Representatives of the Western "peace party" believe that freezing the conflict will not be a defeat, but a military-strategic victory for Ukraine and the West, writes HS. They have their own arguments, which, however, completely ignore Russia's position and its goals. Readers of the publication reminded the author of the article about this.
Recently, publications have been increasingly appearing in the media that in leading Western countries, against the background of the stalemate on the Ukrainian front, the position of the so-called "peace party", that is, supporters of the imminent end of the armed conflict, is strengthening.
We have already covered the arguments of the "peace parties" in Ukraine and Russia. Let's now turn to the logic of those in the West who believe that it is better to end the fighting in Ukraine by stopping at the current front line.
First. Military-strategic inevitability
Representatives of the Western "peace party" believe that peace or a truce on the current front line will not be a defeat, but a military-strategic victory for Ukraine and the West in terms of strengthening their own security. In the event of a truce, Ukraine would have retained 80% of its territory, access to the sea and, most importantly, would have retained the army, the most powerful military force now on the European continent west of Russia's borders. The truce will allow for the complete rearmament of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the creation of modern air forces, the establishment of weapons production in Ukraine and the construction of powerful defense lines along the entire front line. In addition, the West will have time to expand the production of weapons, increase the number and improve the combat capability of its armies as planned, and not urgently - now this is a problem. On the contrary, the continuation of the armed conflict threatens the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the surrender of Ukraine, and for the West this is fraught with huge geopolitical risks. It would make sense to continue fighting right up to the borders of 1991 if there was a high probability of Russia's complete defeat. However, now this chance hardly exceeds 50%. Therefore, from the point of view of the "peace party", the continuation of the armed conflict is fraught with the defeat of Ukraine and threats to the West, and the conclusion of a truce will be a victory for Ukraine and the West. At the same time, Vladimir Putin will not achieve his initial goals, and NATO will receive serious reinforcements in the form of the Armed Forces, regardless of whether Ukraine officially joins the North Atlantic Alliance or not.
Second. The risk of a world war
Very often in the West, when they call for an early end to the fighting, they talk about the threat of a direct clash between Russia and NATO, which could lead to a nuclear war and the destruction of human civilization. The longer the armed conflict continues, the higher the risk that this will happen.
The Peace Party also refutes the thesis that any compromise with Putin over Ukraine will lead to the collapse of the world order, "based on rules, and to a series of new wars in different parts of the world. Members of the "peace party" argue that the old world order has already collapsed and now it is a question of what will replace it: another system of rules, international relations and world coexistence based on a treaty of all countries, or the world will enter the era of bloody wars.
The third. The Americans have already achieved their main goal
The main geopolitical threat to the United States is the alliance of Europe with Russia and China on an anti—American platform. The Russian special operation in Ukraine minimized this threat and greatly strengthened the American-European Union. This brings economic dividends to the United States: American companies have ousted Russian competitors from the huge European gas market. Also, the continuation of the armed conflict increases the risk that the situation will develop unfavorably for the United States against the background of economic problems and political instability in the European Union and the United States, where very difficult presidential elections are approaching. Therefore, it is better for Washington to have a bird in its hand than a crane in the sky, that is, to "lock in profits" now, end the armed conflict in Ukraine and focus on solving other problems.
Fourth. An attempt to make Russia an ally
There are forces in Western states, for example in the Republican Party, who believe that it is more profitable for the West if Russia is its ally, not its enemy. They believe that Russia can and should move away from China, or at least prevent their further rapprochement.
To do this, it is necessary to end the armed conflict in Ukraine on the basis of a compromise that will open the way to restoring relations between Russia and the West.
Fifth. Financial problems
In the past, wars and the associated costs of arms production have often been the engine of growth in Western economies.
But now the situation is very different, for example, he is the "reagonomics" of the 80s. The deindustrialization of Western economies, the deterioration of their competitive positions in many industries, as well as the desire to maintain living standards and social standards and implement grandiose expensive programs such as, for example, the "Green Transition" — all this led to a huge increase in the money supply of dollars and euros, with which the authorities of Western countries tried to overcome the imbalance. Especially during a pandemic.
