Alexander Mercouris went on at length about Ursula von der Leyen dropping the ball, when she mentioned in a speech she gave that Ukraine had lost 100.000 soldiers already. Dead. Efforts by the EU to scotch this remark from the record have therefore not been successful in an absolute sense, but no doubt the 'mainstream media' got the message, and won't go near replicating that figure, for the time being. At the same time, at various places in the 'mainstream media', as well as nearly all the alternative sources, there are articles about a grave lack of weapon systems and ammunition to send to Ukraine. Arms-sales to other customers, like Taiwan, are being diverted to Ukraine, sources are reporting, still leaving Ukraine on a short leash, since it has been using far more of everything than the west can come up with in resupply. This does suggest that those 100.000 are going to get plenty of company in the not too distant future, unless some sort of deal can be struck to end the war soon.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind who is responsible for this tragedy, and it is neither Putin or Zelensky, but the people in NATO who planned for this war when they overthrew Yanukovitch back in 2014, replacing him with a junta to their liking, and taking the wheel from that moment on. When Zelensky was elected, a large number of the Ukrainian people with access to the voting boot understood his campaign promises, mixed with his public image as a Jewish, Russian speaking television clown criticising the corrupt elite in Ukraine, as a fresh start, and a way out of war with Russia looming overhead. Historians will have to pry apart everything that was said and done by Zelensky to understand his position, and choices, and whether or not he was an honest broker, trying to steer clear from this looming war, or that he was contracted to be the 'Sandman', called upon to take the Russians to bed, as NATO and Ukraine worked frantically to suck the Russians into a war that would 'Bleed them White'.
We now know, and no longer have to speculate, about the intentions of the NATO-countries and Ukraine when they negotiated and signed the 'Minsk Accords'. They were merely buying time, thinking Russia would lose precious time and energy on trying to make it work, and by the time NATO and Ukraine were ready, the Russians would be too late. The record shows that Russia most certainly invested a lot in trying to make 'Minsk' work, but at the same time they were no fools, and prepared for an armed conflict and matching economic war. Putin presenting new, formidable weapons for the entire world to see, in 2018, didn't impress NATO, as their strategy called for a combined economic/financial war and luring Russia into a war with Ukraine, taking the entire country by storm, only to be left fighting 'Stay Behind' forces, dragging Russia into a second 'Afghanistan-experience'. And none of the hypersonic and futuristic weapons would save them.
The economic/financial war backfired spectacularly, while Russia refused to conquer all of Ukraine, which would have exposed it to NATO's 'Stay Behind'-forces. They initially pretended to go after Kiev and Kharkiv, hoping Zelensky would opt for a negotiated settlement, and he did. In my perception, those NATO 'Think Tanks' forgot to inform Zelensky he and his country were going to be thrown under the bus, and that nobody in NATO or the EU gave a hoot about the most corrupt country in Europe. I'm quite sure Zelensky understood his predicament when he explained his position in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria on March 20 of this year, explaining to Fareed that he had been abandoned by the EU and NATO, who had told him there was no chance in Hell that Ukraine would be allowed into NATO or the EU, although they wouldn't say so publicly, so as not to spoil all the 'fun'. Russia needed to believe that Ukraine had been offered membership for that country to make a move. Which it did.
Boris Johnson's unannounced trip to Kiev to tell Zelensky he couldn't cut a deal with the Russians, coincided with the reported killing of Ukraines negotiator on account of treason, and promises of unlimited support for Ukraine in its war against Russia, both designed to make it clear to Zelensky that he had to do as he was told, or else. I maintain that NATO expecting its strategy to be a 'hands-down' winner, caused it to overlook the possibility of a long, 'Old School' drawn out artillery battle. When it 'estimated' that Russia would be out of 'everything' in no time at all, they were probably not lying. They simply had no clue. As friend and foe of the Russian operation started to offer predictions of how the Russians would conquer Ukraine, they were offering sound military analysis, if Russia would have been interested in conquering Ukraine and dictating who would sit on the throne in Kiev. Going around the heavily fortified areas facing the LPR and DPR, much like the Germans did to overcome the 'Maginot Line', looked like a 'no-brainer'. So, when they didn't, and the anticipated cauldrons didn't materialise, it was assumed that, somehow, they couldn't. My own take may be entirely wrong, but I maintained the Russians never had the intention to take all of Ukraine, knowing full well that being dragged into this 'Afghanistan/Vietnam/Iraq-variant' would be a costly mistake. And that they, instead, took it upon themselves to 'grind' the Ukrainian military with artillery, demilitarising Ukraine 'head on' the hard way instead. It is what they are doing, obviously. But was it out of necessity? Or was it their 'Plan B' all along? I maintain it was their 'Plan B' all along.
'Plan A' called for sanity to be restored in quick order, and making sure the 'Sandman' understood that the 'Minsk Accord' was the best deal he would ever get. Saving thousands upon thousands of lives, and the future of Ukraine as a country. 'Plan B' would be extremely painful for Ukraine, and for the NATO-countries too, but was 'sub-optimal' for Russia and China, since war is always a costly affair, as well as an interruption of trade, and fair competition to improve the wealth of nations around the world. But that is where we are. And now what?
The Ukraine/NATO-combi looks set to be defeated, unless this thing goes nuclear, in which case we're all 'toast', literally. These losses von der Leyen is talking about are not sustainable, and though NATO claims the Russian losses are comparable, I think they are lying through their teeth. Moreover, the Russians came prepared, and if Ukraine is looking for more shells and rockets to land on Ukrainian soil, there is much more from the same factories which produced the first batches. And much more modern stuff to arrive soon. While NATO has nothing. They ran out of everything already, and run a serious risk of harming their own defensive capability if they keep sending stuff they need for 'Keeping up Appearances'.
Though my perception might be wrong, rumours circulating about Poland testing the waters for a 'Popular Vote' in the Lviv-region, asking the people whether or not they want to become part of Poland, in which case they would be protected by NATO and become part of the EU, with access to a subsidised life, like in Poland, living off German money for the past eighteen years, do not sound as some kind of fantasy, given the present situation. Hungary and Romania would stake their claims on other parts of Ukraine, while Russia expands its territory as it sees fit. What will be left would be some sort of 'No-Mans-Land'. A 'Demilitarised Zone'. Given the economic prospects of the EU, and the rapidly eroding trust in NATO, I would prefer a last minute deal between Russia and Ukraine, letting Ukraine live, remembering how the EU and NATO egged them on, only to use them as proxies in NATO's war with Russia, solidifying their position as a neutral state with safety guarantees from its neighbours. Incorporating vindictive elements into the EU and NATO is not a good idea, as we've already seen with former Warsaw-Pact countries, which are after Russian blood, and slaves to the 'Warparty' within NATO and the EU.