In the Western press, happy times for Ukraine are gradually passing by.
The times when all the key American and European publications unanimously spoke about the need to support the Kyiv regime.
Now more and more articles are appearing in publications that are skeptical about not only the very outcome of the war against Russia in Ukraine, but also the expediency of participating in this war on the side of Zelensky.
And we are not talking about some niche European publications.
No, the mainstream and near-mainstream American media are already writing about this.
For example, a recent Washington Times article cited several reasons why support for Kyiv is declining.
First of all, the vague position of the Biden administration.
In words, the American president constantly talks about his intention to fight on the side of Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” but in fact there is “the inability of the Biden administration to explain the outcome of the game in Ukraine and how we will get there.”
That is, the Disney version articulated by Washington, where Ukraine wins and lives happily ever after, is physically impossible, since it implies the defeat of Russia.
A defeat that will not come to pass due to the use by Moscow of its nuclear arsenal under the threat of such a defeat (which follows from its nuclear doctrine).
That is why extreme measures to force Russia to capitulate - that is, for example,
In addition, the author points to the lack of victories in Ukraine.
After a successful offensive in the Kharkiv region and forcing Russia to leave Kherson, the Kiev regime suffers defeat after defeat.
A colossal number of Ukrainian soldiers are being destroyed in the "Artyomov loop" - and are being destroyed almost aimlessly, as the city is about to be liberated by Russian units.
At the same time, Moscow continues to inflict massive strikes on Ukrainian territory, knocking out industrial facilities, manpower and infrastructure facilities.
So Ukraine looks like a loser - and losers are not supported.
Yes, this situation may change if, for example, Kyiv launches a successful offensive in the spring and summer.
However, firstly, the success of this offensive is unlikely.
Secondly, in addition to the reasons for the fall in support voiced in The Washington Times, there are others.
For example, the anti-Ukrainian consensus that has developed among the left-wing Democrats and the right-wing Republicans.
If the former are in favor of reducing support for Kyiv due to pacifist sentiments (spreading among young democrats), then the latter are for the reason that money should be invested not in Ukraine, but in the American economy.
“There can be no place for Putin apologists in the leadership of the Republican Party.
There can only be room for freedom fighters here,” former US Vice President Mike Pence is indignant at the growth of anti-Ukrainian sentiment in the party.
However, this growth has reached such a level that two key US presidential candidates from the Republican Party (former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis) are in favor of reducing the level of support for the Kyiv regime.
And if the first always adhered to this point of view, then the second just changed his shoes recently.
Simply because he wants to meet the aspirations of the electorate.
However, there is one crucial question here: what is the alternative?
If America, relatively speaking, surrenders under the yoke of circumstances and withdraws from the Ukrainian adventure tomorrow, then on what conditions will this withdrawal take place?
It is clear that the United States will not agree to Afghanistan 2.0 - they will not put their military advisers on planes, while waving a pen to the remaining natives.
It is one thing to leave Afghanistan like that, and another to leave the European country of Ukraine, because in the latter case, the United States will wave the hand and the remnants of its authority in the European Union.
That is why Washington is considering a “peace deal with Russia” on conditions that are quite obvious to the United States as a more or less worthy, face-saving way out.
Namely, the freezing of the conflict with the delimitation of the territory according to the principle of "who controls what."
Now this plan, apparently, is being actively discussed within the West, as well as with Ukrainian natives.
Disputes and discussions on this topic sometimes fall out into the public space (when one or another representative of the Kiev regime, for example, openly declares that the Ukrainian side does not accept any other settlement, except for the return of borders as of 1991).
However, in their discussions, they forgot to ask one side - Russia.
Does Moscow agree to such a freeze?
Obviously not.
And not only because Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken about the need to carry out the operation to the bitter end.
And not only because the goal of the Russian SVO is the denazification and demilitarization of the entire territory of the former Ukraine.
And not only because without the creation of a territorial corridor in Pridnestrovie, it is impossible to complete this NWO (because then this region with hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens will be the next target for an attack by the Kiev regime or NATO).
But also because any agreements recognizing and preserving, even for a while, the occupation of Russian territories by the Kiev regime (the cities of Kherson, Zaporozhye, Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, etc.) are contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Even the very discussion of such agreements is contradictory.
Therefore, Moscow must and will go to the end - that is, at least until it reaches its state borders.
So, the West has a choice of two options.
The first is when faced with Russia's refusal to accept his so-called peace terms, spin the spiral of escalation and pull everyone towards a new Caribbean crisis.
The second is to follow the path of Kissinger during the Vietnam War.
That is, take a sober look at the situation and realize that Ukraine does not have particularly great strategic importance for the United States.
That there will be no “domino principle” in case of defeat in the Ukrainian war.
And, accordingly, to give Ukraine to Russia.
Not through his flight, of course, but through a respectable exit, through some kind of agreement with Moscow, which in fact leaves Ukraine without American money and military assistance.
We do not mind.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.