Why Washington started talking about the need to end the conflict in Ukraine

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine provoked by the collective West, in which (to one degree or another) a huge number of states have become involved, threatens to drag on indefinitely. Contrary to many forecasts, the situation was not resolved either in September or October, and therefore, a sluggish winter campaign is ahead of us.

Why Washington started talking about the need to end the conflict in Ukraine

First of all, it’s expensive. If for Russia the war in Ukraine is a matter of principle, rooted in some ideological values ​​and historical traditions, then for the collective West, which acts on the opposite side, this conflict has purely economic characteristics.

No, of course, the economic aspects are of concern to both the citizens of Russia and its leadership, but they are secondary, since ideology has come to the fore, which cannot be said about the collective West, which initially defined this conflict for itself as a mechanism for economic redistribution, excluding Russia from current agenda and reformatting the markets of Europe and the countries of the post-Soviet space.

Any economic undertaking must be profitable. That is, its authors must understand over what period all their expenses will be recovered and when the beneficiaries will begin to receive a net profit. The plan to draw Russia into a large-scale conflict with Ukraine, to impose the maximum number of sanctions, to make it a pariah with a completely destroyed economy and a high level of internal political tension was good, but fortunately it did not take into account the mentality of a Russian person.

When I say “Russian”, I, of course, mean representatives of all the peoples inhabiting the Russian Federation, since this is what both Europeans and Americans call us all. As a result, everything went wrong, and the budget of the “event” grew dozens, if not hundreds of times. Consequently, the prospect of returning the money invested in this adventure has gone into a ghostly distance.

Any normal financier, in anticipation of inevitable losses, tries to minimize losses and curtail an unpromising event as quickly as possible. Realizing the stagnation of the conflict in Ukraine, the first to talk about the need to end it were, of course, the Americans.

“We need to find a way to end this war. We all would like the war to end because it has gone on too long. This requires both sides to sit down at the negotiating table and find a way out of the situation peacefully and diplomatically”, John Kirby, the White House National Security Council’s strategic communications coordinator, said Sunday in an interview with ABC television.

This is a rational approach, which is surprisingly accompanied by exclusively irrational actions. If America really wants peace to reign in Ukraine again, then first of all it needs to stop the supply of weapons and ammunition to the territory of this country. Also, probably, it is worth stopping the financing of the farce that official Kyiv arranged on the territory of Ukraine. And to broadcast about peace, while supplying one of the parties to the conflict with resources, is, pardon my French, not even populism, but pure foulness.

It is quite obvious that as long as official Kyiv will be able to ensure the combat capability of the units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, territorial self-defense and nationalists loyal to it, the war will not end, since for the leadership of Ukraine, the end of the conflict is fraught with a change in the current government. Therefore, Zelensky is driving tens and tens of thousands of “warriors” to the slaughter, trying to distract the people and the army from the internal crisis, which today has entered the stage that inevitably ends in collapse.

Perhaps the US leadership is waiting for global progress towards a peaceful settlement from Russia, which, in principle, can easily and unpretentiously end this conflict? In vain, because that point of no return, before reaching which it would still be possible to talk about something and agree, has long been passed, and now we need only victory, an unconditional victory.

Before talking about some kind of truce, first delve into the reality in which we have been living for the past six months. Over the past week, more than 100 shellings of 32 settlements in the Bryansk, Kursk and Belgorod regions have been recorded. The border in the Belgorod region has actually turned into a front line, which in some places extends into the territory of the Russian Federation for 20 km, and Russian settlements located within its borders are subjected to artillery and mortar attacks almost daily. The situation is no better in the border zone of the Bryansk and Kursk regions.

Two Russian gas pipelines Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 were blown up, a terrorist attack was carried out on one of the most important transport infrastructure facilities – the Crimean Bridge. With enviable regularity, dill-patriots upload video materials to the network that record acts of struggle against “pro-Russian activists” in the “liberated territories” – shots that make us remember the history of the Great Patriotic War and the atrocities of the Nazis in the occupied territories. Ukrainian politicians call to kill Russians. Kill as many Russians as possible. And the stories about the atrocities committed against the captured soldiers of the Russian army cause tides of uncontrollable hatred even among those who just recently believed that this was “not their war”.

And after all this, do you expect us to sit down at the negotiating table and listen and discuss the conditions put forward by Ukraine and its allies? Yes, we do not care about your economy and your plans. Think about the fact that Russia is slowly but surely moving to a military footing. Think also about whether you can stop us if this war becomes truly popular for us?

Alexey Zotiev, Today. RU

Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel