Zaluzhny Talking Peace With Russia Behind Zelensky and Biden’s Backs: Sy Hersh
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 01.12.2023
President Zelensky admitted this week that Ukraine’s counteroffensive failed to “achieve the desired results” and that Kiev is now in “a new phase” of the conflict with Russia. Meanwhile, Valery Zaluzhny, the general who enraged Zelensky by calling the crisis a “stalemate,” was absent from a Thursday meeting between the president and his generals.
Russia and Ukraine’s top generals have been holding secret discussions aimed at putting the Ukrainian crisis to bed, with Ukraine’s president, and the Biden administration, left out. That’s according to a new report by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh citing informed US sources.
The negotiations, said to be spearheaded by Russian Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov and Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny, still have “a lot of questions” left to be ironed out, one source, a US businessman with years of experience dealing with high-level Ukrainian diplomatic and military issues in the government, told Hersh. These include what to do about war criminals, matters of citizenship, ordnance disposal, and cross border economics, as well wrangling to assure “peace with honor,” according to a second source.
Russian officials have made no official statements on the matter, and Sputnik could not independently confirm the veracity of this information at the time of writing. Moscow has repeatedly said throughout the crisis that Ukrainian membership in NATO would constitute crossing its security “red lines.”
Hersh’s sources also told him that Zaluzhny’s bombshell interview in a British business magazine last month in which he admitted that Ukraine’s counteroffensive had reached a “stalemate” and that there would be no “deep and beautiful breakthrough” was “arranged” after Zaluzhny and Gerasimov had spoken several times.
The interview and accompanying op-ed written by Zaluzhny were “carefully orchestrated” by the Ukrainian commander to send a message to the Ukrainian government and the “madman who staked his life upon winning politically and militarily” at the helm that “the war is over and we want out,” according to a US official Hersh says was involved in the early stages of the general-to-general discussions.
“So the message that was sent to Zelensky is that we are going to have talks with the Russians with or without you and they are going to be military-to-military. Your neighbors are fed up with you, especially Poland and Hungary, and they want their Ukrainian refugees to go back to a peaceful country,” the official said. The state of Ukraine’s collapsed economy and the question of “how do you operate a country with no GNP?” was also driven home, the source added.
The US president and his foreign policy team have been left out of the talks, and “the White House is totally against the proposed agreement,” according to the US official who spoke to Hersh. “But it will happen. Putin has not disagreed,” the source said.
Zelensky has reportedly been told that “this is a military-to-military problem to solve and the talks will go on with or without you,” if need be. “We can finance his voyage to the Caribbean,” the official added.
Zelensky-Zaluzhny Spat
Hersh’s story comes after a month of escalating tensions between Zaluzhny and Zelensky after the publication of Zaluzhny’s interview and article in Western media on November 1, with Ukraine’s president first adamantly insisting that the conflict with Russia was “not a stalemate,” and emphasizing emphatically to US media that he would never negotiate with Moscow and Russian President Vladimir Putin under any circumstances.
The behind-the-scenes battle has come to include sackings of Zaluzhny allies, the mysterious bombing death attack of one of his aides, and a poisoning attack against Marianna Budanova, the wife of the Ukrainian military’s Main Intelligence Directorate chief.
On Thursday, Zelensky appeared to change his tune regarding the fate of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, saying it “did not achieve the desired results” as quickly as expected, that Kiev will be shifting to “a new phase of war” as winter sets in, and mobilize resources to build fortifications in Zaporozhye, Ukrainian-occupied areas of Donetsk, Kherson, Kharkov, Sumy, Chernigov, Kiev, Rovno and Volyn.
Meanwhile, Commander Zaluzhny was conspicuously absent from a meeting between Zelensky and his generals during a visit to a command post in Kharkov region.
One factor that the Hersh story did not account for is Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem. Veteran international relations expert Gilbert Doctorow told Sputnik this week that notwithstanding the political rivalries or conflicts in Kiev, they are just “a tempest in a teapot” given the power of the neo-Nazi street thug “grey cardinals” mobilized during the 2014 coup, who can and will do everything in their power to block any peace deal.
Canada pushing unwinnable war harms Ukrainians
By Yves Engler | December 1, 2023
The Liberals and elements of the dominant media are criticizing the Conservatives for their insufficient commitment to Ukraine. But it’s those who have promoted the NATO proxy war that have damaged the country.
The prime minister and Liberal ministers have denounced the Conservatives for not voting for the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal. They are seeking to paint Pierre Poilievre as not serious or influenced by Donald Trump, which may be true. Trudeau stated, “the real story is the rise of a right-wing, American MAGA-influenced thinking that has made Canadian Conservatives — who used to be among the strongest defenders of Ukraine, I’ll admit it — turn their backs on something Ukraine needs in its hour of need.”
The Conservatives countered days of criticism by seeking to amend a foreign affairs committee report on Ukraine to add a call for Canada to send more arms.
Irrespective of the merits of the trade deal, the notion that NATO proxy warriors are ‘supporting’ Ukraine simply doesn’t hold up. With Washington, Ottawa has pushed a client state to fight a horrific and ever more obviously unwinnable war, as a series of recent revelations underscore.
As Reuters reports the Ukrainian military is having increasing difficulty finding fighters with many seeking increasingly elaborate ways of bypassing conscription. As a result, they’ve largely run out of new men, which is forcing troops to stay at the front for longer periods. Morale is collapsing.
