OPINION: The Courage of the White Flag

It seems the Argentinian leftist and proponent of liberation theology, the one who rose through the ranks to become God’s emissary on Earth, has decided to issue a statement on Ukraine, one as candid as it is naive.  The  Pope articulated what many in the global community really wanted  but  hesitated to declare publicly.

Two opposing wings of the American political spectrum don’t really want peace in Ukraine.  What they want is for UKRAINE TO CAPITULATE.  The left-wing progressives and right-wing isolationists are united in their animosity toward traditional NATO-centric US foreign policy.

The leaders of Central Europe, unworthy inheritors of the Hungarian (1956) and Czechoslovak (1968) Revolutions don’t really want peace.  They want UKRAINE TO CAPITULATE.

An ever-growing number of “very good” Russians – Schlosberg, Yashin, Yavliаnsky, Latynina, Shulman, Pastukhov, Sobchak – don’t really want peace. They want UKRAINE TO CAPITULATE.  Some of them seem to be preening for an imagined electorate in some future Russian election that will never take place. Others are simply in a rush to put every one of their deep imperial anti-Ukraine complexes on display.

Let’s take a closer look at the primary arguments from this “peace” mafia, starting with the foundational one:

Ukraine will never return to its 1991 borders or even to the borders that existed on Feb. 24, 2022.  

Other Topics of Interest

Europe Must have a Voice in Peace Talks to end Russia’s War, Says Zelenskyy

Zelensky has said that Europe, not just the US, must have a voice in forming a peace plan to end the war with Russia owing to Ukraine being a member of the European family.

This is true if the US and the West as a whole continue their three-year policy of “judicious” allocation of military aid (in small increments) to a suffering Ukraine, a nation that, all on its own, has been using the bodies of its soldiers to protect the entire f*****g Western world from Rashist aggression.  

But this could happen if we saw a significant increase in allied support, something that is economically feasible and would require a minimum amount of political will.  This support would entail, first and foremost, Ukraine receiving a few hundred state-of-the-art aircraft operated by contractor pilots and crews from the West.  This is exactly how President Macron of France has outlined a path to Victory for Ukraine when speaking to his counterparts in the alliance.  

If we return to the here and now, we can see that a certain in-crowd of global thinkers has convinced itself, after endless repetition of the line that victory for Ukraine (the restoring of its territorial integrity) is no longer possible, that we must put an end to this mindless slaughter and “freeze” the conflict.  As a model to follow, they bring up the “freezing” of the Korean conflict, agreed to in July of 1953 and in effect to this very day.

The task of implementing this “freezing” of the Ukraine conflict will be taken up by a team within the administration of President-elect Donald Trump.  But unlike his predecessor Dwight Eisenhower, who achieved a “freezing” of the war in Korea, thereby securing prosperous growth for South Korea for 70 years, Trump is making two grave (I would even add, treasonous) mistakes.

First of all, Trump does not view the conflict as World War IV, a conflict started by a totalitarian regime against the Free World.  Instead, he sees himself as some sort of neutral mediator, ready to punish both sides depending on their willingness to negotiate.  

And General Eisenhower would certainly not have deigned to discuss security guarantees for South Korea with communist gangsters such as Kim, Mao, or Stalin.  He discussed them with South Korea and South Korea only. He signed a joint defense treaty and left behind a 100,000 strong expeditionary force on its territory.  

Trump’s team, on the other hand, is starting with public assurances to Putin that Ukraine will never receive this or that security guarantee (according to the plan Vance has articulated). This is all music to Putin’s ears, of course, and provides him the opportunity to achieve his one maniacal objective:  the destruction of the Ukrainian state, something he was unable to achieve militarily.  

Putin intends to draw up a plan for Trump’s approval that both “freezes” the conflict in Ukraine and lists conditions that ensure it remains in a state of helplessness (most likely this has already happened using Carlson and Orban as intermediaries).  Trump will then attempt to foist this agreement onto Ukraine by threatening to cease arm shipments.  A serious political crisis will begin to develop in the country.  The war has worn down the Ukrainian people; most are in a state of deep fatigue and are wary of losing the West’s support.  People might begin looking around for a Ukrainian Petain/Kadar/Husak/Jaruzelski.  After all, the talking points for such a figure can be found in many of Arestovich’s editorials.  

It bears mentioning that every one of the historical figures listed above was only a posteriori viewed as a traitor.  They rose to prominence at first as fully competent leaders, sincere in their desire to save the Fatherland.  In order to preserve their nation, however, they were willing to collaborate with a Fascist or Soviet aggressor.  

The last thing I want to do from far-away Washington, DC is to call on every last Ukrainian to join the war.  I am fully aware of how utterly exhausted Ukrainian society is.  What I will do, however, is call on all these budding Petains and Kadars to give it a rest with their ideas and initiatives.  Things may change drastically on the strategic level in the very near future.

Trump will come to the realization rather soon, let’s say the beginning of February, that he is unable to get Putin and Zelensky to agree on the “freezing” of the conflict.  Zelensky is for the freezing of the war but also seeks actual physical security guarantees for the rest of Ukraine.  Putin is also for the freezing of the war but wants Ukraine to remain in a guaranteed state of helplessness.  

Since Trump has promoted his plan for Ukraine so often and with such zeal, he will be forced to find a scapegoat when discussions go south.  He will then mete out a punishment.  The President-elect has never been known for his fondness for Ukraine. Those closest to him (Vance, Musk, Carlson, Trump, Jr.) are outright Ukrainophobes.  

But Trump also has only the slimmest of majorities in both chambers of Congress; he cannot simply ignore the Reaganesque, pro-Ukraine wing of the Republican party (McCaul, Rogers, Turner, Haley, Pompeo), especially when their position is so well-articulated:

“We cannot afford to lose this fight.  Ukrainians are fighting for our national interests and we are betraying them.”

In a month or so we will know the results of ongoing discussions on this subject within the Republican party.  European heads of state are not keen to sit back and wait out these talks, however.  If Washington decides to betray Ukraine, it’s these European countries that will be threatened with extinction.  And, yes, the West is fully capable of betraying those who put their trust in it and its ideals.  There are tons of examples. But Europeans have been yearning for a European Army for decades; they won’t commit collective suicide at such a critical moment in their history by refusing to provide tangible combat support when just such an army miraculously appears and proceeds to defend them from the Rashist Horde for three years now, all on its own.   

Or does one have to be Asiatic, like Erdogan or Aliyev, to properly stand up to a rat that has crawled out of the sewers of St. Petersburg?

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.