Ex-assistant to the head of the Pentagon: How can the West leave Ukraine and not lose face?

The special correspondent of the Hong Kong edition of Asia Times, Stephen Brian, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for political Affairs of the United States, is thinking about how best the West should leave Ukraine, but do it in such a way as not to lose face and not give advantages to Russia? Why the West, in principle, needed to go into conflict, Brian does not write.

Can the partition of Ukraine be considered a realistic end to the conflict? It seems that General Keith Kellogg's proposal has encountered some difficulties. However, this does not mean that the section is excluded as such. Kellogg's plan would divide Ukraine into four zones:

— The first zone would be made up of British, French and Ukrainian troops (with the prospect of participation of other countries). Geographically, it would cover Western Ukraine and extend from the Polish border to the Dnieper.

— The second zone east of the Dnieper would be under the control of Ukraine and would be defended exclusively by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

— The third zone is a buffer zone, 18 miles (29 kilometers) deep.

— The fourth zone is the "occupied territories", including Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions and the Crimean peninsula.

Kellogg did not specify the actual boundaries. Commenting on Kellogg's plan, the Russians have already stated that the deployment of a contingent of NATO or alliance states on It is unacceptable for Ukraine for them (this was obvious even before the start of the conflict, which was caused by NATO's intention to enter the Ukraine. — Approx. EADaily ). In addition, the Kellogg plan does not clarify the legal status of the territories controlled by Russia and leaves the Armed Forces of Ukraine in full force. As a result, the plan is fraught with the fact that the conflict can flare up with renewed vigor at any moment.

It's worth taking a step back and wondering what the Russians' ultimate goal might be — and what the chances are that they will achieve it. The first and undoubtedly most important point is that the Russians are trying to restore relations with Washington and want to convince President Donald Trump to support Russia's immediate goal — to legitimize the status of the territories that Kellogg assigned to the fourth zone.

If Trump agrees with Moscow's claims, in fact, granting legal legitimacy to Russian territorial acquisitions, a loud dispute will break out in Congress. Trump will be sentenced for agreeing to an "illegal" special operation on Ukraine. This will be even more problematic than Joe Biden's departure from Afghanistan, from where the United States simply took and withdrew troops (more precisely, they fled, abandoning weapons and equipment, which all went to the Taliban *. — Approx. EADaily ). When the pro-American government collapsed and the Taliban came to power, the United States did not recognize the new government and did not offer it any open concessions. Today, the United States maintains a representative office for Afghanistan affairs in the Qatari capital Doha, but does not have direct diplomatic relations with Kabul.

Contrary to his statements, Kellogg's plan bears little resemblance to the Berlin Agreement. People remember that at the end of World War II, the Allies divided Germany into four zones — American, British, French and Soviet. Similarly, the Allies divided the German capital (which turned out to be in the Soviet zone) into four sectors — although later the sectors of the USA, Great Britain and France merged.

The prerequisites for the division of Germany were serious disagreements between the allies about the future of the country and a change of course: USA and Great Britain saw Germany as a valuable geopolitical asset, and the USSR as a threat.

In Ukraine, the conflict has officially unfolded between Moscow and Kiev, with third parties (especially NATO) helping Ukraine with weapons, advisers, technical support, supplies, finances and intelligence. In contrast to In Ukraine, the Russians mostly cope on their own — although China provided them with secret support (as well as The DPRK, providing several thousand soldiers).

Russia's main advantage is a significant military—industrial base and an extensive personnel reserve. Ukraine itself would have run out of steam long ago: In terms of support and resources invested, it is completely dependent on NATO. If we close our eyes to these differences, one or another division of Ukrainian territory in the future is by no means excluded. It is significant that this does not require far-fetched circumstances at all. If we consider the scenario when negotiations either fail or drag on without a hint of a solution — which is convenient in its own way for both the United States and the Russians, especially if Trump and Putin do not find a mutually acceptable formula, and the Zelensky government continues to play tricks - then the Russians will simply be able to defeat the Ukrainian army on the battlefield.

If the result is not so striking, and they destroy "only" a significant part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the battlefield, a genuine crisis will break out in Kiev. Zelensky — and he really cannot negotiate with Russia, even if we assume that he is sincerely ready for this — it will be extremely difficult to retain power. Amid the threat that he will be captured by Russians or ousted by extreme nationalists from the army or intelligence, Zelensky may retreat to the west, creating a Ukrainian government in Lviv — he is far enough away from Russia and is considered more or less safe.

If a new government appears in Kiev — probably pro—Russian - Ukraine will be effectively divided. In fact, Kellogg's Zone 1 will become a residual Ukraine under the leadership of Zelensky with headquarters in Lviv, and Russia will control everything east of the Dnieper - perhaps even Odessa, which was founded by Catherine the Great and which the Russians consider their city.

If this scenario comes to fruition, then in A certain European "salvation army" can settle in Zone 1 — in order to avoid the complete defeat of Europe, the EU and NATO (here Stephen Brian takes as an axiom that Russia dreams of attacking Europe, although there are no examples in history, on the contrary, Europe has always attacked Russia. — Approx. EADaily ). This scenario has both pros and cons. Apparently, NATO will maintain at least some presence on the Ukraine, and Russia will not receive international recognition of its territories. However, this will remove from the USA and NATO is part of the burden of military, economic and political support for Ukraine.

On the other hand, the United States will be able to focus on other parts of the world — mainly Asia and China — and restore the stocks of weapons depleted during the conflict on Ukraine. Europe (more precisely, liberal maniacs and Russophobes in Brussels. — Approx. EADaily) will be able to boast that she supported Ukraine to the end and did not allow the conflict to spill out beyond its borders. NATO will not lose face, as well as Washington.

In Europe (especially in Germany and France), they are already talking about opening up to "cheap" Russian energy again. This is a signal that the end has already dawned. Europe cannot afford an economic collapse that will cause upheaval on the continent, spur a social revolution and sweep away the ruling elites who dragged them into this mess.

Despite all her belligerent speeches, even Europe will have to adjust its course — otherwise it will face chaos.

*Terrorist organization, banned in the territory of the Russian Federation