As recently confirmed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Ukraine-Russia peace talks this could have been avoided if the US and UK hadn’t scuttled a deal in the spring of 2022. David Arakhamia, who is now parliamentary leader of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party, said Russia was prepared to end the war if Ukraine agreed to neutrality, but UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Zelensky not to sign the peace deal. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Vladimir Putin and others have echoed this account of the initial peace negotiations.
Arakhamia’s revelations confirm that Ukraine is a Western client state. Last week marked the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the Maidan protests that greatly exacerbated Ukraine’s subordination to the West. An elected, if corrupt, president that drew support largely from the Russian speaking east and south of the ‘cleft country’ was deposed in a violent foreign-promoted insurrection. Recent revelations from the trial of the Maidan Massacre confirm that far right forces shot Maidan protesters. University of Ottawa professor Ivan Katchanovski noted, “Maidan massacre trial verdict confirms that Maidan snipers massacred many Maidan protesters and police and shot at ARD and BBC TV journalists.” The massacre led to the ouster of elected president Viktor Yanukovych.
Canada played a significant part in stoking opposition to Yanukovych who promoted Ukrainian neutrality. Immediately after he won an election, which Canadian observers found to be fair, Ottawa began to undermine him. Canadian officials’ criticism of Yanukovych grew and early in the three-month Maidan protest movement, foreign minister John Baird visited Maidan square with Ukrainian Canadian Congress head Paul Grod to support the demonstrators. At the height of the protests opposition forces, including the far-right C14, used the Canadian Embassy in Kyiv, which was immediately adjacent to Maidan square, as a staging ground for a week in their bid to topple Yanukovych. After Yanukovych was ousted, Baird immediately “welcomed the appointment of a new government”, saying, “the appointment of a legitimate government is a vital step forward in restoring democracy and normalcy to Ukraine.” But the country’s constitutional provisions dealing with impeachment or replacing a president were flagrantly violated.
The coup spurred right-wing violence, Russia’s intervention in Crimea and a war that left 14,000 dead in the east. The smoldering conflict contributed to Russia’s February 2022 invasion, which contravenes international law but was provoked by NATO’s efforts to turn Ukraine into a Western bulwark on Russia’s border.
Ten days ago, defence minister Bill Blair declared that Canada would support Ukraine “for as long as it takes, with whatever it takes.” Last week Ottawa announced another $60 million in arms, including over 10,000 assault guns and 9 million rounds of ammunition, for Ukraine.
Even if NATO maintains the political support for continuing to pump in weapons, there’s little chance Ukraine will regain most of the territory it has lost. There’s a greater chance it will lose more territory.
The country would have been far better off to accept the deal offered a month into the invasion (or adhere to the Minsk II agreement prior to the invasion). But the Anglosphere prioritized weakening Russia so they bolstered ultra-nationalist Ukrainian forces wanting to fight. Tens of thousands of dead later Ukraine has little prospect of garnering the deal that was previously on offer. It is also far more dependent on outside forces.
For Ukrainians the situation is a disaster. As an Economist headline recently admitted. “Putin seems to be winning the war in Ukraine—for now”.
Kiev’s counteroffensive casualties top 125,000 – Moscow
RT | December 1, 2023
In the six months since Kiev launched its push against Russian defensive lines, it has lost over 125,000 troops and 16,000 heavy weapons, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu estimated during a ministerial meeting on Friday.
The Ukrainian government and its Western backers had high expectations for the operation, for which the former’s army was provided with main battle tanks and other advanced arms. Ukrainian officials predicted that the push would help their country reclaim territory lost since major hostilities started in February 2022, and potentially launch an incursion into Crimea, which had broken away from Kiev in the wake of the 2014 armed coup.
“Total mobilization in Ukraine, delivery of Western arms and deployment of strategic reserves by the Ukrainian command have not changed the situation on the battlefield,” the Russian minister reported. “Those desperate actions simply increased the losses of the Ukrainian armed forces.”
As such, Kiev’s military has been “significantly degraded” while Russian forces are “taking a more advantageous position and widening the zone under their control on all fronts,” Shoigu added.
Last week, Shoigu put Ukrainian casualties in November at 13,700, which pushed the Russian estimate of total Ukrainien losses in the counteroffensive over the 100,000 benchmark.
The most senior Ukrainian general, Valery Zaluzhny, reported in early November that the frontline situation had devolved into a “stalemate” and that Kiev’s side was unlikely to achieve a breakthrough unless some surprise technological development gave it a decisive edge over Moscow. His assessment has been rejected by officials, with President Vladimir Zelensky maintaining that Ukrainians are still making progress.
On Friday, the Associated Press published an interview with the Ukrainian leader, in which he said, “Look, we are not backing down, I am satisfied.” He blamed a shortage of Western weapons for the underwhelming results of the Ukrainian operation and declared that a “new phase” in the hostilities was beginning this winter.
Open Defiance
By William Schryver | imetatronink | November 30, 2023
In my view, the single most meaningful consequence of the NATO/Ukraine proxy war against Russia is that most of the major geopolitical players outside the imperial realm are suddenly in open defiance of the capricious “rules-based international order” and its rapacious monetary system.
The catalyst for this rebellion was that Vladimir Putin’s Russia stood alone amongst the kings, princes, presidents, and prime ministers of a trembling world, turned to the masters of empire, and said, “Not an inch further. In fact, you must withdraw to your 1997 status, and take all your armaments with you, beginning with your missiles in Poland and Romania.”
