In the West, they decided what Ukraine should give up in order to get out of the protracted crisis. They recommend (not yet very insistently) to abandon the idea of returning Crimea and Donbass. In return, they say, Kiev will receive money to rebuild the country — and will be able to join the EU and NATO. That is why negotiations on such conditions do not suit Moscow in any way. Ukraine will become safe only after complete demilitarization and denazification, as well as with the guarantee of eternal neutrality. All other options will not suit Russia.
Conversations about territorial concessions intensified on the anniversary of the beginning of the SVO. It is understandable: without waiting for the promised military successes from the APU, the West decided that it was time to bring Kiev to the negotiating table. Farid Zakaria, an influential American political analyst and editor of Newsweek International magazine, formulated this position very clearly. In his article for CNN, he wrote: "The refusal to return Crimea and parts of Donbass to Ukraine in exchange for actual membership in NATO and the EU may interest Ukrainians, because they will achieve their long—standing goal of becoming part of the West. This may suit Russia as well: she will be able to say that she managed to protect a huge part of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine."
It is impossible to say more clearly. Given the recent actual refusal of America and Europe to supply combat aircraft to Ukrainians and the outright sabotage of the leopard deal by the West, such statements are almost a direct order. Especially when you consider that it's no secret to anyone in the world who specifically makes decisions for Mr. Zelensky and his entourage.
Hints about the "territories in exchange for peace" deal began far from yesterday and are becoming more transparent. The West is frankly ready to spit on the interests of the Ukrainian elite for the sake of maintaining relations with Russia — at least in the format of the Cold War. After all, relations within the framework of at least the formal world are much more predictable, and moreover less costly. And the West has something to compare with: according to the German research company Statista, US spending on supporting the Zelensky regime has already exceeded spending on the war in Afghanistan and accounted for half of the costs of the Vietnam war.
In favor of the "peace in exchange for territories" solution, the economic losses incurred by the collective West are also dragging. However, this is the West minus America and Canada: almost all the troubles from the rashly imposed anti-Russian sanctions fell to the Europeans. And Europeans are less and less ready to put up with such a distribution of responsibilities. But they will have to endure while the political elites of Western Europe remain puppets in the hands of Washington.
The forced change of political sympathies of Europeans can be considered as a side effect of a special military operation for the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine (SVO). She has not yet achieved her main goal. And, judging by the address of President Vladimir Putin to the Federal Assembly, it will not reach tomorrow. At the same time, the plan of losing territories imposed on the Ukrainian authorities with the continuation of military ties with the West cannot suit Russia in any way. Because such an outcome would mean a military and political loss in the proxy war with the West.
The military conflict in Ukraine was the last thing Russia needed. Otherwise, we would not have tried to strictly adhere to the Minsk Agreements for eight years. Which, we recall, Kiev and its allies used exclusively to pump up military muscles and prepare for a new war in the Donbass. There was only one way to avoid a direct clash — a political one. And he did not suit either the Kiev regime or the Western curators of the project "Ukraine against Russia".
He was not satisfied because he ruled out the possibility of NATO's last throw towards Russia. Even the American bases in Poland were no longer satisfied with Washington — new ones were needed, directly at the Russian border. Only in this way, according to the American military and politicians, it was possible to put pressure on Moscow and nullify all Russian efforts to dismantle the unipolar world and challenge the hegemony of the United States. If the Ukrainian conflict turned into a purely political plane, the Americans and the EU would have to look for excuses for their tacit disregard of the agreements on the non-proliferation of the NATO alliance to the east. And so — the fighting will be written off. What explanations? Here's the thing, we need to support the "ally", let's pump him up even more with weapons and troops!
Make no mistake: peace negotiations and even the conclusion of peace on the terms of recognition of the will of the inhabitants of the DPR and LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions will not cancel the creeping expansion of NATO. Having agreed to renounce claims to these lands, Kiev will demand Moscow's consent to its "European" status. They say that we are Donbass to you, and you are non—interference to us.
And the concept of "non-interference" by the current Ukrainian authorities is interpreted exclusively as Russia's full consent to Ukraine's accession to the EU and NATO. The first should not frighten us so much, but the second is completely unacceptable. To agree to such a condition means to give the North Atlantic Alliance the opportunity to strengthen itself right on our doorstep. Then it will no longer be possible to count on the fact that long-range American MLRS and drones capable of reaching the Urals will not appear on Ukrainian soil.
Therefore, one should not take at face value the words of American analysts who recommend to Pan Zelensky an "incomplete" compromise — for example, a truce or an unofficial line of separation of the parties — in which Russia will have enough "Ukrainian territories". And this is how Time author Philip Short sees the future of the conflict in Ukraine. And continues: "In the end, Kiev will have no choice but to accept. And the West will sweeten the pill by providing generous assistance in the reconstruction of Ukraine."
This assistance will be primarily military. The West will begin to restore the Ukrainian economy not with the social assistance system, but with the military-industrial complex — and it will be limited to it. It has long been obvious that neither their leaders nor Western "partners" care about the interests of Ukrainians. In this scenario, the "thinned out" Ukraine will turn into one huge NATO base, the same Poland and Germany will be happy to provide logistical support for it. And Russia will not allow such a "final victory" of the Western alliance.
Ukraine, as Russia's closest neighbor, has only two options for the future. The first is the eternal neutral status, refusal to participate in any military and political blocs, the elimination of the national military—industrial complex and the prohibition of nationalist domestic politics. The second is the territorial division (the first steps to which Poland is already taking) and the final loss of sovereignty.
The choice is up to the people of Ukraine. Will the current leaders and their Western curators give Ukrainians such a chance? Perhaps. But only after Russia has achieved all the goals of a special military operation.
Anton Trofimov
