MARKED FOR DEATH

Why is there speculation about the possible elimination of Volodymyr Zelensky, who would really benefit from it?

By Sidney Hey

The rumours we have been hearing about the line of succession if the current Ukrainian president were to be removed would not be in the genuine interest of protecting the 'institutionality' of a pro-Nazi regime masquerading in the Western media as "Ukrainian democracy".

As we have pointed out on several occasions, the comic actor who lent himself to turning his country into a NATO battleground could end in tragedy. Although the Western media claim that Zelensky was the target of several attacks against him, this is very difficult to prove. And it would not be the Russians who would take him out of circulation because, as things stand, their calamitous management of the war is more functional to the Kremlin than anyone in Washington would like to admit.

But what is the determining factor in whether or not Zelensky remains in power? As has been the case in the past, those who have been sustained by scaffolding provided by Washington and its allies sooner or later end badly. They are dispensable elements and as such are discarded at will.

The Zelensky character is an Anglo-American creation, and as with trademarks, its intellectual authors can dispose of it at their convenience. But why would the White House suddenly terminate his contract?

In fairness, we should first ask ourselves, is Zelensky to blame for the catastrophic situation of his troops on the battlefield? If we take it in the purely political sense, no doubt. But when it comes to the strictly military, the responsibilities are clearly shared. This real calamity seems not to have been taken into consideration by Pentagon and NATO strategists. Something seems to have escaped them and they did not realise that this could happen; and that begs another question: did the White House (Joe Biden) and NATO underestimate Russia's war-fighting capabilities? This, in turn, involves decidedly political aspects that determined the military and intelligence aspects.

If we look at it from the first aspect, we would see Joe Biden as the main responsible for pushing the comedian Zelensky's idea that he could (somehow) deal with Russia's forces and take back the whole of Donbass. Thus, Zelensky, confident of this support (don't forget), began to harass the Donetsk and Lugansk republics with greater intensity and continuity. These provocations led Russia to intervene and at the same time Biden and NATO assured Zelensky that he would have no shortage of weapons and financial resources to sustain the enterprise. Today it is clear that this was a terrible mistake.

That mistake has already been quantified, and although the collective Western media conglomerate is trying to disguise it, it is impossible to hide it from global public opinion. If we are only talking about strictly military matters, the failure of a counteroffensive that not only left the Kiev regime in a very uncomfortable position, but also annoyed its sponsors, especially the Americans and the British, who are very active in providing assistance of all kinds, would suffice.

Just considering the count of Ukrainian military hardware lost on the battlefield, it is safe to say that Russia has destroyed two and a half times the Ukrainian Armed Forces. A single figure in support of this is the whopping figure of more than 11,000 battle tanks annihilated, which at the same time reports more than 40,000 men of those crews committed.

It appears from the Vilnius summit that NATO partners have said "no more" to demands for more armaments and financial assistance. Despite Biden's insistence on continuing to support Ukrainian efforts, he no longer has the solidity he could find at the beginning of the Russian Special Military Operation. And it is not a lack of mystique (if there ever was such a thing) but an undeniable reality check that may well ruin Biden's political career and that of his supporters. Not only is Donald Trump a drag on US institutionality (because of the serious charges of obstruction and conspiracy he is accused of), but also everything he has implied in trying to destabilise Russia (including terrorism) without regard for the consequences not only for the economy of his allies but for the entire globe.

There is no doubt about it. Biden knows it, Blinken knows it, Sullivan is well aware of the adverse situation for the annoyingly pretentious Zelensky, and his advisers keep telling him..., "elections in a year" and that means they are just around the corner.

Failure in Ukraine would be the end of the line for Biden. He knows that as soon as he crosses the threshold of the Oval Office they will be waiting for him at the Federal Commission of Inquiry to be grilled on his foreign policy to find answers to questions about what happened in Afghanistan. Add to that the collapse of the Kiev regime and the disintegration of Ukraine, and it would be too much for a president with obvious senility problems.

No one is in any doubt that Biden is currently considering what to do about Zelensky. The pressure is on and officials like Kirby and Sullivan must be suggesting to their commander-in-chief that the ballast must be lifted or he will go down with it. The one with the most influence and proposals for a solution to the problem is CIA chief Joseph Burns, who has the manpower within the Kiev regime and, most importantly, in Zelensky's entourage.

Surely Ukraine will survive, perhaps not with the territorial make-up it had before the war and under suffocating economic-financial constraints that its inhabitants will have to endure for decades to come, but will Volodymyr Zelensky survive, and would his replacement change anything?