The masters of empire laughed him to scorn, and then encouraged their #MotherOfAllProxyArmies in Ukraine to concentrate to the Donbass and the Azov pursuant to conquering Novorossiya and Crimea once and for all … then on to Moscow.
This war was anything but “unprovoked Russian aggression”. This war was spawned and nurtured for decades in the secret chambers of the imperial dark lords in London and Washington. It was a war the empire knew Russia would fight. The imperial suzerains simply deceived themselves into believing it was a war Russia could not win.
As was imperative, Russia did choose to fight — notwithstanding there were many reasons to suppose they were insufficiently prepared to win in the event the full weight of the NATO countries were thrown against them.
As it has turned out (and contrary to the fantastical western narratives of Russian humiliation and massive losses), the Russians have prosecuted a remarkably economical destruction of not one, but three successive iterations of increasingly NATO-armed and NATO-trained armies.
And they have done so while assembling, equipping, and thoroughly training a reserve army twice the size of the one they have used to methodically wreck the armies arrayed against them in Ukraine.
They have achieved the greatest industrial mobilization since the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. Their massive increases in production of the implements of industrial-scale warfare dwarfs the combined capabilities of their adversaries.
They have also quickly adapted to changing battlefield realities, and are innovating and mass-producing new war tools previously seen only as novelties, but now acknowledged as essential.
In short, the Russians are not only winning this war in an impressively decisive fashion, but they will emerge from it as the single most formidable and battle-hardened military force on the planet.
Most significantly, Russia has exposed for all to see that the empire not only has limitations, but that it is vastly weaker and more vulnerable than hardly anyone had previously been willing to believe.
THAT is why so much of the rest of the world is now emboldened to defy imperial edicts.
THAT is the reason new alliances are solidifying between heretofore reluctant friends.
Nothing unites the human playground quite like one intrepid soul willing to stand, fight, and humble the bully.
The tripartite alliance of Russia, China, and Iran is an adversary more than adequate to roll back imperial rule by leaps and bounds, and in a relatively short span of time.
Many of the “middle powers” can also see which way the wind is blowing, and are positioning themselves accordingly. Spheres of influence are being aggressively pursued and secured in every quarter of the earth.
And perhaps most meaningful of all, they are cooperating to progressively repudiate the empire’s debt notes as the coin of the realm. They have come to understand that a prerequisite to “fixing the world” is to return its money system to a much more equitable and sustainable basis.
Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.
The empire of debt and lies has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. All that remains is to see if it will go gently into that good night, or in a fit of humiliated rage, set the world on fire.
NATO Chief Puts Hypocrisy on Full Display
By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | November 29, 2023
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg put NATO’s hypocrisy on display while talking to reporters ahead of the meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels on November 28.
Asked by a reporter about American and European struggles to continue providing Ukraine with weapons and ammunition, Stoltenberg replied, “It’s our obligation to ensure that we provide Ukraine with the weapons they need. Because it will be a tragedy for Ukrainians if President Putin wins.”
The tragedy for Ukrainians has already happened. Their infrastructure and economy are destroyed, their population is dispersed, their relatives are dead or injured and their land is lost. The greater tragedy to come is not the war ending, but the war continuing. In the first weeks of the war, Ukrainians could have kept almost all of their land and lost almost none of their lives for a promise not to join NATO. The political West ordered them to walk away from the negotiating table and onto the battlefield. They promised them—directly or indirectly—as much military and financial support as it takes for as long as it takes. Nearly two years later, Ukraine will likely have to make the same promise, but they have lost that land and they have lost those lives.
Russia brought tragedy to Ukraine; the United States, United Kingdom, and their NATO allies bloated and magnified that tragedy. The tragedy now would not be ending the war even if it means “Putin wins.” The tragedy now is that NATO is willing to continue feeding a war that they know Ukraine can’t win. “When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring,” The Wall Street Journal reported, “Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces.” Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny has said that the war has reached a “stalemate” that over time can only favor Russia.
The tragedy for Ukrainians would not be negotiating an end to the war, it would be NATO exercising the “obligation” to continue the war.
Stoltenberg gave a second reason for continuing to provide Ukraine with the weapons they need; so that Ukrainians can go on dying for NATO goals and NATO security. If the war ends now, “it will be dangerous for us,” Stoltenberg said. The United States “will continue to provide support” to Ukraine “because it is in the security interest of the United States to do so.” NATO must “stay the course” because “[t]his is about also about our security interests.”
Stoltenberg knows this war is not being fought because Russia wanted to conquer other territory; Stoltenberg knows this war is being fought because Russia wanted to defend its territory. This war did not happen because Russia was a threat to NATO territory, it happened because NATO was a threat to Russian territory. How do we know that Stoltenberg knows this? Because he said so.
Putin “sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement,” Stoltenberg said on September 7, 2023. “That… was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine.” He then said that when “we didn’t sign that… he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”
“President Putin,” Stoltenberg concluded, “invaded a European country to prevent more NATO.”
Stoltenberg has publicly stated his awareness that this war was fought, not over American or NATO security concerns, but over Russian security concerns.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin also recently said that the United States must go on supporting Ukraine or Russia would win and steamroll on over the Baltic countries, Poland, and beyond. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mocked Austin, saying, “This comes from a man who holds a high-ranking position and cannot but receive expert views… and who cannot but understand what is going on in Ukraine and that Russia has never had and can never have any aggressive or expansionist plans.”
