It's Getting More Apparent That The US Wants Out Of Ukraine

Or at least those elements of this Zhou regime with some lingering contact with reality want out. Are scrambling for some face saving exit strategy.

I want to recommend a number of videos and podcasts.

The first video would Douglas Macgregor: Russia is ready for a much larger conflict than Ukraine. Macgregor has a lot to say on a variety of war related topics, but I would like to point to one important thing that he discusses that has been on my mind in recent days. While many have been predicting a massive Russian offensive—which still may happen—what Russia appears to be doing is this. Launching limited offensives to which Ukraine is compelled to respond, which cause Ukraine to commit forces that are then tied down and pounded with artillery. Simply an expansion of the war of attrition that we’ve been watching at Bakhmut.

MoA, in a related post, discusses the question of casualties as well as bigger picture issues. U.S.-Russia Talks, Bakhmut Retreat, Laughable Casualty Numbers.

However, the main video I want to recommend is about a half hour long—the two Alexes:

This is a fascinating discussion. I’ve taken notes, which I’ll present below. The topics discussed go far beyond what the title suggests and include—US peace feelers, crumbling of the tank deals, the ongoing US purge of the Ukro-Nazi regime, and the difficulty the Neocon Zhou regime is experiencing in getting any traction with an ascendant Russia. Here are the notes:

There are more and more articles appearing in the MSM [some of which we've discussed] talking in guarded terms of the reality that Ukraine is losing. The articles are couched in talk about Ukraine being unable to recapture Crimea. But the subtext for all to read is ... Russia clearly has the upper hand. At a minimum.

These articles are appearing not only in the US media but also in the UK media, German media, Swiss media--it's a narrative shift.

Most remarkably, again in guarded terms, a timeline is being set--Russian victory of one sort or another by summer. These predictions obviously derive from official leaks.

Ukraine continues to allow Russia to wage a war of attrition, much to Russia's advantage--despite repeated Western calls on Ukraine to pull back.

All this is happening without Russia committing anything close to the majority of its mobilized forces.

More articles are also admitting that tanks without air cover simply is a losing proposition—and no Western country is willing to commit its own planes. As a result, the West, having been snookered by the Neocons, is pulling back from the tank nonsense. For example, Germany is now talking about Leopard 1 tanks rather than Leopard 2s. Leopard 1s are 50s designs, tanks with thin armor--little more than APC's with a tank gun—thatw will be death traps in Ukraine. Putin’s clear expressions of displeasure may also have been a wakeup call.

More purging is going on in Ukraine, including Zelensky's ‘godfather’, Ihor Kholomoysky.

A major Swiss publication claims the CIA's Burns offered Russia '20% of Ukraine' for peace. Russia turned it down. That may not be totally accurate, but it sounds like a trial balloon. The US denials weren't categorical, 'not accurate' was the denial, so that means something is going on. It looks like the US is putting out feelers for a face saving exit strategy, and it’s clearly looking like something that’s easier said than done.

The Europeans are losing all sense of reality, while at least some Americans are getting a bit of a clue as US military resources are being depleted.

Mike Rogers, head of the House Armed Services Committee, says the war needs to "end this summer". Yet he publicly still clings to the delusion that US can somehow rapidly resupply Kyiv for a Spring offensive and force Russia to the negotiating table. He says the objective should be to get Zelensky and Putin into negotiations--knowing full well that Putin isn't going to sit down with a cretin like Zelensky--especially when Putin holds all the cards.

The US is the party pushing the purge in Kiev, the goal being to isolate Zelensky for now. This is almost certainly what the CIA’s Burns' trip to Kiev was about. The bigger goal, possibly by removing Zelensky at a later date, is to open up the politics in Kiev so that the US can somehow dig itself out of the hole that the Zhou regime's Neocon management have put the US in. Create the possibility of a deal with Russia by signaling to Russia that they can put their guy in Kiev?

Russia is unlikely to be impressed. They don't trust the Neocons and they don't trust Zhou personally, whom they consider to be a liar. Antonov, the Russian Ambassador in DC, has said, in general, that any deals with the US must not only be 'firm' but 'reinforced concrete firm'. Don't trust, and verification must be ironclad. The problem is, How does the US convincingly offer such guarantees?

The Russians won't take any of this seriously until the US government cleans house of the Neocons.

My question: Is the US Deep State aware of these dynamics? Is this what's behind the slow rolling effort to remove Zhou? The realization that there can be no exit strategy with any semblance of face saving as long as the Zhou regime is in place? Clearly there’s a lot going on behind the scenes.

Finally, the latest Luongo - Krainer podcast is provocative. I recommend the twenty minutes from about 25:00 to 45:00. Luongo asks the question that’s on a lot of people’s minds: Who is actually running the government, the executive branch? His bet is on Janet Yellen. The two also talk about the impossible situation the Neocon regime has place America, putting it at war with the world. Do they really think the US can wage war against Russia, China, India, and Iran—among others—simultaneously? On that score, Luongo has some interesting remarks on offer regarding China’s Zero Covid gambit as support for Russia by crippling world trade for a time. The world economic order is shifting rapidly, and the Neocons are clinging to a past that has no future. Luongo also states that his views on Davos v. The Fed are now more ‘nuanced’.