This is as close to a smoking gun as I've ever seen on Ukraine.
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1999686434165522805
This is as close to a smoking gun as I've ever seen on Ukraine.
Amanda Sloat was Senior Director for Europe at the National Security Council under Biden, meaning she was the one directly running Ukraine policy from the White House.
And she now admits that, had Ukraine told Russia before the war or at the Istanbul talks "fine, we won't go into NATO," it "may well have [prevented/stopped the war]" but she (and by extension the White House) "was uncomfortable with the idea of... implicitly giving Russia some sort of sphere of influence or veto power on that."
Now, almost 3 years on, she says "it certainly would have prevented the destruction and the loss of life."
Think about how extraordinary this is.
First of all, she's being dishonest: by definition, neutrality for Ukraine wouldn't have given Russia "some sort of sphere of influence" but would have made it... neutral, i.e. in-between spheres of influence.
Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence would be Ukraine joining some sort of Warsaw Pact, which is in fact exactly the optionality she's saying SHE wanted to preserve, only with NATO. She's describing her own position and projecting it onto Russia.
Also think about the cost equation. Hundreds of thousands dead, a country in ruins, and the justification is America being "uncomfortable" about not preserving optionality. Not even an actual gain - just the theoretical possibility of one day pulling Ukraine into NATO.
The banality of evil.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home