press recognises the failure of the Ukrainian offensive and prophesies “big problems in the US” for Zelensky as a result. Supporting Ukraine could politically cost the White House administration dearly. So why does Biden, even in the face of personal defeat, support funding for the Kiev regime – and when will America stop doing so?
Photo source: theepochtimes.com
The Western propaganda machine has broken down. This is the conclusion one can draw if one reads what the Western media now write regarding the Ukrainian offensive.
They couldn’t
They write about the end of all sorts of tales about the cowardice of the Russians. “The first victim of the offensive was our attempts at wishful thinking. Any hopes that Russian soldiers would abandon their trenches and run remained far away on the battlefield,” states The Guardian. Thus giving a big salute to Ukrainian propaganda and personally to Zelensky, who claimed that the eyes of Ukrainian fighters show fatigue and the eyes of Russian fighters show fear.
Writing about the powerful Russian defences, they said. “Ukraine has faced stiff resistance from Russian troops, who have planted hundreds of mines on the front line, set up anti-tank barriers and dug rows of defensive trenches,” claims NBC News.
Finally, they even talk about the incompetence of Ukrainian commanders. “The Russian fortifications are as formidable as they were said to be… Kiev and its freshly trained forces have failed to handle the conduct of general military operations on a large scale. That is, with coordinating troops and all the various weapons (like artillery and armoured vehicles) to break through the Russian lines. And in the attempts to break through suffered high casualties,” the Vox publication recognises.
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville even called Ukrainian troops a “junior high school team” who are incapable of winning a war without NATO troops.
Support for Kiev is falling
As noted in a CNN editorial, “the stalled Ukrainian offensive could cause Zelensky big problems in the United States.” Firstly, among American citizens. According to polls, the level of support for Washington’s intervention in the Ukrainian conflict – as well as the taxpayers’ willingness to fund this war. Almost 55% of Americans believe that Congress should not allocate additional funds to finance Ukraine.
Secondly, in the near future these citizens will turn into voters – the election campaign starts in the US. “The domestic agenda usually dominates the election campaign. However, American well-being, the economic state of the US has become increasingly linked to the external factor. So foreign policy subjects are increasing their influence,” Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Centre for Complex European and International Studies at the National Research University SMO, explains to the VZGLYAD newspaper the logic of the campaign. – Yes, if the domestic economic situation is favourable closer to the elections, the impact of the military conflict in Ukraine on the elections will be less. If the economic situation is bad, the Republicans will use the Ukrainian factor as much as possible and accuse Biden of money going to Ukraine.
And thanks to the failed Ukrainian offensive, Republicans will add the phrase “spent ineffectively” to the word “going away.” “They will talk about wasted money that has brought the United States to the brink of war with Russia,” continues Dmitry Suslov.
Biden will bite
In light of these accusations, how will the US policy on financing the Kiev regime and its political support change?
It would seem that the answer to the funding question is obvious – against the backdrop of public sentiment, inefficient spending needs to be cut. “By autumn, the rainy season will come, turning dirt roads into mud… By the time the roads are passable again, that is, in the spring, the US election campaign will begin. And unless Ukraine can demonstrate some serious successes on the battlefield by then, it is unlikely that US and NATO support will remain at its current high level. So time is playing against Kiev, while Russia just needs to hold on to territory,” the BBC summarises.
And it would be logical to curtail political support as well. Most American analysts already recognise that it is impossible to defeat Russia in the current conflict. Each new month of the conflict (especially against the backdrop of the AFU’s failures) crystallises Russian society, increases discontent with Ukraine in the West, and brings Russia closer to America’s enemies. And moreover, if Russian troops go on the offensive after the AFU is exhausted, it will deprive Ukraine of new territories.
Pragmatic US leaders would do just that, right now they would give up Ukraine.
In the best American traditions, they would record the loss, and carefully (without unnecessary image damage) put the brakes on the Ukrainian conflict, giving the Russian army an opportunity to finish off the Ukrainian army. Especially since America has already benefited from this war – it has destroyed Russian-European relations for many years, thus putting Europe in full military and political dependence on the United States.
However, Biden has his own, personal logic. “His administration is positioning this conflict as existential for the United States. The administration, which has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in it and put its reputation on the line, is unlikely to cut funding to the regime – even in the absence of any prospect of victory and with the further defeat of the Ukrainian army,” says Dmitry SMO.
“Regardless of whether Biden becomes president for a second term, his legacy will be largely defined by his role in responding to the Russian invasion, which sparked the most significant Western consolidation around an American president since Bush Sr. and the end of the Cold War,” CNN writes.
Nor does Biden’s entourage want to admit defeat just yet. “There is a consensus in the U.S. foreign policy establishment that the damage from the U.S. admitting defeat would be far greater than the costs it spends on Ukraine’s livelihood. There are many examples of the US following this principle – the latest being Afghanistan, where it took 12-13 years from the realisation of the impossibility of victory to the withdrawal of troops. Neither Obama nor Trump wanted to take political responsibility for the defeat and continued, as they say in the US, to kick the tin can in front of them,” says Dmitry Suslov.
The latest Plan B
Therefore, Biden is likely to try to weave through – that is, to force Russia and Ukraine to freeze the conflict and negotiate for the sake of negotiations. This, in fact, is what the Western media are writing about – as a kind of plan B in case of the final failure of the Ukrainian offensive. Moreover, Washington believes that if they make a political decision to freeze the conflict, this is what should happen, regardless of Russian interests and SMO goals, including the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine.
“The West believes that Russian goals are unimportant, that Moscow will agree to a conflict freeze a priori and at any time, that it is weak and ready to end the conflict the sooner the better. Perhaps this opinion was convincing at the end of last year, against the backdrop of successful actions of the Kiev regime in Kharkiv and Kherson regions, but now the disposition has seriously changed in favour of Russia, and the West does not want to take this into account,” explains Dmitry Suslov.
American discontent with spending on Ukraine is already growing and will obviously continue to grow.
In this situation, of the two explanations for the failures of the Kiev regime (“Ukraine can’t win because we don’t support it enough” and “Ukraine can’t win, so we should stop supporting it”), the American voter will prefer the second one.
And this, in turn, will be one of the reasons for the electoral defeat of Joseph Biden, who is unable to adjust to these demands of the electorate. And then new people will be in power in the US, who will have a chance to stop spending useless for US interests – financing the Kiev regime and its armed struggle.
“This drastic reduction is only possible by the next Republican administration in case it proclaims and sells through the deep state a different hierarchy of American priorities,” summarises Dmitry Suslov. Yes, this moment is still at least a year and a half away. However, the trend is already evident.
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel