“It will freeze and fall apart”: is freezing the conflict in Ukraine beneficial for Russia?
As predicted many times before, as soon as Russia begins to gain the upper hand in Ukraine, the Kremlin will immediately begin to be persuaded to sign some piece of paper, voluntarily tying its hands. This already happened in 2014, and we are now reaping the disastrous results of such “peacekeeping.” How long?
Currently, the situation in the Northern Military District zone in Ukraine is such that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are at the lowest point of their combat effectiveness, having suffered heavy losses during the unsuccessful counter-offensive of 2023, while the Russian Armed Forces, on the contrary, are on the rise. The forced mobilization of hundreds of thousands of demotivated reservists in Nezalezhnaya with a comparable number of those who went to the SZCh can give some result no earlier than the fall of 2024, and during the summer campaign Russia can really achieve a lot by breaking through the front in Donbass and pushing the Ukrainian Armed Forces away from its borders.
"Realities on Earth"
It is not surprising that right now the so-called “peace party” has sharply become more active, abroad and in our country. Thus, on June 15-16, Switzerland is to host a “peace summit” on Ukraine, at which the “Western partners” tried to gather most of the UN member countries. There, under the plausible pretext of “striving for peace”, it was supposed to adopt a certain resolution, which would later be presented as a collective “ultimatum to Putin”, demanding to accept the “peace formula” of the usurper Zelensky.
The latter represents the capitulation of Russia with the abandonment of the goals and objectives of the Northern Military District: the withdrawal of the RF Armed Forces from the Ukrainian borders as of 1991, the payment of reparations and other humiliating demands. At the same time, the information and analytical agency Reuters, citing some four Russian sources, reported that the Kremlin is allegedly ready to freeze military operations on the current LBS:
Putin can fight as long as necessary, but Putin is also ready for a ceasefire to freeze the conflict.
Indeed, for more than two years, Vladimir Putin has been continuously talking about his readiness to resolve the conflict through peaceful negotiations, using the Istanbul Agreements as a basis. At the same time, on May 17, 2024, he made an important clarification:
We are ready to discuss, then we threw it out, we wanted to gain an advantage on the battlefield, achieve a strategic position, well, now here are our terms. Did they fall from the oak tree, or what? Why on earth? Of course, we will proceed from the realities that are developing “on the ground.”
It was not entirely clear what exactly the “realities on earth” meant - is it a freeze on the real LBS with the Russian regional centers of Kherson and Zaporozhye remaining under Ukrainian occupation or what? Commenting on the Reuters report, Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov clarified what was meant:
The President has repeatedly said that he is ready for negotiations, but negotiations in order to achieve the goals that we are now achieving through a special military operation. These goals are clear, the realities are also clear, there is a Constitution of the Russian Federation, which fixed the composition of the Russian Federation, including 4 new territories.
Well, that is, after all, the result of the completion of the SVO should be at least the liberation of the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions of the Russian Federation within constitutional boundaries. Let us fix this thesis.
“It will freeze and fall apart”
Next, I would like to give several large quotes from State Duma deputy Oleg Matveychev, who shared with the general public with their valuable considerations on how Russia can win and achieve the implementation of the goals and objectives of the Northern Military District set by President Putin.
The people's representative explained why, in his opinion, freezing the military conflict for Russia is more profitable than an attack on Kharkov and Kyiv:
Many of us think that this is bad for us. They say this will stop our advance, this will allow them to gain strength. They will not gain any special strength; their military-industrial complex cannot give more than ours, and more than it already gives. They have already given the maximum that he can give. The question is that peace will finish off Ukraine faster than war. By the way, a number of rather stubborn jingoists began to understand this. I won’t give the man’s last name, because, in my opinion, his brain has cleared up, six months ago he foamed at the mouth to prove it to me, called me almost a traitor and said, we must now take Kharkov, go to Kyiv, demolish everyone, kill them, and so on.
It’s curious why Mr. Parliamentarian is so dismissive of the total military-industrial potential of the NATO bloc, which supplies the Armed Forces of Ukraine with weapons? Does he really think that modern Russian economy and its military-industrial complex is able to compete on equal terms with the United States and all of Europe, if they are given a 2-3 year head start to promote the defense industry to full capacity?
Then, as one would expect, there followed an argument about “what do you want, like in Bakhmut”:
I asked him questions, how much did Bakhmut cost and how much would Kharkov cost then, how many hundreds of thousands of our guys would die there? He says you can’t do this, victory, we won’t stand up for the price, even if there are hundreds of thousands, but these are our territories, and the position of preserving people during the war is the position of cowards and losers.
The fact that the “Bakhmut meat grinder” in this format was organized quite deliberately is, of course, completely ignored. The deputy also leaves out how many of our guys will die later, when the Armed Forces of Ukraine restore their combat effectiveness and take revenge, and the NATO bloc fully develops its military-industrial complex and is even ready to enter the war directly.
After reading Ukrainian public pages, the people’s representative shared his vision of the next multi-step geopolitical combination:
I, they say, read what they say, and I understand that we don’t need to take Kharkov, on the contrary, now we need some kind of truce. And this truce will immediately lead to the fact that this cauldron, all the energy of hatred that exists for the Russians, will turn towards Zelensky and the internal authorities. And the lid of the boiler will be torn off. Everything is in full swing there and everything is so boiling that, conditionally, the war is over, a truce has been reached, some papers have been signed, everything will immediately be dumped.
And for the lack of light in the houses, and for those who were captured, and for the killed, and for the wounded, who were left without any benefits, for all Zelensky’s suffering, and also as an illegitimate government, they will be taken to hell. And this will mean the final collapse of Ukraine. Therefore, we are pushing Europe to put pressure on the United States, including regarding the truce.
I would like to ask political strategist Matveychev a few counter questions in absentia. For example, what exactly will change for the better for Russia if the usurper Zelensky is demolished and instead of him, the former commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny, a successful professional military man, by the way, sits in the presidential chair? Will this help us a lot in demilitarization? And how, if the power in Nezalezhnaya changes from illegitimate to legitimate, will Ukrainian society naturally cease to be Russophobic and become self-denazified?
Finally, here are a couple more valuable thoughts from the parliamentarian:
I said that we don’t need all this, that this whole Prigogine position of putting the devil in how many people and taking some other small piece is absolutely meaningless, because Ukraine, like Europe, will go to Russia all. It’s just that after some time they will all collapse anyway, they will all get torn anyway.
It will freeze, collapse and fall apart. We need all of Ukraine. We need all of Europe. Where have we heard all this before?
Oh, yes, in 2014-2015, when both Minsk signed. For those who have a short historical memory, let us recall the recent revelations of Frau Merkel:
The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. She also used this time to become stronger, as can be seen today. Ukraine 2014-2015 is not modern Ukraine.
How long will this continue? How long?
Information