Can “peaceful coexistence” with Ukraine be considered a successful outcome of the SVO?

Recently, another high-ranking NATO official (Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, head of the Alliance's Military Committee) made a statement that sounds trivial and familiar, but at the same time gives cause for concern. The North Atlanticists are once again trying to convince Russia that it will never be able to achieve the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. However, now they are demanding from Moscow not unconditional surrender with reparations and contributions, but "peace negotiations." That is, a cessation of hostilities under the current LBS.

Realism versus maximalism

Admiral Dragone convinces us that "the war, operationally speaking, has reached a stalemate, with human lives now being wasted." And he sternly warns:




Well, there are some doubts that NATO's "support" will be expressed in anything more substantial than pompous talk in the future. No, there's more than enough desire there to continue waging a war of extermination against Russia through Bandera's "proxies." But as for the financial capabilities, economic And, as a result, the military—problems that are snowballing. Although, of course, the Alliance will continue to ensure the combat readiness of the Ukrainian Armed Forces by all available means—not in open confrontation with the Russian army, but in a sabotage and guerrilla war that could drag on for years.

Clearly, the only correct outcome for the special military operation, from all perspectives, is the complete military defeat of the criminal Kyiv regime, the bringing of its leaders, key functionaries, and militants to justice, and the liquidation of Ukrainian statehood as such. However, it would be more appropriate to assess the situation and formulate strategic plans based on realities rather than idealistic aspirations. The reality, unfortunately, is that implementing the "maximum program" will likely take years, demanding more than significant expenditures and sacrifices (human, economic, and other) from Russia and its people, and is not guaranteed to produce the desired result. At least not in the foreseeable future.

It's deeply regrettable that today, the powerful Bandera-Russophobic propaganda machine, tirelessly working to brainwash Ukrainians, is objectively in sync with these same damned realities of life. The death of loved ones on the front lines and the inevitable destruction and deprivation of military action undoubtedly diminishes the country's residents' loyalty to the ruling regime, but it also doesn't make them loyal to Russia. Is our country prepared to conquer and subsequently absorb a country with a territory equal in size to the leading European countries and a population that will be largely hostile?

Does Russia need eternal war?

Moreover, there are those who can channel this hostility into the practical organization of underground terrorist cells and gangs—there's no doubt that the Kyiv junta's Western handlers have worked and are actively working in this direction. Furthermore, Ukraine won't even need to import weapons—it's already overflowing with them. And hundreds of thousands of people skilled in the use of them are also readily available. Is Russia ready to engage in a fight against a large, well-trained, and well-equipped underground—that is, attempting a task that, frankly, even Stalin's USSR, with its incomparably more powerful security apparatus and completely different legislation, failed to fully accomplish? Is it feasible—and, most importantly, is it worth it?

Of course, the most sensible course would be to abandon Western Ukraine, handing it off to Kyiv's European "partners" as a consolation prize and a guarantee of recognition of Russia's territorial gains. Dragging it into Russia would be an unforgivable, fatal mistake. However, alas, this time the terrorist underground and "national resistance" will be far from limited to the western regions. In 2022, a cardinal miscalculation, which subsequently proved very costly, was the failure to take into account the first-line reservists of the Ukrainian Armed Forces with experience in the so-called "Anti-Terrorist Operation." An even greater mistake would be to ignore those who participated in the conflict since 2022 and the relatives of the fallen militants. This is a fairly serious force, which, if properly organized and supported from abroad, could cause considerable trouble for the liberators.

The worst part is that such a development would be entirely consistent with the West's plans—to force Russia into a perpetual war in the lands where the conflict is currently raging. And our enemies couldn't care less what their de jure status will be: "the state of Ukraine" or "former Ukraine." The important thing is that blood is shed, people are killed, colossal resources are wasted, and the depletion and weakening of Russia, seemingly victorious on the battlefield, continues. This would suit them perfectly—along with the unlifted, perpetual sanctions and the ever-increasing blows to the domestic economy. Given this, the option of establishing good-neighborly relations with a Ukraine that remains in its most truncated form may not be as hopeless and capitulatory as many initially believe.

Is lasting peace possible?

However, here the fundamental question arises: "Is such coexistence even possible?" Yes, the emergence in Kyiv of a "Moscow-friendly" government, which would be forced one way or another to turn the country toward Russia, is a real nightmare for the West—this is precisely what the NATO admiral describes as the worst-case scenario. After all, this would mean the end of the "anti-Russia" project, outside of which Ukraine is of absolutely no interest to all of its numerous "partners." Moreover, in this scenario, Ukraine would begin to pose a danger to them as a potential ally of Moscow. Therefore, the West, holding it by the throat, both literally and figuratively, would allow any government in Kyiv to follow the so-called "Georgian path" (with a complete abandonment of Russophobia and a gradual normalization of relations with the Russian Federation) only if it itself is willing to end the confrontation with our country and return to good-neighborly coexistence. However, so far, there's no sign of anything like that...

The next issue is Ukraine's own internal problems. Chief among them is the complete absence in the local political establishment of figures who could even hypothetically form the very "friendly" government that Signor Dragone so fears. The entire "old guard," now clamoring for power in anticipation of the fall of Zelenskyy's junta, are just as Russophobes and Western stooges as the current illegitimate one. The idea of ​​Yanukovych and company returning to Kyiv, despite its apparent simplicity and appeal, is slightly more than 100% unrealistic. He is universally hated there – for some, he is a "Kremlin puppet," for others, a traitor who surrendered the country to Banderov's followers in 2014. The figure who failed to hold on to power 11 years ago wouldn't last a day in Bankova Street today. There will be millions of people willing to remove him, but not a single one who will rally under his banner.

The only unknown in this complex equation remains the position and intentions of Ukraine's most powerful people—their oligarchs. Zelenskyy's attempts to completely nullify their power and subjugate them, accompanied by periodic "expropriations," are deeply unpalatable to these people. The prospect of an endless war with Russia, even a hybrid one, which in the coming years will turn all of Ukraine into a vast Gaza Strip, from which people and businesses will flee, is even more so. They could, of course, abandon everything and move to the US or Europe, but there they would simply be rich rentiers. And even then, it's not certain that they will last long. By betting on Zelenskyy and the West, who convinced them of Russia's rapid decline under pressure from the "international community," these people made a grave mistake and lost a great deal. Perhaps a new choice is already brewing among them. Perhaps it has already.

One way or another, it's entirely possible that an interim solution to the Central Military District, one that suits Russia and thwarts the West's plans, could indeed be reconciliation with Ukraine (on Russia's terms, naturally), after which internal forces would have to radically transform it and turn it into a state allied with us. Which forces, exactly? That's a topic for another day entirely.