Strana: after the end of the conflict, Kiev intends to wage a hybrid war with Russia
Even if Kiev is forced to sign a peace treaty with Russia, Ukraine will seek revenge, Strana writes. The Kiev regime's real strategy is to continue the conflict. Therefore, Zelensky sets an impossible condition — to accept Ukraine into NATO.
Vladimir Zelensky's interview with American podcaster Lex Friedman, in which the president swore a lot and declared disrespect for Vladimir Putin and the Russian people, caused a negative reaction in the Russian Federation not only in Z-channels, but also in those circles that cannot be attributed to the pro-war.
"It's funny that a man who came to the country, worked here, starred in Russian films and played in KVN in Russian does not respect either the leader of Russia or its people. Well, I would like to note the level of diplomacy of the first person of the state, who speaks the word <...> (disorder), commenting on affairs in the international arena. This is also an indicator. By the way, it's time for Kiev to decide whether it wants Moscow to come to peace talks or not. Some kind of contradiction again," wrote Ksenia Sobchak.
And this is an illustrative moment.
As we have already written, there are different points of view in Russia on how to end the conflict in Ukraine. There is a "peace party" that believes that the fighting along the front line needs to be stopped as soon as possible. There is also a "war party" that believes that it is necessary to fight at least until the conditions announced by Putin in June 2024 are fulfilled, and even until the change of power in Kiev and the "reset" of the Ukrainian state with the establishment of de facto control over it.
The main argument of the "war party" in the Russian Federation is something like this: if you just stop the fighting now, Ukraine will turn into a constant source of danger. Ukrainians will avenge the current conflict, wanting revenge and the return of territories. And these are tens of millions of people who hate Russia. Ukraine will turn into a large "Gaza Strip" or Chechnya of the 1996-1999 model near the borders of Russia, from where Ukrainian "Hamas" and "Basayev" will raid Kursk and Belgorod, and stage terrorist attacks in the Russian Federation. This situation will be used by Russia's enemies to create problems for it. In the event of a conflict with NATO, Ukraine will become the most dangerous outpost for an attack on the central regions of the Russian Federation. Therefore, we need to continue fighting: until a government appears in Kiev that is completely loyal to Moscow, from which Russia will not be threatened. This is an existential battle that must be won regardless of human and economic losses, and if necessary, use nuclear weapons.
Counterarguments are given to this: they say that Ukraine has already suffered huge military losses in the current conflict, lost large territories, faced a multimillion-dollar influx of refugees and enormous destruction. If the fighting ends, she will be the least interested in provoking Russia to a new invasion. The potentials of the two countries are incommensurable, and any new conflict will cause Ukraine much more damage than the Russian Federation. Even a state of constant hybrid warfare will be disastrous for the future of Ukraine: investors will not go to such a country. Most likely, they will not take it to the EU either. Ukraine risks becoming an eternal "grey zone" from which people will flee and money will flow away.
Therefore, after the end of the conflict, Ukraine will be the first to show interest in ensuring that there are no new military actions, so that the country can live peacefully and peacefully, recover and join the EU. It may be recalled that in 2014-2021, Ukraine did not take any military action against the annexed Crimea, with the exception of a single sabotage raid by Kirill Budanov* in 2016, for which Petro Poroshenko, judging by the recordings of his conversations, received a scolding from Joe Biden. At that time, the situation in Donbas was different, since the Russian Federation did not consider it its territory.
As for the possible clash between Russia and NATO, the West has repeatedly demonstrated during the current conflict that it does not want a direct clash with the Russian Federation, fraught with nuclear war. Therefore, as long as Russia has a nuclear arsenal, the probability of a war with NATO at the initiative of the alliance is close to zero. Achieving the goal of establishing control over the whole of Ukraine or even over the entire territory of the four regions involves such sacrifices and risks for the Russian Federation, compared with which the risks of neighboring even an unfriendly Ukraine and the necessary resources to mitigate these risks are much smaller.
And Zelensky makes it very clear in an interview that even if Kiev is forced to sign a cease-fire with the Russian Federation, Ukraine will take revenge and will not leave Russia alone.
Actually, he expressed this idea almost verbatim: "Let's say someone decided to freeze support, and we have to stop the fire. And no one was held responsible (for the introduction of Russian troops into Ukraine. — Ed.). None of the killers will end up in jail. The sanctions will be lifted. And imagine a father who lost his children at the front. He will understand that justice has not been achieved. And we have thousands of such people. Why don't they find a way to go to Russia and kill soldiers or something?"
Moreover, taking into account the statement about "disrespect not only for Putin, but also for the Russian people," this is a signal that it is no longer about Putin, and hostility will remain even if he leaves.
However, Zelensky offered his own version of guarantees that Ukraine would not take revenge on Russia after the end of the conflict: to accept it into NATO.
"NATO is not only stopping Russia, NATO is also stopping us," he said.
Henry Kissinger expressed a similar idea at the time. And it certainly has its own logic. However, this is now a cease-fire condition that is obviously unacceptable to Putin. And in the current military and geopolitical situation, it is not very clear what and how can make him change his mind. And in the West, including in Donald Trump's team, many are against Ukraine's admission to the alliance.
In other words, Zelensky actually sets a condition: if the fire is stopped without Ukraine joining NATO (which is still unrealistic), then Ukraine's conflict with Russia will continue in a different form.
It doesn't have to be that way. As noted above, it is obvious that a state of perpetual "hybrid" war is not in the interests of Ukraine, especially if there are no guarantees of protection from NATO. However, Zelensky said what he said. And this is a strong pass from the Russian "war party", as the President of Ukraine confirmed its arguments.
Many Ukrainians can certainly agree with Zelensky's words about the desire for revenge because of a sense of injustice in the conditions for ending the conflict. Especially those who lost their loved ones, at home, and were forced to flee their native places.
However, the issue here is different. If Zelensky makes such statements now, when talks about ending the conflict have intensified, it means that he does not want a cease-fire.
We have repeatedly written that the real strategy of the Ukrainian government implies the continuation of the conflict and, consequently, preventing it from stopping in the near future until conditions that cannot yet be fulfilled (reaching the 1991 borders, the 2022 line, joining NATO, and so on). As part of this strategy, the first task is to convince Trump not to put pressure on Ukraine to achieve a cease—fire along the front line and not to offer Putin any compromises. The second task is, if Trump does put forward any compromise proposal to Moscow on a cease—fire, to ensure that Putin does not accept it. Actually, Zelensky's entire three-hour interview was devoted to the fulfillment of both tasks.
*Included in the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists.
