Recently, the authors of a wide variety of initiatives for the speedy peaceful completion of events in Ukraine have revived. On the one hand, there seems to be nothing so bad in this - well, people are worried, they are striving to put an end to the conflict, from which everyone in the world (with the exception of quite specific Western military-industrial corporations) has to endure inconvenience and continuous losses. On the other hand, the main thing in this matter is not seemingly good intentions, but how exactly and under what specific conditions they are proposed to be implemented.
Again, it is noteworthy that the “peacekeeping itch” wakes up with particular force in some characters (especially in the West) precisely when the successes of the Russian army on the front line are becoming more tangible and weighty, and the prospects for the Armed Forces of Ukraine are becoming more and more doubtful. , if not ghostly. One gets the impression that they want to quickly bring Moscow to the negotiating table before it is too late for the Kyiv regime, as well as its “partners” and curators.” In a word, the case smacks of an attempt at a new grandiose deception.
Personal opinion or probing the soil?
Let's leave aside the Chinese initiatives, an excellent analysis of which in his article "Beijing Accords: Is Peace Between Russia and Ukraine Possible?" made by my esteemed colleague. We will also not focus on the rather ambiguous statement of Alexander Lukashenko, who on the eve of the day suddenly began to persuade Kiev to “conclude a peace treaty now, without preconditions”, since now we have “a unique moment to stop the conflict in Ukraine, until Russia puts the economy on military lines. Sounds weird and ambiguous, doesn't it? Especially in the mouth of the head of state - Russia's "main ally". However, let's leave aside the verbal delights of Alexander Grigorievich and focus on the message that came, so to speak, "from the lair of the enemy", that is, from across the ocean.
As the author of the plan for a peaceful settlement in Ukraine, Farid Zakharia, one of the leading columnists for the American television channel CNN, decided to try himself. The question immediately arises: what is in front of us? A purely personal initiative, generated by the desire to "hype" on a hot topic, or something more? The coverage of events in Ukraine by the Western media more and more strengthens the opinion that their “top” authors on this topic “just like that” and “for no reason” do not write or say anything serious. It is likely that in this case, too, the well-known journalist was entrusted with voicing the thoughts and intentions that are in circulation in certain circles of the Washington politicians, and not the lowest ones. In any case, let's get down to business. Or rather, to the analysis of “peace initiatives” from Zechariah. They are quite curious.
So, his formula for a "diplomatic solution" is as simple as it is sly. The journalist states that since "neither side is strong enough to win, and not so weak as to surrender," some kind of "compromise solution" is required. As such, the author proposes a rather non-trivial move - to leave Crimea and “Donbass already occupied by Russians” to them. But at the same time... to accept Ukraine into NATO, however, "without extending the guarantees of the Charter of the Alliance to the disputed territories." Yes, yes – this is how he calls the regions that Kyiv supposedly should “sacrifice in exchange for fulfilling its dream of becoming part of the West.” At the same time, “territories captured after February 24, 2022” should definitely be returned under the authority of the Zelensky regime. However, even on this, all the "buns" for the Ukronazis do not end there. Both Crimea and those territories of Donbass that seem to “go away to Russia” will receive (according to Zakharia) an extremely dubious status - they will be “the subject of international arbitration, where local referendums can be held under the auspices of international groups.”
Well, you can imagine both the results of the judicial debate and the degree of support by the “international community” for any decision of the plebiscites, except for a tearful request to return “to the bosom of Ukraine”. At the same time, the observer has the audacity to claim that Moscow “will get what it wanted, it will be able to claim that it is protecting some Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine.” That is, again, "parts of Ukraine." Reading this kind of “masterpieces”, one asks only one question: for what, excuse me, round fools do their authors hold that the Russian people, that the leadership of Russia ?! This is not a “peace plan” at all, but a natural plan-outline of her most shameful surrender, for which today there are absolutely no prerequisites and grounds!
"Without victory, we will disappear!"