Ukraine’s chief negotiator in the Belarus and Istanbul talks with Russia has also recently said that stopping NATO from expanding to Ukraine and Russia’s borders was the “key point” for Russia and that “[e]verything else was simply rhetoric and political ‘seasoning.’”
Stoltenberg says that if Russia is allowed to win “the message to all authoritarian leaders—not only in Moscow, but also in Beijing—is that when they violate international law, when they invade another country when they use force, they get what they want. So this is about the whole idea of a rules-based international order, where territorial borders are respected.”
Stoltenberg transitions from “international law” to “rules-based order” because his case cannot be made without hypocrisy on the former. International law applies equally to everybody. But the United States or NATO have frequently invaded other countries by force and disrespected their territorial borders: Panama, Grenada, Libya, Kosovo, Iraq and Syria. Before Ukraine, modern Russia had not. But the rules-based order, unlike international law, allows Stoltenberg to make the case that Russia has violated the rules but the U.S. and NATO have not because the rules are made up as you go along so that the United States is always within them and Russia is always without. Under the unwritten rules-based order, rules are applied when they benefit the U.S. while the U.S. is exempt when they don’t.
American and NATO support for Ukraine may be about U.S. insistence on enforcing the rules-based system, but the United States is not an enforcer of international law.
Stoltenberg’s third reason for continuing to press the war in Ukraine is read right off the U.S. script; “… we need to continue to support them also knowing that the stronger Ukraine is on the battlefield, the stronger the handle will be on the negotiating table.” That point has passed. Ukraine is in a weaker position on the battlefield than they were before the counteroffensive. Russia is winning the war of land, the war of attrition on weapons, the war of attrition on lives, and the technological war. Ukraine had a better seat at the negotiating table in the first weeks after the invasion when the political West ordered them to stop negotiating. They were in a better position a year ago when they recaptured areas of Kherson before the counteroffensive. Far from strengthening Ukraine’s position on the battlefield or at the negotiating table, supporting the continuation of the war seems to be putting Ukraine in a weaker and weaker position. The terms that will be offered Ukraine today are likely much worse than the terms they were offered at the start of the war. And they will likely be worse tomorrow.
Stoltenberg says that “if you want a negotiated, peaceful solution, which ensures that Ukraine prevails as a sovereign, independent nation, then the best way to get there is to continue to provide military support to Ukraine.” But it is not war that will guarantee Ukraine sovereignty. As Lavrov recently pointed out, Russia recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine based on a declaration of independence and a constitution that declared Ukraine’s neutrality and non-membership in NATO, and Russia will continue to when those conditions are reinstated. The best way to ensure Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty is not to help it fight for the right to be in NATO but to encourage it to promise not to join NATO.
Finally, Stoltenberg put NATO’s hypocrisy on display not only by what he said, but by what he did not say. If the words that Stoltenberg said were meant to rally Western ears, the words he did not say will be the loudest in Ukrainian ears. Though Ukraine is fighting, in part, for the right to be in NATO, that is the one thing that Stoltenberg, hypocritically, did not offer Ukraine. The “Allies have stated again and again the last time at the NATO Summit with all the leaders present in Vilnius” that they will “provide support to Ukraine,” that they “will step up” their support for Ukraine, that they will “help them… to modernize their army” and that they will “ensure full interoperability between the Ukrainian forces and the NATO forces.” The one thing Stoltenberg did not say that NATO has offered Ukraine is membership in NATO.
Ukraine should fight to defend NATO’s insistence on the right of a country to choose its own alliances and to join NATO without being offered membership in NATO. That is the final hypocrisy put on full display in Stoltenberg’s comments to reporters.
US military aid to Ukraine may be postponed until after 2024 elections
By Ahmed Adel | November 29, 2023
Members of the US Congress fear that if a military and financial aid package for Ukraine cannot be agreed before Christmas, it could be delayed until after the 2024 presidential elections, which take place in the distant November. The Economist notes that due to this funding uncertainty, “now America has become one of Ukraine’s greatest worries” since Washington has been “Ukraine’s greatest saviour as it marshalled arms, money and more to help” to fight Russian forces.
According to the London-based outlet, “the longer the delay, the more the Republican and Democratic parties will “become consumed by election fever.”
“If there is no deal before Christmas, some in Congress worry, a fresh allocation of aid may be delayed until after the elections in November 2024,” the Economist reported, citing a source in the US Senate, who added that if Donald Trump was to be elected president, funding could stop completely.
Ukrainian officials fear that without American support, Kiev’s allies in Europe could lose heart, with the magazine highlighting that Ukraine is trying to boost its defence industry, which was famous during the Soviet era but has been badly neglected since.
“No matter how much we grow local production, we would be hugely dependent on Western partnerships,” admitted a senior official in Kiev.
Another Ukrainian source cited by the Economist said, “In the spring the flow of military supplies was a broad river. In the summer it was a stream. Now it is a few drops of tears.”
Without US and Western funding, Ukraine’s collapse would be imminent since this was the decisive factor in why the eastern European country’s military has survived for as long as it has. The situation is so dire that the Ukrainian Ministry of Economy and the National Bank believe that Ukraine’s GDP is expected to reach pre-crisis 2021 levels only in 2030.
