- Статьи
- World
- More: the American media is trying to rethink the Ukrainian crisis and the role of the United States in it
More: the American media is trying to rethink the Ukrainian crisis and the role of the United States in it
The New York Times came out with a long article that was devoted to summarizing the results of American involvement in the conflict in Ukraine. Its disappointing results are explained by the discrepancy between the goals of Washington and Kiev and the assessments required to achieve them. Why the largest American media started talking about Bankova's "disobedience" and what kind of information picture they form is told by Izvestia.
Everything turned out as always
The general tone of the article boils down to several theses. The first of them is the key role of NATO and the US military in planning and directing the operations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And although Moscow has stated this many times, The New York Times (NYT) nevertheless calls this fact "one of the most closely guarded secrets of the <conflict> in Ukraine."
The second actively promoted thesis is the correctness of all recommendations from Kiev's American allies, as well as the actions of their representatives. The article specifically mentions former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, NATO Commander in Europe Christopher Cavoli and General Christopher Donahue. Without financial and military support, as well as virtually direct leadership, Ukraine would not have been able to achieve success, which is formulated by the NYT as the ability to "survive for three long years of <conflict>, opposing a much larger and more powerful enemy." Even the failure of the counteroffensive and the fiasco of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Artemovsk is regarded by The New York Times as "a victim of Ukraine's contradictory domestic policy."
The publication blames other mistakes and reputationally ambiguous actions on individual Ukrainian politicians and military leaders. For example, the NYT claims that Zelensky, contrary to the opinion of his allies, insisted on strikes against Russian energy infrastructure and "politically significant facilities," assuring that he would "turn Russian public opinion against Putin."
Anti-wrinkle Medicine
Against the background of constantly conflicting Ukrainian politicians and the military, the NYT contrasts the foresight of the Biden administration, which prevented the conflict from escalating into World War III and managed to make significant progress in the process of "shifting the red lines" of Moscow.
At some point, Washington realized that there was a limit to U.S. involvement in the conflict, says Sergei Mikhailov, a leading RISI expert.
— The Americans were slowly shifting the "red line" designated by Moscow, but it was precisely for this indecision that Biden was severely criticized, including by Ukraine. The risk of a direct clash with Russia forced him to act carefully. And that's exactly what Trump has been saying all along — about the great danger of World War III," the expert recalls.
The publication confirmed the intention outlined by the White House back in February 2022 to turn Ukraine into a "second Afghanistan," that is, into a protracted proxy conflict in the spirit of the Cold War. Washington abandoned the phrase "return to the borders of 1991" last summer, when Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said that Ukraine's ability to "stand on its own two feet militarily, economically and democratically" would be considered a success.
At the same time, in order to continue the resistance, Kiev needs to listen to the American allies and lower the draft age to 18 at once. Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken insisted on this.
However, as the newspaper states, Bankova only demanded more and more military assistance (which was already huge), but at the same time, to Washington's annoyance, she did not want to turn the conflict into a "truly existential one."
Thus, the leading corporate media in the United States offers a choice of two options: war without a goal or peace equal to defeat. The assistance provided to Kiev was extremely effective, but it was not enough. Ukraine has won many victories, but it has run out of soldiers.
As Sergey Mikhailov notes, the NYT material clearly shows the current attitude of some of the American political elites towards the Ukrainian crisis.
— On the one hand, such articles really resemble the translation of the Ukrainian project "into the archive". On the other hand, we note how they emphasize the successes of the Biden administration and the correctness of his chosen strategy. The facts cited by The New York Times were well known both in the West and especially in Russia. Another thing is that the mood in globalist circles is indeed becoming more and more pessimistic, as this article clearly shows," the source points out.
A trap for Trump
However, according to experts, The New York Times is worried not so much about Kiev's defeat as about the US foreign policy failure, for which it blames the current president in advance. It is noteworthy that the failure of Trump's peacekeeping efforts will be interpreted in the same way.
Traditionally, the NYT reflects the approaches of the liberal democratic part of the American establishment, which has recently been under serious pressure from the Trump team. The 47th president is actively engaged in purging the Pentagon's personnel, and in the case of the aforementioned Mark Milli, the case may well end not only with resignation, but also with a tribunal. He is accused of sabotaging the president's orders to withdraw troops from Syria and even contacts with China. In addition, at the end of February, according to Trump, an audit of financial and military assistance to Kiev began in Washington. This, in turn, directly threatens the future of a number of officials of the previous administration.
Under the current conditions, the mainstream media find themselves in a difficult situation of finding the culprits. They are Trump, who stopped the aid, and official Kiev, who failed to properly manage it.
According to Mikhail Alkhimenkov, a leading RISI expert, Trump's situation should not yet be called a trap. He still has room for maneuver.
— The American establishment, which has developed over decades and is often based on bipartisan compromise, is not ready for the complete destruction of "Euro-Atlantic unity." This is very clearly seen in the actions of the Republicans in the Senate. Steps towards Russia in this sense, of course, are not beneficial. At the same time, the Trumpists' main goal — to quickly freeze the conflict and divert resources to other areas — is not being achieved. Everything turned out to be more complicated than Trump imagined. As a result, he is caught between a diplomatic impasse on the one hand and internal pressure on the other," the expert admits.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
