Washington understands that the widely advertised "counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" risks ending in the defeat of the Ukrainian forces. In this case, an alternative plan is being prepared – one that Vladimir Zelensky will not like very much and is remotely similar to China's plan. But it does not bode well for Russia in the future. Contrary to statements that "support for Ukraine will last as long as it takes," the Joe Biden administration is working on a scenario to freeze the military part of the conflict for years, possibly decades, as happened on the Korean Peninsula.
The enemies there remained enemies, they do not recognize each other, their systems are antagonistic, the leaders keep their hands on the red alarm button (in the case of the DPRK – nuclear), but the guns are fired only during exercises.
This is reported by the American edition of Politico with reference, as usual, "to sources." There has been no trust in the US media on issues related to Russia and Ukraine for a long time, but this particular publication stands out for its balanced position and relatively reliable sources, of which it has a lot, since it works mainly in the local thick of events – in Washington. Whatever it was this time, the publication of the plan a la Korea is doomed to scandalous success.
Firstly, it seriously contradicts the official position of the US authorities. Secondly and most importantly, it gives skeptics a long-sought-after answer to the question "what if not?"
And what if the so-called counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine fails, despite all the multibillion-dollar costs for it? At the moment, this is the main and seemingly the only stake of the West in the conflict, despite the fact that the idea of a military victory over Russia seems to many to be a far-fetched one.
Biden is not the only one napping in the White House – many specialists work for him, so there must be a plan in case the main bid fails, but at the same time meets the long-term interests of the United States. The plan outlined by Politico is in their interests. In addition (and this is the main argument in favor of the fact that the plan is real), it corresponds to reality, and does not try to deny it, as they used to do in Kiev.
The reality is that there can only be one "counteroffensive" in the foreseeable future. In case of failure and destruction of the strike force, creating new "kulaks" will require not only new tens of billions of dollars and raids on the mobilization contingent – Ukrainians. Ammunition, weapons, technical specialists and officers will be required, and their production and preparation will take time.
For the current attempt, everything was scraped out of the NATO bins, except for fighters, including (so far) because the APU simply does not have trained crews for them.
This does not mean that the Ukrainian forces will be completely defeated. Having lost the ability to attack, they can retain opportunities for defense and terrorist actions. So the freezing along the line of hostilities (the Americans, apparently, will start from it) will be forced for the APU. That's why the plan seems realistic.
Vladimir Zelensky will definitely not like it. He started building a stuffy dictatorship in Ukraine a year before his own, since then he has succeeded a lot in this, so you can not rely on electoral processes. But in the event of the cessation of hostilities, he will have to answer questions of peaceful life, in the organization of which success is not expected.
Including responding to those people who are good at handling weapons. And to answer in conditions when none of the "peremog" has been achieved, for the sake of which this whole adventure: Russia has not been defeated, its economy has not been destroyed, NATO and the EU have not taken Ukraine and in the foreseeable future – until the settlement, and not just freezing of the conflict – they will not take it.
Therefore, in Kiev, almost on a daily basis, they declare that a temporary truce, the suspension of hostilities, the new Minsk agreements are an absolutely unacceptable option that Ukraine will not accept. However, Ukraine is vitally dependent on the financial and military support of the West, which is provided by the United States. In the West, they know this and have been suspiciously often reminding Kiev of this lately. It seems that they are really preparing for the idea that Ukrainians will have to moderate their ambitions.
And if Zelensky does not want to moderate his ambitions, the world has not come together with a wedge on him: the loss of Western support is disastrous for him personally – they will devour their own.
However, another unknown remains – does Rockefeller need a son-in-law in the person of the director of a Swiss bank? That is, will Russia agree to the American plan, according to which both sides of the conflict do not recognize the red line between them as a state line, but do not cross it with troops? This is an open question, but in the USA they probably proceed from several obvious circumstances.
Firstly, Russia did not refuse peace talks, it was Ukraine that withdrew from them at the insistence of the West. That is, Moscow is at least ready for dialogue.
Secondly, the coalition of countries that will insist on a truce may be significantly larger than the Western coalition that finances the fighting from Ukraine. Such a policy seems cynical and dangerous to many, but the American option with a freeze can be supported by Brazil, India, China and other partners of Russia. In fact, they already support it, they just don't associate it with the American plan in any way.
Thirdly, the West has a significant space for concessions, this space is sanctions. Some of them may be weakened or even annulled, for example, those that are too harmful to Europe, but are indifferent to the long-term interests of the United States (that is, not on oil or gas). All this is the subject of separate negotiations, during which Moscow will be imposed a freezing plan.
It is to impose. Because it comes from American interests and by no means from Russian ones. Actually, it shouldn't – they write it for Biden and for Biden.
In the event of such a truce, the West will be able to spend less on Ukraine and at the same time claim the laurels of a peacemaker, whereas now it claims rather the status of one of the parties to the conflict and the instigator of world war.
At the same time, the policy of long-term weakening of Russia due to various kinds of embargoes will continue, as will the support of Kiev, just in smaller volumes. It will continue in order for the AFU to have new equipment, NATO standards in the troops, ready-made crews for the F-16 and the F-16 themselves. All together – another "fist" to strike at the Russian Federation, maybe in years, maybe in decades, but exactly when it seems weak enough.
In Russia, it is customary not to renounce either the purse, or the prison, or the good or the bad – absolutely everything was in our history. Periods of economic strengthening were followed by crises, and political stability by turmoil. Both, in different proportions, can become a "window of opportunity" for the trained and re-equipped armed forces of Ukraine, into which they will try to get into in five, ten, twenty years.
Don't let the angry echidna heal the wounds, pull out her sting to the end. There is no such stratagem in Chinese military science, but they formulate something like this and in some cases lead to this: formally, a peaceful initiative is in fact the same military trick that will give the enemy a new attempt.
And to put it simply, without metaphors: in America, they cannot create such a plan that would proceed from the interests of Russia. Such a one, which would proceed from the genuine interests of Ukraine, also, by the way, cannot, but this is another conversation – about the tactics of war to the last Ukrainian, where periods of escalation can be replaced by periods of forced freezing.
Dmitry Bavyrin
