Blow to Zaluzhnyi. Why does US return to Nord Stream topic?

Another yacht, another unknown Ukrainian perpetrators. One might not react to another publication in the once-respected American publication The Washington Post, because the technical absurdity of the version with a yacht loaded with explosives and a group of daring divers on board has long been proven. It has also been proven that the relevant special forces of the Russian Baltic Fleet are behind it. Even the Russians themselves among the opposition (V. Milov) have shown this.

But the hackneyed version keeps popping up on the pages of the American publication. Now the 'Ukrainian trace' has a clear indication of the head of the sabotage operation - the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi.

The quintessence of this is not really the sabotage on the 'streams' itself, but this:

• All those involved in the operation reported directly to General Valerii Zaluzhnyi... so that President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy would not know about the operation;

• The Ukrainians planned to attack the pipeline immediately after a major allied naval exercise known as BALTOPS, which took place from June 5 to 17, 2022;

• Biden administration officials now privately acknowledge that there is no evidence that conclusively points to Moscow's involvement.

We can say that the Washington Post has worked out the Russian agendas:

• to deepen the distrust between the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, saying that Zaluzhnyi is engaged in disastrous amateurism, ignoring Zelenskyy as president, head of the National Security and Defense Council, and Supreme Commander-in-Chief;

• to increase distrust between Ukraine and NATO, as well as between Ukraine and Germany as an important European member of the Alliance and the EU - they say that the Ukrainians wanted to disguise their sabotage by creating a false NATO trail that would have been noticed by Russia, which would have led to an escalation in Russia-NATO relations, which the Alliance and the United States, as a leading member state, are trying to avoid at all costs;

• to give another 'confirmation', albeit from an unnamed but 'authoritative source' in the intelligence of a European country through an 'authoritative publication', that the Russians were not involved in the gas pipeline bombing.

I want to note that the Washington Post article appeared on June 6, the same day that Russia blew up the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant and committed an act of ecocide against Ukraine. What was the main message from Moscow about the hydroelectric power plant? The Ukrainian Armed Forces fired during the counteroffensive, which caused the destruction of the hydroelectric power plant. What was the reaction of the leading Western media - not everything is so clear, at a time when the picture looks more than clear. It seems that, as if by magic, the Western media chorus has taken a 'position of ambiguity.' And not only in the issue of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant explosion. We can see the same thing in the case of the Nord Stream pipeline.

“The Washington backroom decided to play the 'victory in an unwinnable war' scenario - to play 'end the war' by persuading the parties to negotiate, which should be a victory for the current administration, whose efforts, unlike those of a number of different mediators (China, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Africa, and the Vatican), have been successful.”

What is behind this? In my opinion, the Washington backstage decided to play the 'winning an unwinnable war' scenario - to play 'end the war' by persuading the parties to negotiate, which should be a victory for the current administration, whose efforts, unlike those of a number of different mediators (China, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Africa, and the Vatican), have been successful.

And here it is worth mentioning that the day before, on June 5, an article by Samuel Charap, the unofficial mouthpiece of Sullivan's Beltway group (I'll call it the 'peace hawks'), was published under the characteristic headline “Unwinnable War. Washington needs a finale in Ukraine.” This character, known as an admirer of Putin's Valdai gathering and a loyalist of Sullivan, acts according to the algorithm of a typical Kremlin agent of influence. It is worth recalling his 2019 forecast: Putin is not doing well, but this does not mean that he will start a war, they say, we need to negotiate with him.

And now he has been dragged out to talk about negotiations again. Main points of the article:

• It is time for the United States to develop a vision of how the war will end;

• They may begin attempts to bring the war to a negotiated conclusion in the coming months;

• The protracted conflict retains the risk of possible escalation, whether it is Russia's use of nuclear weapons or a Russian-NATO war;

• Since negotiations will be necessary, but a settlement is out of the question, a ceasefire agreement is the most likely outcome;

• Historically, fighting and talking at the same time was a common practice in wars;

• The priority [for the United States] should remain avoiding war with Russia.

