JEFF CHILDERS

Fully’s Comment ( AHEM…NOTICE IS LAST SIGN OFF SENTENCE ON THIS PIECE ) …I REPEAT….JEFF IS “CONNECTED ”

Devils are skating across a great lake of frozen Hades this morning. The unimaginable has suddenly happened. Another massive pivot. The Economist broke the story yesterday, headlined, “Zelensky, Trump and Putin may all have done U-turns on elections in Ukraine.” Despite defiantly refusing to even consider the idea since his term expired early last year, Ukraine’s Martial Law Dictator has, apparently, now ordered Kiev to prepare to hold elections.

I note with great interest that this remarkable pivot swiveled exactly one day after the New York Times’ ran its even more astonishing exclusive: a re-write of the entire Proxy War history. The mind-boggling declassification story was headlined, “The Secret History of America’s Involvement in the Ukraine War.” (I covered the story as the single theme of yesterday’s supporter bonus edition.)

In short, the Times’ long-form, four-chaptered (!) “secret history” described in astonishing detail how the U.S. microscopically controlled the Ukraine war right down to the chain of command, with Americans directly in the kill chain, issuing specific battlefield commands and orders, and even providing most of the individual targets. In a Clintonesque play on words, American military managers in Germany carefully called targets “points of interest,” so that they could ‘plausibly’ deny they provided Kiev with any targeting data.

What was most interesting related to this morning’s story, was that the Times undermined Zelensky at every turn. Offering example after example, it basically reported that Ukraine would’ve won the war had that fool Zelensky not gone rogue and refused to follow orders, making one hapless mistake after another. Read it for yourself. It was a Pentagon Papers-level exposé, although it painted the US in glowing, altruistic colors.

The very next day, the Economist ran its own Ukraine exclusive— about these proposed elections. It was equally uncomplimentary about the bloodsucker. “In Kyiv,” it reported, “daggers are being sharpened around Mr Zelensky.” The Parasite of Kiev has long resisted even discussing elections, bursting into horse laughs when anybody mentioned the idea. “Two months ago, Mr Zelensky was believed to be dead set against holding a vote,” the Economist noted.

But something has changed. The Economist suggested that leech-like Zelensky thinks he’s slithered ahead in the polls. I suspect pressure. Either way, “serious preparations are now underway for Mr Zelensky to go before the electorate for a second time, and quite soon,” the far-left financial paper explained.

It’s a clear win for Trump. Russia’s implacable president Putin has long mused that, since Zelensky’s official status is, well, constitutionally murky, he couldn’t legally sign a peace deal even if he wanted to. Trump has also pushed for elections. He’s even met with potential opposition candidates, like Petro Poroshenko, who could run against the Green Sweatshirt.

In other words, Ukrainian elections provide Trump with a way to pressure Russia. Ukraine’s constitution bars elections during martial law. Since Putin himself demanded the elections, Russia might be persuaded to temporarily stand down, a sort of cease-fire, to allow Ukraine’s parliament breathing room to end martial law. In May, lawmakers in Kiev are scheduled to vote to either annually renew or possibly end martial law.

Was the Times’ weekend exposé a warning shot aimed at that deadbeat, Zelensky? It’s devilishly hard to forecast the effect of Times’ truly remarkable disclosures, except one thing seems clear. Americans are now learning about our real role in the war —submerged up to our taxpaying necks in Ukrainian mud— and most of us don’t like it. After what the Times ran this weekend, our military micromanagement cannot possibly continue.

It’s very curious how two astonishing narrative pivots appeared so closely together. A lot is happening behind the scenes.

Do not doubt me.