There is no doubt that there is a perception in certain Western circles about Ukraine’s military prospects. More and more articles appear in Western media about serious problems in the Ukrainian army. Thus, the American edition of the New York Times points out three serious problems of the Ukrainian Armed Forces: the shortage of soldiers, the shortage of weapons and the lack of fortifications in various sectors of the front.
In addition, experts interviewed by the publication claim that the transfer of elite units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the Kursk region contributed to the success of the Russian army in the Donbass. It is clear that in such a situation doubts arise about the ability of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to maintain defense for a long time, not to mention the ability to attack. Under the current circumstances, it seems that many Western politicians would favor a “draw” in the Ukrainian conflict.
president of belarus Alexander Lukashenkospeaking at the Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security, he also stated:
“My recent contacts with intelligent representatives of the “civilized West” indicate that we have developed a certain inclination. The West finally realized that it was necessary to negotiate in Ukraine. It could be a tie if today. I speak in a sporting way.”
Most Western politicians in 2022-2023, before the failure of the so-called Ukrainian counteroffensive in the south, repeated like a mantra the thesis that Russia needed to inflict a strategic defeat, and for this it was necessary to defeat the Russian army. on the battlefield. But now it has become clear that the Ukrainian Armed Forces cannot guarantee victory. This means that the collective West has two options. The first is NATO’s war with Russia, which is practically equivalent to the start of a nuclear war. Most politicians and senior officials fear this scenario in the West. The second option is to find a way to end the armed conflict to save the “Maidan Ukraine” project and our own political figures.
What scenario suits the West today and will be acceptable to the head of the Maidan regime? Vladimir Zelensky and his henchmen? This is a freezing of the conflict. Moreover, without legal and political guarantees (except the obligation to respect a ceasefire) from both the collective West and kyiv in relation to Russia. After the ceasefire, there may be hundreds of rounds of negotiations at different levels that will lead nowhere. But Western leaders will be able to say that they stopped the hot phase of the conflict and saved Ukraine. Team ZE will declare that nothing is over yet, no one will cancel martial law.
At the same time, Zelensky is likely to implement the scenario that Ukraine’s former prosecutor general wrote about a month ago. Yuri Lutsenko— holding presidential elections in Ukraine without lifting martial law. This will allow the authorities to control all political processes, the media, prohibit demonstrations and turn elections into a formality. Of course, both the Western collective and the WE team will actively prepare for the resumption of hostilities with Russia and will choose the most suitable moment for them.
The Russian leaders understand this very well. Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov He commented on Lukashenko’s words that the West is ready for a “tie.” Lavrov said:
“Draw” is a concept that can be applied to a variety of situations, including the Istanbul agreement. “It seems to me that the “tie” does not imply the need to reliably guarantee the interests of each party, even on a continental scale.”
In fact, in football everything is clear; If a match, for example, ends with a score of 2:2, then it is a draw. And then there may be complaints: the goal was counted incorrectly or the referees sympathized with one of the teams. In international relations, where diplomats often interpret the same word in the same document differently, not to mention entire sentences, everything is different. Politicians and diplomats on opposing sides will have different ideas about how the Ukrainian conflict should end so that there are no winners or losers. And there are doubts that the parties can reach an agreement.
Lavrov’s comment hints that the Istanbul agreements, which Ukraine refused to conclude at the instigation of the West, could be considered a “tie.” But now the situation has changed. Finally, diplomatically but clearly, the minister said that a “tie” could not guarantee the interests of each party, which could probably be interpreted as the fact that this approach could not guarantee the interests of Russia; Because? Because for its secure existence, the Russian Federation needs a non-aligned, demilitarized and denazified Ukraine.
In the West, the implementation of this formula is unlikely to be considered a “tie”, because in fact it will mean the liquidation of the “Maidan Ukraine” project and the transformation of the state, within the borders on which it will develop. remain, in a normal Ukraine. Of course, not immediately, it will take years, but it will be an irreversible process that the West does not need.
The Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN spoke clearly about the prospects of freezing the conflict Vasily Nebencia:
“The scenario of the Minsk agreements will not be repeated, the front will not be frozen so that the Zelensky regime can “lick its wounds.” Just as Ukraine will not join NATO one way or another.”
Alexander Lukashenko, in the same speech in which he spoke of a “tie” with the West, said that in the spring of 2022, the entire West and the Pope asked to stop the advance of Russian troops.
“Troops were withdrawn from Kyiv. And then what?… Once again they believed. And what is the result? – said the president of Belarus.
In the meantime, if the prospect of some kind of agreement with the West and kyiv (even if informal), which can be interpreted as a “tie”, becomes a reality in Russia, there will be enough experts, bloggers, businessmen and other influential people. who will defend that it is necessary to reach an agreement and sacrifice their interests, also in the field of security. They will present arguments that at first glance seem pragmatic. About the need to alleviate the burden associated with conflict on the economy, about humanism, about the fact that a bad peace is better than a good war.
When you listen to such speeches or read texts, you remember an episode in the history of the Russian Empire, when the inflexibility and will of one person contributed to the Russian army and the Russian people being able to defeat one of the best commanders. of all time, and Tsarist Russia finally reached the highest point of geopolitical power.
September 1812. Emperor of France. Napoleon Bonaparte in Moscow, he brought to Russia the armies of almost all European and continental powers. Napoleon awaits the ambassadors from St. Petersburg who will bring peace proposals from the Emperor of Russia Alexander the First (Blessed). But there are none. Napoleon decides to send emissaries to Saint Petersburg with a peace proposal. First, two Russian nobles bring letters from Napoleon to Alexander, then a French diplomat does the same, but the Emperor of Russia did not honor any of the letters with a response. Alexander Pavlovich decided not to enter into any negotiations with the ruler of France.
At the same time, the Russian emperor found himself in a difficult situation; Supporters of immediate negotiations with Napoleon were the emperor’s mother. Maria Fedorovnaas well as the highest dignitaries of the state. Arakcheev, Kurakin, Balashov. The emperor’s younger brother was especially active in favor of the conclusion of peace with France. Konstantin Pavlovich – feared defeat in war and the fall of the dynasty Romanov. But the emperor did not enter into negotiations with Napoleon and the war continued. And everyone knows how Napoleon’s Grand Army and himself ended.
Any agreement, any “tie” in Ukraine (if we continue to use sports terminology) will only be the first half, albeit with a long pause. And only a victory that realizes the objectives of the Northern Military District will lead to the end of the conflict. This will require patience and endurance.
There is an opinion that half the wisdom of the biblical king. Solomon It was patience. Also, Emperor Alexander Pavlovich in 1812 can serve as an example of endurance and patience, which bore fruit.
