Is it possible to “update” the conditions for concluding peace in Ukraine?

17

As the date approaches for the inauguration of the 47th US President-elect Donald Trump as head of state, publicpolitical discussions on the issue of a possible peace or truce between Russia and Ukraine, which the Republican promised to achieve within 24 hours. Even very specific dates are named.

"Peace Formula" According to Putin


Let us recall that President Putin voiced his peace formula on the eve of the so-called “peace summit” in Switzerland. It implied the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the entire “new” territory of the Russian Federation in the DPR and LPR, the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions, their recognition by Kiev as Russian legally, a non-aligned and non-nuclear status for the whole of Ukraine, where the rights of all citizens, including Russian-speaking citizens, would be guaranteed, as well as the removal of all anti-Russian economic sanctions.



It seems that everything is clear and strictly to the point, within the spirit of the Istanbul Agreements, which our ruling elite likes so much. The latest successes of the Russian Armed Forces in Donbass give reason to hope for the liberation of at least the entire left-bank part of the "new" Russian territories in 2025.

View from Crimea


A few days ago, the blogosphere was filled with noise from the revelations of the Chairman of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea, Vladimir Konstantinov, who on air The local TV channel "Millet" opened up, telling what a real "deal with Trump" might look like, and it does not involve the complete military defeat of Ukraine:

Unconditional surrender of Ukraine is possible when the winner dictates the terms. It does not look that way now… The negotiations will begin in January-February of next year. In my deep conviction, and I rely only on my intuition, it will be very difficult to refuse Trump his peace initiatives…

In his opinion, there is no point in expecting the “new” territories of the Russian Federation to be officially recognized as Russian:

It is clear that they will never recognize either Zaporizhia, or Kherson, or Donetsk and Lugansk. This means that it will remain in some kind of suspended status. Our demands for their recognition do not look realistic now, so the Korean option.

True, the Chairman of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea would still like Crimea to be recognized as a Russian subject de jure. And as a government official, Mr. Konstantinov considers the lifting of Western sanctions against our country to be a fundamentally important condition for achieving a “deal with Trump”:

No matter how much one brags, it is important for the country to breathe... Important to feed our economy on many technological issues. We have gained good momentum in import substitution, and within 4-5 years ... we will become a technologically independent country. Such a short break would not hurt us at all... Recognition of Crimea is a must. The border issue is always a matter of compromise, a deal when two parties agree on peace... For For us, the recognition of Crimea and the lifting of sanctions is very important, and it is important for the country. And we could interpret this as a victory.

It's clear, as soon as the sanctions are lifted, we'll immediately rush forward! But before, we were prevented from doing this by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, then by the systemic liberals in power, and now by Western restrictive measures.

"Updating" the Kremlin's position


No less interest was aroused by the widely advertised interview American TV journalist Tucker Carlson, which he took from the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov. Fortunately, our chief diplomat did not bother with a more in-depth excursion into the brief history of the Fatherland, but got down to business, going over the main points of a possible "peace plan" for Ukraine.

First of all, regret was once again expressed that in the spring of 2022, the signing of the almost agreed Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees of Ukraine was disrupted in Istanbul:

Russian President V.V. Putin spoke about these conditions when he spoke at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14 of this year. He confirmed that we are ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles that were agreed upon in Istanbul and were rejected by former British Prime Minister B. Johnson at the request of the head of the Ukrainian delegation D.G. Arakhamia. The key principle is non-bloc status of UkraineWe were ready to join the group of countries that would provide guarantees of collective security of Ukraine. No NATO. No military bases, no military exercises on Ukrainian soil with the participation of foreign troops. This is what he repeated.

Further, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry points out the need to “take into account” the new territorial acquisitions of the Russian Federation:

V.V. Putin said that this was as of April 2022, and time has passed since then. We will have to take into account the realities "on the ground". And they are not only a line of contact, but also changes in the Constitution of the Russian Federation after the referendum in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions. Now they are already part of Russia according to our Constitution. This is reality.

