What do compromises with Russian criminals lead to?

niepoprawni.pl 2 years ago

By February 2022 the presumption that Ukraine would rapidly fall under a full-scale Russian military attack, many seemed rational. any commentators even suggested stopping supplies of western weapons to Ukrainians. It was only intended to prolong the inevitable agony of their country in the event of escalation. specified an approach underestimated Cremol Ukrainian phobia, favoured Russian expansionist ambitions, communicating publically that Ukraine is weak, suggesting that Kiev would not benefit from crucial support from the West, and demobilizing the mainstream of Western sympathy for democratic Ukraine. The patriotic sentiments and military professionalism of Ukrainians were underestimated.

In parallel with the increasing anticipation of the Ukrainian offensive, there is simply a different communicative everywhere: sooner or later Ukraine will gotta sit at the negotiating table with Russia.
All willing to join negotiators and mediators. Turkey, China, Brazil, South Africa, another African leaders, Pope. The main thing is that the subject of compromise and negotiation is increasingly heard in the leading Western media and discussed in the Western political environment. late Erdogan said that sooner or later all wars end in negotiations, this war is no exception, and for Ukraine the most crucial thing is to guarantee the best negotiating position. All these peacemakers and mediators have different, frequently contradictory motives. any request Ukrainian grain at a low price, others want to strengthen their geopolitical position through war, others just want to show themselves and rise their own reputation.
However, in these intentions there is very small sincere desire to end the Russian-Ukrainian war based on the rule of justice, and Ukrainian national interest is definitely not taken into account. These intentions are based on 1 denominator: to form a dominant view of the inevitability of negotiations and compromise with the Russian Federation and to presume the function of winners and beneficiaries of the end of the war.

Let us ask ourselves and everyone the key question: whether negotiations and compromise with Putinian Russia can truly supply lasting peace in Europe and whether specified developments correspond to the national interests of Ukraine. More broadly, the interests of the West, which by definition is part of today's Ukraine.
One point at a time. He is an axiomat that at the minute no negotiations between Ukraine and Russia are possible before the Ukrainian offensive and its consequences. There is talk of negotiations and compromises in case the Ukrainian offensive is ineffective or has not produced crucial results.
Then the various “kind” Ukrainians will say: you cannot defeat Russia on the battlefield, you cannot recover all territories, so sit down and search compromises – and we will supply a multilateral format and become guarantors of negotiations. At the same time, the option with the successful offensive of the Armed Forces seems to be disregarded. Of course, if Ukraine defeats the Russian army, goes to the Azov Sea or enters Crimea, then what negotiations are there. Then we will gotta further make military success, push Russia against the wall, drive her army out of our land and dictate the conditions for ending the war.
Negotiations and compromises mean a situation where crucial success on the front will not be possible. There is besides a general expression that will be offered to us. Peace in exchange for territory. This means that the territory under Ukrainian control remains with them and the destiny of the occupied territory is set aside for the future. For better times. Military activity is limited or completely frozen. But calm. possibly even without signed documents.

The boldest proposals are Ukraine's admission to NATO, but Article 5 will apply only to the territory controlled by Ukrainian authorities. And Kissinger came out of a completely "scathed" proposal: it turns out that this option will let the West to deter Ukraine from military intent to liberate the occupied territories in the future. This means leave them as part of the Russian Federation.
However, others, more tolerant, say that under this option from Ukraine 1 day Russia will return plundered territories. But now he will have the chance to revive his economical life and destroyed infrastructure.
Many historical parallels are cited: Germany, the Baltic countries, Korea. This second example does not withstand criticism at all due to the fact that Korea has been divided since 1953 and until today, and no 1 is able to say erstwhile this division will be eliminated. They'll say his confederate side made an economical leap and live well. Yes, but North is simply a constant origin of atomic threat and a powder keg that could detonate at any moment.
I think that in any capitals and any high-level offices a version is being considered, in which there will be no negotiations between Ukraine and Russia as such, but there will be negotiations (most most likely behind the scenes) between the leading countries through the head of Ukraine. When, as a consequence of the exhaustion of the parties to the war, restrictions on Western aid to Ukraine, the front line (conditional boundary) will stabilise itself and there will be a circumstantial “freezing” of war. The war will cease, the truce will be established by default. The war as specified seems to be over.

It's a profoundly dangerous illusion.

And if everything is clear with non-Western mediators and peacekeepers, then for the West, which almost entirely invested in the aid of Ukraine, specified developments will mean a strategical failure, resulting in the West losing its leadership function in the world. Moreover, specified an unfinished war with Russia will turn into an even larger detonation in the future, where the West will gotta fight straight against the coalition of authoritarian states.
So why are specified concepts seriously considered an option? Where does blindness come from?
I think specified an illusion of negotiation and compromise is based on misunderstanding (or deficiency of awareness) of the nature of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Insufficient knowing of the fact that this war (and many others) is based on an existential factor.

