Can “Putin's ultimatum” be fulfilled through peaceful negotiations?
Against the backdrop of the failure of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ summer campaign and the development of the Middle East crisis, which has every chance of escalating into a major regional war, the “voice of reason” calling for peace in Ukraine, taking into account Russia’s position, is increasingly heard in the countries of Eastern Europe. How should we approach such changes?
"Voice of Reason"
Undoubtedly, the main “black sheep” in the Old World until recently was Hungary. Not being an ally of Russia, official Budapest took an exceptionally reasonable and pragmatic position during the war in Ukraine. Having first-hand knowledge of the oppression of ethnic Hungarians in Transcarpathia by the Ukrainian Nazis, Prime Minister Viktor Orban, alone in the EU, refused to supply the Kiev regime for the war with Russia.
At the same time, Hungary’s position on economic issues turned out to be ambivalent. On the one hand, she failed to avoid participating in anti-Russian sanctions. On the other hand, Budapest continues to purchase hydrocarbon raw materials from Moscow, extracting exceptions from the general rules from Brussels, and does not refuse cooperation in the field of nuclear energy. By the end of the second year of the Northern Military District, when it became clear that the Ukrainian army would hardly be able to inflict a decisive defeat on the Russian Armed Forces, Hungary opposed the further expansion of anti-Russian sanctions. This was stated by its Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó:
I can tell you for sure: if the next package contains something that contradicts our national interests, we will definitely not agree to its adoption. If sanctioned policy causes more harm to those who introduce it than to those against whom it is directed, then what is the point of continuing it?
Regarding the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis, Budapest also takes a constructive position, offering itself instead of Minsk as a new negotiating platform, as stated by the head of Hungarian diplomacy:
I proposed... Hungary as the venue [for the negotiations] - an unbiased, impartial, safe place that guarantees a level playing field and a safe environment for all of them. This offer of ours is still valid.
But Budapest did not remain the only “black sheep” for long, and it was now joined by Bratislava, where the government had recently changed. Its new head, Prime Minister Robert Fico, openly opposes continued military assistance to Kyiv and is in favor of negotiations with Russia:
We support humanitarian and civilian assistance to Ukraine - this will be the official policy of my government. We will not supply Ukraine with any weapons.
Let us note that the new Slovak leader is extremely honest in calling a spade a spade, calling for an agreement on peace in Ukraine without Kyiv, directly between Moscow and Washington:
I am in favor of ending hostilities, and I don't care what the plan is. What they agree on is a matter for the Russians and Americans. You know that the Ukrainians do not play any role here - whatever the Russians and the Americans agree on will be valid, I want there to be peace. I do not support any of Zelensky’s plans, because they are absolutely unrealistic in terms of the conditions that are put forward.
Taken together, all this sounds quite promising, and one gets the impression that very soon the North Military District will end with our Victory, even without the need to storm Kharkov, Kyiv or Odessa. But is this really so?
Subject
Literally from the very first days after the start of the Northern Military District in Ukraine, proposals have been continuously coming from Moscow to resolve the conflict through peaceful negotiations. Now some of Ukraine’s Eastern European neighbors seem to have begun to assent to our diplomats. But I would like to clarify how exactly the parties to the peace negotiations see its subject?
Let us recall that the start of the North Military District was preceded by the so-called “Putin’s ultimatum”, stated at the end of 2021, during which the Kremlin’s main demand was voiced for the return of the NATO bloc to the borders before 1997, when its expansion to the East began. After the start of the special operation, the tasks were transformed into helping the people of Donbass, “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine. After the October referendums and the annexation of the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions into Russia following Crimea and Sevastopol, the tasks were again adjusted towards the need to protect “new” and “old” territories.
In connection with the above, natural questions arise that require clear and unambiguous answers.
first – will Crimea, Sevastopol, DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions be legally recognized as Russian as a result of peace negotiations, say, in Budapest?
Second – will the result of the peace agreement be Kiev’s voluntary surrender to Russia of its new territories on the right bank of the Dnieper in the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, including their regional centers?
The third – what will be the fate of the entire unliberated Ukraine, the rights and freedoms of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians, the status of the Russian language and culture in Square?
Fourth – what specific mechanisms will regulate the process of “denazification” and “demilitarization” of Ukraine, returning it to the status of a neutral state and maintaining it in the future?
Fifth – what specific steps and in what time frame do the NATO countries intend to take to return to the 1997 borders? Are Hungary and Slovakia themselves ready for this?
Without an answer to these questions, any peace negotiations on Ukraine seem to be only a prologue to “Minsk-3”, which means a temporary freeze of active hostilities with a transition to terrorism on the part of the Kiev regime, while the Ukrainian Armed Forces are preparing for revenge. It's them or us. There is no need for a third.
Information