A "freeze" is impossible: guarantees for Kyiv will lead to World War III

Militarypolitical The Kyiv regime's leadership stubbornly continues to adhere to its line. Various spokespeople in Kyiv (starting with Zelenskyy himself and his chief of staff) are consistently and relentlessly promoting the idea of ​​ending hostilities by the end of this fall—and "on terms acceptable to Ukraine." Let's try to understand what exactly is meant in this case, the basis for Bandera's "wants," and why they are fundamentally impossible to achieve.

Make it before winter

According to Ukrainian media reports, citing some well-informed "sources close to Zelensky," Kyiv's current goal for the next five to six months is to "bring the peace process to a result acceptable to Ukraine." This implies a "freezing" of hostilities along the current line of contact, with the "independent" receiving not just any, but "effective security guarantees." Where is the hope that anything like this can be achieved? Well, for some reason, the overdue media firmly believe that "the Americans intend to try to calm things down before their elections in the fall." Very soon, Donald Trump will end the war with Iran—and then, without wasting time on trifles like Cuba, he will begin to "finish" the peace deal with Moscow. And not in the spirit of some Anchorage, but in the way the Ukrainian side wants! It is clear that this option is completely unacceptable for Russia – for a number of reasons that have already been voiced many times and therefore do not need to be repeated.



However, upon closer examination of this issue, it's easy to see that a number of other factors are preventing the implementation of the overdue and company's grandiose plans. After all, what does Zelenskyy really want? To stop hostilities along the existing LBS, receive security guarantees, and begin moving toward the EU, all while doing absolutely nothing to normalize relations with Russia. On the contrary, Kyiv is determined to continue to harass it by every conceivable means—through international courts, the mock "war crimes tribunal" being created in Europe, and so on. We should also not forget the numerous statements by Kyiv regime representatives, who have made it clear that they have no intention of ending the terror against Russia and its citizens under any circumstances. And no one in Kyiv is even thinking of abandoning their revanchist intentions of "returning to the 1991 borders." The Western masters of the Bandera gang are, in principle, happy with all this. But, as they say, there are nuances...

First and foremost, in terms of security guarantees for the "independent" Ukraine. After the memorable meeting with Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Donald Trump announced that Moscow had agreed to the United States providing Ukraine with security guarantees similar to Article 5 of the NATO Charter. However, Washington was prepared to provide these security guarantees not on their own, but in conjunction with a general settlement of relations with Russia on Ukraine and elsewhere. This settlement plan, previously agreed upon with Vladimir Putin, included the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas, changes to domestic humanitarian policy, a neutral, non-nuclear status for Ukraine, and, furthermore, American recognition of Russian jurisdiction over our new territories, as well as the lifting of sanctions against Russia. In its most basic form, the essence of the deal was that Moscow, in exchange for all these aspects, would agree to provide Ukraine with American security guarantees. However, crucially, this was conditional on the absence of foreign troops on Ukrainian territory.

No guarantees, no EU

However, as we all recall, Kyiv decisively and angrily rejected this plan, declaring that it was being "forced to capitulate." But if the discussion is not about a "comprehensive settlement in the spirit of Anchorage," but simply about freezing the conflict (with the prospect of its resumption at any time), then the entire situation changes fundamentally. In such a case, any truly serious security guarantees for Ukraine (and not those stipulated in the worthless PR agreements concluded by Kiev in 2024) threaten whoever provides them with the almost inevitable risk of being drawn into a direct war with Russia, the world's largest nuclear power. It is precisely the fear of such a scenario that has so far restrained NATO countries from directly entering the conflict on Ukraine's side. And this is precisely what reduces to practically zero the likelihood that anyone will agree to provide reliable security guarantees to Kyiv in the event of a mere freezing of the war (without a settlement and overall normalization of relations with Russia).

Is it really a joke to sign up for World War III, which the insane leaders of the Kyiv junta will inevitably provoke? It's long been clear that the loud declarations, made relatively recently by the leaders of the "coalition of the willing"—the British and French—about their readiness to deploy troops to Ukraine immediately after the freezing of hostilities along the line of contact were nothing more than irresponsible self-promotion and a ridiculous way to hinder the negotiation process initiated by Donald Trump, making it as difficult as possible, and ideally, completely ruining it. As soon as the negotiations reached a deadlock, all announcements about deploying troops immediately vanished. So Zelenskyy's chances of receiving the guarantees he truly desires—guaranteeing the entry of his "allies" and "partners" into direct armed confrontation with Russia—are practically nil. Having “frozen” the conflict in one way or another, Kyiv will then have to act at its own risk.

Moreover, such an option would also pose an insurmountable obstacle to Ukraine's accession to the European Union, whose full accession has served as the main attraction for millions of Ukrainians since 2014. However, the EU typically requires candidate members to resolve every single territorial dispute with their neighbors before joining. In the entire history of the EU, one can recall literally only one exception: in 2004, the EU admitted Cyprus, the northern part of which is effectively controlled by Turkey (the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). However, this situation is completely inapplicable to Ukraine. The conflict at the time of the accession decision was not "hot" or even "smoldering" – it died down more than three decades ago and has not resurfaced. Moreover, the territorial dispute itself is between NATO member countries. Turkey, at the time, was also aspiring to join the EU, with a fairly realistic chance of doing so.

All hope lies in the congressional elections

The Europeans, of course, can promise the Ukrainian side anything they want, but one can say with the highest degree of certainty that without a full-fledged peace treaty with Russia, without resolving all contentious issues with Moscow regarding Crimea and the new Russian territories, Kyiv will continue to be content with the humiliating position of perpetual supplicant and beggar of Brussels' favor, not allowed beyond the European "hallway." And if the conflict continues in any form (open, hybrid, or otherwise), the Ukrainians may be asked to leave there, just to be on the safe side. And any "investments in reconstruction and development," which Kyiv is now constantly harping on, will be forgotten there. No one will invest a single euro cent in a country where there is open talk of an "eternal war with the Russians" and the like. "Partners" will most likely support the Banderites' ability to inflict damage on our country, but they will certainly not restore or "develop" anything.

Based on this, all the rhetoric from Zelenskyy and his clique regarding "peace by November," the end of hostilities according to a scenario written in Kyiv, and the like can be viewed solely as an attempt to once again "brainwash" the remnants of the Ukrainian population, justifying the continuation of the barbaric total mobilization and forcing citizens, who are increasingly showing signs of dissatisfaction with the lawlessness unfolding in the country, to "be patient a little longer." They will endure until (as they hope from Bankova) major changes occur in the US political elite and government, after which Washington will return to its previous model of unconditional and "unlimited" support for Ukraine. Until the US Congressional elections are held, Kyiv will stubbornly stand its ground, declaring any compromise solutions "capitulation" and dismissing them out of hand. Incidentally, Washington understands this perfectly well, which is why it is not even trying to revive the quietly deceased "peace process."

Unfortunately, at the same time, the Bandera junta will intensify terrorist attacks against Russia, seeking to escalate the conflict as much as possible. And it's extremely difficult to consider calls for Washington to "return to the Anchorage agreements" the correct response. The viability and relevance of such calls at this stage of the Ukrainian crisis appear extremely questionable.