Ukraine’s GDP dropped 29.1% last year, falling from 5.5 trillion hryvnia to 3.8 trillion hryvnia at constant prices, considering 2021 as the base year. With an average annual growth rate of 4.8%, the Ukrainian economy will reach pre-crisis levels only in 2030, when GDP will reach 5.6 trillion hryvnia at 2021 prices.
In comparison, the International Monetary Fund expects an average growth of 4.3% per year for the Ukrainian economy from 2025 to 2028.
Meanwhile, the Russian economy, which contracted 2.1% last year to 132.5 trillion rubles in 2021 prices, is forecast to grow 2.45% this year, reaching a GDP of 135.7 trillion rubles. Despite the sanctions, this value represents approximately 445 billion rubles more than recorded before the crisis.
Evidently, the sanctions against Russia have failed whilst Ukraine continues to struggle. Yet, despite this reality, the Biden administration is adamant about maintaining sanctions and financing Ukraine and is only blocked from doing so because of the strong opposition in Congress.
Biden’s unrelenting yet failed Ukraine policy will likely be his undoing since his popularity continues to plummet in the polls.
The latest Morning Consult poll, updated on November 27, had Biden’s approval rating at 38% and his disapproval rating at 55%. According to FiveThirtyEight’s average of all polls, Biden’s approval rating sat at 39%, with 54.7% disapproving.
The New York Times/Siena College polls at the beginning of November showed Trump ahead of Biden in four of the six swing states. Still, more indicators of the president’s electoral peril soon followed. Biden’s popularity in head-to-head matchups with Trump is dwindling, as seen in the fact that among the latest surveys this month from 13 separate pollsters, Biden’s position is worse than their previous polls in all but two.
As Politico highlighted, “And while polls suggest most of the movement comes from voters abandoning Biden — who might become undecided but not swing to supporting Trump — the Republican has also started to gain steam. Trump’s vote share in the national polling average is higher now than at any point in the past year.”
A massive reason for the swing in popularity between Biden and Trump is their respective positions on the Ukraine war. Trump has claimed he can end the conflict in 24 hours, and even though this is doubtful, it points to the fact that he wants to wrap up this war quickly. Biden, on the other hand, not only instigated the start of the war but is attempting to continue it for as long as possible, even at the expense of the American taxpayers who are already struggling with the cost of living.
If funding of Ukraine is discontinued until at least November 2024, Moscow will likely have ended the war by then after achieving their goals and will be ready to start engaging in slow normalisation efforts with Washington – if Trump were to be elected. And even if Congress eventually approves a new aid package for Ukraine, it will only merely delay for a short duration Russia’s final victory.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Americans don’t want to keep funding Ukraine – congresswoman
RT | November 28, 2023
Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that any spending bill pairing US border security with more military aid for Ukraine amid the conflict with Russia would be “a slap in the face” of the American people.
US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on Sunday that he will hold a vote on President Joe Biden’s request for $106 billion in military assistance for Ukraine and Israel during the first week of December.
The Biden administration has so far failed to push through its supplementary ‘national security’ proposal, with Schumer saying that “the biggest holdup” is opposition from the Republicans, who insist that additional aid to Kiev should be combined with funding for security on the US-Mexico border.
“Our border is the worst national security crisis in US history,” Greene wrote on X on Tuesday. According to AP, illegal crossings on the US-Mexico border surpassed a daily average of more than 8,000 people in September. However, the flow has subsided by around 14% since then.
“Ukraine is not the 51st state,” she said. “US border security should not be paired with funding for the losing war in Ukraine.”
The congresswoman slammed the Democratic Party for resisting the Republican push for more spending and increased security on the border. “Democrats want the daily invasion into America, they don’t want to fix it,” she wrote.
“Americans do not support the war in Ukraine and don’t want to continue funding Ukraine,” Greene said. “So any bill pairing our own border security with more billions for Ukraine is a slap in the face to the American people.”
The Biden administration has provided Ukraine with more than $76 billion in military and other assistance since the start of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022. However, it has recently said that the money is running out, as some Republicans refuse to back any new aid packages for Ukraine. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who visited Kiev last week, announced a new tranche of arms and ammunition worth just $100 million.
READ MORE: Origin of US weaponry used by Hamas must be investigated – congresswoman
The US public also appears be souring on support for Ukraine, with a recent poll AP-NORC showing that around 45% of Americans believe that Washington is sending too much money to Kiev.
It pays to be friends with Zelensky: $75m yachts reveal sudden wealth of the Ukrainian leader’s inner circle
In the Midst of Brutal War: Extravagance and Proxy Intrigues Ignite Global Outrage

By Andrei Datsyuk | The Islander | November 21, 2023
In the heart of Eastern Europe, where the tumult of war clashes with the allure of Western support, a seismic scandal unfolds, casting a long shadow over Ukraine’s leadership. President Volodymyr Zelensky, once seen as a beacon of hope against corruption, is now ensnared in a scandal involving the alleged purchase of two luxury yachts, “Lucky Me” and “My Legacy,” worth a combined $75 million. This lavish expenditure, facilitated in the opulent settings of Abu Dhabi and Antibes, starkly contrasts with Ukraine’s dire war reality and raises damning questions about the integrity and criminal liability of its leadership amidst heavy reliance on Western aid.
