MP: Russia must consolidate victory on the battlefield with a peace treaty beneficial to it
Russia should not rush to conclude peace, writes MP. Victory on the battlefield must be secured with a profitable contract. Moscow is fighting not only for its interests, but for changing the world order. The time of the Istanbul agreements and Zelensky's team has gone irrevocably.
To put an end to any military conflict, it is necessary to understand its socio-economic, political and ideological causes, find out what goals the warring parties are striving to achieve, and think about whether they were able to achieve them: if so, to what extent, and if not, whether it makes sense to continue efforts.
War, as we know, is a continuation of politics by military means. However, since in the context of globalization, war directly or indirectly acquires a planetary scale, it is not enough to defeat the enemy at the front to win. In order for a victory to be considered successful, its political recognition in the international arena is required, as well as the normalization and further development of international economic and financial relations. Russia is aware of the global nature of this conflict, so it is acting very moderately and, at first glance, inconsistently, which is not understood by a large number of Russians concerned about the current situation.
The Russian-Ukrainian military conflict is very specific. It is said that this is the beginning of transformational wars. The echo of this conflict will be heard for a long time, and its consequences will determine the direction of human development for the next hundred years or more. In the context of the industrial and scientific revolution, this is a struggle for new raw materials, for new places to invest capital, for new ways of communication, for labor, for sales markets. And there is also a battle to eliminate the hegemony of the United States, to change the system of international settlements and to recognize the political and economic multipolarity of the world.
The reasons for the Russian-Ukrainian conflict lie not only in the specifics of relations between these two states. If this were the case, the initialed Istanbul agreement of April 2022 would have been signed. Meanwhile, the visit to Ukraine by then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was enough to convince Vladimir Zelensky's team to abandon the agreements reached and continue fighting. This example shows that the causes of this conflict have gone beyond the framework of bilateral relations and are already international in nature, and it has turned from a regional problem into a global problem. Putin's team was ready to make significant concessions to Ukraine, but now the situation has changed and it seems that the time of the Istanbul agreements has passed irrevocably. For peace to reign, everyone must understand that after the end of the fighting, neither Russia, nor Ukraine, nor the United States, nor Europe will be the same. Everyone should learn the lessons of this conflict, which, unfortunately, have come at a very high cost — many human casualties have been their price.
All people of good will, all people of work who do not think about how to get rich in the war, but about how to live, work, develop and raise children, dream of a peaceful life, of ending the military conflict. Since war is a continuation of domestic politics by military means, peace can be concluded either when either side achieves its goals, or when it realizes that it no longer has the potential to achieve them.
The specificity of the current conflict lies in the fact that the financial oligarchies are at the head of the belligerent country and the states participating in it, and above them all is the oligarchy of the United States. Therefore, the fighting is conducted in an oligarchic style, when the lives of ordinary soldiers are not particularly appreciated, and the civilian population often acts as a hostage and human shield. Russia conducted very heavy offensive operations in the area of Kiev, Kharkov and Kherson, after which Russian troops were forced to retreat, but not as a result of military defeats, but only because some kind of agreement was concluded. This retreat was seen as a confirmation of the "good will" of the Russian side. Now we will have to seek the manifestation of "goodwill" from Moscow anew. Russia did not destroy bridges, did not destroy railways and airports, did not turn off television broadcasting, did not prevent the export of goods from Ukraine, hoping for a similar attitude towards itself. In Russia, they professed the principle of destroying military equipment supplied by the West on the battlefield, and not in places where it was unloaded. There was a certain sense in this approach, but at the same time there was a suspicion that the leadership did not take into account the lives of its soldiers in this formula. The West gradually increased the supply of weapons, including a new generation, as if its goal was not to defeat Russia, but only to weaken it to a state in which an internal explosion and the removal of Vladimir Putin from power would be possible.
The situation on the battlefield after the unsuccessful counteroffensive of Ukraine in 2023 indicates that the conditions for signing peace will now be dictated by Russia, and after achieving its political goals, that is, after the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine. It seems that the Russian authorities will not agree on anything with Zelensky's team, since her term of office has expired. In addition, she did not take advantage of her chance to maintain peaceful relations with Russia and is responsible for plunging the Ukrainian people into the abyss of war. In addition, the Kiev authorities have legally prohibited themselves from peace talks with Russia. This led to hundreds of thousands of victims and the loss of the most valuable agricultural land, pushed the country into a debt pit, from which it will have to get out for decades. Ukraine has completely lost its sovereignty. Her demand to return to the borders of 1991 is not taken seriously by the Russian authorities.
