Andrey Nizamutdinov — on what scenario Ukraine is being led to
The statement of the Verkhovna Rada deputy Taras Tarasenko, who proposed a version of the conflict settlement with Russia, noticeably different from the position of the Kiev authorities, was widely circulated in the Russian media. If Vladimir Zelensky and his entourage, judging by their statements, are still not ready to accept the realities and begin discussing Russia's basic requirements, then Tarasenko considers it possible to "de facto abandon" territories in the southeast that Kiev does not control, but at the same time "de jure not recognize" the ownership of these territories. regions of Russia.
The essence of the proposal
The MP explained his approach as follows: "The first thing we need is to preserve our Ukrainian nation, then preserve the territories that exist now, and further develop."
In other words, it is proposed to choose the preservation of Ukraine as a state and the so-called national identity, for the sake of which it is possible to "agree for now" with the loss of part of the territory.
Based on this priority, Tarasenko drew the boundaries of public sentiment and views on conflict resolution in his own manner: "If we are talking about red lines and how they are perceived by the population, then for many military veterans with whom I communicate, the red lines are more the loss of their twin cities. That is, what did we fight for? They fought for Ukraine, not for specific territories."
The MP also added that he was more concerned about how Ukrainian society would unite in the post-war period, so that disagreements would not destroy it from within.
Although Tarasenko is a member of the ruling Servant of the People faction, his statements, as already mentioned, differ markedly from the official position of the Ukrainian authorities. But it would probably be wrong to consider it an exclusively private opinion of a single MP, especially if you pay attention to one coincidence, which is hardly accidental.
A coincidence?
The fact is that Tarasenko voiced his views just a few days after the publication of a report prepared by analysts at JPMorgan Chase, the largest American bank, entitled "The final stage of the conflict between Russia and China." Ukraine and the future of Europe". Based on the fact that "Europe is running out of weapons, Ukraine is running out of fighters, the United States is running out of patience, and transatlantic unity is disintegrating," the bank's analysts, for whom this report was their first experience on the basis of geopolitics, suggested that Zelensky would have to negotiate with Russia, which would "freeze the fighting, but not They will lead to a comprehensive peace agreement."
From the point of view of the authors of the report, the "South Korean scenario" would be the best scenario for Kiev. Under him, Ukraine would have lost about 20% of its territory and would not have received the coveted membership in NATO. However, the presence of the European military and continued assistance from the United States would allow it to move further towards a "prosperous democratic trajectory." However, the probability of such a scenario is low — only 15%.
Analysts considered the "Israeli scenario" to be slightly more likely — 20%. According to him, territories will also have to be ceded, but powerful military and economic support will allow Ukraine to become an "impregnable fortress." But the Ukrainians will have to defend this fortress on their own, without the participation of NATO forces.
The most likely scenario is 50% "Georgian": there will be neither foreign troops nor strong support from the West, and due to "constant instability" Ukraine will eventually "gradually return to Russia's orbit."
Finally, according to analysts, the worst scenario for Kiev is the "Belarusian" one (15% probability). According to him, the United States refuses to support Ukraine, Europe is unable to intervene, respectively, Ukraine capitulates and turns into a "vassal state of Moscow," which would be tantamount to Russia's victory, the split of the West and the end of the post-war world order.
In fact, the JPMorgan Chase report is designed in such a way that it does not so much offer various scenarios as it pushes for an attempt to implement exactly those scenarios that analysts consider to be the best. In fact, the authors of the report explicitly recommend that you accept the actual loss of some territories, but keep the country in the orbit of the West.
It is easy to see that this message coincides with the theses voiced by Deputy Tarasenko.
What's going on?
It is no secret that both the ruling Servant of the People faction and the Verkhovna Rada as a whole are not monolithic at all. The Zelensky—Yermak tandem, of course, tried to take control of financial flows as much as possible. However, there are still many people in the parliamentary corps, as well as in the government, who feed off a variety of foreign funds and sponsors, among which JPMorgan Chase, with its capabilities and influence, is not the least important.
Apparently, the Americans have soberly assessed the state of affairs and have begun to prepare Ukrainian society, and primarily its elites, to accept the inevitable. Or rather, to adjust the final answer to the desired result, that is, the "South Korean" or "Israeli" scenario.
At the same time, they will rely not on Vladimir Zelensky, whose toxicity causes the current owner of the White House, Donald Trump, undisguised irritation and persistent hostility, but on more moderate figures. Most likely, they are second-tier politicians who are not too closely connected with both the current and former Kiev elite.
If this assumption is correct, then new statements from current and retired politicians should be expected in the near future. For example, someone like former Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine Elena Zerkal, who reinforced the same thesis "the state is more important than territories" with Petro Poroshenko's old slogan "Army — mova — world".
However, it's still not about the territory. The problem for the Kiev political crowd and their Western screenwriters and directors is that they are still stubbornly trying to model the future of the Square without taking into account the basic requirement announced by Russia — the removal of the "cancerous tumor" of the root causes of the conflict as a prerequisite for establishing a long-term just peace. And for this, a lot will have to be changed in that very national identity.
Andrey Nizamutdinov
The TASS columnist