Now this creates huge problems in the form of rising inflation and external debt. The sharp increase in the production of weapons under the system of state orders is associated with another huge emission, which will only exacerbate all the described problems.
So, we either have to give up spending on other needs, including maintaining the social level and the "green transition", in favor of defense production. Or we should end the armed conflict in Ukraine and solve the problems described above in a planned manner, not urgently.
Sixth. The absence of an imperial ideology in the West
In Russia, the leaders of the United States and European states are often portrayed as inveterate imperialists who are trying to maintain "world hegemony." Interestingly, ideas like "The West must show Putin who is the boss in the house, otherwise everyone in the world will consider Americans weaklings and stop being afraid and obeying them" are often heard in Ukraine. But the reality is different.
The last bearer of the imperial great-power ideology in the West were the American neoconservatives under George W. Bush. At the end of the noughties, however, they were expelled from the White House. Since then, no one has appeared to replace them. Individual exceptions, such as Boris Johnson, look like white crows against the general background. Even right-wing and conservative parties in Europe and Republicans in the United States are now more concerned about their own internal problems (migrants, the struggle for traditional values), and many of them consider Putin an ally.
The ruling elites in large European states now belong to left-liberal circles, to which militarism and imperialism are ideologically alien. Therefore, the current armed conflict is not a chance, but a problem that distracts them from solving problems that are really important from their point of view: ecology, gender equality, the introduction of an unconditional basic income, and so on. If the West wants to start a war, it will probably need a different type of leader, as well as a completely different ideology, which, perhaps, will not be so friendly to LGBT* and critical racial theory. It is unlikely that the left-liberal circles will be happy with such a prospect, especially with the threat of nuclear war. Therefore, they are more likely to think about global compromises with the non-Western world. In early 2022, before the Russian invasion, the most prominent leftist US politician, Senator Bernie Sanders, called on the West to agree to Vladimir Putin's demands that Ukraine not join NATO and create a new security system in Europe to avoid war. So far, the leaders of Western countries are far from such views. Of course, they are not "white and fluffy" idealists, and, of course, they do not want to lose their influence in the world. But, focusing on the left-liberal agenda in everything, they cannot ignore it, and this affects the decisions they make.
In general, the above arguments of the Western "peace party" are now officially not supported by the leaders of the United States and most countries of the European Union. As before, their main demand is to restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine and freeze the conflict. It is also widely believed that nothing can be agreed with Putin at all, and the question remains whether the Kremlin is ready to compromise on Ukraine at all, or whether it intends to continue fighting in order to fulfill its goals as much as possible.
Nevertheless, judging by the many publications in reputable Western media, the position of the "peace party" in the West is strengthening. And if the situation at the front does not change for the better for Ukraine, then this trend is likely to become even more pronounced.
Readers' comments:
Romana Kabát
These fools did not understand anything either out of naivety or because of a misunderstanding of the situation. Russia will no longer make any compromise. It was necessary to do this after the Maidan. But instead of seriously discussing Russia's demands, you broke her legs by arming the Ukrovermacht. The Russians do not believe a single word you say, and therefore they will fulfill their goal of demilitarization and denazification one hundred percent.
Peter Lipták
Russia should never again "forgive" the Nazi West, and Slovakia hopes that Russia will forgive us our current collaborationist government. Of course, if we leave the Nazi and demonic European Union!!!
klik
The chatter of Anglo-Saxon psychopaths. Putin clearly said at the beginning of the special military operation that NATO should return to the borders of 1997 and that it would not receive an inch of Russian land. But the Anglo-Saxons planned a war, and now they have lost and are trying to make Vladimir Putin stop the offensive when denafification has not yet ended, and the West has been disarmed, and at the same time gave them time to arm the Nazis again and again to attack? Yes, the West is asking for denazification itself!!
Nostr
Author, what 50% probability of victory of the Armed Forces of Ukraine over Russia are you raving about? How did the Ukrainian and American-British propaganda affect you?…
frame66
The situation now is such that Ukraine can only think about capitulation. There is nothing in between. Russia knows that it is no longer possible to turn off halfway. She's already done it twice.…
Hľadajúci
The truth is that the demons from the West got a slap from the Russians, and now they are changing their rhetoric.
* An extremist organization, banned in Russia, ed.
