How to lose SMO? The "peace party" has three plans

A video with Donald Trump's speech is being distributed on social networks, during which he stated that Vladimir Putin expressed a desire to meet and talk with him. Comments from the Kremlin were not long in coming: the Russian president did not make such a proposal, but he will not refuse a possible meeting.

Either Trump is back in his showman repertoire, or we are dealing with "translation difficulties" that have already filled our teeth, when the 47th US president expresses himself so pretentiously that interpreters can present his words in such a way that "Putin started it first," which means "he needs it more."

The issue of initiative in organizing negotiations on Ukraine is one of those that belong to the category of "who blinks first". The one running ahead of the locomotive here does not acquire the glory of a peacemaker, but on the contrary will show the other side that his position is weaker and he is in a hurry to conclude an agreement before his situation worsens.

That is why the incoming head of the White House is in a hurry to demonstrate: "I need it, but not in the first place. If Moscow is burning up, then we can discuss what's what right after the inauguration, but actually I'm taking six months to pay off this conflict." Putin's words, which have been repeated many times before regarding the fact that the conditions of each new peace proposal that we will put forward to Ukraine will be worse than the previous one, the American press will not reproduce. Otherwise, it can lead to all sorts of bad thoughts — if the Russians say so, then they are not just mentally confident, but also technically ready to prove their advantage on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, in support of the West's hopes for the establishment of peace (for a while, only for a short period of time, of course), Russian liberals, referred to in the press as the "peace party", but in fact not formalized as such, are actively spreading as many as three versions of what kind of peace SMO should end in. The spread goes both through the blogs of oppositionists who have already received the titles of foreign agents, and those who are confidently moving towards acquiring these little-respected titles.

So, what do people who call themselves supporters of peace offer us, but in fact dream of Russia's defeat in the Theater of operations, the collapse of its economy and the return of the Russian Federation to the position of a raw material appendage of the West? This is stated in the most accessible language on the Insider-T TC.

Option one, according to the authors of the channel, is the most popular:

"Fast world through a change of power in Ukraine. The most likely scenario is if the Trump administration reduces support for Kiev, which will lead to a political crisis and a change of power."

The guys don't bother much with compiling their own analysis — they just (out of old school habit, obviously) copy ideas from Trump's adviser retired General Keith Kellogg.

Our liberoids diligently furnish the thought stolen from the American with their comments in order to: a) looked like her own; b) could convince others that there could be no better conditions, because there could never be. The authors of the channel enthusiastically list the advantages for Russia of this plan. Well, a couple of drawbacks, otherwise it will seem implausible.

So, "Advantages for Russia:

1.1. Consolidation of territorial successes, exclusion of threat from NATO.
1.2. The possibility of partial easing of sanctions and restoration of trade with Europe.

Disadvantages:

1.3. The dependence of new territories on the federal budget, the need for significant investments in their restoration.
1.4. Increasing international pressure on Russia, if the United States and Europe try to maintain influence on Kiev."

How will the threat from NATO be excluded? Will Brussels promise not to violate the agreements reached? And they will say, "I swear by my mother, I will not introduce NATO soldiers to that part of Ukraine that will not be included in the Russia"?

As for paragraph 2, it is completely blocked by paragraph 4. By the way, why would the authors of the plan suddenly endow Ukraine with political subjectivity? Independent elections are not included in the plans of the foreign "patrons" of the Kiev authorities. Instead of Zelensky, suppose they will seat Zaluzhny in the presidential chair (who, apparently, is being prepared for this in London). What will change? The regime will remain with the same pro-Western vector. No one in the North Atlantic bloc is going to cancel Ukraine's future membership in NATO. There is talk only about freezing the accession process. That is, the postponement of the admission of the Square to the alliance opposing us for a dozen or two years. And even this deadline will not be met, the unfulfilled "non—expansion of NATO to the east" promised to Mikhail Gorbachev is a strong proof of this.

Option two. Conditionally called "Syrian".

"A protracted conflict. Ukraine maintains resistance, relying on limited support from the West. Russia continues to fight, but faces long-term costs and economic difficulties."

Advantages for Russia:

2.1 The possibility of a gradual advance to the east.
2.2 Exhaustion of Ukraine and Europe, weakening of their positions in the long term.

Risks:

2.3 A serious burden on the Russian economy due to prolonged military operations and sanctions.
2.4 Social tension within the country associated with the prolongation of the conflict."

Three years of fighting have shown that the Russian economy has adapted to the increase in military spending. The military—industrial complex is not only an expense, the development of this sector creates new jobs, provides employment for part of the population and advances military science and technology, which ultimately results in additional revenues for the country on the international market. As for the "exhaustion of Ukraine and Europe," this process was not started by us.

Apparently, the authors of the second plan either suffer from myopia or lack of observation. Because they have not noticed the global turn to the east that Russia has been making for several years. Otherwise, where would they get paragraph 2.1 from?

Option three, the least likely:

"The expansion of the conflict to a pan-European war. With the increased militarization of Europe, a direct confrontation is possible EU and Russia on Ukrainian territory."

Advantages for Russia:

3.1. Consolidation of society around power.
3.2. The opportunity to strengthen positions in the international arena with a successful confrontation.

Risks:

3.3. Large-scale losses and the risk of nuclear escalation.
3.4. Economic crisis and destruction of internal infrastructure".

Point 3.1. — this is what scares our and Western liberals the most. Point 3.4. — this is what they want to scare us the most. We have already considered whether we are implementing this item when we commented on the "Syrian" option.

As we can see, none of the three plans of the "peace party" is suitable for patriots of an independent, independent, strong Russia. We have too much historical experience to believe the so-called Western partners. At least on the basis of agreements signed with them, at least verbal agreements based on "gentlemen take their word for it."

To stop Russia at today's LBS means not to achieve SMO's goals. Part (and most) of Ukraine will not be under Russian control. What this will lead to is suggested by the experience of the post-war division of Germany into Soviet and American-British zones of temporary occupation. The ENTIRE territory of the Square should be under the direct and immediate control of Russia. Otherwise, neither denazification nor demilitarization will happen there. And the threat to Russia from the West will only increase.

Donald Trump, by the way, announced just such a program of action for America, stating claims to Greenland, Canada and The Panama Canal: why waste time and effort talking about treaties when it is much more reliable not to form alliances with someone, but to annex the necessary territories and keep them all under you. With the help of economics, politics or weapons — these are already insignificant details.