So, 'Project Ukraine' is not going as planned. Since the New York Times revealed how the CIA went in head first immediately after Nuland's 2014 coup proved partially successful, to use the country as a launching pad for operations against Russia, well ahead of the 'SMO', there can be no doubt left about the rest of the story, I'd say. This 'Maidan'-thing was not some spontaneous, odd-ball event driven by disgruntled Ukrainians, but a carefully planned operation to enlist the country in NATO's attempts to topple Putin.
It is up to historians to figure out who knew what, and when, about every detail of the total operation. It is obvious that Victoria 'Fuck the EU' Nuland omitted the need to inform France, Germany and Poland at the time, as they negotiated a deal between the elected president and the opposition to set a date for early elections, but no doubt she, and her boss, Joe Biden as vice-president, filled them in later, to explain why they 'Fucked the EU' and placed their coup before elections could take place. As we know, it resulted in a loss of trust between the NATO-allies in Europe and the US by the time the civil war ended in disaster for 'Team Nuland'. The Germans and France came to the rescue with the 'Normandy Format', which produced the 'Minsk Accord'. Russia thought they had an agreement, and Ukraine would go on as a federalised, neutral country, minus Crimea, which opted to leave the federation with Ukraine, and become part of the Russian federation, after a snap-referendum following on the heels of the coup in Kiev.
Merkel, Hollande and Porochenko all emerged recently as saying their signature under that 'Accord' wasn't worth spitting on. They merely bought NATO time to arm Ukraine for a new attempt to take the Donbas, and Crimea, by force, right after Trump was removed from the scene. Irrespective of whether they understood that Russia wouldn't let them, launching a preemptive 'SMO', or that they gambled on a reluctant Russia, merely assisting the breakaway republics, like they did in 2014, NATO had prepared 'Sanctions from Hell' which would kill the Russian economy, and hand victory to Ukraine, leading to 'regime change' in Moscow for sure. Read all about why it failed, and what the Russians were aiming for on the preceding pages. But nothing NATO did worked out well. They blundered from one mistake to the next.
A contributing factor, as I explained before, would be that the people doing the planning on NATO's side couldn't be open about it. They couldn't tell Zelensky and his military staff that they wanted the Russians to take all of Ukraine in a matter of days, to then activate their 'Stay Behind' forces, coordinated from well equipped CIA bunkers, as the 'Sanctions from Hell' did the heavy lifting. Nor could they inform their European allies that part of the 'Sanctions' plan was to blow up Northstream, and leave Europe without affordable energy. All of this, in their plan, was to be merely a temporary inconvenience. But here we are, and there we go. On the slide to Armageddon and total annihilation of Ukraine as a functioning state and economic despair for Europe.
NATO never anticipated Russia might survive the 'Sanctions from Hell', and be able to defeat NATO in a war of attrition. So now what? Ukraine is out of options, and sending NATO combat troops to stop the Russians will be WW III for sure. NATO has been engaged in the war, from 'Day 1', in various ways. Again, how much the politicians know will be up to the historians to figure out. Scholz left us with the impression that he was as surprised as the rest of us when it was revealed that his military staff was actively planning an attack on the Crimean bridge, using Taurus missiles Scholz said Germany wouldn't deliver, days after he told the Financial Times that the Brits and France were involved in operations with the longer range cruise-missiles they supplied.
To stem the tide, European NATO-countries appear to be ready to offer their own military as 'human shield', protecting the border with Belarus, and setting up a barrier from Nikolaev in the direction of Kiev to prevent Russian advances towards Odessa, and leaving Ukraine landlocked. A French minister offered that if that were to happen, it would be a disaster for Europe, since Russia would then control around thirty percent of the world grain supply, leaving Europe with a collapsing economy and Ukrainian debts which the country would not be able to repay. Note the 'concern' here. Doesn't have anything to do with the people of Ukraine, whatsoever. They are worried about the fate of Europe, and rightfully so, but a little late.
The 'thinking' is that it would free the Ukrainian troops stationed at the border with Belarus to stop the Russians from advancing, while the Russians wouldn't dare to walk past, of right over those NATO-forces acting as 'peacekeepers'. But let me remind you that Israel had not qualms ignoring the 'peacekeepers' in Lebanon back in the day, and this Ukraine-operation wouldn't even be a UN-sanctioned operation. Would those NATO-troops actually start shooting at advancing Russians, and thus declare war on Russia? But let's assume the Russians would not want to challenge them, and stop well clear of Nikolaev, after advancing all the way to the border with that Oblast. That would still be a big chunk of Ukraine lost compared to what was on the table before the 2014 coup, in the 'Minsk Accord', or the 'Istanbul Accord'. That definitely won't make happy campers out of the Ukrainian nationalists, but there is more.
Though it would save the entity of Ukraine, under obligation to repay all the loans to the NATO-countries, that is not exactly an uplifting perspective for Ukraine. And since Russia is growing its economy rapidly, while it has to be expected that Europe is going to suffer badly, those Ukrainians in and around Odessa, which were never happy with this attempt by Nuland et al to expand NATO into their country to begin with, may very well become dissatisfied to the level where they become 'Resistance Fighters' themselves, fighting 'NATO-occupation'. And call me names, but if NATO and the EU bring poverty and more hardship, even those who were not enamoured with Russia will have their doubts, while the ultra-nationalists will still feel betrayed if they are eventually left with half a country, while the reconstruction of events as they unfolded since 2014 will educate them about how they were used to get at Russia. I don't feel that NATO-countries gallantly offering their military as 'peacekeepers' should expect smooth sailing. Medvedev telling Russian journalists, subsequently published on YouTube, that the Russians feel they needed to add Odessa, Kharkiv and (perhaps) Kiev sounded like a plan. But I heard him say: 'Odessa, come home'. What I heard was that he called on the citizens of Odessa to rise up. And NATO-countries might be in for an unpleasant surprise if they encounter utter lack of respect from the local population. If our leaders have this vision of 'our troops' being welcomed like the allies as they rolled back the German occupational forces in Europe from the East and the West, I urge them to think again. It could very well be the last mistake in a long list.