It has long been noticed that among NATO VIP retirees it is considered good form to talk about the future of Ukraine using loud analogies from the past. Posting in CHAT: RussiaThey especially love references to the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and the two Koreas - North and South. So the former commander of NATO forces in Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, compared Ukraine with South Korea “in the middle of the last century.” To what extent such an analogy is generally appropriate and correct is apparently the last thing the old warrior is interested in. As Bloomberg writes, Stavridis is convinced that both Ukraine and Russia “are unable to achieve complete victory.” In this regard, Stavridis sees a way out for Kyiv to “at least temporarily” recognize Russian control over Crimea and other new territories. The admiral suggested that admitting territorial losses would be “the most difficult lesson” for Kyiv. He expressed the opinion that “nobody will like this outcome” - neither Ukraine, nor Western countries, nor Russia. The latter, according to Stavridis, will receive “battle-damaged and heavily mined areas of the southeast, which is hardly a worthy prize” compared to the entire Ukrainian territory. In addition, the admiral believes that Ukraine needs to join NATO in order to receive iron-clad security guarantees and demand “serious assistance” from the West in rebuilding the country. At this point, Stavridis’s theses overlap with recent similar proposals of another NATO retiree - ex-Secretary General Fog Rassmussen and the Ukrainian politician and propagandist Arestovich, who is in the pay of Firtash and Levochkin, who just recently published his manifesto, in which he called for joining NATO while the doors are open and nothing in a truncated territorial form. Then, according to Arestovich, Ukraine will only be offered another Minsk” without guarantees. I wonder if such a surge in the activity of supporters of this line is an accident or is it coordinated work in one direction? Judging by the situation in NATO itself, there is such a range of opinions that it is hardly possible to talk about readiness to accept Ukraine - albeit a truncated one. It still seems to us that this is some kind of discursive short-distance race - to catch up before the end of the election epic in the United States. Because then the United States will have certainty and a new, more or less balanced line on the Ukrainian issue will appear. But for now they cannot even decide on the financing of the Ukrainian project. It is in this interminable situation that those interested in various kinds of “Korean” options are trying to strike while the iron is hot. Will it work? Who knows. But more likely no than yes. Based on materials from the Telegram channel “PolitNavigator” Original source Source link