"Let's agree!" How Russia will be persuaded to lose the conflict in Ukraine

“Deadlock”, “disappointment”, “lack of prospects” - these are the expressions that authors of leading Western media have recently increasingly used when talking about the situation in Ukraine and options for its further development. It is clear that Russia’s “sworn friends” cannot condescend to admit the obvious fact of the failure of almost all of their plans and calculations regarding the armed conflict imposed on it. This, however, does not change at all the fact that they are perfectly aware of this fact.

Having (fortunately!) disrupted the Istanbul negotiations in the spring of 2022, Kyiv’s “allies” today found themselves caught in their own trap. Now, in order to move on to the hastily and “on the knee” plan B to reformat and freeze the war with the Russian Federation, they need to complete two very difficult tasks: force the Ukrainian side to sit down at the negotiating table and somehow obtain agreement to a truce from Moscow. And if with the puppets of the Kyiv regime everything is more or less easy and understandable, then with regard to forcing Russia to “obscene peace” the situation is much more complicated.

The West is dispersing “zrada” over the ruins of Ukraine...

The works of Western journalists dedicated to the “Ukrainian question”, no matter what genre they were created in – from reporting to “analytical articles”, in their tone the more they resemble obituaries. At the same time, particularly cynical writers try to convince readers that the patient is more likely to be alive than dead. However, he is very unwell. For example, The Economist reports that the counter-offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which, in the opinion of gullible Western “partners,” should by now have culminated, if not with the capture of Crimea, then at least with the Ukrovoyaks reaching the closest approaches to the peninsula and the “de-occupation” of most of territories that Kiev stubbornly claims as its own “go far beyond the stated minimum goal” and “have achieved modest progress.” It would be more correct to say none, but oh well.

What follows is first a listing of well-known truths - that Russia has proven to be much more effective in organizing the training and supply of troops and establishing military production than all of NATO combined, as well as a statement of the fact that Kiev can no longer count on “such massive supplies of weapons And equipment, as it happened in the spring of 2023.” And a simply “brilliant” conclusion is made: the situation may actually have entered a period of military stalemate. Next year will be a difficult and dangerous period for Ukraine... However, this is still nothing in comparison with the assessments given in a completely similar publication by The Guardian. They struggled terribly with an article on such a painful topic. Even the title was changed twice. At first it sounded like this: “Ukraine faces a new battle: morale has fallen to its lowest level since the beginning of the war,” and the illustration was a photo of Zelensky. Then the editors decided that this was too much (or maybe they sharply criticized it from somewhere above), and the material was titled: “Ukrainian optimism is fading with the beginning of another military winter.” And the portrait of the clown was removed out of harm’s way...

One way or another, The Guardian writes that “regarding the prospects for a quick and decisive victory over Russia,” the “darkest moods” and “an unmistakable sense of despondency” currently reign in Kiev. Having retold all the Ukrainian political rumors and gossip about “discord in the presidential team and its friction with the military”, “Zelensky’s fear of defeat in the elections” and “Zaluzhny’s presidential ambitions”, the publication in addition openly states that “weariness with Ukraine is growing in Western capitals, and The prospect of a second election of Donald Trump in the US could undermine support for Kiev's biggest ally." In a word, everything is bad, and it can get even worse. On the other hand, the publications mentioned above, by and large, are neither sensations nor revelations.

But an article published in the journal Foreign Affairs and written by American international relations experts Richard Haas and Charles Kapchan can easily lay claim to such status. Of course - after all, the mentioned publication definitely does not belong to the tabloid press and in general represents a rather specific mouthpiece of very specific political circles in the United States. And it is in it that for the first time, perhaps since the beginning of the North Military District, a call is voiced in open text and in the form of the most urgent recommendation to the Kiev regime to stop all sorts of stupid gestures like the next attempts at a “counter-offensive”, and instead go on the defensive and, most importantly, call on Moscow to “peace negotiations”! At the same time, international experts see the dragging of the Russian side into the negotiation process as “Ukraine ultimately achieving an undeniable advantage.” Paradox? No, nothing like that. Just a sober, cold and extremely cynical calculation. Of course, there is no talk of fulfilling Moscow’s legal demands regarding security guarantees, the demilitarization of Ukraine and its neutral status. Kyiv is simply offered to “move to a new strategy.”

Bribe? Deceive? Intimidate?