In a striking expose, an independent journalistic inquiry has brought to light an egregious display of opulence by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s closest associates. Boris and Serhiy Shefir, two of Zelenskyy’s confidants, have been implicated in the purchase of two ultra -luxury yachts, with a jaw-dropping combined cost of $75 million. These purchases, completed in October 2023 in Abu Dhabi and Antibes, raise severe concerns about corruption at the highest levels of Ukrainian leadership. The extravagance is particularly alarming given the context: these funds, likely derived from Western aid allocated for Ukraine’s war effort against Russia, appear to have been diverted for personal luxury, highlighting a disturbing (criminal) misallocation of resources intended for the nation’s defence.
Journalist Shahzad Nasir, in a revealing video exposé, has brought to light a scandalous facet of corruption within the Ukrainian leadership at the absolute highest levels:
An explosive expose has brought to light allegations of massive corruption at the highest levels of Ukraine’s leadership
The Ukrainian leadership’s reputation has been further marred by a recent corruption scandal involving high-ranking military officials. Key army chiefs have been caught misusing US aid, intended for the nation’s defense, to indulge in extravagant purchases of luxury vehicles and properties in Spain. This egregious misuse of funds starkly contrasts with the plight of Ukrainian soldiers facing ammunition shortages on the frontlines. President Zelensky’s response, firing these officials, appears as a belated effort to address corruption. This pattern of corruption, increasingly visible to the public, points to a troubling common denominator: the Zelensky administration. This revelation challenges the integrity of Ukraine’s governance in a time of crisis, casting a shadow over Zelensky’s leadership.
The juxtaposition of Zelensky’s associates’ extravagant yacht purchases with the corruption scandal in Ukraine’s military casts a glaring light on a pattern of corruption and misallocation at the heart of the nation’s governance. Amidst the backdrop of brutal war, these revelations not only underscore a profound disconnect in Ukraine’s leadership but also hint at a systemic graft, where the nation’s resources and Western aid are diverted for personal gain at a time when national solidarity, unity and responsible leadership are desperately needed.
Boris and Serhiy Shefir, emerging from the same roots as President Zelensky, have risen to prominence and power. Born in the same city as Zelensky, Kryvyi Rih, they share a bond that transcends the professional; a camaraderie rooted in shared experiences and a collective rise to prominence through the “Kvartal-95 studio.” However, their proximity to power and recent indulgence in lavish lifestyles, amidst the grim realities of a nation ripped apart by an unnecessary war, a war provoked by Ukraine via its master in Washington, raises grave questions about corruption and misallocation within Ukraine’s elite. This ostentatious display of wealth, in stark contrast to the country’s dire needs, highlights the troubling nexus of personal enrichment and power in Ukrainian politics, where the welfare of the nation is seemingly secondary to the luxuries of the few.


Appointed as the first assistant to President Zelenskyy in 2019, Serhiy Shefir’s deeper entanglement in Zelenskyy’s covert financial dealings soon came to light. Investigative reports by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project unveiled Shefir’s pivotal role in managing Zelenskyy’s offshore network, spanning the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Belize. This web of deceit, exposed by the Pandora’s Archives, revealed Shefir as the clandestine custodian of Zelenskyy’s wealth, executing high-value property purchases in London. Notably, Shefir acquired a lavish three-bedroom apartment on Glenworth Street and a luxurious two-bedroom flat in Chalfont Court, totaling over £3.78 million ($5.78 million). These revelations, too significant for even Kiev-aligned Ukrainian media to ignore, underscore a staggering level of corruption, implicating the highest echelons of Ukrainian leadership in a scandalous misuse of power and wealth.
Ukraine’s chronic struggle with corruption is deeply rooted in its history. The oligarchic power structures have long cast a shadow over the nation’s governance, epitomized by the infamous Burisma scandal and the contentious dismissal of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, allegedly to protect Hunter Biden. This particular episode underscores the intricate web of political power and corporate interests in Ukraine, igniting international scrutiny and raising critical questions about external influences on the country’s legal and judicial processes. These ongoing issues of systemic corruption erode both domestic confidence and international trust in Ukraine’s institutions.
The lavish lifestyles and controversial financial dealings of President Zelensky and his associates have cast a shadow over Ukraine’s already fragile trust in governance. This juxtaposition of opulent yacht purchases and unchecked personal spending amid Ukraine’s reliance on Western aid paints a grim picture of leadership. The implications of this misallocated aid extend beyond Ukraine’s borders, stirring unrest in the Middle East and spotlighting the interconnectedness of Ukraine’s internal politics with global geopolitical dynamics.
The recent shopping extravaganza by Ukraine’s First Lady Olena Zelenska in New York City amplifies concerns over the misuse of American aid. These actions not only raise questions about the ethical conduct of Ukraine’s first family but also signal the potential role of Ukrainian corruption in fuelling regional instability. This crisis transcends national boundaries, posing a significant challenge to global stability and the fight against corruption.
As Ukraine endures the horrors of war, with over half a million lives lost in an unnecessary conflict, the populace struggles for daily survival. In stark contrast, their leaders, basking in luxury, exhibit an alarming indifference. The yachts “Lucky Me” and “My Legacy” serve as a poignant emblem of this leadership’s blatant disconnect from the nation’s suffering. At this pivotal moment, Ukraine faces a crucial decision: embrace democratic ideals and tackle corruption, or persist on a path where power and luxury eclipse the urgent needs of a nation in agony. This choice will not only dictate Ukraine’s future but also mirror its dedication to the democratic principles it professes, amidst a climate of contempt and apathy from its rulers. Reports like these fuelling righteous anger don’t bode well for Zelensky as he clings to power amid swirling rumours of coups, underscoring the volatile and uncertain nature of his tenure.
