The case works as a key to understand US’ war strategy against Russia.
According to the Ukrainian Minister of Defense, Kiev’s sponsors reportedly demanded that the regime eliminate as many Russians as possible as a condition for sending weapons. The case shows how the West really does not expect a Ukrainian victory on the battlefield, only seeking to weaken Russia as much as possible.
Kiev’s defense chief Aleksey Reznikov claimed during an interview to Foreign Policy that Western supporters, before establishing a policy of unlimited military aid, demanded from Ukraine that as many Russian citizens as possible be killed. Once the extermination of Russians is guaranteed, Western support will be maintained “as long as it takes”, informed the minister.
He told interviewers that, at first, NATO expected Ukraine to manage the challenge of facing Russian troops alone, without Western military support. However, with the worsening of combat conditions and the imminence of the Ukrainian defeat, the receiving of weapons became inevitable. So, the sponsors imposed a condition on the Ukrainians: before admitting any defeat on the battlefield, they must at least achieve the goal of eliminating a large number of Russian soldiers.
“We asked, ‘can we have stingers?’ We were told, ‘No, dig trenches and kill as many Russians as you can before it’s over.’ People thought our victory was impossible”, he said during the interview.
Reznikov made it clear that now Kiev has “Bradleys, Strykers, Abrams, Leopards, and more” because it is fulfilling the imposed objective of killing the enemies. Also, for this same reason Kiev “will soon be equipped with American-made F-16 fighter jets”.
Indeed, the minister’s words bring answers to several questions. For example, previously, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham had said during a meeting with Zelensky in Kiev that the US was making a “good investment” by sending money to “kill Russians”. Now, with the information revealed by Reznikov, it becomes more and more evident that the US really plans to cause the death of Russians with its help to Ukraine.
At first, Reznikov’s words may sound banal, since in a context of conflict there is obviously always the goal of eliminating enemy fighters. However, there are a series of nuances that make the American attitude problematic and highly anti-humanitarian with the Ukrainian proxies themselves.
As the minister made clear, the Western intention was to let the Ukrainians fight alone and achieve the expected result without receiving any military assistance. This is consistent with NATO’s attitude in the early days of Russia’s special operation, which was to refuse the supply of military support, focusing only on humanitarian and financial aid.
However, the situation changed dramatically after April 2022, when NATO started sending tanks to the Ukrainian regime. This change in attitude on the part of the alliance is now perfectly explained: the initial objective was to leave the Ukrainians without help, but this would lead to a quick defeat of Kiev, so an agreement was reached for the country to start receiving unlimited aid in exchange for the elimination of Russian soldiers.
In other words, the alleged “Ukrainian victory”, which the mainstream media talks about so much, was never in NATO’s plans. What the alliance only wants is to kill Russians. It is the plan to kill Moscow’s fighters that justifies the support for Kiev, not any concern for “democracy” or “Ukraine’s territorial integrity”.
This agreement between the Ukrainians and their sponsors is also an important key for understanding the West’s war plans. The US-led military alliance does not aim for victory against the Russians, but for the massive elimination of troops. Usually in wars the goal is victory, and the death of soldiers is just a tool in order to achieve this aim. But in NATO’s proxy war, the final goal is actually restricted to killing Russian soldiers, with no greater ambitions, since defeating Russia currently seems unfeasible.
NATO’s strategists know that in an eventual scenario of open and direct confrontation against Russia, the chances of victory are minimal, since Moscow is the greatest nuclear power in the world. So, the alliance focuses on promoting proxy wars in which as many Russians as possible die, thus achieving enough attrition to generate long-term damage to the Russians. Therefore, in the face of the imminent Ukrainian defeat, NATO seems now “hurried” to generate new anti-Russian flanks in Eurasia, as it is possible to see in regions such as Transnistria, Kosovo, Artsakh, Georgia and Belarus.
Reznikov has, perhaps unintentionally, given an end to the entire narrative spread by his own regime and Western media that the aim of military aid is for Kiev to “win the war” and regain its pre-2014 territory. There are no such goals in the alliance’s plans, which only want Ukrainian forces to kill as many Russians as possible in order to generate losses on America’s biggest geopolitical enemy.
It is important that this information be shared and reach the western public opinion to make it clear to the citizens of NATO’s countries that their tax money is not being invested in any “resistance against the invader”, but, exactly as in Graham’s words, in the death of Russians.
