Plan changes for the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Yesterday’s news about President Trump’s phone call to President Putin is being chewed over by everyone today. And why not — after all, it’s a titanic shift in geopolitics that will change the political landscape of the entire planet. I believe that all the details of the conversation have already been studied to the bone and most commentators have already planned and voiced approximate scenarios of “how it might turn out given the new inputs.”

For example, let’s take a loot at 3 possible options from Bloomberg

1. The ideal scenario for Kyiv would see the US and the Europeans commit bilaterally to intervene if Russia reneges on a deal. But the risk of direct conflict with Russia makes even some of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters wary. Instead, Kyiv’s partners could commit to surging military support to Ukraine and re-imposing, or intensifying, sanctions on Russia. They could also help Ukraine to develop its own defense industry and rebuild its forces to serve as the main deterrent against Russia.
2. The most likely scenario for Bloomberg Economics would see occupied territory remain in limbo for the foreseeable future and under de facto Russian control. There could be some land swaps involving Russian territory in the Kursk region that was captured by Kyiv.The town square of captured Russian town Sudzha in the region of Kursk, in August. Ukraine would get security guarantees of some sort. And a lot of the negotiations would focus on just how strong they would be. With the cast-iron security of NATO membership likely off the table for now, any promise made today would ultimately be contingent on the commitment of future political leaders
3. In the nightmare scenario for Kyiv, Trump might lose interest in Ukraine’s future before any settlement has been reached, shutting off military and financial aid and leaving the Europeans to deal with the problem. Even if Trump’s engagement with Putin does lead to a peace deal that holds initially, it still might only delay the next phase of what Putin has described as a war between NATO and Russia. A deal would preserve Ukrainian sovereignty and allow the country to start reconstruction. But it could also cement significant gains for Putin, with control over a swathe of Ukrainian territory and potentially a block on Kyiv joining NATO..

Our patriotic and military correspondent blogs list not only 4 new regions in their “wish lists”, but also the left part of the Dnieper and Odessa and Nikolaev and other such things.
Some even aim for the whole of Kyiv. Some want the whole of Ukraine, some more sober ones are ready to let the western regions go their own way. It doesn’t matter.

The main thing I see here is that behind all these “wants” there is a lack of respect and understanding of the historical process from all sides. Although, it would seem, the respected Vladimir Vladimirovich has already lost his tongue, explaining his logic of decision-making based on historical experience, laws (what are the codified rules of historical experience) and unconditional respect for all participants in the historical process. As usual – this was heard, sucked out from all sides in publications, cinema and television, but, unfortunately, few understood.
I won’t claim that I understood everything, but I haven’t come across a description of such an approach to resolving the conflict in Ukraine on the Internet yet. I’m in a hurry to share

The actors

From my point of view, the subjects of the system can be:

• Russia, as a state with its own interests, and a fairly unified and monolithic point of view on what is happening (Vladimir Vladimirovich’s rating in the elections was 83% and, as far as I can observe the situation from the country, it is unlikely to have dropped much).
• Regions of Ukraine. Exactly as it has been happening since 2014, when Crimea first went into free floating, and then to Russia. Then followed decisions of Donbass residents about their way of life, and now the disintegration of the former unitary country has continued. Now it makes sense to talk about the fates of individual regions.
• countries bordering Ukraine (Europe): Romania, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, which at different historical stages owned parts of the outgoing Ukraine
  

It is important to accept that a monolithic, unitary Ukraine has not existed since 2014. This is a fact, no matter how much some people may not like it. Regions of the country have begun to break away from Crimea.

And the residents of Crimea in 2014 decided not to be Ukraine by an overwhelming majority, proving their determination to live as they decided, with weapons in hand. This is also a fact that must be accepted, despite the existence of various kinds of reservations heard from different sides. Next is Donbass. Next are the regions that are still under the conditional control of Kyiv, but in fact live as in the old days, each by its own rules and its own feudal lord. And therefore they can (and will) decide their historical fate independently.

As far as I understand, all of Putin’s historical digressions about the history of Ukraine hint at this.

Features of existing approaches

In all the main approaches (both Western and our people’s) one signature is visible – the right of the strong and woe to the vanquished. That is, Great Britain and America consider themselves entitled, as they demonstrate (project) their power, to tell others how and in what configuration they want to see this world. A similar approach is also widespread among our hurray-patriots and even bloggers with good analytical data – here they argue from above, as if in a store: what regions do we need, how much of what we have enough strength to seize, and they are vividly worried if it suddenly seemed that the war would end on the border of 4 new regions and that’s it – no Odessa, no Nikolaev, no Dnepropetrovsk for you.

Observing the history of Russia, at least for the last 2-3 centuries (using Poland, Finland, the Baltics, and most Soviet republics as examples), it is impossible not to notice that it will not be possible to force any people to live contrary to their beliefs for any length of time (from a historical perspective). Yes, of course — there are now advanced technologies of mind manipulation (propaganda), widely used, for example, by the Americans and the British (Greetings to 1984 and Orwell, who described them so vividly).

But relying on history, common sense and faith in the Almighty, I am still sure that in the modern world these manipulations are short-term, and it is not yet possible to cloud the brain for long. Historical truth does penetrate and forces us to reject the implanted illusion, the virtual reality, sooner or later.

That is why the USSR with its communist myth-making took so long to integrate the western parts of Ukraine and never fully integrated them. (It looks like another article is coming)

It is critically important that this standard of historical truth be preserved and made accessible to all. Speaking broadly, this is one of the important civilizational functions of Russia before all of humanity. But more about this in a separate article.

From the point of view of historical perspective and the state, what is important is not even the seizure of territories, but the historical legitimacy of ownership of territories, which makes it possible for long-term planning of life on it.

All participants in our process have accounts and documents for different historical periods, and the rational decision about who wants to live how should now be made by the residents themselves, based on objective knowledge of the current world. It is important that the majority of people living in a particular territory (region, maybe even district) make a voluntary, conscious, responsible decision – with whom and how they want to live in the future

Thank God, we have a wise Tsar, and that is why Russia has done so much to reveal the true intentions and behavior of all participants in the current mess.

Yes, it was emotionally painful for us to endure and even sometimes wipe ourselves off. But I see it this way, it was necessary from the point of view of the long-term interests of the state and immediate goals.

When the population (people) of regions and districts are considered equal, adults and their desire to live one way or another is respected. The historical task of Russia, as I see it now (and as Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has repeated and implemented many times with his actions in Crimea and Donbass) is not the seizure of territories, but the organization, with the help of all participants in the historical process, of such conditions for voting on the fate of various regions, when residents will be able to speak out freely, fully, without fear, pressure and coercion.

This will be truthful, historically far-sighted and fair and democratic from all sides. And Russia will then accept this situation, no matter what it turns out to be in reality. It is not for nothing that the head of the SVR Naryshkin began communicating with neighboring countries on the issue of interest in such events.

Outcomes

So, the real plan for Ukraine, in rough outline, in my opinion, could look like this:

1. to demonstrate the real intentions and behavior of the participants in the historical process for the objective implementation of paragraph 2 (done)

2. to ensure conditions for democratic decision-making on the fate of regions by the residents of these regions (as was the case in Crimea and Donbass, but taking into account the objective differences in the situation)

3. ensure the implementation of the expressed decisions of the residents (for what purpose to denazify, demilitarize, … etc. in accordance with the official goals of the SVO) in a single process with neighboring countries-interested parties

4. compensate the costs incurred during the historical process from the perpetrators of the conflict and from all accomplices