January 24, 2025
Simon Shuster is Time's senior correspondent for Ukraine and Russia.
For writing laudatory pieces about (former) president Zelenski Shuster received extraordinary access to the Ukrainian's president's office. A later portrait by Shuster depicted Zelenski as delusional. In his latest piece he asserts that the Biden administration never intended for Ukraine to win:
When Russia invaded Ukraine nearly three years ago, President Joe Biden set three objectives for the U.S. response. Ukraine's victory was never among them.
Preventing a war between Russia and NATO, not Ukraine winning, was one of Joe Biden's three aims.
That is why, throughout the war in Ukraine, the U.S., together with Germany, had blocked the accession of Ukraine to NATO.
In September Zelenski's last attempt with Biden to gain NATO access ended without success:
[Zelenski's] appeals got a mixed reception. On the question of Ukraine's NATO membership, Biden would not budge.
That had always and will always be the case.
Despite having been rejected again and again Zelenski used the hope of gaining NATO (and EU) membership for Ukraine to market the war he was waging.
Now, as he is obviously losing it, he is blaming those who never promised NATO membership to him for not receiving it (machine translation):
The West's promises to one day accept Ukraine into NATO were a "lie." This was stated by President Vladimir Zelensky at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Moreover, according to him, the United States and Germany maintained contacts with Russia throughout the war.
"From some states, I think it was initially not a very transparent policy, they did not support us in NATO. And they were just false words that yes, Ukraine will be in NATO. It was not fair to Ukraine and to the Ukrainians. And it was also not fair from our leaders. When some of our leaders said and promised that we would be in NATO. And it wasn't fair either. And I believe that there was a weak position of Germany and the United States. Because they had a dialogue with the Russians. And I believe that they lost this dialogue. We lost, because they always appeal to the fact that there were once some agreements with the Russians," Zelensky said.
That false accusation against foreign countries, of promising access to NATO but not giving it, will not be received well.
As Strana remarks (machine translation):
Recall that Zelensky himself has repeatedly stated that Ukraine will be in NATO.
Also, Kiev is now demanding admission to the Alliance as a condition for making peace with Russia. At the same time, Zelensky admits that the United States and Germany are against this.
Alexey Arestovich, a former advisor to Zelenski, 𝕏 responds to his claim (edited machine translation):
- What are you saying?..
Who is the main person responsible for the massive spreading of this lie to Ukrainians, for the persecution of those who said that there will be no NATO, that this is a scam, that we are being swindled, and that we signed up to sacrifice our lives for this, do you have the strength to name him?
To which Professor Glenn Diesen 𝕏 adds:
[T]he Western media is also responsible: Anyone arguing against setting up and sacrificing the Ukrainians in a proxy war were smeared as propagandists for Russia. Only relentless vile war propaganda has been permitted in the media.
The U.S. proxy war on Russia, which has sacrificed Ukraine, was based on research on how to 'extend Russia' published in 2019 by the Pentagon think-tank RAND Corp. That research was initiated by three questions:
- What are Russia's greatest anxieties and vulnerabilities?
- In what ways can these anxieties and vulnerabilities be exploited and extend Russia?
- What are the costs and risks associated with each option, and what are the prospects of success?
RAND found that the most favorable way to 'extend Russia' was to use Ukraine in a war against it by providing it with lethal weapons:
The United States could increase its military assistance to Ukraine-in terms of both the quantity and quality of weapons.
...
The United States could also become more vocal in its support for NATO membership for Ukraine. [...] While NATO's requirement for unanimity makes it unlikely that Ukraine could gain membership in the foreseeable future, Washington's pushing this possibility could boost Ukrainian resolve while leading Russia to redouble its efforts to forestall such a development.
At the time the RAND advice was published it had already been followed. Shortly after the 2014 Maidan coup the CIA had launched an intensive cooperation with the military intelligence service of Ukraine.
The partnership saw the CIA help Ukraine to rebuild its Main Directorate of Intelligence, known by its acronym HUR, which has become renowned for its audacious operations. The CIA eventually directed millions of dollars in funding to help train and equip Ukrainian intelligence officers, and to construct facilities, including around a dozen secret forward-operating bases on the border with Russia. The two services also began conducting joint operations together around the world, the highest level of trust for intelligence services, according to the former U.S. officials.
In 2017 the Trump administration started to openly deliver Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. In 2021, when Biden took over, the U.S. continued to follow the RAND advise. The flow of lethal weapons to Ukraine increased. Verbal support for NATO membership in Ukraine was given through media and anonymous briefings. But it was never stated as an official aim because the U.S. knew that there was no way to achieve it.
RAND listed 'benefits' the U.S., not Ukraine, would probably get by doing this. But those benefits were from weakening Russia, not from making real gains for the U.S. itself.
It also listed risks:
Alternatively, Russia might counter-escalate, committing more troops and pushing them deeper into Ukraine. Russia might even preempt U.S. action, escalating before any additional U.S. aid arrives. Such escalation might extend Russia; Eastern Ukraine is already a drain. Taking more of Ukraine might only increase the burden, albeit at the expense of the Ukrainian people. However, such a move might also come at a significant cost to Ukraine and to U.S. prestige and credibility. This could produce disproportionately large Ukrainian casualties, territorial losses, and refugee flows. It might even lead Ukraine into a disadvantageous peace.
The risks described by RAND are now the obvious outcome of the war.
All this was known and available through readily accessible sources.
Why Zelenski, or any other Ukrainian, had ever expected anything different is hard to conceive.
One explanation is that Zelenski is really as deluded as Shuster had described him:
[H]is belief in Ukraine's ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. "He deludes himself," one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. "We're out of options. We're not winning. But try telling him that."
Dead set against any peace negotiations Zelenski's demands are getting more shrill by the day.
Next to immediate NATO membership he now demands a peacekeeping force that does not exist:
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is seeking a meeting with US President Donald Trump, says that at least 200,000 European peacekeepers will be needed to prevent a new Russian attack after any ceasefire deal.
...
"From all the Europeans? Two hundred thousand, it's a minimum. It's a minimum, otherwise it's nothing," Zelensky said when asked about the idea of a peacekeeping contingent on an interview panel after delivering his speech.
That number is around the size of the entire French armed forces, estimated at just over 200,000 by France's defence ministry in 2020.
He also wants U.S. forces to be part of it.
There is no chance of getting either.
Zelenski is done with and he knows it. It is unlikely that he, in three month or so, will still be in place.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.