A tub of cold water poured onto Ukraine by U.S.

The first visit to Kiev of the new head of the US State Department turned out to be very dubious not only for Ukraine, but also for all other American satellites in Eastern Europe.

A tub of cold water poured onto Ukraine by U.S.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken demonstrated Washington’s new tactic: maximizing profits from his charges while minimizing their maintenance costs. Ukraine, the Baltics and other “tobacco” will have to continue to “contain” Russia, not hoping for American help in return.

If we discard the verbal husk of the American emissary about unswerving support for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, then Kiev received practically nothing from the visit of the US Secretary of State.

All the diplomatic tasks that the Ukrainian leadership thought to accomplish with the help of Blinken’s visit remained unfulfilled.

First, the distinguished guest did not say a word about America’s readiness to come to Ukraine’s aid in the event of a war with Russia. The whole topic of fundamental support for Independent in the fight against “Russian aggression” was reduced to the statement of the Secretary of State that the United States “will study the issue” of supplying additional weapons to the Ukrainian army.

Before the meeting, the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry inadvertently let slip that he would ask his American counterpart for these supplies. That is, the words of the head of the State Department actually mean: yes, let’s study the issue, get rid of it!

Secondly, there was no particular emotion about the “correct side of history” chosen by Kiev. The US Secretary of State was not in the least impressed by the Ukrainian path of reforms, but more and more criticized.

According to Blinken, Ukraine now faces two challenges: external and internal. External, of course, Russia. But there is also “a threat from within – this is corruption, oligarchs and other persons who put their interests above the interests of the Ukrainian people”.

The question is, why say this during a trip that was presented as an act of support for Ukraine, which for two months shouted that Russia had concentrated troops on the border and was about to attack? Very simple. To disengage from obligations.

If you both stole under Yanukovych and still steal, and at the same time cannot show a “success story” after 7 years of  “European choice”, then you have no special moral right to present something and demand from the United States. First, learn to listen to what they tell you and do exactly what our embassy tells you to do. And then you fired the head of Naftogaz. Did the United States allow you?

Third, no promises were made to make Ukraine a NATO member. Even worse, the old-new curator of Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, who flew to Kiev with her boss, according to one of the participants in the meeting with the Americans in the Verkhovna Rada, ordered not to “pedal” the topic of the country’s entry into NATO.

“A response signal from Nuland – do not pedal the topic on NATO, engage in reforms, the sign will not give you anything”, – a participant in the meeting told reporters.

Signboard?! That is, for State Department officials, the country’s membership in NATO is just the prestigious status of Washington’s formal allies, and not the fact that the United States is obliged to side with an ally in the war against the aggressor in accordance with Article 5 of the NATO Charter.

They are not obliged to and will not perform. “The sign will give you nothing”.

Such a formulation of the question is a tub of cold water not only for Ukraine, but also for countries that are already members of NATO and radiate confidence that the United States, fulfilling its formal obligations, will fight a nuclear superpower for them.

In practice, the US task is to minimize its costs of supporting these countries. Profits from their policies should be maximized, and their support reduced to ritual incantations of solidarity.

Let Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries continue to contribute to the “containment” of Russia. The Americans will continue to use the regimes they control on the border with Russia as a bargaining chip in the big geopolitical game with Moscow, but this does not mean that the anti-Russian regimes themselves will get something from participating in someone else’s game. Such a relationship cannot be called not only an alliance, but even a vassal dependence. The lord also has obligations towards the vassal.

The approach that Washington has shown in relation to satellites in Eastern Europe is called cabal. You will do what we need, and you will receive nothing in return except rhetorical exclamations “America is back” and “Putin is the killer”. If you ask: where is the more substantial support, then we will have counter questions for you. If you decide to pursue your own policy, you will be quickly reminded of who you work for.

The Baltic countries, Romania, Ukraine and others, of course, dreamed of something different when they sold their sovereignty to the United States. It is no coincidence that East European politicians have been recalling the Marshall Plan for decades, in a timely manner.

“Ukraine needs a Marshall plan,” “Europe needs a Marshall plan to overcome the crisis after the pandemic,” and so on.

For America’s satellites, the Marshall Plan is a symbol of the fabulous enrichment that US subjugation can bring. It has already given to Western Europe after World War II, and now it can give to Eastern Europe as well.

It just doesn’t. Already 30 years have passed, and the tropical rain of dollars has not spilled over “New Europe”. NATO in this sense is the same Marshall Plan, only in the sphere of not economics, but security. You can provoke Russia to the war, but others will fight for you, and the provocateur will only have to taste the fruits of victory.

The reality is that the provocateur will be destroyed first of all, and no one will fight for him. Because the suicide of the wards on the altar of “containment” of Russia is in the interests of the United States, but to fight or to avenge them is already an unaffordable cost.

Alexander Nosovich, Rubaltic.Ru

Comments:

comments powered by HyperComments