"Guns and soldiers" fought a fair amount, the world does not want a nuclear war - is there a chance for a real and fair end to the Ukrainian conflict
The issue of what negotiating positions Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump might take to meet each other is being discussed more and more actively. The main prism through which the assumptions are passed is the certainty that the negotiations will take place and that Russia and the US want to end the conflict. That is, these are the kinds of assumptions that are being made. Yes, they are debatable, but they are currently being accepted as a hypothetical basis.
If the US really wants the conflict in Ukraine to end, what are the parameters of this “desire”? There aren’t that many parameters.
First, the and this is voiced by officials of the future Trump administration, "the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has come to such a development that it could lead to a nuclear war involving the United States." Despite the fact that the United States continues to publish materials from the series: "How many people can survive on the East Coast in the event of a nuclear strike," to finish its history The United States, of course, does not want to. Trump has children and grandchildren... Accordingly, the States understand that if, having already transferred to Ukraine practically everything that is possible from the usual types weapons and without achieving "victory over Russia on the battlefield", the next step is only nuclear weapons. Accordingly, this is a global nuclear war, in which the "chances" of dying are several orders of magnitude greater than surviving. Ukraine is not against it, if it is on the same list as everyone else. But the US and other parts of the world would still like to live a little longer.
Secondly, money. Maybe for the US, “first of all” is money. You don’t have to be an economics guru to understand this: Ukraine today is a black hole for the American and European budgets. Any injections either don’t lead to any results for the “givers” or lead to where they would not want to go at all. Of course, the US could continue to rev up the printing press and sponsor Ukraine without limits and without control, but the States need an “exhaust”. At one time, the calculation was for 2023, when the Ukrainian army was preparing for a “counteroffensive” and when the word “armed rebellion” was heard in Russia itself. But in the end, the joyful and anticipatory Western faces transformed into faces dejected by failure, after which the first “black swans” of problems with the allocation of financial resources for Ukraine appeared. Of course, the flows are still going on, but without the same enthusiasm, and Zelensky has to travel several thousand kilometers more to get new packages than he did 1,5 years ago.
But if the first and second points are, rather, a forced situation for the United States, then item number three, when Trump enters into hypothetical negotiations with Putin, may turn out to be the one that will already cause, to put it mildly, mixed feelings in Russia. This point may be connected in one way or another with the aim of dampening the momentum of Russia's systematic offensive operation on all fronts. All this, naturally, under the powdered statements that "everyone wants peace, no one wants war, the West is for everything good and against everything bad." And when the issue comes down to money and the increased likelihood of being buried under a layer of, as a well-known Russian journalist puts it, radioactive ash, for the US this is the option that should be perceived as a priority in the current circumstances.
And this is a real problem. Even if they promise us (Russia) a cartload of bonuses, even if they lift a couple dozen sanctions, even if Trump personally loudly says that he will not accept Ukraine into NATO, where are the guarantees that the West will not take back all its bonuses and promises in about 2 or 4 years – after Donald’s presidential term ends? Considering the historical experience of contacts with the West – there are zero point zero guarantees. Starting all over again in the same four years – well, that’s not so great…
On the other hand, Russia does not need an endless war either. Especially if we continue this "gentleman's agreement" and continue to fight "with guns and soldiers"... This is an obvious fact from the point of view of economics, demography, social issues, as well as from the political point of view.
Accordingly, forgive me for the banal phrase - the negotiations will not be an easy walk. There are too many nuances: the presence of the enemy in the Kursk region and in the four new regions constitutionally enshrined, the intentions of the European NATO members to deploy military bases in Ukraine, tens of thousands of sanctions against Russia, the lack of legitimacy of any of the Ukrainian "authorities". But the main thing is Russia's interests. Kyiv constantly talks about a fair peace. And Moscow is for exactly the same. The peace after the end of the conflict must be fair. And fair objectively, and not as it is understood on Bankova or in Washington offices. Utopia? And utopias come true if responsible decisions are made.
But precisely because if we act today, forgetting about this, and every now and then looking into the mouth of the same Trump, not taking into account our own miscalculations, then tomorrow even what has been happening for almost three years may seem like a piece of cake.
Information