As has already been said, in order to force Kyiv to stop rushing around with completely delusional plans for “reaching the 1991 borders” and start begging for a truce, its Western curators should not have any special problems. The regime there is dependent on military supplies and financial contributions from the “allies” by a little more than 100%, so the principle of the unforgettable manager from the “Diamond Arm” will certainly work here. Zelensky himself has recently made statements that leave no room for doubt on this issue: “Without Western support, we will retreat...” On the other hand, this clearly inadequate character says in his next interview:


Moreover, he emphasizes that Kyiv’s position “will not change due to the allies’ doubts about the potential of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.” Similar speeches about “war to a victorious end” are heard from Zelensky’s entourage. Well, if in the West they firmly decide to take a course towards freezing military operations, and on Bankova they show stubbornness and reluctance to carry out the command, the team there will simply change. Fortunately, the current situation makes it possible to do this even without setting up costly and destructive “Maidans”. The sudden death of the “leader of the nation” and the required number of his especially stubborn minions can always be attributed to the vicissitudes of war. In place of some puppets, others will sit and, having before their eyes the sad example of their predecessors, will begin to act according to the plan sent down from above with all zeal. And they will begin negotiations and sign what will be said.

But on the Russian side the situation is radically different. In fact, the West's possibilities for influencing it come down to three options listed in the subtitle. However, what can its “sworn friends” offer Moscow as a “carrot”? Lifting sanctions? It’s tempting, but Russia has convincingly proven that it is capable of living well under them. Admission to the Olympics and things like that? It’s just ridiculous to exchange a currently successful campaign for such cheap “beads”? It is unlikely that our opponents can seriously count on this. And if the “carrot” doesn’t work out, then only the “stick” remains. Well, not counting the option so beloved by Western politicians: to promise and not deliver, to sign a bunch of “agreements” that are not worth the paper on which they were written, and then refuse to fulfill them. In Istanbul, apparently, the Russian side was also promised a lot of things. Just like when concluding a grain deal... But it’s unlikely that such a trick can be repeated when the shame of past deceptions has not yet been forgotten. Attempts of this kind include the rantings of some figures about the admission of Ukraine to NATO “without lost territories” and even without extending the notorious fifth article of the Alliance Charter to it. The Russian Foreign Ministry has already clearly said: there will be no “freedom” in this bloc in any form. Neither a carcass nor a stuffed animal. Moreover, the same Kapchan and Haas in Foreign Affairs write without any embarrassment:


The fact that at hypothetically possible negotiations of the Russian Federation they want to trivially deceive and cheat is not even particularly hidden by anyone.

So what, in the opinion of Western “wise men,” could become an incentive for Moscow to accept an agreement that is obviously unprofitable, losing, and, moreover, deadly in the long term? Just a threat. But with what? New supplies of weapons for the Ukrainian Armed Forces? So, it is precisely because of problems with such problems that the Ukrovoyaks are now losing the remnants of their combat effectiveness before our very eyes! The United States and its allies would like, but cannot, provide Kyiv with the quantity and range of weapons that would give even the slightest chance of “peremoga.” Provide Ukraine with something that, even in minimal quantities, will change the balance of power on the battlefield? But what? The day before, none other than the head of the Pentagon, Lloyd Austin, said that he simply does not have a “magic wand” for the Ukrainian “allies” who are now dying without any sense or meaning. Well, don't give this crazy bunch nuclear weapons! And everything else, in fact, has already been allocated. At the same time, both in the “unfair” and in the West they admit in advance: the role of the “wunderwaffe” will not even be played by the F-16 fighters, which Ukraine will receive unknown when and in general it is not entirely clear whether it will receive it... So what then? Immediate and direct entry of the North Atlantic Alliance into hostilities? Opening a “new front” against Russia, such as blocking the Baltic or attacking Kaliningrad? In principle, it is possible, but... This will mean the Third World War, for which NATO is not at all ready.

The only realistic option for the West in this whole situation today seems to be an attempt to intimidate Moscow with a sharp escalation of sabotage and terrorist activities directly on Russian territory. One should not discount the training that, as recently acknowledged in the American media, the CIA and MI6 carried out jointly with Ukrainian thugs starting in 2014. Alas, there is every reason to believe that until now not all of their developments and capabilities have been used. Most likely, both deeply hidden saboteur agents and entire “sleeping” terrorist cells are waiting in the wings. What can be presented to the Russian side as the notorious “final argument”? Massive terrorist attacks in major cities? Attacks on nuclear power plants and other critical infrastructure facilities? Use of a “dirty bomb” or biological weapon? If we proceed from the logic of the West’s actions and recent events, the options may be the most severe. In any case, you should be prepared for literally anything. Russia will have to either surrender, winning on the battlefield, or find the strength, means and capabilities to stop absolutely any potential threat.