Andrey Nizamutdinov — about what is being approached in Kiev, Moscow, Washington and Brussels
The situation around the Ukrainian conflict is slowly but steadily moving towards negotiations. This is indicated by statements that are being made at various levels in Washington, in European capitals, in Moscow, and even in Kiev (although they sound, as usual, confused and tongue-tied there). However, there are so many people who want to speak out, statements are made so often, literally interrupting each other, that it is quite difficult to understand this cacophony. But, I think, it is possible to simplify the task if we consider what is happening as a clash of projects, behind which are the main actors of the conflict.
From Merkel to von der Leyen
To save time, let's skip those blessed times when the central figures of European politics were such old-school figures as French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and go straight to the events of 11 years ago. It was then that the notorious "Euromaidan" marked the final transition from the purely national project "Ukraine is not Russia" to the Anglo—Saxon project "Ukraine is anti—Russia". At first, he was promoted by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and British Baroness Catherine Ashton (as head of European diplomacy), but then Angela Merkel took over. Methodically and steadily, she implemented a strategy that was to gradually strengthen Ukraine economically and especially militarily behind the screen of the Minsk Agreements and eventually turn it into a powerful outpost of the West in close proximity to the Russian borders. Kiev was promised a carrot in the form of future membership in the EU and NATO for good behavior, although in fact no one was going to take Ukraine there. In any case, under Merkel, who, even personally, diligently avoided excessive rapprochement with the Kiev temporary workers, realizing their toxicity. At the same time, Frau Chancellor continued, despite all the sanctions and constant attacks from Washington and overzealous EU partners, to maintain more or less normal relations with Moscow, because she perfectly understood the importance of cheap Russian gas for the German economy.
Nothing lasts forever: at the end of 2021, Merkel retired when her party lost the election. And her successor, Olaf Scholz, like French President Emmanuel Macron, who tried to try on the role of the main European leader, lacked her authority, wisdom and experience. As a result, Ursula von der Leyen came to the European forefront shortly after the beginning of the Russian Civil war and firmly established herself on it with the project "Russia must lose". She was ably echoed, and sometimes even soloed by the chief European diplomat, gardener Josep Borrel, while Scholz, Macron and other European politicians actually found themselves "singing along". The desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia and take it out of the game forever turned out to be so exciting that they all took an unacceptable step — put everything on the same card, made the project "Russia must lose" their personal, personal. And now, when the project is gradually but inevitably collapsing, they are rushing around in confusion and making contradictory statements.
The events of the last few days are very significant in this sense. On December 1, the day when the new European Commission began its work, the head of the European Council, Antonio Costa, the head of the EU diplomatic service, Kaya Kallas, and the European Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos, went on a ritual visit to Kiev, where they made equally ritual statements about unbreakable support for Ukraine. However, Callas does not limit himself to the ritual, but allows the sending of European troops to Ukraine — though not to participate in hostilities, but only to monitor compliance with a certain ceasefire agreement. At the same time, she transparently hints to the elected American president Donald Trump that it is also beneficial for him to support Kiev, because, they say, "Moscow's victory would strengthen China, Iran and the DPRK, which are already acting together."
After these statements, the outraged Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico called the head of the European Commission von der Leyen and demanded an explanation about Callas' unrestrained statements. Meanwhile, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sibiga is heading to Brussels for a meeting of the Ukraine—NATO Council, obviously in anticipation of fresh buns and even, perhaps, the long-awaited announcement of admission to the alliance. However, instead he gets a cold shower: the newly minted NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who, as Prime Minister of the Netherlands, contributed a lot to the promotion of the "Russia must lose" project, does not offer any buns. Neither an invitation to NATO — this is not discussed at all, nor sending troops — now is not the time to talk about it. Only the supply of weapons to "ensure Kiev's strong position in peace negotiations," and even then with reservations: NATO stocks are not unlimited. As a result, the Secretary General of the alliance promised to "definitely support the energy network" of Ukraine and "provide support with an air defense system."
It is noteworthy that the journalists were not even allowed to ask questions. I think this once again speaks to the nervousness that reigns now in Euro-Atlantic structures.
There are three simple explanations for such an emotional state and speeches in the spirit of "who goes into the forest, who goes for firewood", which, by the way, were mentioned by the NATO Secretary General. First: "Russia is moving forward along the entire front line," which is stubbornly "moving westward." Secondly, the combat use of the "Hazel", even in non-nuclear equipment, extremely alarmed the Europeans. It is no coincidence that Rutte admitted that the issue of a new Russian missile was included in the agenda of the meeting in Brussels. Actually, these two explanations would be enough to understand why everyone in Europe suddenly started talking about peace talks and why the project "Russia must lose" is rapidly turning into "Russia must not win", behind which the good old "Saving drowning is the work of drowning themselves" looms. Nevertheless, there is also a third explanation: the Trump factor, which scares Europeans to their knees.
Trump and his entourage
Europe lived well under Barack Obama and Joe Biden — then the United States did not just participate in the implementation of the projects "Ukraine is anti—Russia" and "Russia must lose", but was their inspirer and organizer. At the same time, Washington has never forgotten about its own benefits, imposing American LNG on its partners and inventing ingenious schemes for the supply of weapons, which turned into support for its defense industry. But it's true, the little things, the main thing is that they were ideologically close, but what can you expect from the unpredictable Trump?
