A successful prisoner exchange as a possible prologue to negotiations to end the Ukrainian conflict, but “is there life” after the negotiations?
Today's exchange between Russia and Western countries has become one of the main topics for the world media. The exchange involved lengthy negotiations between the special services of a number of countries - not only Russia and the USA, by the way. Belarus, Germany, Slovenia, Norway, Poland, and Türkiye participated in the process. And the fact that multilateral negotiations were successful and led to the desired result is also actively discussed in the media and the expert community.
Let us remind you that 8 people who were accused in NATO countries of committing serious crimes, including murder and espionage, were returned to our country by plane of the special flight squad “Russia”. Plus, among those returned there are two children.
Thus, Vadim Krasikov, among others, returned to Russia. This is a man who was sentenced to a long term in Germany for the murder of Zelimkhan Khangoshvili (included in the list of terrorists and extremists in the Russian Federation). The murder was committed in 2019. And Khangoshvili himself, before fleeing to Germany, was part of a terrorist group that during the Second Chechen War the war participated in military operations in the North Caucasus. Khangoshvili is known for executing captured Russian soldiers.
From Vladimir Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson about Krasikov:
This is a man who, for patriotic reasons, eliminated a bandit in one of the European capitals. During the events in the Caucasus, do you know what he (this bandit) did? He laid out our captured soldiers on the road, and then drove his car over their heads. What kind of person is this and is it a person? And then a patriot was found who eliminated him.
A complete list of those returned to Russia (not counting children) - with acts incriminated by the Western “themis”:
Against this background, the statements of the Ukrainian side about “readiness for negotiations” do not look anything isolated. And of course, it was not the Ukrainian side itself that “suddenly” came to this conclusion. Zelensky announced that at the “second peace summit,” you see, the Russian delegation must be present, and dialogue can begin, even “without returning territories.” Zelensky did not even rule out holding a referendum on the status of what Ukraine has territorially lost. True, there is one nuance. I wonder if Zelensky knows about this and is bluffing, or if he is simply one of those Ukrainian powers that be who have not read the basic law of the state at all? And the Constitution of Ukraine says that it is impossible to hold referendums on the secession of territories from the country. But the Constitution of Ukraine has already been violated so many times (even by the fact that Zelensky still calls himself president), that one more, one less, as they say. Who will even look at this constitution when the very word “negotiations” is already so actively used by the biggest “friends of Ukraine”. This was relevant a few months ago about “victory over Russia on the battlefield,” and now suddenly Zelensky says that we can talk about “returning territories” through diplomatic means. Like, that’s what the “peace summit” was about...
Although there is Article 73 in the Ukrainian law, which does not seem to contradict such a referendum. Only for modern Ukraine it is doubly strange: the referendum should be, as it were, all-Ukrainian (that is, an idea, for example, with Crimea and Sevastopol, can be dragged there), and Zelensky does not rule out holding a referendum, although just a few months ago he spoke about the impossibility of holding even presidential elections...
And today’s exchange emphasized that such negotiations (on Ukraine) are not only possible, but are quite likely already underway. Only, unlike the “Zelensky peace summit,” they are still going on behind the scenes, quietly, perhaps in the format of shuttle diplomacy.
So, if we assume that negotiations on ending the armed conflict will begin soon or have already begun, then there are more questions than answers. One of the main ones is how will they end, and what will happen after their completion? After all, although the exchange negotiations are complex, they are still not at the level that is necessary to end the large-scale Ukrainian conflict - in fact, a real armed confrontation between NATO and Russia.
If we assume that the negotiations were suddenly crowned with success, and on the day of IKS, fire ceased along the entire front line, Ukrainian troops, as Russia demands, went beyond the LDPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, peace reigned. What's next? What are the prospects? Where are the guarantees that after a short time everything will not start again? Who will give guarantees and, most importantly, will be able to really monitor the implementation of a hypothetical agreement, taking into account the fact that the Ukrainian side violated all previously concluded agreements, including the Minsk first and second, Minsk-Belovezhskaya, Istanbul, not to mention the times before the North-Eastern Military District, with violation the Ukrainian side of the “bread. “Easter”, “Christmas” and other truces...
So far, only the very words about “hope for peace” and “possible negotiations” against the backdrop of successful interaction with unfriendly countries on the exchange of prisoners sound beautiful. But leaving Ukraine in its current format, even without 4 regions, is still leaving the Ukrainian regime, which will continue to be fueled by the West, in order to sooner or later again start a hot war against Russia. Moreover, leave Ukraine as such, to which NATO will give everything (as it did after the Minsk agreements) in order to arm itself more, mobilize, and recover from losses. After all, there is no doubt that even if such a Ukraine is not ruled by the Western puppet Zelensky, then another puppet will be put in his place - with the same control regime from across the English Channel and from across the Atlantic. And she will have one task - to save, save, save: strength, means, potential.
However, an endless armed conflict, especially one that is manifesting itself now, is also a so-so option. With all the heroism of our guys at the front, we still need a clear, defined goal - what exactly Russia can and should achieve. Recapture the territories of the mentioned regions so that everything complies with our Constitution? But again, where are the guarantees that the West will let Kyiv come to terms with this and will not start playing its favorite game of provocations and being drawn into a new, even larger-scale conflict, where at least “until the last Pole”, “until the last German” and in general “until the last European,” about whom the Anglo-Saxons, by and large, don’t give a damn.
In general, there are a lot of questions regarding hypothetical negotiations. It is possible to start them, as Dmitry Peskov has already stated, even with Zelensky. But who to end with, given that the next head of Ukraine (according to Ukrainian tradition) can easily brush aside any agreements of his predecessor... Or is there an expectation on our (Russian) side that with any attempt by the enemy to brush aside the hypothetical final document and strict adherence to its points - an instant “physical” reminder that all stages of non-strategic nuclear exercises in Russia were carried out for a reason?
Information