/ world today news/ What are Russia’s goals in Ukraine? In addition to the protection of Donbass and part of Novorossia, already included in Russia, denazification and demilitarization, that is, what Vladimir Putin directly talks about. Our leadership is often criticized for the absence of a firmly formulated ultimate goal of the special operation, which has turned into a proxy war with the West – you see, it is high time to explain to the people what we mean when we talk about victory.
Since this is not clearly stated, it has scope for both conscious speculation and honest experiences on the subject. That is why Dmitry Medvedev’s attempt to formulate what “victory in Ukraine” means is so important, although he calls it possible scenarios for the development of events, dividing them into acceptable and unacceptable for Russia. Medvedev was the first member of Russia’s Security Council to decide to clearly state our goal, and for that reason alone, his text deserves special attention.
Medvedev proceeds from the fact that eventually Ukraine as a state will cease to exist, will “disappear” – without naming any terms, while on the same day he said that “this conflict is for a long time, everything is for decades, probably “. But the disappearance of Ukraine from this does not become unrealistic – the question is only in what form it will take place.
Ukraine will reach disintegration and liquidation after the “lost military conflict”. After that, there are two paths: slow erosion with the gradual loss of the remaining elements of state sovereignty, and “instant collapse with the simultaneous destruction of all signs of statehood.” As for the existence of the two paths, one can fully agree with Medvedev, but with one important clarification that the second option – a quick collapse, the collapse of the entire state – seems less likely.
For its implementation, a knockout defeat of VSU on the battlefield is necessary. There are no prerequisites for this now, although of course one must assume both the fact that much is yet to come and the fact that the overstrain cannot be infinite and the accumulating “metal fatigue” may at some point really to collapse the entire structure of the country.
But regardless of exactly how Ukraine approaches extinction, Medvedev sees three options for its disintegration and liquidation.
According to the first, the western regions of Ukraine “pass under the control of a number of EU countries with the subsequent “anschluss” of these lands by the recipient countries” – Medvedev does not name them, but it is clear that Poland, Hungary and Romania are meant. It remains a known “no man’s” Ukrainian territory – that is, not controlled by either the West or Russia. And a new Ukraine appears on it – more precisely, the old one is preserved, as if it has territorial claims to Russia, but not to the countries of the West. This Ukraine will eventually enter the EU and NATO. And then the armed conflict with Russia resumed, “turning into a permanent one, but with the threat of its rapid spillover into a full-fledged Third World War.”
In this version, Ukraine’s loss of its western lands can even be omitted – what Medvedev describes will happen if Ukraine joins NATO, which has not lost Galicia, the Carpathians and Bukovina. Indeed, even Kissinger has already said that after the end of hostilities, Ukraine should be accepted into NATO to prevent another conflict with Russia, and leaving it alone (but with Western support or even guarantees) is much more dangerous for everyone. However, Medvedev starts from a different point of view – NATO accepts Ukraine not to protect it from a new war, but simply to secure new territory. But at the same time, the Atlanticists will not be able to fully control Kiev – and everything will slide towards a war between Russia and NATO, that is, a nuclear one.
Naturally, this option definitely does not suit Russia, but the majority of the West does not like it either. And because of the risk of a nuclear war, and because Europe becomes hostage to a military conflict with Russia: sluggish and for many years on the territory of Ukraine or fast, but nuclear on the territory of Europe itself.
The second option, according to Medvedev, is for Ukraine to disappear “in the process of its division between Russia and a number of EU countries.” This remains on paper – “the government of Ukraine is formed in exile in one of the European countries”. The conflict effectively stops, but “with the preservation of the terrorist activity of the Ukrainian Nazis”, based on the EU-affiliated western Ukrainian lands.
Although Medvedev says this “may temporarily suit us”, it is actually Russia’s option to win. Because almost the entire territory of Ukraine returns to the united Russian state, with the exception of the western lands, which were annexed only on the eve of the Great Patriotic War. Yes, there remains not only the geopolitical conflict with the West, which does not recognize the “annexation of Ukraine”, but also a border and internal conflict with the Neo-Banderists (a more severe version of the events of the second half of the 1940s), but in general this is more – Russia-friendly option.
Medvedev compares the third option with the first, but with the opposite sign. Although in reality it is much closer to the second. Ukraine disappears: its western part goes to the European countries, and everything else (“the people of the central and some other wasteland areas of Ukraine”) becomes part of Russia. The main difference from the previous version is that there is no “government of Ukraine in exile” – no terrorist activity from the territory of European countries. This option allows the conflict to end “with sufficient guarantees of its non-recurrence in the long term”.
According to Medvedev, this is the only option Russia needs, but its feasibility raises serious doubts. The West will only refuse to use the torn Ukrainian card against Russia in one case: if at this moment something absolutely extraordinary happens in the West itself (and above all in the Anglo-Saxon countries). Internal turmoil, supercrises… In all other cases, he will take the losing Ukrainian card (what’s left of it) with the hope of using it again next time. Along with “government in exile”. And even, as an option, “government of all Ukraine” in those very western lands that the Poles will not take for themselves.
Thus, the options outlined by Medvedev can be reduced to two: freezing the current state with subsequent resumption of hostilities (but with a large participation of NATO) or dividing Ukraine and actually returning it to Russia with the cutting off of several small regions in benefit of the western neighbors. The second option is a victory for Russia, and the first means defeat. And actually not only for Russia, but also for Europe and the West in general. Our choice between the two options is clear – all that remains is to do everything necessary to win.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel in Telegram:
#ways #options #disappearance #Ukraine