Historically, the Russian imperial and Ukrainian democratic plan is antagonistic. The compromise between them is virtually impossible. Either 1 or the another has to win. More specifically, the triumph of 1 model means the death of another. You too. For Ukraine, defeat besides means the inevitable disappearance of Ukrainians as a nation. Those who have doubts should read the past of Ukraine and the past of the Russian-Ukrainian confrontations of the last 3 and a half centuries at least.
Any compromise, any peace, truce, agreement with any promises and guarantees Moscow has always utilized to rest, gather strength and start fresh wars with even greater cruelty and destruction.
Thinking that the model of North and South Korea may be implemented in Ukraine, where the Democratic West will be behind 1 side and Russia (and China) for the other, and this will bring lasting peace, is political blindness and shortsightedness. An eye bordering on a crime. due to the fact that the implementation of this option places a much deeper and more deadly basis for the future war than the existence of divided Korea. 1 meaningful historical fact can be cited. The beginning of Ukraine's absorption by Moscow in 1654 was the consequence of negotiations and compromises concluded by Bohdan Chmielnicki, the conclusion of the peace of the congregation with the Republic of Obiega Nations in 1649. The prominent leader of the Cossack state went on a congregational road that yet led him into the deadly arms of Moscow.

Let's go back to 2023. Suppose, after assessing the results of the Ukrainian offensive, any of the Western partners begin to offer Ukraine approval for 1 or another negotiation format. You gotta think about the consequences. Compromise supporters (and surely they are, besides in Ukraine) should mention affirmative sides of this approach. I'll be divorcing the dangers and dangers.

Firstly, it is apparent that any form of prolonging the war, combined with negotiations, will give the Russian Federation time to regroup and gather forces and further escalate the war effort erstwhile it considers it necessary.

Secondly, the seizure by the Russian Federation of larger territories under its control than on 23 February 2022 will be a clear proof that during the war it gained more and Ukraine lost more. Therefore, for Russian society (and for many in the world) war will be justified and Russia will be its winner.

Thirdly, it would encourage China to increase its support for a vassal ally while strengthening its dependence on each other. This means that China will be strengthened at geopolitical level, prompting them to redouble their efforts to form a coalition of east and confederate states in opposition to the West.

Fourthly, specified compromises with large probability will lead to the division, or even the division, of Ukrainian society and can destruct the unique unity of the government, army and nation in Ukraine, which has so far been a warrant of our stability. Of course, there will be discontent in Russia at the same time, but only there will it increase aggression and militarism ("peredohnia y snova strukim"), so the Putinist government will strengthen alternatively of weakening.

Fifthly, Western spending on a war that has not ended, and in defence, it will surely not be less, despite the prevailing opinion that reducing the strength of fighting will consequence in a simplification in spending. 1 can compare how much it cost the West to quietly swallow the annexation of Crimea in 2014 – and what would be the cost if he powerfully reprimanded the Russian aggressor.

Sixthly, Ukraine will not receive any chance of economical recovery and investment, due to the fact that no capital will come to the country where the core value – safety – is not preserved.

In my opinion, the only compromise option to consider is the admission of Ukraine to NATO under conditions in which part of its territory will stay occupied. But with 2 essential reservations: specified acceptance must happen immediately, at least in accelerated mode. And the second condition is that Ukraine should have no restrictions on deoccupation of its territories, including on the military road. This in turn will presume NATO's readiness to enter the war with the Russian Federation on the side of Ukraine. Is NATO ready for this?

If there is no specified readiness or another reason to hold acceptance of the Alliance, then there is only 1 acceptable way out - no negotiations, no compromises, no frost of war. On the contrary, strengthening Ukraine's arms with all possible types of offensive weapons, strengthening sanctions, strengthening the isolation of the Russian Federation in order to force it to surrender.
I realize the complexity of specified an urgent issue, but another options are either worse or suicidal for Ukraine.
Stoltenberg's proposal to welcome Ukraine to NATO after the end of the war is simply a proposal to make the war eternal, with much more casualties from Ukraine. This is simply a signal for Putin to never end the war, and then Ukraine will never be admitted to NATO. And we'll gotta look for another alternatives.
Kissinger's proposal is besides categorically incompatible with Ukraine's national interests, as it will de facto consolidate any of our territories within the Russian Federation and, most importantly, make the foundation for an imminent fresh war. The bitter experience of the Budapest Memorandum encourages us to reject its repetition in any form.
In fact, the West's consent to accepting akin abroad compromises, the authors of which are Russia and China, will not be a sign of the wisdom and strength of the West, but a symbol of its weakness. And that will not only mean the defeat of Ukraine. This will mark the defeat of the West itself, especially the US as its leader, which will straight endanger the dominance of liberal-democratic governance in the world.

It can, of course, proceed to be fantasized that the dissolution of the Russian-Ukrainian war may take place in the form of a global agreement between the United States and China on a bilateral model for further coexistence in the world, but this seems unrealistic in a moment.
Therefore, the real end of this war and the future lasting peace and the new, fairer planet legal order will come only erstwhile the primary origin of the war – the Russian Empire in its present form with its current political leadership – is eliminated . This is only possible as a consequence of Ukraine's military victory. A different non-imperial state or a squad of fresh sovereign states should appear in place of the current Russian Federation.
Thinking, let alone moving towards seeking different compromise modifications with the current Putin regime, which, I recall, has been announced as an global search and arrest, means entering the way of compromise with evil. And a compromise against evil means committing evil, which is straight contrary to the Western tradition of ethical values.

The actual expression of ending the war, which corresponds to the interests of Ukraine, the West and the yet civilized world, should be expressed in 1 sentence: to end Russia's historical existence as an empire. This means ending the existence of the Russian Federation in its current form as a consequence of the military disaster in Ukraine and subsequent military and political surrender.