Zelensky chief of staff: Ukraine 'very disappointed' in NATO summit results

[bluewater]

Source: The Hill

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, said Thursday the country has been let down by the emergency NATO summit in Brussels over the Russian invasion.

"We are very disappointed," Yermak said during a video call with the Atlantic Council, The Washington Post reported. "We expected more bravery. We expected some bold decisions."

Ukraine was hoping NATO would agree to a no-fly zone over Ukraine or supply the country with fighter jets, Yermak said, two moves that President Biden has explicitly ruled out as potentially drawing the U.S. into a bigger fight with Russia.

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/international/599786-zelensky-chief-of-staff-ukraine-very-disappointed-in-nato-summit-results

---

Why would Ukraine be disappointed in NATO after billions of dollars of arms and supplies have been sent in the last month and even more are on the way?

Well, perhaps because the lives of the Ukrainian Armed forces are not an unlimited resource?

Perhaps because 3.5 million Ukrainians have fled to neighboring countries?

Perhaps because another 6.5 million civilans have been forced from their homes inside Ukraine?

Perhaps because constant inhumane shelling by the Russian invaders is reducing Ukraine's cities to rubble?

In short, perhaps because the US and NATO response is insufficient compared to the desperate plight of the Ukrainian people and nation, well, at least from the perspective of President Zelensky and the Ukrainian government.

[bluewater]

4. One would think that President Zelensky and his chief of staff would know.

This was the Chief of Staff of the President of the Ukraine saying this today, not a pundit opining.

[Eyeball_Kid]

32. "Very disappointed"...

Were I a strategist, I'd approve of that message.

UKR wants its enemy to believe that its resources are inadequate so as not to raise further suspicions that NATO is supplying a massive shit-load of weapons systems to UKR.

Remember that the first casualty of war is the truth.

Let the messages resound. Let at least SOME in Russia believe that UKR is further behind the 8-ball than it already is. Let Russia suspect that (UKR) being the underdog in this war is NOT to UKR's advantage. UKR is culturally accustomed to seeing itself as an underdog that prevails. In the medium and long term, UKR will prevail.

[RAB910]

2. I appreciate the perspective, but I am also mindful there is a mad man with a shit load of nukes

that we are dealing with. The US and NATO are mindful of that very real danger and need to tread carefully. Look what happened when the last mad man President (Trump) lost something. Things can get very ugly very quickly

[Akoto]

3. I don't disagree they need them, but he had to know those two weren't in the cards.

Other countries want to help. Nobody wants to rush into taking the big steps, though, almost all of which would provoke Russia by assisting Ukraine militarily, thus bringing that party into the fighting. Both of those things mentioned by Yermak would lead to such an end. It's not something you do lightly when the other guy has nuclear arms, and appears to have gone crazy enough that even China's kinda saying "whoa, calm down there."

That being said, I agree with the poster above who states that nobody knows what happened at that meeting except the attendees. There may indeed have been deals and lines in the sand established, and Zelensky's staff has been asked to play the meeting off as a failure. Just as some things aren't in the cards, there's also (and this has been done often in history) such a thing as playing your cards close to your vest.

President Biden has been making increasingly stronger and more pointed statements against Russia in the last few weeks, stating outright that war crimes are taking place, that Putin is a war criminal, and that we would respond "in kind" (which I took to mean militarily, just poor choice of words) if Russia were to use bio/chem weapons against Ukraine. I think his patience for Putin began to wear thin when they started randomly shelling cities, including places like hospitals and known shelters.

[AntiFascist]

8. A military analyst on CNN (retired something general)...

just stated that a purely defensive humanitarian zone needs to be established in western Ukraine to protect those who have been displaced or are seeking refuge. This zone would be defended by NATO both on the ground and in the air. He realized it would risk escalating the war by involving NATO anti-air defenses, but stressed that it would be purely defensive.

[bluewater]

9. Excellent idea.

And pardon my self-promotion here, I suggested something similar previously here on DU myself:

The first step would be to declare this in western Ukraine around Lviv, currently hundreds of miles away from Russian forces.

We would make clear that this portion of Ukraine is under full NATO protection and it would be extremely unwise for Russia to think otherwise. We would tell them it's under the same level of protection as the small Baltic states that are in NATO already.

We would be taking the same risks of "escalating" a direct conflict as we all ready currently are protecting the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.

If you think this proposal is too risky, then the same logic would apply to protecting the small Baltic states, that we would be unwilling to back up our policy of protecting allies.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1014&thread=2883808&pid=2883847

[AntiFascist]

11. So did I at one point, but of course the idea got shot down (so to speak)...

[bluewater]

12. Greetings, my fellow prophet in the wilderness

Best regards,

[orangecrush]

18. +1

[bluewater]

20. ty

[totodeinhere]

10. I think it's pretty obvious that NATO leaders are afraid of Putin.

And they do not want to push him too far. But I think in the long run NATO will be drawn into a nuclear war whether they want to or not.

