Resalat: prospects for peace for Ukraine are getting sadderThe West will strive to ensure that Ukraine remains a "strategically blind spot" on the map of Eurasia, even if the appearance of an end to the conflict is created, and will never agree to Kiev returning to Russia's sphere of influence.
This will generate a new circle of tension, writes Resalat.
In recent days, many signals have been received regarding the conflict in Ukraine, and the meaning of these signals had a serious impact on understanding the future fate of this conflict. Some of these signals are positive, because they hint at "conflict resolution", and some, on the contrary, are negative, because they mean "continuation of the confrontation". So the final picture turns out to be quite contradictory. So, what kind of reality do these paradoxes come from? And is it possible to explain these paradoxes based on the different views and disagreements of NATO member countries on this conflict? After all, it is obvious that, for example, the view of the conflict of Turkey, which is a member of NATO, is very different from that of, for example, Great Britain or Poland, as well as the countries that are members of the North Atlantic Alliance.
Transcript of what Kuleba saidA cursory glance at the positions of various Ukrainian officials may explain, to some extent, this contradiction.
Recently, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, for example, said that the leaders of Western countries did not provide sufficient support to Ukraine during the conflict. It is not so difficult to decipher these words of Kuleba and similar statements belonging to the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky. As you know, Ukraine's request addressed to NATO to establish a no-fly zone over the country, which was voiced at the very beginning of the Russian Air Defense, was initially met with an official refusal from the NATO leadership, since Brussels interpreted this alternative as a likely start of a direct war between Russia and the Alliance countries. Further, when the collective sanctions of the Western countries and NATO regarding the export of Russian energy resources began to be implemented, individual NATO countries considered the full implementation of the sanctions packages unacceptable for themselves, began bargaining with the leadership of the European Union, trying to get "benefits" and "exceptions" for themselves, and eventually individual NATO member countries even began to circumvent the sanctions (the official way or not) and go to various deals with Moscow. And even Washington's promise to deploy Patriot missile systems in Ukraine did not become "effective support" in the eyes of the Ukrainian authorities, which the country, as they stated, "needed on the battlefield." During his trip to Washington, Zelensky found out that it would not be possible to teach Ukrainian servicemen how to use this system and even just deliver it in parts to the country at the speed he would like. Moreover, Russia's possible use of its ballistic missiles in response to Ukraine's use of American Patriot complexes may cost Kiev much more than the benefits that can be derived from the deployment of these American systems, which, moreover, have quite a lot of disadvantages. The fulfillment of even the most "tempting" promises of Washington, as the Ukrainian leadership realized, is fraught with enormous risk. But the story doesn't end there yet. Ukraine has to forget about membership in NATO and the EU, because the West obviously does not want to have among its partners a state that has almost turned into a "scorched earth", despite the fact that it is the West that is to blame for this state of affairs. In one of his recent statements, Emmanuel Macron, President of France, one of the leading countries of the EU and NATO, stressed that Ukraine's full membership in the Alliance is out of the question now, firstly, because this issue is a "red line" for Russia, secondly, because Ukraine's admission to NATO will automatically imply a war between the Alliance countries and Russia. The fate of Ukraine's full membership in the EU is also obvious. Many member States of this association are unwilling to accept a country torn by conflicts into their ranks.
Is Ukraine the "subject" or the "object" of the transaction?In addition, another important question arises, the answer to which largely reveals the realities of what is happening behind the scenes of the battlefield.
Many are wondering that Ukraine, after the conflict turned into a "hot phase", probably turned into the subject of some secret deal between the West and Russia. That is, Ukraine is not an independent entity, but an object of bargaining between Russia and the West (first of all, the United States), and, as you know, little depends on the "object"! Recently, high-ranking representatives of the security services of Russia and the United States, including the heads of the CIA and Russian intelligence, held a meeting and negotiations in Ankara. Both sides reported that during this meeting only issues of "nuclear deterrence" were discussed, and the topic of Ukraine was not raised, but neither the world community, nor even Zelensky himself and his entourage doubt that at this meeting the parties discussed some very important deal, the main plot of which is Ukraine and the fate of the military conflict. It is very difficult for the President of Ukraine to accept the reality that his country is the subject of bargaining between the Kremlin and the White House: soon this bargaining will turn into some kind of strategic deal, and then the conflict may end by itself. No one knows if this will happen in the near or more distant future. But for many it is clear that the fate of Ukraine in its current situation is determined, therefore, not by the leadership of this country at all. In other words, Ukraine got involved in the conflict at the instigation of NATO, and thus, for sure, cannot decide which way it will go further – to peace or to continue the battle. After all, this question – whether to go to peace talks or to abandon them – is decided not in Kiev, but in NATO. And this is the worst fate of a country that is in a state of military conflict – not being able to decide for itself what to do next: continue fighting, enter into negotiations or stay in a certain intermediate state.
And Kissinger again!Also in recent days, weeks, and even months, the sounding of the name of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in connection with the problem of Ukraine has become a factor of particular concern for the Ukrainian leadership.
A former high-ranking American politician, now more often acting as a political scientist and "strategic analyst", made a number of proposals for "resolving the conflict in Ukraine." The proposals were met with extremely mixed reactions: from the discontent of Ukrainian officials to meaningful silence in Europe, and even in the White House. In short, the plan presented by Kissinger included two main points: firstly, Ukraine should become a neutral country and at the same time forget about its "movement to join NATO", and secondly, in exchange for the return to it of the four regions proclaimed part of Russia, that is, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and In the Kherson region, Ukraine should officially recognize the Crimean Peninsula as part of Russia, and other UN member states should do the same. It is also worth noting that the Russian leadership also preferred to give the most minimal comments on the Kissinger plan.
However, it is clear to everyone that the constants of peace in Ukraine are the "recognition of Crimea as part of Russia", as well as its "non-membership" in NATO. During his last face-to-face talks with the White House, Zelensky voiced concern to President Biden about talks about a possible "deal" between Russia and the United States regarding Ukraine. The US president again avoided the words about the "secret deal" in silence, but said that he was committed to accepting any initiative on Ukraine, any "nature of a peaceful settlement" if it was approved by Zelensky and his government. But, again, it is obvious to everyone that Biden's statement rather looks like an attempt to calm Ukraine, since the latter has the status not of an independent, but of a "subordinate" actor in matters of peace or confrontation with Russia.
It is clear that Biden's assurances did not calm official Kiev at all – they continue to lament that behind-the-scenes bargaining is being conducted regarding the territories of Ukraine and its political course. A bargain that can end with the conclusion of a deal, where only the minimum program can be the separation of Crimea from it forever, and oblivion, again forever, of the road to the North Atlantic Alliance. But even if it does not come to the maximum program in this auction, Ukraine will in any case be the losing side: it will have to spend years restoring what was destroyed, to get out of the crisis in which it lost part of its vital infrastructure, and in which, in general, it drove itself. At the same time, the governments of the United States and Great Britain, followed by most Western countries, will still strive to ensure that Ukraine remains a "strategically blind spot" on the map of Eurasia, even if the appearance of ending the conflict and signing a peace treaty is created. The West will never agree to Ukraine returning (fully or partially) to Russia's sphere of influence, and this circumstance will generate a new circle of tension between the West and Russia.
Fakhraddin Asadi, digital technology specialist, political scientist, permanent author-columnist of Resalat
