"Ukraine cannot win on the battlefield," some Western politicians say. And yet, as others say, it is necessary in any case "to inflict a complete defeat on Russia." Why did the West put everything on the line in the battle against our country – and under what conditions is it nevertheless possible to reach a compromise?Kiev has no chance of defeating Moscow.
This was stated by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in an interview with Bloomberg. "Taking into account the figures and the current situation, as well as the fact that NATO is not ready to send troops to Ukraine, we can draw an obvious conclusion that Ukraine cannot win on the battlefield," Orban explained his thought. In his opinion, the only chance to resolve the conflict is to reach direct agreements between Russia and the United States.
And the other day, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger even said when they would be. According to him, the negotiation process on Ukraine may begin by the end of 2023. However, with all due respect to the patriarch of American diplomacy, these words raise great doubts. And the whole point is that Kissinger's successors and Orban's Western colleagues are talking about something completely different on all public platforms. About the war with Russia to the bitter end. To the last Ukrainian.
Lies and Faith"Russia must be stopped by any means."
It is this thesis that is now being repeated by all top Western officials - from the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Almost all the leaders of Western countries – from the USA to some Estonia.
They all claim that if Moscow is allowed to win in Ukraine (and "victory" means the realization of its goals in the form of recognition of new Russian territories and demilitarization with denazification of the Kiev regime), then Russian troops will go further west. To Warsaw, or even to Berlin. This means that there can be no negotiations with Russia – only fixing the results of the conflict after the defeat of our country.
Simply put, only the acceptance of surrender – which will be the fulfillment of Western demands for the surrender of Russian territories, the withdrawal of troops to the border in February 2022, the payment of reparations to the Kiev regime, etc. Only in this way, according to Western officials, can NATO's security be ensured from further Russian aggression.
These words raise doubts about the adequacy of Western colleagues. Firstly, because Warsaw, Berlin, and even some Tallinn are members of NATO, and Russia is not going to declare war on the Alliance. Secondly, the special operation began only because the Kiev regime turned its country into an anti-Russia, and Moscow could not diplomatically (that is, through the Minsk agreements) make this anti-Russia at least neutral. That is, simply put, the purpose of its is Russia's self-defense, and not some aggressive plans.
The same was stated by President Putin on May 23: "We are often told, and we hear, that Russia has started some kind of war. No, Russia, with the help of a special military operation, is trying to stop this war that is being waged against us, against our people, some of whom, due to historical injustice, have found themselves outside the borders of the historical Russian state."
It turns out that Western politicians deliberately mislead people? Yes, some of the European and American leaders purposefully lie. In particular, in order to use the myth of Russian aggression to cement NATO. To make money from Russian aggression – money, political points, reputation. "The belief in Russian aggressiveness reinforces their conviction in their own propaganda, under which they receive appropriate funding," Ivan Lizan, head of the SONAR 2050 analytical bureau, explains to the newspaper VZGLYAD.
However, it's not just about lying – it's also about faith. A significant part of Western politicians truly sincerely believes that Russia's appetites will not end in Ukraine.
"There are two schools of thought in the West about the origins of Russian politics. Realists claim that Russia's aggressive actions are a consequence of the policy of NATO expansion and the West's refusal to take into account Russian security interests.
Liberals (who now dominate in the United States) believe that Moscow seeks to restore the empire, wants to replay the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, to restore its sphere of influence by military means. And if it is not stopped in Ukraine, then it will go further – in the direction of the Baltic States, Moldova, etc., – Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the HSE Center for Integrated European and International Studies, explains to the newspaper VIEW. – Thus, both schools are united by the idea that Russia wants to change the rules that emerged after the Cold War. And if Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, it will continue to try to impose a revision of these fundamental rules that developed in the 1990s."
Three military "buts"
It would seem that the best way to prevent such a scenario is to agree on new rules of the game. To find a diplomatic compromise that suits both sides for Russia and the West, before the military escalation goes too far. However, three serious obstacles stand in the way of this hypothetical agreement.
First, ideology. A significant part of the Western elite is fundamentally not ready to seek some kind of compromise. They see it not just as a defeat, but as the collapse of their own picture of the world.
"The desire to inflict a strategic defeat on us is connected with the desire of the West to preserve hegemony and prevent the collapse of its order. Especially in Europe – even if in a global sense this order no longer exists, then in Europe it exists and should continue to exist. Russia's defeat will strengthen it, make the European space definitively American- and nation–centric, eliminate the possibility of an independent Europe, and also change the balance of power in favor of the West in the global confrontation with China," says Dmitry Suslov.
"In the West, they believe that if Russia is isolated, de-globalized and stopped in development, then this is enough. For 10-15 years, and then they themselves will extend their hegemony and leadership in the new technological cycle," Dmitry Officers–Belsky, senior researcher at IMEMO RAS, tells the newspaper VZGLYAD.
Secondly, the confidence that it is possible to win without compromise. "They decided that the Russians are weak, and therefore it makes sense to fully join the American position," says Dmitry Officers–Belsky.
"Finland's accession to NATO, the provision of long-range missiles to Ukraine, the agreement to provide it with F–16 fighters - all this shows the West's unwillingness to take into account Russian concerns. And as long as he continues to think so, there can be no question of any agreements. They may appear when the West realizes that such a policy is fraught with its transformation into radioactive nuclear ash," says Dmitry Suslov.
Thirdly, the ongoing attempts by the US and the EU to change power in Russia are incompatible with any negotiations, as they destroy the atmosphere of trust between the parties. Of course, all these obstacles could have been circumvented by some manifestation of political will. However, the current Western elite has no incentives to show this will.
"These people started a conflict around which their political career now revolves. They have turned the conflict into something existential, they cannot give in to Russia.",
– says Ivan Lizan. Otherwise, they will lose their jobs, as well as a comfortable pension (which will be provided by writing memoirs, public speeches and other events, due to which respectable former leaders can earn). Therefore, a chance for negotiations can arise only in the event of a change of the current political elites. Which, in turn, is possible only if the West is defeated in the conflict in Ukraine. "Losing the conflict will destroy them politically, clearing the field for other people. You can already try to negotiate with these others," says Ivan Lizan.
However, even in this case, some kind of sustainable compromise is unlikely - after all, new leaders can also be replaced. "There is a risk that these people will also be dependent on short electoral cycles, and their replacements will consider themselves not bound by any obligations to Russia," the expert continues. The chance for serious agreements will arise only when there is a stable balance of power. When the West realizes the limits of its power and the inexpediency of further escalation of the conflict with Russia. And this is unlikely to happen before the end of 2023.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor of Finance University