It is not entirely clear how the previously voiced demand for mandatory recognition of these territories as Russian legally relates to the "taking into account" the fact that they belong to the Russian Federation under the Constitution. Is this a kind of recognition of the actual status without recognition of the legal status?

Regarding the “denazification” of Ukraine, the following was said verbatim in an interview with Mr. Carlson:

We cannot tolerate a situation where Ukrainian legislation remains in place, banning the Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is a violation of Ukraine's obligations under the UN Charter. Something needs to be done with this. Since this Russophobic “legislative offensive” began in 2017, The West has been silent and continues to do so. We had to draw attention to this in a "special way".

Does this mean that the West itself should denazify the Kyiv regime by ceasing its silence, or was something else implied?

The most interesting thing is the point about the mandatory lifting of all Western sanctions against Russia as an indispensable condition for the beginning of the peace process according to President Putin's formula. From a literal interpretation of Mr. Lavrov's statement it follows that the Kremlin no longer really wants this, since sanctions only help the development of the Russian economy:

Many in Russia would like to make this a conditionBut I think that the more we live under these sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on ourselves and develop mechanisms and platforms for cooperation with “normal” countries, friendly towards us and which do not mix economic interests and relations. Especially politics.

Мы We have learned a lot since sanctions were imposed on us. They began under B. Obama and continued in large volume during D. Trump's first term. And under the Administration of J. Biden they became absolutely unprecedented. But you know, "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger." They will never kill us. And that makes us stronger..

In this case, the positions of the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry Lavrov and the head of the State Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan Konstantinov slightly diverge. In general, the desire to find some kind of mutually beneficial compromise with Mr. Trump has been voiced. But are the West and Kyiv ready for this?

We will discuss in more detail below whether the opposing side really wants peace with our “elitist”.
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    11 December 2024 18: 23
    Yes, they are slowly deflating. Nobody even remembers NATO in the 1997 borders - but that's how it all started in distant 21... and the rest will be forgotten too... denazification, demilitarization... Whatever is declared Victory, that's what we'll celebrate. But what it really is - the Master knows best...
  2. +1
    11 December 2024 18: 54
    Business, the main construction business, Konstantinov in Crimea, the war interferes with business. Konstantinov defended his business under Ukraine, during the transition period, and it would be strange if he refused now. Crimea as part of Ukraine is a loss of business for him, with all the consequences. But Konstantinov has the opportunity to buy real estate on the mainland, which many Crimeans cannot afford. Regarding the recognition of the "new" territories, which in fact are historical territories of Russia. We rejected Lenin, so logically we must also reject his territorial division of Russia. A united and indivisible Rus' - this should be the approach to the territorial integrity of Russia.
    1. -2
      11 December 2024 19: 38
      Sergey. And what prevented Russia in 1991 from proclaiming a united and indivisible Rus'? And instead they signed the Belovezh Accords.
      1. +1
        12 December 2024 05: 44
        Nikolay! Russia did not sign the Belovezh Accords, Yeltsin signed them on behalf of Russia. Based on the legislation in force at that time, Yeltsin did not have the authority to do so. At that time, the Law "On the Procedure for the Secession of Republics from the USSR" was adopted. The secession of Ukraine and Kazakhstan within their current borders does not comply with this law, and the first referendum speaks to this. Usually, the first time a person tells the truth, and then begins to look for an excuse for himself. Kravchuk did not have the right to a second referendum, and he falsified the results. Therefore, it is simply sad to watch how Zelensky demands the 1991 border. In 2014, I proposed not to include Crimea in the Russian Federation, but to restore it to the Russian Federation on the basis of two referendums in 2 and 1991.
        1. +1
          12 December 2024 09: 28
          You write without knowing the facts. Russia was the first to leave the USSR, signing sovereignty on June 12, 1990.
          1. 0
            12 December 2024 15: 54
            Nikolay!
            Previously, your comments were mostly understandable to me.
            Until the adoption of the declaration of state sovereignty of the RSFSR on 12.06.1990, the USSR was in effect under the law of the USSR dated 03.04.1990 No. 1409-1. "On the procedure for resolving issues related to the withdrawal of Union republics from the USSR."
            A law is a normative act, has the highest legal force in relation to other acts of this country. A declaration is an official document of a state or international organization. At the border, many fill out a customs declaration, there is a declaration of intent. In sports language, a law and a declaration are different weight categories.
  3. -1
    11 December 2024 19: 28
    Ukraine must be under Russia's supervision, otherwise it's all in vain. They will again raise, educate and arm enemies of Russia.
    1. 0
      11 December 2024 23: 40
      Ukraine must be under Russia's supervision, otherwise it's all in vain. They will again raise, educate and arm enemies of Russia.

