| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| 'Best friends of Ukraine.' How American senators do business during war |
| 2024-03-21 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. Hint: They ain't s'posed to. by Denis Davydov [REGNUM] In April 2019, the first toponym in honor of an American politician appeared in Kiev: a street in the prestigious Pechersky district was named after Republican Senator John McCain, who died in 2018. "A great friend of Ukraine." A former (and hereditary) military man, McCain fiercely hated Russia and helped the Ukrainian struggle in every possible way. For example, he personally spoke on the Maidan, demanding that the Ukrainians be given weapons for the war with the Russians, and the first “wunderwaffe” promoted by propaganda, the Javelin anti-tank missile system, which ended up in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is his merit. By an incredible coincidence, these systems are produced by Lockheed Martin, which also owns the star of the new era - the Himars multiple launch rocket system. And another “friend of Ukraine” is now fighting for an increase in arms supplies and the provision of ATACMS missiles to Kyiv, which are also made by this company (one of the main arms manufacturers in the USA). Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, with more than 30 years of military experience and the rank of colonel, picked up the fallen banner, clearly laying claim to the next Kiev street. Since 2022, Graham has consistently advocated for as much military aid as possible for Kiev because, in his words, “giving Ukrainians weapons to kill Russians is the best American investment.” The late McCain was not so straightforward, but the situation has changed. Although in one thing it is stable, as the Ukrainian proverb states, “for someone it’s a holiday, but for a chicken it’s death.” Even if it were in jest, it was an incredibly stoopid thing to say. If not, it was criminal. However, the position of the still living senator is significantly adjusted along the way. Simply lobbying the interests of a weapons company, as was done before, is no longer allowed by the current political situation in the United States. "Until the last Ukrainian." How many people remain under Zelensky's rule? According to Graham, 70% of Senate Republicans understand the need for assistance to Ukraine, as do the same number of Republicans in the House of Representatives. “But our border has been destroyed at home. So when I come to South Carolina, they say, “Do you want to help Ukraine?” “What about our own border? - he says. “ As political leaders, we must also take into account the problems of our people.” Therefore, it is wrong to continue to give anything just like that, but an interest-free loan “makes a lot of sense” and will find “great public support in the United States.” The country also owns minerals, “they have a lot of resources” that can be used as collateral. “Ukraine is a very blessed nation. You have smart, energetic and creative people. You are sitting on $3.5-12 trillion of critical minerals that could be used for a new economy. In particular, for the production of batteries,” the American politician noted matter-of-factly. And here again is a coincidence: during McCain’s time, a batch of Javelins, missiles for them, sniper rifles and ammunition in March 2018 was also not donated, but sold. Even with the sanction of the US State Department and the permission of President Donald Trump. Although is it really important if Petro Poroshenko (also still the president) was personally present at the tests of the ATGM and observed the “happy faces of the soldiers”? The main thing is not money, but the happiness of Ukrainians. Therefore, McCain, who strongly opposed the Minsk agreements and any ceasefire in the Donbass, was a “true friend.” And Graham continues to be the same, calling for a merciless strike on the Crimean Bridge, and recently giving birth to a real sensation on the topic of mobilization. The senator called on the Ukrainian authorities to adopt a law to tighten it and not tie this issue to the presence or absence of military assistance from the United States. In his opinion, it is necessary to start mobilizing men under 25 years old into the Ukrainian army, since it is pointless to talk about peace. “No matter what we do, you must fight. No matter what we do, you fight for yourself. I hope that those who are eligible to serve in the Ukrainian army will join. I can't believe this at 27 years old. You are fighting for your life, so you [all] should serve, not at 25 or 27 years old. We need more people,” said the determined senator, who is supported in such endeavors by all the best people in Ukraine. The key word here is perhaps “us”. After all, Graham, who clearly expects to continue his political career, cannot go against the grain. Therefore, with one hand he personally voted against the allocation of $60 billion in gratuitous aid to Ukraine, and with the other he must work to prolong the military conflict as much as possible, increasing the demand for his goods. The senator does not call for the adoption of a “mobilization” bill for the sake of allocating American military assistance; on the contrary, he calls not to count on help, but at the same time to tighten mobilization. All this fits well into business logic, and the proposal for a loan or collateral will no longer look so strange and impossible. Graham himself began to draw direct business parallels when he called military aid to Ukraine a “good investment.” It’s just that in the current conditions, two opposing parties have different visions of these investments. Donald Trump, whose opinion must be taken into account, has clearly stated that the United States should stop providing aid to other countries unless it is structured as a loan. But the White House under Biden does not consider transferring aid to Ukraine on credit a good option. For them, this is an investment in the US defense industrial base, since they rule the global process and can make money somewhere else. But from this angle, everything looks even more cynical. In this situation, what could be the reaction of the Ukrainian side, which is famous throughout the world for its “emotional diplomacy”? After all, they are offered to die for commercial interests in any case, no matter how the American election solitaire turns out. But none. The answer is only polite consent. If we recall recent statements by Ukrainian politicians about the prospects for US military assistance and mobilization, they are quite consistent with the words of Lindsey Graham. In particular, the head of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada, David Arakhamia, directly stated that in the absence of American military assistance in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, more people will actually have to be mobilized to compensate for its lack. Vladimir Zelensky also spoke about the fact that “without American military assistance, more people will die at the front.” “All our actions must be far-sighted, large-scale and as effective as possible in order to allow free countries to continue to live in freedom and security,” he said following a meeting with his American “friend.” Thus, far-sightedness and scale consist, first of all, in the complete extermination of the male population of Ukraine and, if possible, the destruction of some young and energetic women. In return for this, American partners will sooner or later provide the opportunity to give away mineral resources and strategic assets in payment for arms supplies. True, such a strategy does not answer the question of what will happen when there are no more combat-ready mobilized. But, in principle, it doesn't matter. There are super goals that friend McCain spoke about. For example, joining NATO. The deceased considered it a mistake that the alliance had stopped Ukraine’s path to membership and therefore could not enter the war with all its strength in accordance with the requirements of the fifth article of the organization’s Charter. As they say, they didn’t listen to the old man, and now Macron has to take the rap. So friend Graham now says: “I support Ukraine’s accession to NATO and your membership in the EU. I appreciate our NATO allies, but none of them can fight like Ukraine. If I had to pick a group of people I wanted to fight alongside, you would be at the top of the damn list. <…> NATO will not provide you with a service. You will be providing a service to NATO." After all, what are Ukrainian Euro-Atlantic aspirations and the help of the aggressive bloc? This is a guaranteed war with Russia. Consequently, the arms sales business will continue to flourish. And Ukraine’s “friends” will not decrease, even if a street in Pechersk is renamed in Kyiv in memory of the next senator. |
| Posted by:badanov |