For a 'negotiation plan' to succeed, the parties need to be persuaded to negotiate. In the case of Russia, this is an exercise in futility, as Moscow is not going to negotiate. Especially seeing the position of weakness of the United States, because Russia is at war with the United States and NATO in Ukraine! Ukraine will not negotiate either, but Kyiv has leverage. Of course, following Orban's 'recipe' to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine would be like following Xi's 'recipe,' which they cannot afford on the banks of the Potomac. That is why they act covertly, trying to solve the 'personnel issue' - to speed up the removal of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, who does not suit Jake Sullivan's group. Zaluzhnyi constantly wants more weapons, a wider range of weapons, including strike weapons, long-range weapons, attacks Russian territory, does not share secrets, and most importantly, is focused on Ukraine's victory, not on negotiations and freezing the current status quo. He is clearly in the way of the Sullivan peace hawks in Washington.

“That is why they act covertly, trying to solve the 'personnel issue' - to speed up the removal of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, who does not suit Jake Sullivan's group. Zaluzhnyi constantly wants more weapons, a wider range of weapons, including strike weapons, long-range weapons, attacks Russian territory, does not share secrets, and most importantly, is focused on Ukraine's victory, not on negotiations and freezing the current status quo. He is clearly in the way of the Sullivan peace hawks in Washington.”

Therefore, they opened a kind of 'friendly fire' at him from an ambush in order to create additional pressure, and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief ultimately made the 'right decision.' And the plot is a suitable one at hand, since it is still not known who the author of the sabotage on Putin's streams is. Why not insert Zaluzhnyi into this 'Ukrainian trace' to further discredit and demonize him, to make him toxic for contacts? Especially in the event of difficulties with the Armed Forces' counteroffensive operations.

Moreover, the removal of Zaluzhnyi is said to be in line with the desire of the Ukrainian President's Office, which has 'peacekeepers' (among Russian agents). And this is at a time when the US Congress is considering a draft bipartisan resolution in support of Ukraine's victory (H.Res. 322), introduced on April 25. That is, the 'peace hawks' are in a hurry before Congress creates a restrictive framework for the White House, or rather, for Sullivan's group.

“This is a completely failed bet for the current US administration on 'negotiations and conciliation' (of course, they don't think so). The reason for the failure is obvious: all such actions by the United States are perceived in the Kremlin as signs of weakness and an invitation to further escalation.”

This is a completely failed bet for the current US administration on 'negotiations and conciliation' (of course, they don't think so). The reason for the failure is obvious: all such actions by the United States are perceived in the Kremlin as signs of weakness and an invitation to further escalation. Perhaps Jake Sullivan really believes in the power of negotiation at any time, with anyone, at any cost, but he clearly does not take into account the fact that negotiating with someone who has come to kill is a futile exercise. It is worth recalling a characteristic episode from Die Hard when one of the characters, an unsurpassed master negotiator, as he considered himself, went to negotiate with the terrorist leader and after a short negotiation process, was shot in the forehead.

And in order to persuade the Russians to negotiate, the Kremlin is being sent messages that not everything is so clear with the blowing up of the streams and the hydroelectric dam, and we have not officially seen Russian cruise missiles over NATO territory - neither those that flew over Romania nor the one that flew almost across Poland, and we have forgiven you for the reconnaissance drone that was destroyed over the Black Sea. And as you can see, although your money has been frozen, we are not transferring it to the Ukrainians, and we are limiting their weapons, delaying supplies in every way possible, Russia has not been recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism, the price ceiling on oil has not been lowered, Rosatom is not affected by sanctions, and we are negotiating with you. Check it out, they say.

The effect of this American approach in Europe is exactly the opposite of what was expected. By promoting transatlantic unity, in fact, thanks to the efforts of the Sullivan group, the US administration is destroying it. Likewise, not least due to Sullivan's efforts, the US relations with its longtime partners in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia and the UAE - have been completely destroyed, and they are de facto listening to Beijing and Moscow more than to Washington. And now we are witnessing a split in NATO's ranks because of the US's delay in inviting Ukraine to join the Alliance at the Vilnius summit. But this is another topic.

Source

About the author. Mykhailo Honchar, expert on international energy and security relations.

The editors don't always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.