Davos Admits Possibility Of Ukraine Defeat - Claims Putin Will Target EU Next

In a move that would have been unthinkable a year ago, the WEF has formed a discussion panel at their annual Davos conference titled “What If Ukraine Loses?”  The panel represents, at the very least, an admission by the globalists that Ukraine could be defeated by Russia despite the deluge of money, armaments and intel assets that Ukraine has been given access to by western governments.

Since 2022, the narrative has shifted from talk of complete victory over Russia including the retaking of the Donbas and even Crimea, to merely holding the current front and keeping a steady supply of ammo and recruits.  

The realities on the ground cannot be denied.  The long vaunted “counter-offensive” that was supposed to crush Russian forces was a complete failure.  No significant ground was gained and no significant victories have been won.  It was a considerable propaganda error to hype up the counter-offensive the way Ukraine did, because when it turned out to be a dud all their other claims quickly came under suspicion.    

At the end of 2023, the average age of Ukrainian soldiers was older than 40 (compare this to the US where the average age is 27).  Rumors out of Ukraine abound that most younger soldiers are dead and that collection teams (government enforcers) now prowl the streets of cities like Kiev.  They search for and kidnap any fighting age men they find, only to send them to the front with little or no training.  

These are the kinds of stories that go mostly ignored by the wider western media.  When they are mentioned, it is usually in support of the Ukrainian government, chastising people who don't want to fight and die in a globalist proxy war as “draft dodgers.”  The level to which journalists have acted as a propaganda arm of NATO and Ukraine has been grotesque, but it does help to explain why so many Americans and Europeans were deluded about the war for so long.  All they have heard about for the past two years is that Ukraine is on the verge of imminent victory.

It's simply not true.

This is likely why the WEF is now forced to address the issue at Davos – The situation is becoming undeniable and the fact that the elites are allowing discussion about a Ukraine loss suggests that defeat might be closer than we know.

The panel itself is largely made up of Ukrainian representatives who are there to spin the facts, not have a frank discussion about the realities in the trenches.  Journalist Niall Ferguson seems to be the only member with a modicum of honesty on the panel, as he admits the situation in Ukraine has degraded dramatically.  He does, however, join with the Ukrainians in admonishing the American public's growing opposition to monetary and military support.

The underlying message?  If Ukraine loses, it will be your fault.     

Why should Americans be relied upon to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into a losing war against an opponent that has nothing to do with them?  The same question should be considered by Europeans, but their proximity is used as leverage against them.  The primary argument from political warhawks like Lindsay Graham and puppets like Zelensky is that when Ukraine falls, Putin intends to invade Europe next.  

It's the old Vietnam era “domino effect” narrative, repeated ad nauseum.  The problem is that warhawks along with Zelensky and his propagandists are caught in a Catch-22:  They have been promoting the idea that Russia's military is in shambles and that US and EU aid is bringing Ukraine to victory.  At the same time, they want to frighten Europeans and Americans with the prospect that Russia is strong enough to invade the EU.  They can't have it both ways – Either Russia's armies are crippled and ripe to be overrun, or, they are incredibly strong and capable of leaping into a series of invasions against Ukraine's neighbors.  

The notion that Vladimir Putin intends to blitz Eastern Europe and that Ukraine is the only thing stopping him has never been supported by any significant evidence.  Putin has never made this threat and there is no hard intel that confirms this is his strategy.  There was a multitude of reasons for Russia to invade Ukraine and take the Donbas region; there is no strategic reason for them to engage in conflict with any other nation.  

Rather than going into the ugly facts about Ukraine's chances, the Davos panel comes off more as a sales pitch for continued shipments of cash and weapons.  A disturbing cost/benefit analysis is offered up to the audience - For the cost of a couple hundred billion dollars and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens, here is what you get in return...

The speakers even refer to this dynamic as an “investment.”  Some of the more revealing comments include...

1)  Panel members demand that more needs to be done to give Ukraine the means to strike into the heart of Russia (meaning long range missiles), which would only open the door to total bombardment of Ukraine's civilian population centers (which Putin has so far kept to a minimum, especially when you compare operations by the US in places like Iraq).  Escalation could include nuclear strikes, which Putin has mentioned on multiple occasions.   

2)  The panel asserts that the "global community" needs to collectively approve the use of more aggressive strikes on Russia.  The nature of these strikes is not really discussed but this could include anything from bombardment of Russian cities, manufacturing, energy and agriculture to terror attacks on civilian populations.  One could say that all is fair in war, but this is not the point.  The point is that escalation is assured and many civilians (most of them Ukrainian) will die should Ukraine be armed with high tech weaponry or use tactics that risk much higher collateral damage.  This is not a scenario that the majority of Americans want to facilitate.

3)  Possibly the most interesting and disturbing comment of the panel came from politician Yehor Cherniev, who noted that the problem with America is that the government is forced to "listen to the people," which slows down decisions on Ukraine.  In other words, a dictatorship in the US would serve Ukrainian interests better.  Given that Ukraine is essentially a dictatorship right now, this sentiment is not surprising but still interesting to hear in a public forum.       

The clinical manner in which the war is being handled and sold suggests a sociopathy beyond reckoning, but it also lets us know that the war is intended to last.  So far, there has not been a single serious gesture from NATO leaders to engage in diplomatic negotiations or peace talks with the Kremlin.  And (if it hasn't happened already) eventually Ukraine will run out of soldiers to fight.  Under the circumstances, a devastating loss is assured, to the point that it appears to be the only outcome that is allowed to happen.