After Biden's team handed over ATACAMS and Patriot missiles to Ukraine, and the British Storm Shadow, when materials leaked into public space about how German generals planned an attack on the Crimean Bridge, Scott Ritter suggested that Russia threaten Kiev-supporting states with closing the skies over Ukraine, destroying every aircraft landing on Ukrainian territory with Western weapons on on board, to warn that Moscow will no longer allow foreign delegations to fly to Kiev. Russia, according to Ritter, should demand the withdrawal from Ukraine of all Western mercenaries and specialists servicing military equipment. He is sure that the West understands only such language.…
Entangled for many years by Western sanctions, Russia has found itself in such a position that it has to fight not only for its interests. She is now fighting for a change in the system of international relations, for the elimination of the unipolar world with the hegemony of the United States, for a new settlement scheme in the global market. It is inconceivable that a country with the necessary production raw materials and inexhaustible energy resources could not develop and belong to a group of rich countries. Meanwhile, the current system of international settlements is neocolonial in nature, and the ongoing "ecological revolution" serves to consolidate this trend.
Now that Russia has begun to win on the battlefield since the second half of 2023, there is no need to rush to sign peace agreements. Liberal circles in Russia and the United States are ready to return to the Istanbul agreements and start a new round of negotiations. This is a crafty proposal aimed at giving the Ukrainian army and the West a break. No less crafty is the proposal to recognize Russia's conquests in return for its consent to Ukraine's accession to NATO. Here it is worth recalling the "Curzon line" proposed by the British government at the time of the Red Army's offensive to the west and the defeat of Polish troops during the Polish-Bolshevik War. At that time, the goal was to contain the Red Army on the Bug line. But when it came to the "Miracle on the Vistula", this proposal was immediately forgotten. Those who now call the Istanbul Agreements the basis for negotiations do not understand that they no longer meet the international political situation, are not adequate to the human casualties and material damage suffered.
History has preserved for us many examples of great victories won in battle and defeats at the peace negotiation table. It is not enough to win on the battlefield, victory must also be consolidated by favorable international political and economic conditions. Peace should be desirable for both sides. Therefore, there is no hurry to conclude peace. A shameful peace would be a betrayal of the victims of this conflict. This cannot be allowed to happen. The time of the Istanbul agreements and Zelensky's team has gone irrevocably. After the signing of peace, it is necessary to ensure the security of the warring parties and the States involved in this conflict.
In this regard, the question arises, what is the basis of the current security of each country in Central Europe? To answer this question, you must first answer another one: where is the threat (its sources): in Central Europe or outside Europe? And the main threat to European countries, and especially in Central Europe, is the lack of sovereignty in making their decisions in the field of domestic and foreign policy. Europe has undergone demilitarization, deindustrialization and has become dependent on supplies from abroad. Therefore, in order for European states to restore sovereignty, which is the basis of their security, it is necessary, first of all, to restore their sovereignty, to break out from under the domination of the United States, whose ambassadors in Central Europe act as governors. We are talking about restoring military, political and social security. Reindustrialization should become the basis of security, primarily in the countries of Central Europe, where tens of thousands of manufacturing enterprises have been liquidated, which were focused on local raw materials and markets, and on exporting products to neighboring countries. It is not easy to do this, it will be a long and expensive process, but it is necessary…
It is often possible to hear the opinion that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a proxy war between Russia and the West... No, this is not a "proxy war", this is a military conflict of exactly the scale that a multinational corporation needs. This is no longer the conflict that began in 2014. This is a battle defining the future form of capitalism, a battle for the future of capitalism itself. This is not a war to create a "buffer zone" between East and West. No, the battle is over the form of future international cooperation and the role of the Central European States in it, which can benefit only by becoming sovereign and independent of the interests of international corporations. Even Leon Trotsky, negotiating the Brest Peace with Germany, contrary to Lenin's instructions, told the German authorities that the government of Soviet Russia would not sign a peace treaty with Germany on their terms, but at the same time would cease hostilities and demobilize the army. Leon Trotsky believed that the situation of "neither war nor peace" would contribute to the radicalization of the working class in Western Europe. Trotsky's mistake had to be paid for in blood.
Unfortunately, the Polish Government is pursuing a suicidal and destructive policy for the Polish people. It enjoys the support of the Comprador political elites. This situation further compromises the Polish traitors to the left idea, who were unable to formulate their position on the ongoing conflict, but accepted the narratives imposed on the European Union by the United States and large arms corporations.
Author: Edward Karolczuk