After Hungary rejects billions in aid to Ukraine, European Council President flies to Budapest to meet with Orbán
Magyar Nemzet | November 28, 2023
European Council President Charles Michel flew to Budapest on Monday in an attempt to smooth over current disagreements with Hungary, reports daily Magyar Nemzet.
On the European Council agenda, there are three summits in December: one with China on Dec. 7, one on the Western Balkans on Dec. 13, and on the heels of the second, the European Council proper summit from Dec. 14 to Dec. 15. This last is the one that will be the most critical, with aid to Ukraine and the country’s potential EU membership topping the agenda.
Neither side revealed details of the two-hour meeting: Prime Minister Viktor Orbán only posted a handshake image with Michel, with the laconic text: “Useful consultations ahead of the December EU summit with the president of the European Council.”
However, political analyst Zoltán Kiszelly told daily Magyar Nemzet that the meeting probably revolved around a letter from Viktor Orbán, in which the prime minister wrote that until a strategic evaluation of aid to Ukraine is carried out, his country is not ready to make new commitments.
“So, we should not rush into Ukraine’s admission negotiations or the €50 billion loan without an impact assessment, and the heads of state and government who make the fundamental decisions have not discussed this,” Kiszelly said.
According to him, Michel knows that if the strategic debate were to take place and the case studies were to be carried out, it would become clear that Kyiv cannot even account for the €85 billion it has so far spent on Ukraine. It would also turn out that, in the case of membership, Ukraine would take everything in agricultural or cohesion aid and most EU member states would become contributors.
“This is what Brussels wants to avoid,” Kiszelly said.
“The more details the European public learns, the less they would support Brussels’ ambitions. And we see everyone from Dutch farmers to Polish truckers protesting against Ukraine. The Brussels elite is imposing the consequences of its decisions on the people of Europe,” he added.
The European Commission is racing to push Ukraine into the EU, and disburse ever higher sums of money to a non-EU member state. Hungary, in turn, has been denied €10.4 billion in EU recovery funds that had been earmarked for the country over alleged rule of law violations.
West ‘screwed over’ Ukraine – ex-Zelensky aide
RT | November 27, 2023
The West has essentially thrown Ukraine under the bus in its conflict with Russia by failing to provide Kiev with the necessary amount of military aid, Aleksey Arestovich, a former aide to President Vladimir Zelensky, has claimed.
Writing on Telegram on Sunday, Arestovich weighed in on the differing views of Ukrainian officials as to why Kiev’s conflict with Moscow is still in full swing despite several major attempts at peace.
According to the former presidential aide, the West bears most of the blame for the situation.
“The real responsibility lies with those who promised Ukraine real support for waging a real, big war and did not provide it. In other words, they screwed us over.”
Arestovich claimed that Ukraine “had won its war” by managing to survive in the first few months of the conflict. “This war of ours could have well ended with the Istanbul Agreements,” he suggested, referring to the talks in the Turkish city in the spring of 2022, which initially made some progress but stalled after then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s visit to Kiev. The negotiations collapsed but Russia maintains it is open to diplomatic engagement with Kiev.
After the Istanbul talks, the conflict entered another phase in which Ukraine had no chance of winning without securing massive Western arms supplies, including warplanes and long-range missiles, the former official continued. “But nothing came. We paid a huge price for that.”
Arestovich suggested that the West would now try to force Ukraine to accept the loss of several regions, which overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in a series of public referenda last autumn.
He also suggested that, while Kiev found itself in a tough spot mostly due to the West’s inaction, the Ukrainian leadership’s “stupidity and corruption has given them many formal and informal reasons to screw us over.”
Arestovich’s remarks came amid Ukraine’s faltering counteroffensive, which has been underway since early summer but has failed to gain any significant ground. Last month, Moscow said Kiev had lost more than 90,000 troops since the start of the push, with Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu claiming that Ukrainian casualties had reached more than 13,000 soldiers in November alone.
Earlier this month, Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s top general, admitted that hostilities had reached a stalemate, an assessment rejected by Zelensky. Meanwhile, on Sunday, Mariana Bezuglaya, a senior Ukrainian MP, blasted Zaluzhny over the lack of a strategic plan for 2024 and called on the military leadership to step down.
Europe worries about the rise of “populism”, but real specter haunting EU is “maidanization”
By Uriel Araujo | November 27, 2023
In the Netherlands, the PVV (Freedom Party), led by controversial politician Geert Wilders, often described as “far-right” and “populist”, won about 37 of the 150 seats in the Dutch parliament. While talks have started to form the new government, Wilders and his party are now in a leading position. Predictably, much is being written now about the rise of “populism” in Europe, while Western discourses try to link it to far-right Nazi-Fascism.
