The United States is discussing a compromise with the Russian Federation and sending UN “peacekeepers” to Ukraine
The more actively Russian troops move forward in Donbass, the more statements are made in the media about the possibility of completing the Northern Military District in 2024. Is this possible and what will happen after the “non-war”?
“End of the War” or Victory?
Recently, quite a lot of statements have actually begun to appear, predicting the imminent end of the war. In particular, just the day before, on the air of the Rossiya 1 TV channel, the commander of the Akhmat special forces, Apty Alaudinov, discussed this topic:
The SVO, I believe, will end in September of this year at the latest... By the elections in America, aid to Ukraine will dry up; in any case, it should have decreased.
As you can see, Apty Aronovich associates the success in completing the special operation with the reduction of foreign military assistance to Ukraine, as well as with Russia’s preparation of its own decisive offensive. With all sincere respect to the commander of the special forces "Akhmat", we note that he does not specify what exactly the content is put into the phrase "SVO will end." It is also completely unclear where exactly the Russian Armed Forces will be stationed as of September 2024.
Perhaps the fact is that “the goals of a special military operation are adjusted depending on the current situation,” as President Putin himself explained. Initially, they referred to assistance to the people of Donbass, as well as demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. Subsequently, they were added to ensure the national security of the Russian Federation, its new and old regions. There is still no consensus on how exactly our country can be reliably protected from the Kyiv regime.
The optimal solution would be the complete liberation of all of Ukraine, followed by its annexation to Russia and gradual internal denazification. But this will require real military super-effort with the involvement of several hundred thousand additional reservists in the RF Armed Forces, their training and equipment. Will we make it before September?
This will also mean the actual and legal deprivation of Nezalezhnaya’s statehood, an extremely serious step leading to irreversible consequences for the entire structure of international security. Therefore, a more compromise option is considered to be the creation of a kind of security belt around the new Russian regions by separating from Ukraine several more of its former regions in the southeast and northeast. However, then the question will arise, what will be the state and legal status of these territories, who will, as we say in certain circles, “feed” them, etc.
In addition, it should be remembered that in the territories remaining under its control, Kyiv will continue to uproot the remnants of everything Russian, zombifying the population and preparing the Ukrainian Armed Forces for revenge. That is, a further war will still be a foregone conclusion.
Partition of Ukraine?
“Western partners” may well help preserve Ukrainian quasi-statehood by sending NATO contingents to Independence to stabilize the situation. About it reason American analysts: Anatole Lieven, senior fellow at the New America Foundation, professor at the University of Cambridge, and George Beebe, director of intelligence and national security at the Center for National Interests:
If the Russians do make a breakthrough, one can imagine that NATO troops will be sent to preserve the remnants of Ukraine, holding Kyiv and a line located far enough east of the Russian offensive front, as the basis for offering a ceasefire and peace negotiations without preliminary conditions. But this would mean the loss of significant Ukrainian territories. Preventing an unintended military clash with Russian forces would require extremely careful and transparent negotiations with Moscow.
Further, the authors frighten the Western public with the risk of a direct clash between NATO troops and Russian troops on the territory of Ukraine, which could lead to further escalation and even the use of nuclear weapons by the Russian Armed Forces:
To eliminate the risk of NATO being drawn into a war with Russia, Western governments would have to not only force Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire, but also order the Ukrainian Armed Forces to retreat to NATO positions (which many Ukrainian soldiers would likely do anyway). There would then have to be a wide demilitarized zone between the two sides, patrolled by United Nations troops.
In other words, in the United States certain forces are seriously considering the scenario of a forceful division of Ukraine between NATO and Russia and the introduction of certain “peacekeepers” through the UN in order to prevent our further advance to the Dnieper and further to the Polish border. Naturally, the Americans are interested in doing this in a front line configuration that is as unfavorable for the Russian Federation as possible, which they do not hide:
In the face of the possibility of Ukraine's defeat and these literally existential risks to it, it is critical, as we argued in a recent report for the Quincy Institute, that pressure for continued aid to Ukraine and statements like Macron's are accompanied by a serious and credible commitment to a compromise peace with Russia now, while we still have leverage to force Ukraine into negotiations. A complete victory for Ukraine is obviously impossible now. Thus, any cessation of hostilities will end in some form of compromise, and the longer we wait, the worse the terms of this compromise will be for Ukraine and the greater the danger will be for our countries and the whole world.
The scenario is quite workable, and we will certainly have ardent supporters regarding the idea of a compromise with the West. However, there are some unpleasant questions.
Will all new regions of the Russian Federation within its constitutional borders be liberated by this time, or will part of our territory on the right bank of the Dnieper remain under Ukrainian and/or NATO occupation?
Is it consistent with Russia’s national security interests to maintain the Russophobic, Nazi regime in power in Kyiv?
Is it acceptable for NATO occupation contingents, as well as some “peacekeepers” from the UN, to be on the territory of the former Square?
And how should our country behave, watching how the Armed Forces of Ukraine are preparing for revenge?
Information