US Discusses Ukraine's Future After Two Years of 'Future'-Building
The mainstream media discovers that, after funneling billions into a conflict, the US might eventually push for a settlement that benefits its own geopolitical agenda. The specific concern raised by Al Jazeera (referencing a Trump administration plan) is the potential surrender of the Donbas region. This narrative omits the long game: NATO expansion, particularly since 1999, which steadily pushed
eastward despite explicit warnings from Russian officials about compromising their security interests. As George Kennan, architect of Cold War containment, noted in 1997, expanding NATO would be a 'tragic mistake,' likely provoking Russia. Now, after two years of providing weapons and 'unwavering support,' the idea of Ukraine making concessions is framed as a betrayal. It’s almost as if the US
wasn't always playing chess, where smaller nations are often just pawns in a larger geopolitical struggle. The US has a long history of supporting proxy conflicts and then 'negotiating' outcomes that serve its strategic interests, often leaving the 'beneficiaries' holding the short end of the stick. How many 'futures' has the US 'secured' just by prolonging a war?