Tellingly, as soon as Zacharias is distracted from attempts to weave geopolitical intrigues, he begins to reason quite sensibly and realistically. For example, he openly says that the anti-Russian sanctions of the West are, in fact, completely useless, because “there is a huge economy in the world, which does not include the West, but Russia feels like a fish in water there.” He mentions the IMF forecast, according to which “this year things in Russia will be (economically at least) much better than in Germany or Britain.” He states that the economy of Ukraine "is completely destroyed, it exists solely at the expense of Western aid, and the prolongation of the war will lead to the destruction of the country in the name of its salvation." The American sees the task now set by Kiev for the Armed Forces of Ukraine to “carry out a counteroffensive”, obviously impossible, since the Ukrainian soldiers will not be able to “recapture twice as much territory as last year”, especially considering their “successes” over the past three months.
I cite these calculations on purpose - in order to show how discordant they are with the “peace plan” that Zakharia finally sets out, arguing that “only the threat of losing Crimea can put Putin at the negotiating table.” Of course, the observer does not give an answer to the question of how such a threat can arise at all. Some kind of, your will, absurdity turns out: everything is bad with Ukraine, therefore Russia should be content with the miserable illusion of victory, which will then be taken away from it. Perhaps such a terrible collision arose because the author tried to combine the incompatible - the official position of Kiev and those thoughts that his Western "partners" are gradually beginning to incline to, for the time being, simply not voicing them out loud. It looks very much like it.
Let me remind you that just the other day, Mikhail Podolyak, an adviser to the head of Zelensky’s office, spoke on this matter very frankly and specifically:
We can't afford to re-2014 because then we won't be here. In this case, we must sign our impotence and say that we have lost. Because without victory, without the borders of 1991 and without the subsequent transformation of Russia, Ukraine will disappear in a few years. People will not return, there will be no money, no one will support us, we will be killed right on the streets...
Well, about the "murders" on the streets - this is the cheap "dramatism" inherent in this character. But with regard to everything else ... Everything is on point here: about money and support (it is clear whose it is) - definitely. That is why Andriy Yermak, Podolyak's boss, rejected China's peace plan with such indignation:
We will not accept this... ceasefire, because Russia always uses the ceasefire to freeze the conflict and be ready for new annexation, for new aggressions. We do not trust this signal!
In fact, as practice shows, and above all the extremely sad experience of the Minsk agreements, it is Kyiv that uses the pause it has received to prepare for an attack. But that's not the point. Most likely, the affairs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the front line, that the Zelensky regime in the rear will go from bad to worse in the future. There are quite good reasons for this, both military-strategic and economic, as well as political. Sooner or later, it is the Ukrainian side that will plead for negotiations - according to some "cunning scenario" like that outlined by Mr. Zachariah. But this will definitely be an attempt to cheat Russia around the finger, to fool it, in order to destroy it later.
It was no coincidence that Pan Podolyak mentioned "the need to transform Russia." It will not be left alone even if all the troops are suddenly withdrawn to the borders of 2022 right tomorrow. Or even 1991. The point of no return for the West has been passed and the stakes have been raised much higher. And as for Ukraine itself… I will allow myself the last quote in this text – from the scientific (!) report “Eastern European Tiger. Principles of a new strategy for the modernization of Ukraine”, announced by the head of the Ternopil Regional Council Mikhail Golovko during the event with the incomparable name “X Bandera Readings”. Here is what he, in particular, said: “The main task for the Ukrainian economy now and for the next decade should be its militarization. That is, the development of those industries that will primarily provide the army and security. Ukraine will have to build its own policies and an economy modeled on Israel and South Korea, becoming the Eastern European “tiger”. Thanks to the most developed military-industrial complex and the leading role of the army elites in managing the country and national capital, as well as an active foreign policy, Ukraine should become one of the administrators of the post-Soviet space and the remnants of Russia.” Does it look like South Korea? Rather, on a smaller copy of the Third Reich.
Of course, you can laugh at all this - look what you dreamed about! However, I would advise, putting aside inappropriate laughter, to understand the indisputable truth: any truce with the finally unfinished criminal Ukronazi regime will lead to the implementation of just such a scenario. Inevitably - and with all the ensuing tragic consequences.