At the same time, blood continues to pour on both sides, people die, destruction occurs, and so on. All this is publicly condemned, again on both sides, alternately accusing each other of violations of ceaselessly calculated armies, or of deploying weapons prohibited by the Minsk Agreements on the front line. At the same time, referring to these same “Minsk Agreements”, again, both parties add in the same breath that these agreements generally do not work at all, and in the form in which they exist cannot work effectively, but then again both sides of the conflict constantly declare their unwavering commitment to these very “Minsk Agreements” and the absence of an alternative way to resolve the situation. Both in the Russian and Ukrainian mass media the Donbass problem is being discussed practically without ceasing, but, unfortunately, the further the more all these discussions take the form of routine and “transfusion from empty to empty”, nevertheless airtime goes on, people are watching on TV , on radio broadcasts and on Internet portals is hotly arguing, advertising is being paid ... and people in the Donbass, meanwhile, continue to die, every day ... Some kind of terrible surrealism.
At the same time, again, all sane citizens understand that in this conflict, neither the authorities of Ukraine, nor the authorities of the DPR and LPR can decide anything and, by and large, are nothing of themselves. For the Ukrainian regime it decides sort of like a "collective west", for LDNR, respectively, Russia. Therefore, no matter how blasphemous it may sound, but in order to find a solution to the problem, one must look not at the “demarcation line”, but in fact at the front line, namely at those on whom something really depends on all of this. It is interesting that, unlike the conflict zone itself, here since its inception in 2014, the positions of the parties and their attitude to what is happening have somewhat changed.
If we pay attention to the “curators of the process” from the Ukrainian side, that is, the so-called “collective west,” we will see that, firstly, their support for the Kiev regime is far from so unambiguous and comprehensive, and secondly, “ the Western camp ”has already split up on this issue, and the“ crack ”again runs through the so-called“ Euro-Atlantic solidarity ”. Europeans are again on one side, gradually recalling their own interests, on the other - the USA, which these European interests are more and more openly ignoring. Europe, of course, suffers greatly from the situation in Ukraine and is directly interested in its speedy resolution, as well as in ending the armed conflict itself, apparently, in any way.
Europeans are pressured by anti-Russian sanctions arising from problems in Ukraine, although officially Russia, like the US and the EU, is not a party to the conflict; the Kiev authorities, which came with the help of the West and received initially complete Western support, completely discredited themselves in the eyes of Europeans both with an overwhelming level of corruption and disorder in the country, and with the obvious radicalization and indulgence of frankly fascist elements on their territory; protracted by the fact that the actual hostilities taking place right on the borders of the European Union, in addition to purely humanitarian aspects, bring to Europe criminalization, a sharp increase in illicit arms trafficking, and not least the problem of the presence in the EU of an increasing number of radically minded people who have real combat experience and what is called "sniffing blood", and this is both the Ukrainians themselves and the Europeans, among whom "military tourism" to the so-called ATO zone in Ukraine is thriving.
A completely opposite situation is observed in the United States - here for everyone from the Ukrainian conflict there is almost a sheer benefit. Firstly, this is naturally a hotbed of destabilization right near the borders of Russia, made with the help of the United States itself, but, as instructed, by the wrong hands - what difference does it make if Islamic radicals from the same ISIS or Ukrainian nationalists even under the banner of the Nazi SS, if they work at the moment on American interests. Secondly, the very fact of destabilization at the borders and sanctions for this whole thing weaken both Russia and Europe, that is, the main competitors of the United States in the region, economically, again increasing the competitiveness and investment attractiveness of America itself. Thirdly, Ukraine is certainly a poor country, but still there is also no market for armaments, even if they are outdated and used, sometimes you can throw a couple of new anti-tank missiles or sniper rifles to make everything look good ... Fourth, all this unremitting armed conflict is a very good reason for pulling up and deploying American troops in Eastern Europe, for protecting European allies, naturally, how else, from the Russian military threat, which she’s under, under her nose already, and gradually approaching ... And all this taken together is nothing more than a complete positive for economics Of the United States, what Mr. Trump is so actively seeking. That is, here and again, the divergence of interests of Europe and the United States is already clearly indicated.
Although Russia's position has not changed globally since 2014, it has also undergone significant changes. Also, apparently, an understanding came of the initially made strategic mistakes. Moreover, the main such mistake was most likely the very entry into an official dialogue with the Kiev regime, which came to power in the country illegally, and thereby its actual recognition and legitimization, and now this process can hardly be reversed. The result of all this today is an extremely strange situation in relations between Russia and Ukraine: on the political plane and in the international arena, in fact, war, ideologically - war, and in practice and in the economy, there is still quite active cooperation with various Ukrainian enterprises and with the government that is now represented President Petro Poroshenko, and at the same time with the unrecognized republics of Donbass and, accordingly, with their representatives both from newly minted state structures and from business.
