February 4, 2023

Almost a year has passed since the latest Russian aggression against Ukraine.  Counting aggressions in 1917–1918 and 2014, it would be the Third Russo-Ukrainian war.  From the outset, it was an unusual conflict.  For example, this war, even if it is waged on land, resembles a war on the high seas.  On the battlefield, everything is observable during the day and visible at night via infrared optical systems.  There is nowhere to hide from drones and satellites.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); }

However, the fundamental feature of the war is that nobody was ready for war — not Russia, Ukraine, or their allies.  By the day of the invasion, the Russian army was embezzled, the Ukrainian army was disassembled and had not reassembled, and NATO armies were depleted.   

With artillery, for detail, the American industry currently produces about fifteen thousand 155-mm howitzer shells per month; typically, Ukraine uses five thousand shells daily.  Thus, Ukraine uses a month’s worth of American shell production in three days.  That is not sustainable.  Overall, the present war demonstrated widespread ammunition shortages, exacerbated by the mostly peaceful post-WWII decades.

From the White House perspective, the war in Ukraine is out of control.  The working hypothesis is that President Biden, in a Chamberlain-like move, had committed to giving about one fifth of Ukraine to Putin.  According to the AP, the U.S. planned to “press Ukraine to formally cede a measure of autonomy within its eastern Donbas region, which is now under de facto control by Russia-backed separatists.”  Most likely, the deal was made during Biden’s and Putin’s meeting in Geneva in July 2021.  After that meeting, CIA director Burns visited Moscow at least four times.  One of his “achievements” was the unprecedented Russian military buildup on the border with Ukraine, dubbed “military exercises.”

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); }

It appears that the Putin-Biden pact limits Russia’s appetite to the Donbas and Crimea only.  Recall the logically unexplained withdrawal of Russian forces from Kyiv.  Also consider the collapse of the Russian frontline in the Kharkiv region in the north of Ukraine and the Kherson sector in the south.  All things considered, these embarrassing events for Putin could easily be explained as necessary steps to comply with his side of an arrangement with Biden.

But surely Biden will soon realize that this is the same disastrous gentlemen’s agreement as with the Taliban.  (Note that the Afghanistan fiasco was happening practically in parallel with the Kremlin negotiations.)  He must have felt double-crossed, for instance, when Putin attacked areas of Ukraine (like the capital city of Kyiv) that were not part of the Putin-Biden deal. 

Russian propaganda dubbed the inglorious Russian withdrawal from Kyiv a “goodwill gesture.”  As such, it was ridiculed by mass-media punditry, which grossly misinterpreted it.  It was, in fact, a “goodwill gesture,” but not regarding Ukraine’s territorial integrity.  Instead, it was a “goodwill gesture” to affirm the Putin-Biden deal to partition Ukraine.

So, in February 2022, Putin violated the agreement, Biden went ballistic, and the dollar waterfall into the Ukrainian Treasury commenced.  The money and armaments will pour into Ukraine from the United States Treasury until Putin withdraws back to February 24, 2022 borders, or American funds run out — whichever comes first.

To facilitate monetary support for Ukraine, Biden reactivated a money-laundering conveyor that had lain comatose since President Trump’s time.  The original laundering mechanism operated like this: the cash flood from American taxpayers was returned (after the Ukrainians got their cut) to American soil — into the coffers of the DNC in the form of “foreign investments” and “donations.”  Next, of course, the “big guy” got his cut from these “investments” and “donations,” too.   

That scheme of financing Democrats using American voters’ funds was operational during the previous Ukrainian cabinet.  Then, after the Ukrainian elections in 2019, two months into Zelensky’s presidency, President Trump gently expressed the desire to shut the conveyor down.  Democrats considered that, quite correctly, an existential threat.  So Trump got his first impeachment.