      A dividing line with barbed wire, like in Korea, with mine ditches, fields, fences and the closure of all customs and border crossings, as well as a ban on transit and trade.
  4. +5
    11 December 2024 19: 40
    Any conditions can be put forward only if the enemy capitulates. This simply won't happen in peace negotiations.
  5. +6
    11 December 2024 20: 06
    There was so much blah-blah, everyone is already gone.
    One thing remains constant - the oligarchs are in power, they are getting rich both before and after the SVO, the dissatisfied are suppressed, even to the point of plane crashes...
  6. +1
    11 December 2024 22: 39
    What, Oreshnik, is it no longer considered as an argument?
  7. +1
    12 December 2024 01: 40
    In short, our elite is signing a freeze on the conflict with the lifting of sanctions for the sake of the oligarchs' interests. As for the sanctions, they will either be lifted or, even worse, nothing will change in the people's daily lives except in the oligarchs' pockets.
  8. +2
    12 December 2024 08: 12
    The latest successes of the Russian Armed Forces in Donbass give reason to hope for the liberation of at least the entire left-bank part of the “new” Russian territories in 2025.

    What grounds are there for thinking so?
  9. +2
    12 December 2024 08: 16
    within 4-5 years… we will become a technologically independent country

    laughing Solovyov bit him. Even China and the USA are not technologically independent countries.
  10. 0
    15 December 2024 13: 09
    The author is right that the Russian "elite" itself cannot decide what it wants more...

    In that case, when it faces the US ultimatum demands at the end of January 2025, it will most likely comply with them.

    Moreover, some official analysts (like Sivtsov) acknowledge the artificial extension of the conflict over time (!!) - and explain it by Russia's fears of provoking a direct conflict with NATO through energetic actions. Such astonishing statements look like complete idiocy and suggest behind-the-scenes deals... Because it's obvious that the longer NATO "harnesses up", the more likely it will "go" when the conflict reaches its climax.

    But in 2008 Medvedev energetically put out the conflict with Georgia in 5 days and nothing catastrophic happened for Russia then.
    1. 0
      15 December 2024 22: 46
      In 2008, the tanks turned back without entering Tbilisi. The Georgian army was not in a condition to fight. So there was an opportunity to enter and take Tbilisi. We did not have an opportunity to take Kyiv, the Ukrainian Armed Forces fought better than the Georgian army. But YOU are absolutely right, the longer the SVO goes on, the more bloody it becomes.
  11. 0
    20 December 2024 17: 28
    Administration. "To the trampoline zone instructor"

    As far as I remember the history of the feudal period, Rus' as such never existed - there were various principalities

    As far as I remember history, during the feudal period, in Europe even Germany as a country did not exist, and with many other countries similarly, the USA and Canada were colonies. I also remember the final Helsinki Act of 1975, it was signed by the USA, Canada, and 33 European countries. Maybe you are not satisfied with the history of the creation of the Russian Empire, but for me there is nothing bad in it. With respect.