Before any discussions about attempts to somehow (i.e., considering the current demands of the aggressor) establish peace, we must at least call obvious things by the same names and agree on the interpretation of basic concepts.
What is the demand for neutrality from the Russian Federation? It is not about “neutrality in the context of NATO” (actually, a different status – non-alignment); it is not a discussion of parameters; it is not a question of choosing the type of neutrality. It is a clear Russian demand to enshrine in the Constitution and legislation of Ukraine the status of so-called permanent neutrality (which has historically exhausted itself). Moreover, with UNILATERAL restrictions on Ukraine’s military potential (types, kinds of weapons, their location, and quantitative parameters of military assets and the size of the Armed Forces).
What does denazification mean in the aggressor’s terms? It is a list of specific legislative acts that need to be adopted in Ukraine, or previous decisions repealed. To return and secure Russian (even pro-Soviet, like the communist party) political projects in Ukraine, leave the Russian agent network untouchable through affiliated church organizations, establish a special status for the Russian language, and legally define Russians as the titular nation in Ukraine (such nonsense!).
What are the territorial issues? It is a demand to redraw Ukraine’s state border. And to enshrine this in the Ukrainian Constitution and international treaties. It is a demand not only to LEGALLY renounce territories that the Putin regime has identified for itself. It is also a refusal to protect one’s compatriots in these territories.
What does “guaranteeing Russian security” mean? It means determining by agreement the PERMANENT prohibition for Ukraine, established by all international norms, to liberate its territories, independently resolve issues regarding the optimal security model, and never create any security alliances.
And practically all this – unilaterally!
How unrealistic (or just with specific aims) must one be to not understand: such a model CANNOT be forcibly “inserted” into Ukrainian society, no matter how shocked by the number of casualties and weary of war it may be.
Therefore, all this is just to test the readiness of the Ukrainian people to surrender national interests (in the current form – to capitulate). It also indicates that the enemy already truly understands that Ukraine will continue to defend itself, and that the enemy has decided to reinforce the “hybrid” war with PSYOPS and terrorist acts. To try to undermine Ukrainians’ ability to resist from within. To force them to pressure Ukraine’s authorities in the direction of the aggressor’s demands.
Therefore, those who want an internal Ukrainian discussion on the mechanisms of the fastest exit from a full-scale war (with the complete unwillingness of the aggressor), and those who try to depict the only possible, somehow entirely negative scenario for Ukraine after Russian threats and attacks, are different people with different approaches.
The former are seeking a strong position for Ukraine and a realistic way out of the war. The others (at best) are “useful idiots.” Pardon my French.
The problem with any discussions related to ending the war lies in faith. Yes, precisely faith. We wouldn’t debate with a believer about the very existence of God. Discussions on any other topics are possible, but if you believe there is no God as such, and salvation awaits no one, you automatically cease to be a participant in the conversation.
It’s the same with Putin. If someone believes that it is possible to negotiate with the Russian president and the question is only what to offer him – Donbas, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, Russian language, and neutrality, while you are convinced he doesn’t want to negotiate anything and has the simple goal of destroying Ukraine, you cease to be a participant in a conversation for someone who believes peace can be achieved through negotiations. Because you are being offered to discuss conditions for something that will not happen.
And, by the way, Putin himself has repeatedly said and written about this. The believers in peaceful negotiations just don’t want to hear him. They don’t believe not only us, they don’t even believe Putin. They believe in their dream that an agreement can be reached.
Some of these believers want to make money – there’s always a shortage in the Oval Office. Some want to gain more votes from potential voters in mythical elections. Some – are just naïve people. But all of them are bringing us closer to our demise.
Because the realism of salvation can only be tested after death. And the belief in the reality of negotiations with Putin could cost us all our lives.
Photo: Ukrinform
