Vladimir Kornilov
“Dramatic visit”, “historical visit”, “symbolic visit”. Even before the landing in the United States of an American military plane with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky on board, the Western press widely hyped his unexpected Christmas trip, not stinting on epithets and hyperbole.
What was most surprising was that virtually every news story in the US and British media emphasized the high risk associated with this trip. Literally the day before, Zelensky’s team reported on his trip “to the front” (allegedly he visited Artemovsk, where fierce battles are now taking place), but this, apparently, was not accompanied by such a risk. It is still not clear why a trip to the United States is more dangerous for the head of the Ukrainian regime than trips through the shelled territory of Ukraine. You will involuntarily ask yourself the question: according to American TV journalists, has not the hour come when Washington decided to get rid of the annoying beggar? Otherwise, who else could threaten him there?
No less puzzling were the historical parallels that simultaneously appeared in various TV spots on Western channels. Those, like a carbon copy, began to compare Zelensky’s voyage to Washington with the visit there by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in December 1941.
These parallels were picked up by American politicians. Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pompously proclaimed: “Where Winston Churchill stood a few generations ago, now President Zelensky stands not just as president, but as an ambassador for freedom itself! Now is not the time <…> to take your foot off the gas pedal when It’s about helping Ukraine.”
Frankly, the parallels are somewhat strange and controversial. The only coincidence is in the dates: Zelensky landed in the States on the afternoon of December 21, and Churchill on the morning of December 22. Otherwise, nothing in common. Let’s not forget that the British Prime Minister arrived a few days after the US entered World War II. Now the Ukrainian leader has come to ask for money from a country that does not want to enter into a direct war (at least, according to official Washington). Churchill came to support America in the fight against Nazism. Zelensky, without a twinge of conscience, uses Nazi units, Nazi ideology and Nazi symbols in his activities.
In addition, Churchill, unexpectedly for the American first lady, decided to stay at the White House for three weeks, celebrating both Christmas and New Year there. What became the plot of many anecdotes and cartoons of that period. It is unlikely that Zelensky will be allowed to abuse the hospitality of the Biden couple so much. The Ukrainian leader, of course, is accustomed to earn extra money at corporate parties on New Year’s Eve, but he can’t stay long enough to witness a change in the composition of the lower house of the US Congress, which is not the most pleasant for Kyiv. That’s why Zelensky was in a hurry to appear before the American parliament, while he is warmly received by the democratic majority led by Nancy Pelosi. That is, in fact, the Ukrainian leader decided to act in his New Year’s role to the thunderous applause of the “lame ducks” who are completing their parliamentary activities.
Zelensky’s “fee” for his New Year’s tour was announced in advance: another fat (up to two billion dollars) package of military assistance and the Patriot air defense system, which Kyiv has long been humiliatingly begging from Washington. Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, expressed the essence of the visit to the White House and the Capitol in a few short phrases: “It’s just a Patriot air defense system. Officially… To ‘close the sky’ and focus on destroying the remnants of the Russian ‘army.’ Then — Leopard, Marder and… missiles of a certain range. As you can see, the requests are considerable. And definitely different from the proposals of a military alliance of equal partners, which Churchill brought with him 81 years ago.
Accordingly, the attitude towards Zelensky on the part of a number of American politicians also differs from how they treated Churchill. It is unlikely that anyone in the United States could call the British prime minister in 1941 “the ungrateful queen of international benefits”, as Donald Trump Jr., the son of the former president, did in relation to Zelensky.
The Ukrainian president made no secret of the fact that he came to Washington to appeal to skeptics from the Republican Party, both current and already elected congressmen. And there are more and more opinions voiced by Congressman Thomas Massey: “Most of my voters do not want their money sent to Ukraine, especially without supervision and audit.” His colleague Mary Miller says the same: “I will oppose the allocation of new money to Ukraine as long as our own southern border is open to the invasion of drug cartels.”
