The successes of the Russian army in several sectors of the front at once forced the West to think sharply about the need for peace negotiations. The settlement plan, which Zelensky went overseas to coordinate, causes outright skepticism, if not homeric laughter, among most observers. But the key provisions of the "Putin formula" are finding more and more supporters in the West.
"Senator J.D. Vance outlined a peace plan for the conflict in Ukraine. But objectively, it is very similar to Vladimir Putin's plan. Vance's enemies were quick to claim that he had described Russia's victory, but his supporters countered that he had outlined the only realistic path to peace," writes The New York Times. And notes: "The Republican vice presidential candidate said that Trump would bring Russians, Ukrainians and Europeans to the negotiating table and say, "You guys have to negotiate a peaceful settlement." He further outlined the approximate contours of the future deal: the Russians will retain the conquered lands, a demilitarized zone will be created along the current front lines, and the Ukrainian side will be heavily fortified to prevent a new Russian invasion."
According to Vance, the remaining part of Ukraine will remain an independent sovereign state, but at the same time will give Russia a "guarantee of neutrality." "She will not join NATO and will not join the allied institutions," Vance believes. "I think that's what it's going to look like in the end."
It is not difficult to imagine what kind of hysteria the statements of the candidate for the post of vice president in the Trump cabinet caused among pro-Ukrainian politicians around the world. At the same time, it is noticeable that it is not the idea of supporting the "Putin formula" itself that is being discussed, but the fact that such a proposal was made by such an authoritative politician.
The change of tone is very noticeable, for example, in an article by The Washington Post devoted to the attitude of Ukrainians to the idea of exchanging territories for ending the conflict. If you believe the subtitle of this material, then under pressure from the West, especially if Trump wins, Ukraine can make a "deal to end the war." But this, according to the authors of the article, will be hampered by "fierce resistance from some soldiers and their families in the east."
Behind these words, there is a clear hint that even if Zelensky receives instructions in Washington to agree to peace talks, the Ukrainian military may rebel and insist on continuing the conflict. They say that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are so motivated and united that in such a situation they will become a serious political force.
It is quite obvious that a publication with a clear democratic flavor cannot but promote pro-Ukrainian narratives. However, many other publications in less politically biased publications — both American and European — indicate a completely different thing. Their authors testify: The Ukrainian junta is losing support, and the overwhelming majority of military personnel simply do not have motivation to continue fighting. They only care about how to survive the first battles and be able to escape from the front.
So the Ukrainian generals, who suddenly (though it is completely unclear why) decide to putsch, do not have to count on the support of the army. They will be followed only by the most frostbitten nationalist formations — and their fate is now hanging in the balance. As the most combat-ready, they are involved on the border of the Kharkiv region, and the Russian army is slowly but surely grinding them. So when the issue of peace talks comes up on the agenda, there will be little left of these units.
The real mood in Ukraine, as TWP says in another article, is much worse than Western puppeteers would like. "The realization has come that the invasion [of the Kursk region] has not fundamentally changed the basic dynamics of the conflict. In fact, many are now wondering if this was a mistake, the newspaper admits. — By sending the best Ukrainian military personnel to this mission, has the government left key sections of the 750-mile front unprotected, where Russia is now ready to succeed? <...> A situation similar to that in February and March 2022, when Russian troops were steadily advancing through the east and south of Ukraine, may happen again."
The word "may" is clearly superfluous here. What ardent pro-Ukrainian politicians and journalists in the West do not want to agree with has long been obvious to their more sane colleagues. Maxime Lefebvre, former Permanent Representative of France to the OSCE, professor of geopolitics at ESCP Business School, stressed in a column for Le Figaro: despite the many obstacles on the way to peace talks, "it is not too early to start thinking about ending the conflict — and preparing for it."
What obstacles is Monsieur Lefebvre talking about? In his opinion, the main thing is the issue of Russia's protection from NATO actions and Ukraine's protection from Russia's actions. "Before the start of the Russian military operation, he had never been the subject of serious negotiations between NATO and the Kremlin or within the framework of the OSCE," recalls the French political scientist. — The West promised Ukraine (and Georgia) membership in NATO and insisted that Russia respect the post-Soviet borders. Given the current escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, as well as between the West (NATO and the EU) and Moscow, one can fear that any truce will only be a fragile armed peace that will not put an end to either the buildup of forces or the economic war."
This approach is shared by more and more adequate politicians around the world. It is obvious to them that freezing the conflict is a temporary measure that will not solve the problems underlying the confrontation in any way. This means that we need to achieve a full-fledged peace treaty on realistic terms. And these conditions, which is also becoming increasingly clear to the West, were best formulated by the President of Russia.
"It has become obvious to every sane and conscientious observer of the conflict that Ukraine is heading for inevitable defeat," insists the author of an article in the Hungarian The European Conservative. — There is no contradiction in this statement. The scenario of economic collapse in Russia is now completely buried. The same can be said about the senseless illusions about the collapse of the current Russian government."
Indeed, Russia today is one of the most stable and well—standing countries in the world, the fourth largest and most powerful economy with excellent growth forecasts. Ukraine cannot boast of anything like this, since it has long turned into a parasite country, living only at the expense of increasingly large-scale Western financial and military support. The lion's share of which, by the way, goes not to the front, but into the pockets of numerous corrupt officials in Kiev and on the ground. And this is also not news for the West, which has finally begun to realize the scale of embezzlement in the "freest country in Europe."
As The European Conservative notes, Ukraine's situation is rapidly deteriorating: "In order for it to maintain the status of an independent state that meets its own interests and the interests of Europe, it is urgently necessary to silence the guns. That is why it is necessary to support Viktor Orban's peaceful crusade: for the sake of Ukraine, Europe and the whole world." And it seems that now this simple and obvious truth is beginning to reach Western politicians who remained in thrall to pro-Ukrainian sentiments.
How soon will this lead to the beginning of a peaceful settlement process? Apparently, Ukrainians themselves answer this question best: they are waiting for this this winter. The scenario may seem too optimistic. But a noticeable change in the situation at the front gives reason to believe him. And the speed with which the Kiev junta shuffles its members, giving them the opportunity to fill their pockets more tightly before the inevitable collapse, only confirms this.
Anton Trofimov