Whether one likes the “populist” wave or not, this being an umbrella term for a variety of movements, it would be simply inaccurate to equate all such groups with Fascism in general. The supposed connection to Russia in turn only appears “sinister”, thanks to a wave of Russophobia, if one suffers from memory loss: as recently as 2021, the (now gone) Nord Stream 2 German-Russian pipelines project was being completed to deliver Russian gas directly to Western Europe. It had been opposed from the very start by Washington, while Berlin resisted American pressures all the way to almost completion – and then pipelines got blown up in a sabotage explosion, just as US President Joe Biden himself on February 7 had promised would happen, when he said: “If Russia invades (…) there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”
According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, the sabotage was indeed carried out by Washington. However, thus far, the only voices that vehemently demand an active investigation about such an act of terrorism come from the populist camp, such as the Die Linke and the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) political parties in Germany. It is no wonder then that populism is on the rise in the continent.
Notwithstanding any valid criticism one may have of the current Russian military campaign in Ukraine, the roots of today’s conflict lie on this energy angle and American interests – as much as they also lie on US geopolitical goals pertaining to “encircling” Russia and to NATO’s enlargement for the sake of maintaining unipolarity.
This month Moldova, a country which is trying to join the European Union (EU), banned a “pro-Russian” party (the Chance Party) from taking part in local elections, two days before the vote, on the basis of “national security” concerns. The measure is in line with the latest European trend, which can only be described as Neo-Mccarthyism: in France, Marine Le Pen, who vowed to pull Paris out of NATO’s military command last year, was questioned for four hours, on June, during what was described as a witch trial, and her Rassemblement National party was described as a “communication channel” for Russia by a report published by the French government.
The same month, Poland’s President Andrzej Duda signed a law allowing Warsaw to conduct political repression against the opposition, the justification being, of course, “to investigate Russian influence on Polish politics”. The commission created for that purpose can ban people from public office for a decade. Such measures, as I wrote, mirror post-Maidan Ukraine’s own anti-Russian initiatives pertaining to banning vaguely defined “pro-Russian” political parties (at least 11 thus far) and the opposition. The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also been advancing moves to outlaw (Russian) Orthodox communities, something which even the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of Kyiv-Halych, has denounced.
France, particularly, had always boasted of being the land of demonstrations, but that has changed. Last month, the country’s Interior Ministry banned all pro-Palestinian rallies nation-wide. Violent clashes between police and defiant protesters ensued, and organizing such demonstrations can now lead to arrest. Similarly, protests have also been banned or restricted in Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland, and Austria, among other European nations. Esther Major, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Research in Europe voiced the organization’s concern, stating, on October 20, that “in many European countries, the authorities are unlawfully restricting the right to protest (…) In some cases, protests have been banned altogether.”
According to Julia Hall, Amnesty International’s expert on counter-terrorism and human rights (in Europe), “what people can say and do is narrowing by the day”, with France proposing to “criminalize people who criticize Israel”, which is “something new”. She adds that “free speech in Europe has been narrowed in record time. It is leaving victims without any voices. I do not think this will be a one-off.” The United Nations (UN) rapporteur Clement Voule has also voiced his concern about such “disproportionate and arbitrary” blanket bans on protests and the like setting “a very worrying precedent that could have a great impact on the exercise of our fundamental rights and freedoms” because in times of crisis people should have “space to raise their voices, grievances and solidarity, and calls for peace, justice and security.”
All such measures clearly violate human rights in Europe in Europe’s own terms, in accordance with article 11 of the European convention on human rights, by stigmatizing minorities such as Muslims and others, and by violating the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of expression. The thing is this trend has not started now with the issue of Palestine at all: in fact, this year Germany banned Russian and Soviet flags during its “World War II commemorations” on Victory Day, this being the very day when the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany.
While European Establishment voices may try to demonize populism, we are witnessing in fact the “Maidanization” of the continent, with rising anti-Russian neo-McCarthyism, talks about banning political parties and demonstrations, the Western mainstreamization of the far-right and even Nazism (as long as it is not “pro-Russian”) plus Europe agreeing with Kyiv on “no Russian minority” in Ukraine. Rather than expecting Ukraine to adapt to European norms and values, it would seem Europe is changing in such a way that post-Maidan Ukraine will just feel at home if its accession ever materializes.
Thousands-Strong Rally Takes Place in Berlin for Negotiations on Gaza, Ukraine
Sputnik – 25.11.2023
BERLIN – A rally organized by left-wing German politician Sahra Wagenknecht took place in Thousands-Strong Rally Takes Place in Berlin for Negotiations on Gaza, Ukraineon Saturday with thousands of participants rallying against the supply of weapons to Ukraine and for a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts, a Sputnik correspondent reported.
In an opening speech, Wagenknecht accused the German government of applying double standards in its assessment of the Ukrainian conflict and the “merciless bombing” in the Gaza Strip, the correspondent reported.
The politician criticized the government’s spending on the German military production at a time when the nation faces several internal problems, such as a shortage of teachers, hospital closures and aging infrastructure. She also criticized the government’s decision to stop holding down energy and electricity prices.
“And immediately it was about cutting spending on those least able to fend for themselves,” Wagenknecht said.
In leaflets distributed to demonstrators, protest organizers called for peace talks in all the world’s conflict zones, the report read. After the speech, rally participants marched past the Bundestag and back to the original meeting point, carrying placards calling for peace and an end to Russophobia, the Sputnik correspondent reported.
On October 23, Wagenknecht, who had criticized Germany’s military aid to Kiev and sanctions against Russia, said she had left the Left Party and intended to found a new political party with several close associates that would stand for “reason and justice.” About 14% of Germans were ready to support the new party, polls showed.