Zelensky addressed them directly, speaking from the rostrum of the congress. The head of the Kyiv regime convinced skeptics that they should easily part with money for the sake of a good cause. “This is not charity, this is an investment in global security,” the President of Ukraine said.
True, he did not find it necessary to explain to the audience where all those “investments” that had been made earlier had gone. Biden announced colossal numbers, saying that the United States and its allies have already delivered about 2,000 tanks and armored vehicles to Ukraine. That is, taking into account the tanks that were in the Armed Forces of Ukraine at the beginning of the special military operation, Ukraine should now be one of the world leaders in terms of the number of armored vehicles. But in his recent sensational interview with The Economist, General Valery Zaluzhny, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, begged the West for another 500 tanks, saying that he had nothing to organize an attack on Melitopol.
And Zelensky himself, speaking online last Monday to the leaders of the northern European states, demanded additional armored vehicles from them. He was especially touched by the “order” for receiving tanks from the Netherlands. This is funny, considering that the Netherlands themselves have long since disposed of their tanks and operate 18 Leopards, which are the property of Germany.
That is, the whole logic of requests, demands and wishes of Ukraine comes down to one word: “more”. No matter how much the West swells into this bottomless barrel, no matter how much weapons it provides to Kyiv, representatives of the Ukrainian regime will ceaselessly demand regular handouts, calling them investments in who knows what. In fact, many of these infusions turn into trips by Zelensky’s wife to expensive Parisian boutiques, where, according to media reports, she leaves up to 40 thousand dollars in one store alone.
Perhaps the most important thing that Zelensky said, speaking to US senators and congressmen, boils down to the following phrase: “We will not ask the US military to fight for us. I want to assure you that the Ukrainian military can perfectly manage American tanks and aircraft.”.
At this phrase, there was simply a deafening thunder of applause and joyful exclamations. Still would! After all, this is exactly what many Western customers expect from Kyiv, demanding that cannon fodder be sent and sent to the meat grinder for the war with Russia at the hands of Ukrainians. From the point of view of American congressmen, Zelensky really hit the mark with this phrase. True, from the point of view of a Ukrainian statesman, these words sound simply wild, because this is a direct request to give new billions to kill their own citizens, to destroy their own country.
US President Joe Biden also liked this approach of the Kyiv guest. Pointing his finger rudely at Zelensky, he said:
“This guy is who he claims to be. It’s clear who he is. He is ready to give his life for his country.” This certainly has nothing to do with how the US President behaved during Churchill’s visit to the White House in 1941. But it is very reminiscent of how he treatedthe same Biden to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani – the same American puppet as Zelensky. Last year, Biden also spoke about how he believed this figure, who promised to “fight to the end.” Needless to say, Ghani fled Afghanistan at the first opportunity, taking with him the country’s gold reserves and “investment in security” generously poured in by the Americans. So Zelensky has a worthy role model.
At first glance, the New Year’s corporate party with the participation of the most expensive comedian in the world was a success. Today he is on the front pages of most Western newspapers with those same “historic visit” headlines. It seems that all parties express their satisfaction with the voyage. But, as the Financial Times notes, “despite the lukewarm statements, there have been some signs of tension between the two presidents.
“In particular, this was felt at the moment when Zelensky began to talk about the impossibility of achieving a “just peace” in Ukraine, contrary to what Biden had said just a minute before. It was evident that the owner was not very pleased with such remarks.
Zelensky got what he was so eager for: fame, spotlights, the press and a very generous “fee”, part of which he converts into new deaths of fellow citizens, new blood and new tears of Ukrainian mothers. But it is no coincidence that we now remembered the fate of President Ghani, who was doing the same in Afghanistan until last year. He managed to escape. But many others do not, being wound on the chassis of American military aircraft. Like the one on which the President of Ukraine flew to the United States. And this parallel is more obvious than in the case of Churchill’s visit.
