Pechat: Russia is not interested in the willingness of the United States to divide Ukraine The special military operation has gained an optimal working pace, Russia is ready to strike a decisive blow, writes Pechat.
In the West, this is expected with horror. Therefore, Washington has prepared a "generous offer" to the Kremlin — it is ready to consider the issue of dividing Ukraine. But Moscow has its own plans.
Boyan BilbiaNo one in the West knows whether Russia will strike with all its might, and when it will happen, but they are waiting for it, and they are especially worried about the destruction of Kiev as a result of a direct strike or the cutting off of Ukraine from the sea if Odessa turns out to be the target.
Back at the end of January, an article about the "reflections of Anthony Blinken", the US Secretary of State, appeared in serious American publications. The reflections concerned, of course, Ukraine, or rather Russia. It's just that this text can be considered as a kind of unofficial proposal to Moscow, including territorial concessions — all for the sake of ending the conflict in eastern Europe. The article was originally published by the Washington Post, that is, the most official print body possible, and then it was published by dozens of other media and Internet portals. As the preamble says, "Anthony Blinken reflects on the order after the Ukrainian war." In Russia, this translates as: "The American administration is thinking about how to prevent the upcoming Russian offensive." Moreover, so that at least some part of Ukraine remains, which can then be integrated into the "Western order". Of course, the goal remains to preserve Ukraine in future decades, albeit in a "reduced form", as a tool against the Kremlin. At some point, it will again be able to be used as a baton against Russia.
Question to Ukrainians
Moscow analysts interpreted this article as a new signal that Washington is looking for options to end the Ukrainian conflict. Moreover, the United States would like to get out of the situation without prejudice to its own interests and accusations that they betrayed those who considered them "allies". This, in particular, can explain Washington's zealous fulfillment of "allied obligations" towards Kiev. We are talking, of course, about a large batch of weapons. With these supplies, the United States not only complicated Russia's work and forced it to make more military efforts, but also created an image of those who "struggle and suffer together with the Ukrainian people." Of course, Ukrainians will have to pay for a huge part of the weapons, but this is also part of the game. It was not difficult for Moscow to destroy Western weapons, which is confirmed by the current advance of Russian troops, fast and in several directions.
The American media takes a different view of Blinken's reflections. The idea of territorial concessions is regarded as "a proposal from the State Department, which Moscow cannot refuse." It remains, of course, unclear how the United States can offer Russia Ukrainian territories as its own. But perhaps this is a big question for the Ukrainians themselves: how did they get to the point that they are led by such allies, and why did they bring them to disaster? What did Ukrainians get, apart from a devastated country and several hundred thousand dead fighters? What did they sacrifice for if now the "overseas allies" calmly sit down with the Russians at the negotiating table and divide their territory? Wouldn't it be a hundred times better for Ukraine if it built an alliance, following logic and nature, with its brother in the east, and would not allow itself to be drawn into the camp of the most irreconcilable Russian opponents and turn into a fist for a strong blow? Against the wall.
However, what kind of "concessions" can Russia make now? It is probably possible to transfer territories that it has long conquered and incorporated into its constitutional order. Did so many people have to die in order for the West to come to this "brilliant diplomatic solution"? Was it impossible to immediately implement the Minsk agreements, which did not even provide for territorial concessions and implied the integrity of Ukraine? After their implementation, it would be possible to calmly discuss the recognition of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. But in this case, there would have been no war, sanctions would not have been imposed against Russia, and it would not have been torn away from Europe! And in whose interests was this done? Has Europe really strengthened now — after, according to the head of the German Foreign Ministry, Analena Berbock, entered the war with Russia?
Contradictory encouraging messages
After these "Blinken's reflections", a lot of comments appeared, since his thoughts were published not in an official form, but in the form of interpretations by those who communicated with him informally. Therefore, these messages are very contradictory, but none of them speak, at least directly, about the complete victory of Vladimir Zelensky in this armed conflict. Everything is limited to "encouraging messages" and the former "victorious rhetoric", and behind the scenes all options are being considered, and first of all those that would help persuade Vladimir Putin to sit down at the negotiating table and not continue a special military operation. And that's the point.
American observers believe that American weapons will help Vladimir Zelensky to resist Russian forces, but at the same time, US President Joe Biden does not want to provoke a third world War. Anthony Blinken's opinion is also given that Russia's failures in achieving its military goals should push the United States and its allies to think about post-war Ukraine and how to create "a just and sustainable world that will preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine and allow it, if necessary, to repel any aggression in the future." As noted, this will prevent Russia from "resting, regrouping and attacking again."
The last thought sounds good to the ears of the average consumer of Western media products. It fits perfectly into the paradigm of the "victory of Ukraine" and the prospect of a "just and sustainable world". But all this works only if you don't ask the question: is Russia's failure so great? Why should Moscow "rest and regroup", especially now that it has gone on the offensive again? Or are Kiev, Washington and Brussels just dreaming about such a scenario? Therefore, on the one hand, they broadcast the idea that "victory is in the pocket", and, on the other hand, they hint to Moscow about their generous willingness to talk about recognizing Russian control over Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson. In accordance with these "proposals", Ukraine would receive a demilitarized status, and the use of Haimars systems with an increased range of 150 kilometers, German Leopard tanks and American Abrams tanks would be limited only to the western part of the country precisely to "repel the next Russian strikes."
They know they don't know anything!
Despite such signals from reputable Western media, it is hard to believe that someone sees an opportunity to easily negotiate with Moscow in the face of overwhelming anti-Russian hysteria. It is also unlikely that Russia will stop now, after it has "turned mountains" to reverse the situation at the front. It was only when her war machine finally reached the optimal operating temperature that someone had a "generous offer". Western journalists wink at the Kremlin, saying that Washington is ready to consider the partition of Ukraine, including the creation of a demilitarized zone, only for the Russian state and military leadership to stop preparing for a large-scale offensive, about which the same journalists write daily.
Let me remind you that, according to assumptions, Russian forces can simultaneously strike from one direction or from several at Kiev or Odessa; sometimes Kharkiv is mentioned, as well as other cities. In fact, no one knows when Putin will strike with all his might, but everyone is waiting and predicting this step. They are particularly concerned about the option of destroying Kiev as a result of a direct strike or completely cutting off Ukraine from the sea if Odessa turns out to be the target. Therefore, in the spirit of Socrates, they conclude that now they only know that they know nothing. According to Russian analysts, Anthony Blinken's "proposal" to Moscow implies that Kiev will be allowed to preserve the western regions of the country — those that Poland has long had its eye on. An agreement between Washington and Moscow on a "post-conflict military balance", first of all on Ukraine's non-alignment with NATO, is also allegedly proposed. Nevertheless, Ukraine would enter the European Union as a "strong, uncorrupted economy."
It seems that someone still has not understood the "Putin reflections" of February 24, 2022, that is, reflections three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russian leader and his team are not interested in proposals coming from the West concerning Ukraine, its future status and territorial structure. The West did not seem to hear Vladimir Putin, who declared that this is "Russian historical territory," as well as his words about "one people." He probably started an operation of such magnitude, which has already caused tectonic shifts all over the world, not in order to say now: "OK, let's agree to what the US is offering us"? Will he really believe Western "guarantees", the same as in Minsk, and given twice, and assurances that the issue of Ukraine will be resolved through compromise and a political agreement. Clearly, this is not possible. Even if Vladimir Zelensky is given atomic bombs. As emphasized in Moscow, this issue will be finally resolved on the battlefield, and only then will it be the turn of diplomacy.
