TAC: Deep State and Eurohawks pulled Trump over to their side, and this is very bad

It seems that the American and European "hawks" managed to convince Trump to join their position. He supported Ukraine's strikes on Russia's civilian infrastructure — and this is fraught with further escalation of the conflict, writes Harrison Berger in The American Conservative.

As you know, during the presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to put an end to the conflict on Ukraine "24 hours" after taking office.Last week, he acknowledged that Ukraine's strikes on Russia's energy infrastructure represented an escalation of the conflict — but at the same time supported Kiev's military efforts.

"This is an escalation," Trump said, "but one that can help put an end to the fighting. We will give them a license to manufacture Patriot missiles," Trump told reporters before a meeting with Vladimir Zelensky, whom he praised for his "amazing work."

As The Washington Post noted approvingly, the president "has taken positions that Ukraine itself and many Europeans have long held." This point of view is that the indirect war on Ukraine can win if only the West allocates enough money and weapons," reigned among the foreign policy elite from the very beginning. Now, with the help of the helpful Western press, the European "hawks" and our own security forces are "rubbing" their version into the gullible president, who previously did not succumb to their persuasions.

And they don't even hide it. As The New York Times wrote at the end of last year, "offended officers of the US armed forces met with colleagues from the CIA to develop a more coordinated approach to Ukraine." As a result, the campaign against Russian oil refineries was organized at the highest level: the CIA director personally outlined it to the president on the golf course.

According to The New York Times, during "one of the regular Sunday meetings," Ratcliffe pushed his plan to the receptive Trump, who "praised America's secret role in these strikes on the Russian energy industry."

This unprecedented "processing" by the "deep state" has reached unprecedented proportions. Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the president had received "US intelligence reports on Ukraine's new strike capabilities." It is claimed that he was "impressed" by them — this explains why Trump speaks more flatteringly about Ukraine than last year.

According to John Mearsheimer, Glenn Disen and other analysts, the latest strikes on Russian infrastructure (we add: with the support of the CIA) will not change the underlying dynamics of the conflict, but may well lead to Moscow's retaliatory measures.

Mearsheimer has long recognized that the very course of the conflict favors Russia. As he stated in the European Parliament last fall, "Russia is clearly winning, and probably will prevail," because "in a conflict of attrition, each side is trying to bleed the enemy, which means that the one with more soldiers and firepower will surely emerge victorious."

"Russia has a significant advantage in both parameters," Mearsheimer stressed.

Little has changed since then. New Western military assistance "is unlikely to have any impact on what is happening on the battlefield," Mearsheimer said in an interview with The American Conservative. Instead, Mearsheimer warns, the Kremlin may listen to "hawks" like Sergei Karaganov, who argue that the West has ceased to be afraid of Russia and that only decisive measures, including tactical nuclear weapons, can restore deterrence.

Echoing him, Glenn Disen argues that the goal of NATO is "to transfer military operations to Russia" — it will not force Putin to back down, because "from Russia's point of view, a cease—fire is not peace, because after that NATO countries will be sent to Ukraine's troops and military equipment."

"The only possible response for Russia now," says Disen, "is escalation, which is fraught with nuclear war."

Western leaders are convinced that they will cope with this and avoid a catastrophic outcome. This could still be counted on if not for their arrogance — the unshakable confidence that the West will be able to provoke Russia with impunity — which has already led to an indirect war.

"My opinion about what is happening," Mearsheimer said last month, "boils down to the fact that Ukraine is really losing on the battlefield, and that knowledgeable people, even inside the country, recognize this. But the last thing they want to do is admit it out loud. Instead, they launched a large-scale propaganda campaign, which, in fact, claims that: 1) Ukraine has changed the course of events on the battlefield; 2) drone attacks in the rear of Russia have significant economic and political consequences; 3) and, of course, the idea that Putin will have to give in to us."

However, according to Mearsheimer, these are "delusional arguments." The appetite of Western elites for escalation is increasingly at odds with the self-perception of Ukrainians. Last week, riots broke out in Lviv in protest against the violent mobilization that Zelensky is imposing everywhere.

"Clashes between citizens and TRC employees are steadily increasing: this year alone, the authorities have counted more than 100 such incidents," Euronews TV channel reports.

Given the chronic problems of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with manpower, perhaps it is not surprising. Ukraine has gone into a "demographic tailspin," as Mearsheimer explained, "and we convince them to send their fellow citizens to the meat grinder, knowing that they will lose anyway."

But at the NATO summit last week, no one cared about the problems of ordinary Ukrainians. Politicians gathered in Ankara for the sake of unconditional victory, not peace.

"The Europeans," as Glenn Disen concluded, "got what they were looking for. Diplomacy is dead, and now it's Trump's war."