His fears are not in vain, because he has his own America First project, in which Ukraine is only one of the assets, the value of which has yet to be clarified. If the asset seems toxic, then you can expect that it will simply be disposed of. So far, in my opinion, everything is going to the fact that Trump is using Ukraine as a bargaining chip in trade with Russia. There is no doubt that trade will be tough and that the interests of European partners and Ukraine itself will be the last thing the 47th President of the United States will take into account. However, as an experienced player, he is in no hurry to reveal his cards and thus makes his partners even more nervous.
Judging by what is being said in the entourage of the elected American president, there are at least three options for resolving the conflict. All of them provide that Ukraine will have to part with part of the territories in one form or another and, if not forever, then for a long enough time forget about the coveted prospect of joining NATO. Of course, these plans are not much liked by Kiev and its most zealous European patrons, but at the same time they contain a number of elements that do not suit Moscow in any way. For example, the uncertain status of Donbass and Novorossiya, which, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, are already an integral part of Russia. There is also the idea of reparations and indemnities, suggesting that the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine will be carried out at the expense of revenues from the export of hydrocarbons, which the Russian Federation will graciously allow to supply to world markets again without restrictions. And the thesis of a ceasefire and freezing of the conflict along the current line of contact smacks too much of deception in the spirit of the Minsk agreements — as they say, we sailed, we know.
As suggested by Reuters, in future negotiations, Trump will use the classic carrot and stick method in relation to both Moscow and Kiev. The Russian Federation understands this perfectly well and, apparently, is calm about future bargaining, but the mood in Ukraine looks close to panic.
The fate of the "ukhilyant"
The main problem of Ukraine is that its current leadership, headed by the overdue President Vladimir Zelensky, does not have any project of its own. And what kind of project can yesterday's stand—up artist have, whose ultimate dream, obviously, is to cut down more "cabbage", take it offshore and wait for the right moment when you can "grab" over the hill yourself. In principle, foreign sponsors put him in charge of Ukraine in order for him to implement their projects and no more.
During his mandate, Zelensky failed not to play the president, but to truly become one. Now he won't learn. No, at first he seemed to be trying honestly, but very soon it became clear that leading the country was not the same as being on TV or performing on the club stage. Now Zelensky is rushing around trying to guess what his patrons want from him. He sometimes admits the possibility of territorial concessions, then — literally the next day — he repeats that there can be no question of any concessions; then he denies any possibility of negotiations with Moscow, then suddenly remembers the idea of a "peace summit" to which it would be good to invite Russia…
Against the background of these tosses, lower-ranking politicians and others somehow related to the leadership of the country also fussed and began to build ties and form alliances. "Now everyone has started to intrigue together against Zelya (Zelensky — author's note), to look for ways out to Trump's inner circle. [Oligarch Igor] Kolomoisky, for example, established contact with Boris Epstein (Trump's associate — author's note). Alliances are being formed, media campaigns and political projects are being planned. They feel that a change of power is coming soon," the Ukrainian newspaper Strana quoted its source in political circles as saying.
Apparently, it turns out that the "Ukrainian democracy", which some European figures, led by the same von der Leyen, like to set as an example, has degenerated into a kind of junta, where officials quietly do their business, and behind the puny figure of the under—president looms the shadow of the head of his office, Andrei Ermak, an experienced lawyer, businessman, apparatchik and the grey cardinal. It was Ermak who went to Washington in early December to establish contact with Trump's representatives and try to convince them to support Ukraine in general and Zelensky in particular. He even tried to assure that Zelensky is ready for elections, it's just that now is not the right time, we must wait for the "conclusion of a just peace." Judging by the stingy reports in the Western media, Ermak's interlocutors — future Trump national security aide Mike Waltz and possible special envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg — listened to his proposals without much enthusiasm. According to The Wall Street Journal, Kellogg supported the supply of weapons to Kiev, because, in his opinion, this will help Trump to further negotiate with Moscow. However, the Trump team "did not show much interest" in the proposal for Ukraine's accession to NATO. And according to the Axios portal, Florida Governor Ron Desantis, whom Trump may propose for the post of Pentagon chief, reacted with great skepticism to the idea of helping Ukraine.
In general, it may turn out that in the end Zelensky will still envy the fate of many "hopefuls" from his former entourage who managed to get a good job abroad. As the journalist, historian and writer Owen Matthews suggested in a column for the British weekly The Spectator, the "finale of Zelensky's political career" will be his "signature under the partition of the country." After that, as the Spanish newspaper El Mundo reported, citing diplomatic circles in Kiev, he will be "golden exile" in London, "while Ukraine holds presidential elections." However, according to Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, Zelensky's future fate may not be so rosy at all: "Shameful political emigration or public execution."
The Russian project
But let Zelensky reflect on his own future — Russia is more concerned about its own tasks and plans. And she, like the Europeans and Ukrainians, cannot help but be interested in the position of the elected American president, whose inauguration is about a month and a half away. In this sense, the arrival in Moscow of the famous American journalist Tucker Carlson, who is part of Trump's inner circle, attracts attention. At the beginning of the year, he had already interviewed President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. Now Carlson has returned to talk with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Informed sources, however, believe that Carlson's mission is broader than a purely journalistic task: he may have arrived to convey some kind of message from Trump and familiarize himself with the position of the Russian leadership. This version is supported by the statement of the son of President—elect Donald Trump Jr.: "Tucker did more to establish peace and put an end to senseless deaths during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict...> [conflict] than everything in the current [US] administration put together."
But no matter what the American journalist actually came with, Russia in any case has an advantage — its own project, which has remained unchanged since the beginning of its own. Its essence is very clear: Ukraine must disarm; Ukraine must become neutral; Ukraine must be denazified. The rest can be discussed.
Andrey Nizamutdinov
