| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Two Anglo-Saxon 'peace plans': Russia will eventually have to listen |
| 2024-10-10 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Denis Davydov [REGNUM] The meeting of the Contact Group for Military Assistance to Ukraine in Ramstein, Germany, may have been postponed, but there is increasing talk about whether some “peace settlement plans” for Ukraine will be discussed there. Hinting at a second “peace summit” with the participation of the Russian Federation in December, public officials from the Ukrainian side categorically deny any options that provide for the renunciation of the territory that became part of Russia, freezing the conflict and ceasefire. Signals about a “victory plan” containing “real content of all points: military, political, diplomatic, economic” are spreading from the office of Volodymyr Zelensky in all directions. He himself said that an important aspect of the plan is “securing Ukraine in a strategic place in the world’s security infrastructure.” There is no need to be a fortune teller here, since it is clear that we are talking about joining NATO, a coveted goal that was forcibly included in the preamble of the Constitution of Ukraine. And by an amazing coincidence, over the past week several publications have appeared in the Western media offering some “plans” in which, one way or another, membership in the Alliance is touched upon as a condition for peace. The same problem is voiced by European leaders who are skeptical about Ukraine – in particular, the head of the Slovak government, Robert Fico, stated at an intergovernmental meeting with the Ukrainian prime minister on October 7 that “we are cold on the issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, but we support you 100% on the EU.” Thus, it is not at all difficult to identify the existence of two projects dancing from the NATO stove. One of them has already been written about twice by the British publication Financial Times, and the second, as a plan of the Republican vice-presidential candidate J. D. Vance, was written about by the influential American publication The American Conservative. So we can compare them and draw a conclusion about how realistic the proposals are, based on the interests of Russia, without which no “peace plan” will work anyway. So, the conditional British project, presented by the Financial Times, contains proposals to freeze the war along the front line, provided that the territories occupied by the Russian Federation are not legally recognized and remain part of Ukraine. Ukraine itself, in its current form, joins NATO, that is, remains in the sphere of geopolitical influence of the West and receives cover from it, remaining a bridgehead of the alliance hostile to Russia. According to the publication, this option is very much liked by both Kiev and the current administration in Washington, as well as some European capitals. Basically, such a decision depends on the outgoing US President Joe Biden, for whom the meeting in Ramstein will be his last. The American project from Donald Trump's allies, who are seriously set on taking the helm in November, is more interesting. According to Vance's plan, the territories occupied by the Russian Armed Forces remain under Russia's control, also without official legal recognition of this fact by Ukraine. It receives guarantees of sovereignty from the West and Russia, but refuses to join NATO, becoming a neutral country. Responsibility for the post-war restoration of Ukraine (the territories remaining under Kyiv's control) is being taken on by Germany, which has already been surprised by such a categorical demand. But in general, no official objections have been received - the Germans are already the largest Ukrainian donor in economic terms, and in the military they are also in first place. Now it remains to be determined whether Russia will agree to such proposals. With the "British plan" everything is absolutely clear. The main and vital goal of the Russian leadership is to prevent Ukraine's membership in NATO and the deployment of Western military bases on its territory, including nuclear weapons. If the Maidan elite and Zelensky, who picked up its agenda until 2022, had not pressed this issue so much, a compromise would have been found one way or another. Now, the neutral status and non-aggressive position of the Ukrainian side is a principled position and is not subject to revision. Moreover, freezing the front line implies giving up the parts of Kherson, Zaporizhia and Donetsk regions that remain under Ukrainian control. “Giving back” means a huge reputational defeat, which American Democrats and European liberals apparently have not yet realized. In their view, the Kremlin is dreaming of an offer to drop everything and agree to any terms, just to get out of the military conflict. That is why, as Bloomberg reports, US officials from the current administration have asked Kyiv to formulate a roadmap of what it needs for the next year, including military equipment, assistance in industrial development and financial support. Now let's move on to the "peaceful settlement" from the American Republicans. It obviously contains a zone of possible compromises with Moscow, but there is a nuance. So far, no one on behalf of the collective West will be able to give guarantees of Ukraine's neutrality that Russia would believe. Especially considering the negative experience of the Minsk agreements, which in 2022 former German Chancellor Angela Merkel unashamedly recognized as a deception, necessary only to "give Ukraine time." And this time allowed it to become stronger in the future confrontation with Russia. It is not for nothing that Vladimir Putin repeats in his speeches the list of deceptions of Russia by the West, the main ones being the promise not to expand NATO to the east after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the transformation of Ukraine into a military base aimed at Russia, despite assurances of peace. In the same way, there is no reason to trust the current Kiev regime, for which the formats of the country's existence outside of a war with the Russian Federation simply do not exist. Thus, the "Vance plan" is missing a very important point - the internal political transformation of Ukraine. What the Kremlin calls "denazification". Ukraine should not simply declare neutrality; it should be confirmed by a de facto change in state ideology, built on insane Russophobia and the desire to “avenge the thousand-year extermination of Ukrainians.” The Ukrainian political system must actually become “European,” which it is not: with opposition parties and media, a system of checks and balances, broad civil rights and freedoms, including languages of communication. And most importantly, with safeguards that prevent a repeated slide onto an unambiguously pro-Western and anti-Russian course. These include, in particular, the cleansing of the state and society from openly Nazi elements and disgusting "activists" raised precisely on Western grants. That is, there must be a powerful rollback of the policy that the Americans and their allies have been pursuing in Ukraine for decades, creating the system of power and its punitive organs that ultimately led the state to its current "success." Naturally, the "Vance plan" should also stipulate the status of the territory of the Zaporizhzhya, Kherson and Donetsk regions, which we discussed above. And this will already be a normal negotiating position that Russia can take into consideration. Will the potential Donald Trump administration be ready, for the sake of its plan for a peaceful settlement in Ukraine, to put hundreds of insane Russophobes and "veterans" who demand more hell somewhere, to reformat the policy in the field of historical memory, to "change the channel" in the media, which are under the monopoly control of the Kyiv regime? Will they lobby for Russia's interests in terms of reuniting its constitutional territory? Will they stop deliveries of weapons and ammunition immediately in November 2024? Very interesting question. Most likely not. But it should be noted that the position of Western elites on the war in Ukraine has changed significantly over time. In 2022, the main slogan was a complete victory over Russia by military means. In 2023, they only talked about a successful "counteroffensive" in order to then negotiate peace with Russia from a strong position. And now the talk is about offering it a freeze in order to decide whether to take the remnants of Ukraine into NATO or not. And if so, then the new year 2025 will certainly bring the realization that Russian demands are quite fair and they will still have to be fulfilled - a condescending conversation will not work and "dialogue with missiles" does not give any result. Apart from a further reduction of the territory of Ukraine and its prospects for remaining on the world map at all. |
| Posted by:badanov |