[AntiFascist]

13. There was a very smart analyst from Berlin on cable news last night...

who felt it was unlikely that Putin would use a tactical nuke, no matter how desperate he becomes. (Of course, any possibility should be taken into account.) Analysts are saying it is more likely Putin would try using chemical warfare, as he has done in the past.

[Crowman2009]

15. Pooty-poot doesn't want to lose all his expensive toys.

Hence why nukes are probably not a possibility.

[totodeinhere]

21. Yes, I have heard that too.

But I have also heard that NATO is preparing just in case he does. And who knows if we can predict the actions of a madman?

[AntiFascist]

23. There was a Russian intel (FSB) whistleblower who sent an email that got posted recently...

and you can probably argue whether or not it contained any propaganda.

He did indicate that it was possible for Putin to use a limited tactical nuke within the region of the war. But, he also stated that the "red button" (implying intercontinental strategic nukes) would not get pushed because that decision had to be made by other people in addition to Putin, of which at least one would prevent it from happening.

(He also predicted that this war would cause a devastating worldwide grain shortage, long before that became a news item.)

I've also heard some expert generating the fear that any use of nukes would escalate into a larger and larger use of nukes, based on a number of war game simulations.

[totodeinhere]

24. Yes, and how does NATO respond in he used a tactical nuke and deadly fallout drifts over

a NATO country? Would that trigger Article 5? And if so would Putin responds to a NATO attack with more nukes?

[AntiFascist]

27. My understanding is that the winds are currently drifting west to east in the area...

so it's more likely to drift into Russia, for the time being.

I think its pretty clear NATO would respond, though, but they're keeping the "how" quiet.

[totodeinhere]

28. Of course the people of Russia would not deserve that either since this is Putin's

war and the poor people of Russia are not responsible.

[Strelnikov_]

14. " . . . think in the long run NATO will be drawn into a nuclear war . . . "

Then why are you here, and not out spending all your money, partying like its 1999?

Because, that will be the end of everything, and you think the end of everything is right around the corner.

[spudspud]

17. Thank you.

Too many people with a cavalier attitude about potential nuclear annihilation. I can't tell if it's a selfish thing (they've lived most of their life and don't really care about the end of civilization) or if they're just naiive about what nuclear war means for everyone. There will be no safety of the great oceans protecting us from a nuclear war. It's game over for everyone.

[orangecrush]

19. Putin is not

Going to go nuclear over Ukraine.

Obvious bluff.

[totodeinhere]

26. If you are referring to me, I don't think that predicting that this could lead to nuclear war

demonstrates a "cavalier attitude." Yes a nuclear war would be catastrophic, but I thought that was already obvious to everyone so I saw no need to mention it.

[spudspud]

29. Wasn't referring to you. And my point stands. /nt

[totodeinhere]

30. Ok. N/t

[Strelnikov_]

31. I think it demonstrates borderline sociopathic tendencies . . lack of empathy

I am seeing a lot of 'I'm not afraid of dying in a nuclear war' . . . 'I'm going to die someday anyway' . . .

Well, I'm not afraid of dying in a nuclear war either. What terrifies me is the billions of others who will die . . . the children . . . the good along with the bad.

And it will be billions. Even a limited exchange will result in the collapse of industrial society, resulting in death by conflict and starvation for most of the world.

Even if this war gets turned off now, the world is already looking at a possible famine in developing countries that depend on grain imports.

And, since I am ranting, I am also getting a bit tired of the 101st Keyboard Brigade around here, and their machinations on how the Ukrainians need to continue the fight, and we need to join in. If NATO and Russia battle over Ukraine, their won't be much of Ukraine left.

No country starts a war thinking they will lose. No country cuts a deal to end a conflict thinking they are on the path to winning.

Right now is the time for Ukraine to cut a deal, before things have gone too far, and there is still a country to rebuild. Let Putin have Crimea, Donbas, get this turned off. Stop the destruction and dying.

The Western nations then need to FLOOD Ukraine with reconstruction aid and DEFENSIVE weaponry. All the while the western nations keep the sanctions on Russia contingent on them returning said lands.

Putin is as done as Czar Nicholas, it is now just a matter of time. Ukraine will have their country back eventually.

Militarily, even without sanctions, Russia has 10 years plus to build a military that can take, and hold, another nation. I don't think the organized crime syndicate that runs Russia has that long. And the west needs to be ready to aid the Russian people, steer them toward a vibrant democracy, a modern day 'Marshall Plan', and not the carpetbagging exercise exhibited by the west when the Soviet Union fell.


This is an August 1914 moment. War is a beast that can take unexpected turns. The beast must be put back to sleep.

[totodeinhere]

22. I am not a party animal.

I do not see the need to spend all my money nuclear war or not.

[HUAJIAO]

16. ",,,,potentially drawing the U.S. into a bigger fight with Russia."

Well, if the Ukrainians can do what they have done with what they have..........imagine the destruction the U.S. could cause the Russians in short order. It would be over in a New York minute.

I know.. I know... who am I to second guess the experts.....?

[ruet]

25. This is the Overreach I've Been Expecting.

500 AA and 500 AT missiles a day and now this? While I, largely, agree with him; it's never a good idea to bite that hand that's feeding you.