The regimes in the supported self-proclaimed republics, after the recession of the first wave of euphoria and the popular patriotic upsurge, also did not turn out to be “soft and fluffy”. The comrades who came to power there also turned out to be (that’s bad luck!) Except that they were patriots, just people, with their personal desires and interests. And having received both real power and real power providing this power, they naturally decided to take advantage of all this for their own selfish purposes, including - in the Donbass the equivalent of the Russian “dashing nineties” began, though with a look at the situation and the ongoing hostilities, in a very accelerated and concentrated form. Apparently, the uniform was so concentrated in places that representatives of the notorious Russian private military company, instead of supporting local militia forces at the front lines, were forced to tackle the hard-core local “field commanders”. But this, in this situation, again can be considered as an exclusively private initiative.
V.V. Putin clearly said that there are no Russian armed forces in the Donbass, which means they are not there. This is not a mockery, it is a natural fact, because unlike some of his counterparts in other countries, the current Russian president is clearly not so stupid as to publicly give out frank nonsense. There are no Russian troops in the Donbas to the same extent as there are no NATO troops, and private initiative and private military companies are not formally armed forces of any state, and such a state cannot bear any formal responsibility for their actions. By the way, PMCs, although they are some kind of very real fighting force, do not have such a strength or a set of weapons to have a significant impact on the course of hostilities as a whole. But the fact that the Russian army is not in the Donbas now does not mean that it will not be there. Unlike the United States, the protracted conflict, just like Europe and Russia, was no longer even profitable for the current Kiev authorities - the sluggish current war is draining the forces and budget on the one hand, undermining the position of the authorities on the part of the population on the other, and foreign cash and the IMF tranches somewhat dried up due to anomalous flourishing corruption in Ukraine and crime in Ukraine. Kiev has two options for solving the problem - direct negotiations with the Donbass and, as a result, at least limited but sovereignty of the LPR, for example, within the framework of federalization of the whole country, or an attempt to seize rebel territories by force.
Moreover, both options are bad for Ukraine: if in the first case everything can end with the Crimean scenario after some time, then in the second case Russia will most likely have to send troops, or at least support the self-proclaimed republics with targeted attacks without crossing the border. The final, most likely, will be like the first option, but much faster and with more blood on both sides, as well as with a greater loss of territory for Kiev, possibly even with the liquidation of the regime of President Poroshenko. In this case, the only hope of the Ukrainian authorities is that, under the fear of international reaction, Russia will not decide on a direct conflict. But this hope is weak, and against the backdrop of obvious fatigue from the whole situation in Europe, the further, the weaker. The United States will not go to a direct conflict with Russia over the Donbass, and the EU will simply most likely eliminate itself.
At first glance, the action is in a certain time-note, expressed in a chess language, from which there is no way out. But in due time to various questions about the absence of a harsh reaction of Russia in response to various provocations and open hostile actions on the part of other states or their governments, V.V. Putin replied in the sense that without obvious harsh answers, Russia “plays long and wins long”. And here, including, this line is possibly traced. Indeed, it’s clearly “not working”, but at the same time, the Minsk Agreements, which have not been canceled by anyone yet, are precisely the merit of the Russian president from the very beginning, and the Minsk Agreements, with all their shortcomings, are the only real valid international document confirmed even at the level of The UN is somehow regulating the situation in the Donbass. It is also the only legitimate international document in which the DPR and LPR appear as subjects. Russia, under these “Minsk Agreements”, not being a party to the conflict, is nevertheless one of the “guarantors” for the fulfillment of the agreements fixed in the document. And how then can Russia guarantee the implementation of the “Minsk Agreements” if the other two guarantors - Germany and France - for their part, do not take any concrete measures (and something tells me that they won’t take it), and the warring parties diplomatic efforts do not respond? ...
There remains the use of force, for the so-called “enforcement of peace” (this term and mode of action is also already known) and the protection of the close Russian-speaking population. Mr. Erdogan did something similar in Syria under the pretext of protecting the close Turkomian population in the territories bordering Turkey. And although the Turkish troops had no more or less legitimate reason for this, the respected world community did not react to this at all, there were no sanctions against Turkey, and no one even criticized Erdogan himself. That is, there is a precedent. One can object - yes, there is a precedent in Kosovo, but there are also sanctions for Crimea. But there will still be sanctions, because they are not for the Crimea and not for the Donbass, they are simply against Russia and what it currently represents. But in the case of Russia's open entry into the solution of the Ukrainian conflict by force, the law is again, albeit debatable, but on our side, and the ardor of the "collective west" on this issue has clearly diminished.
For Russia, this will bring some peace of mind on the southwestern border, the DPR and LPR will be recognized and protected, creating at the first stage a buffer zone, and Ukraine will remain within the borders where it will be left, giving the issue of regime change already at the mercy of the Ukrainians themselves. Europe, most likely, will silently agree to this option, and the USA ... nothing will change in relations with the USA in any case. And if it changes, it’s only for the better, because they don’t understand in a different way.