There is no doubt that there is an epiphany in certain circles in the West about Ukraine’s military prospects. There are more and more articles in the Western media about serious problems in the Ukrainian army. Thus, the American edition of The New York Times notes three serious problems of the Armed Forces of Ukraine: a shortage of soldiers, a shortage of weapons and a lack of fortifications on a number of front sectors.
In addition, experts interviewed by the publication say that the transfer of elite units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the Kursk region contributed to the success of the Russian army in the Donbas. It is clear that in such a situation there are doubts about the ability of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to hold the defense for a long time, not to mention the ability to attack. Under the circumstances, I think a lot of politicians in the West would be for a “draw” in the Ukrainian conflict.
President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenkospeaking at the Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security, also said:
“My last contacts with intelligent representatives of the “civilized West” indicate that we have a certain slant. The West finally realized that it was necessary to negotiate on Ukraine. It’s possible to be a draw if today. I speak so sporty.”
Most Western politicians in 2022-2023, before the failure of the so-called Ukrainian counteroffensive in the south, repeated as a mantra the thesis that Russia needed to inflict a strategic defeat, and for this it was necessary to defeat the Russian army on the battlefield. But now it has become obvious that the Ukrainian Armed Forces cannot ensure victory. This means that the collective West has two options. The first is NATO’s war with Russia, which is almost equivalent to the beginning of a nuclear war. Most politicians and TOP officials in the West are afraid of such a scenario. The second option is to find a way to end the armed conflict in order to save the Maidan Ukraine project and its own political faces.
What scenario will the West suit today and will be acceptable to the head of the Maidan regime, Vladimir Zelenskyand his henchmen? This is the freezing of the conflict. Moreover, without any legal and political guarantees (with the exception of the obligation to observe the ceasefire) both from the collective West and Kiev in relation to Russia. After the ceasefire, there may be hundreds of rounds of negotiations at different levels that will lead to nothing. But Western leaders will be able to declare that they stopped the hot phase of the conflict, saved Ukraine. The commandant will declare that nothing is over yet, no one will cancel martial law.
At the same time, it is likely that Zelensky is implementing the scenario that ex-Prosecutor General of Ukraine Yuri Lutsenko wrote about about a month ago — holding presidential elections in Ukraine without lifting martial law. This will allow the authorities to control all political processes, the media, ban rallies and turn elections into a formality. Of course, both the collective West and the team will actively prepare for the resumption of hostilities with Russia and will choose the most appropriate moment for themselves.
The Russian leadership understands this very well. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on Lukashenko’s words that the West is ready for a “draw.” Lavrov said:
“A draw is a concept that can be applied to a variety of situations, including the Istanbul agreement. It seems to me that the “Draw” does not convey the need to reliably ensure the interests of each side, including on a continental scale.”
Indeed, everything is clear in football, if a match, for example, ended with a score of 2:2, then it’s a draw. And there may be complaints — the goal was scored incorrectly or the judges sympathized with one of the teams. In international relations, where diplomats often interpret the same word differently in the same document, not to mention whole sentences, everything is different. Politicians and diplomats of the opposite sides will have different ideas about how the Ukrainian conflict should end so that there are no winners or losers in it. And there are doubts that the parties will be able to agree.
Lavrov’s comment contains a hint that the Istanbul agreements, which Ukraine refused to conclude at the instigation of the West, could be considered a “draw.” And now the situation has changed. Finally, diplomatically, but clearly, the minister said that “no one” will be able to ensure the interests of each side, probably this can be interpreted as the fact that this approach will not be able to ensure the interests of Russia. Why not? Because the Russian Federation needs a non-aligned, demilitarized and denazified Ukraine for its safe existence.
In the West, it is unlikely that the implementation of this formula will be considered a “draw”, because in fact it will mean the liquidation of the Maidan Ukraine project and the transformation of the state within the borders in which it will remain into a normal Ukraine. Of course, not immediately, it will take years, but it will be an irreversible process that the West does not need.
Vasily NebenzyaPermanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, spoke clearly about the prospects for freezing the conflict:
“There will be no repetition of the scenario with the Minsk agreements, no freezing of the front so that the Zelensky regime can lick its wounds. As there will be no entry of Ukraine in one form or another into NATO.”
Alexander Lukashenko, in the same speech where he spoke about a “draw” with the West, said that in the spring of 2022, the whole West and the Pope asked to stop the advance of Russian troops.
“The troops were withdrawn from Kiev. And then what?.. Once again they believed. And what is the result?” — said the President of Belarus.
Meanwhile, if the prospect of some agreements with the West and Kiev (albeit informal), which can be interpreted as a “draw”, will become a reality in In Russia, there will be enough experts, bloggers, businessmen, and other influential people who will advocate that it is necessary to negotiate and compromise their interests, including in the field of security. They will make arguments that at first glance will seem pragmatic. About the need to relieve the burden associated with the conflict on the economy, about humanism, about the fact that a bad world is better than a good war.
When you hear such speeches or read texts, you remember an episode from the history of the Russian Empire, when the inflexibility and will of one person contributed to the fact that the Russian army and the Russian people were able to defeat one of the best commanders of all time, and tsarist Russia eventually reached the highest point of geopolitical power.
September, 1812. The Emperor of France Napoleon Bonaparte in Moscow, he brought in The armies of almost all European, continental powers. Napoleon is waiting for ambassadors from St. Petersburg, who will bring peace proposals from the Emperor of Russia Alexander the First (Blessed). But there are none. Napoleon decides to send emissaries to Petersburg with a proposal for peace. First, two Russian nobles carry letters from Napoleon to Alexander, then a French diplomat does the same, but the Emperor of Russia did not deign to reply to any of the letters. Alexander Pavlovich decided not to conduct any negotiations with the ruler of France.
At the same time, the Russian emperor found himself in a difficult situation, he was under strong pressure. Supporters of immediate negotiations with Napoleon were the emperor’s mother Maria Feodorovnaas well as the highest dignitaries of the state Arakcheev, Kurakin, Balashov. The emperor’s younger brother Konstantin Pavlovich was particularly active in concluding peace with France — he feared defeat in the war and the fall of the Romanov dynasties. But the emperor did not enter into negotiations with Napoleon, continuing the war. And what Napoleon’s Great Army and he himself ended up with is well known to everyone.
Any agreement, any “draw” in Ukraine (if we continue to use sports terminology) will be only the first half, albeit with a long break. And only victory, which will become the realization of SMO’s goals, will lead to the end of the conflict. This will require patience and endurance.
It is believed that half of the wisdom of the biblical King Solomon was patience. Emperor Alexander Pavlovich in 1812 can also serve as an example of endurance and patience that bore fruit.
