Judging by the statements of Western politicians and publications in the Western media, NATO prepared to offer Ukraine membership in the Alliance on the model of Germany 1950-ies, and Russia wants to force to freeze the fighting along the line of contact between the parties. Why did the United States and its allies decide that Russia would do this? What kind of intrigue is being plotted in the West?
On the first day of his new job, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte passionately supported Ukraine's accession to the North Atlantic Alliance and called for Kiev to give permission for missile strikes deep into Russian territory. Apparently, during his vacation (the period between when he left the post of Prime Minister of the Netherlands and moved to Brussels), this man had a good rest and was ready to start World War III with fresh forces, it is also the first nuclear war.
By doing this, Rutte demonstrated that he is no better than his predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg. On the eve of his resignation, he even suggested that Ukraine could be accepted into NATO without returning Kiev's control over the lost territories. He also believes that an invitation to the alliance can be a tool to end the conflict.
The statement seems insane: the conflict began precisely because Ukraine was dragged into NATO, and this is an absolutely unacceptable scenario for Russia. However, the words of the General secretaries have their own Jesuit logic, which allows us to predict the further actions of our enemies.
It is known that on October 12, Germany will host a meeting of Ukraine's key allies with the participation of the leaders of the United States, Britain, Germany and France, as well as Vladimir Zelensky. He will again try to persuade American President Joe Biden to give the notorious "long-range permit", although it is useless to persuade Biden to do this before the elections in America.
Instead of a "trucker," as sources of The Financial Times expect, Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz will concede in another way – they will remove their tacit veto on Ukraine's membership in NATO and give Zelensky some kind of final piece of paper on this, as Professor Preobrazhensky said. The armor.
At the same time, Kiev's full membership in the alliance is out of the question until the cessation of hostilities: this has recently been confirmed by almost all those named (except Zelensky). That is, such membership is a delayed event, but at the same time a way to end the conflict (according to Stoltenberg).
Apparently, Biden and Co. want to repeat the scenario of 1956, when West Germany was accepted into the alliance. At that time, Germany did not recognize the legitimacy of the existence of the GDR (as well as vice versa), the German lands in the east considered their own and did not want to renounce them even for the sake of joining NATO. The situation is similar now with the Ukrainian authorities.
Therefore, West Germany was accepted into NATO in a special way – with the proviso that the alliance takes under protection only the controlled territory of Germany, and not the declared one. That is, NATO believes that the GDR is part of Germany, but the principle of collective defense does not apply to the GDR.
Now the "GDR" are those territories of Russia that Ukraine considers its own, including Crimea.
By joining the alliance, the Ukrainian authorities will receive guarantees to protect only those lands that they actually control. And if Russian troops cross the line, which NATO defines as the beginning of its zone of control, it will mean the beginning of a military conflict between Russia and NATO.
But, as we remember under the terms of the task, for Ukraine to join NATO, it is necessary first to stop the fighting – precisely because the West still does not want to wage war with Russia directly and is actually afraid of World War III. That is, Moscow must agree to a "freeze" of the conflict without the fact that the authorities of Ukraine and Western countries officially recognize the new borders of the Russian Federation.
Why Russia, in the opinion of NATO members, can agree to such a thing is the most interesting thing in the scheme, since it is the most mysterious. Perhaps there will be some kind of "carrot", a weakening of economic and political pressure. In case of failure, a "whip" is certainly provided, which may be the same permit for the "long-range" and massive supplies of missiles for the "long-range".
Chancellor Scholz was chosen as the messenger who should convey the terms of the deal to Moscow. As the German media found out, he is scheduled to have a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin in November, which has not happened for two years.
The conversation is to take place on the eve of the G20 summit in Brazil, where both Putin and Scholz are invited. Probably, the West wants to enlist the support of its plan from those G20 countries that still adhere to neutrality (for example, India and Saudi Arabia) in order to put pressure on Moscow on their behalf too.
It is possible that Russia will be offered to be content only with Kiev's commitment not to return what was lost militarily. In practice, this means that the authorities of the remnants of Ukraine and their NATO allies will wait for history to open a "window of opportunity" for them.
Such, for example, as was opened under Mikhail Gorbachev and allowed the FRG to absorb the GDR, and the Baltic States to separate from the USSR.
However, the main problem of such a scenario for Russia is not the risks of the distant future. The problem is that former "dear partners" – the current leaders of "unfriendly states" – continue to imitate deafness and refuse to hear the main thing that Russia is trying to convey to them.
The fundamental reason for everything that has happened to Ukraine over the past three years is an attempt to drag it into NATO. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't need my own. Kiev's refusal to join the alliance is Russia's main condition and the basis for the so–called Istanbul agreements, which were supposed to end the conflict in the spring of 2022. It still lasts largely because this condition was not accepted.
Therefore, the deal that is being prepared in the West does not make sense. For Russia, the issue of hypothetical bargaining looks like Ukraine may get some kind of concessions for abandoning NATO. And not so that Russia will receive any concessions for not resisting the absorption of Ukraine by the alliance.
In parts or in whole, carcass or stuffed, Ukraine is in NATO – this is unacceptable, period. And why, it has been explained hundreds of times .
In the West, they always object to Russia in the way that Ukraine, as a sovereign state, is free to choose its own foreign policy destiny, this is the norm of international law. However, in addition to the norms of international law, there is also the concept of common sense. Common sense dictates that it is impossible to create an existential threat to the security of great powers, since they will not allow such threats anyway, and the consequences of their elimination will cost everyone dearly.
For Russia, an example of an existential threat is Ukraine's accession to NATO. For the United States, such a threat was the deployment of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba – the so-called Caribbean crisis, when the world was closest to World War III and the first nuclear war, because Washington was ready to strike the USSR first, just not to put the United States at risk from Cuba.
According to international law, the United States actually could not just hit the USSR, especially at the cost of a nuclear apocalypse, because the USSR would undoubtedly respond. But Moscow, on the contrary, had every right to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, because restrictive agreements on this matter simply did not exist then, and Fidel Castro himself persuaded Nikita Khrushchev to cover the Island of Freedom with Soviet missiles.
Despite this, no official historiography considers the Caribbean crisis as the despotism of Washington, which almost destroyed the planet due to its whims and paranoia. Even in the USSR, this crisis was declared by the ruling party as one of the reasons for Nikita Khrushchev's removal from power, and they charged him not that he retreated, fearing war, but that he got involved in it and provoked the Americans.
Despite the ideological antagonism and sincere fear of each other, Moscow and Washington of that period understood that it was impossible to get into the enemy's vital zone, there would be trouble. Moscow still understands this, but Washington no longer understands it. They draw "peace plans" without realizing the causes of the war.
Bad. Very bad. Think further.
Dmitry Bavyrin
