| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Three options. How to guarantee the West's implementation of peace agreements |
| 2024-03-15 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Gevorg Mirzayan [REGNUM] On March 13, Vladimir Putin’s interview with Russian journalist Dmitry Kiselev was published. In an almost two-hour conversation, the Russian president touched on many topics, including relations with the West on the Ukrainian issue. The American and European media, of course, paid attention to the nuclear aspect of these relations, although the negotiation aspect was much more interesting. And here it was necessary to read between the lines. Yes, nominally the Russian president made it clear that the diplomatic path to ending the conflict is not only open to him, but is also a priority. “We have never refused negotiations,” said the head of state. And this is the right approach, because the most effective option for ending the conflict is not a purely military path, but a military-diplomatic one. An option in which your victory will be documented and recognized by all direct and indirect parties to the conflict. However, at the same time, Vladimir Putin makes it clear that here and now the diplomatic track is, if not impossible, then at least difficult to achieve. “Are we ready to negotiate? Yes, we are ready. But only we are ready for negotiations, not based on some “wants” after the use of psychotropic drugs, but based on the realities that have developed, as they say in such cases, on earth,” the head of state explained. And this is a clear signal to the West. The fact is that in recent weeks, against the backdrop of serious supply disruptions to the Kiev regime, the unfolding internal political crisis in Ukraine, the successes of the Russian army and a number of other factors, many experts from all sides of the conflict have started talking about the possibilities of organizing a new approach to the negotiation project. Chinese and Turkish potential mediators became more active, and Western countries began to persuade Moscow to engage in diplomatic dialogue. But dialogue is not based on “realities on earth.” The West is still not ready to recognize Russia’s new territorial acquisitions, and certainly not ready to force Kyiv to leave the Russian cities it currently occupies in the DPR, Zaporozhye and the Kherson region. The United States and Europe only agree to freeze the conflict on the principle of “who owns what, controls it.” Apparently, with some promises about Ukrainian neutrality and so on. And the Western media are now presenting this almost as a grandiose concession to Moscow, for which the Russians should be grateful. Vladimir Putin made it clear that Russia does not need such negotiations. “ We must clearly and clearly understand for ourselves that this is not a pause that the enemy wants to take for rearmament, but this is a serious conversation with security guarantees for the Russian Federation.” And the key word here is guarantees. A word that makes negotiations unlikely not only in the short term, but also in the medium term. Yes, at some point (if the Kiev regime continues to crumble) the West will be ready to recognize new Russian territories. But, as the president noted earlier, the territorial issue is not the main one from the point of view of the goals of the Northern Military District. Russia needs guarantees of the demilitarization of the remaining Ukrainian territory and its non-aligned status. At the same time, against the background of total distrust of Western promises (which arose because the West regularly broke its word - just look at Angela Merkel’s confessions regarding the Minsk agreements), the president needs confidence that what is written on paper will be respected. “The guarantees must be spelled out, they must be ones that would suit us, in which we will believe. This is what we are talking about. Now it is probably premature to talk publicly about what this could be. But we certainly won’t buy into some empty promises,” the president said. How can the West guarantee that the remaining territory of Ukraine will not join NATO? What guarantees can there be that in one or two election cycles, the new leaders of the West will not call the foreign policy orientation of Ukraine’s scrap “its sovereign choice”, and then be drawn into NATO? There are only three options. The first is to have nothing to include. To do this, the entire territory of Ukraine must either be liberated by Russia or divided between Russia on the one hand and a number of European countries (Poland, Romania and/or Hungary) on the other. The second is to minimize damage. Russia can understand and accept that it is being deceived, but make sure that the harm from this deception is small. To do this, it is necessary to ensure that the remaining part of Ukraine itself does not cause much damage to the Russian Federation - that is, it is cut off from the sea and deprived of most of its territory and resource base. Finally, the third option is that it would be unprofitable for the West itself to violate its obligations. For example, if the guarantees on Ukraine are part of a large package deal that will regulate Russian-Western relations in a new multipolar world. That is, simply put, part of the new Yalta. All three options are different, but they have one thing in common - time. All of them are unrealizable in the short or even medium term (unless, of course, there is a sharp collapse of the Kyiv regime). To implement them, Moscow still needs to liberate many more territories, and the West has to go a very long way from the current recognition of the impossibility of defeating Russia to the realization of the need to accept its victory. These processes will take many months, and only after their completion can any serious negotiation process begin. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #5 Dale says he'll help... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-03-15 14:55 |
| #4 To do this, the entire territory of Ukraine must either be liberated by Russia... Taking all of Ukraine would certainly give the Russians a good defensive position against NATO but that would make them responsible for Ukraine which is a bit of a basket case already, plus it means dealing with all the Ukrainian hostility that action would generate. Occupying the portion east of the Dniepr gives the Russians a solid defensible border and frees them of any reliance on NATO living up to agreements. After NATO deliberately *bleep*ed the Russians with the Minsk agreements, I doubt the Russians will put a lot of trust in any treaty. It will arrive slowly and at great cost, but I predict this will be the end state. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2024-03-15 14:37 |
| #3 Russia will continue to achieve complete and total surrender. Either the Western world works with Russia and China or they will not gain access to world markets What color is the sun on your Earth? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2024-03-15 14:04 |
| #2 Emotional Support Animals are the key. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2024-03-15 13:26 |
| #1 I have believed this all along; "The first is to have nothing to include. To do this, the entire territory of Ukraine must either be liberated by Russia or divided between Russia on the one hand and a number of European countries (Poland, Romania and/or Hungary) on the other". The west has no credibility. Russia is in no hurry. No threats to their nation or Russians living elsewhere. Russia will continue to achieve complete and total surrender. Either the Western world works with Russia and China or they will not gain access to world markets. Isolated and defunct. Currently the West writes checks with their mouths they cannot honor. |
| Posted by: Dale 2024-03-15 13:07 |