In early October a TV interview by the former advisor to the Office of the Ukrainian President, Alexei Arestovich, caused a major stir, in which he stated that he is ready to concede four regions to Russia and restore relations with Moscow.
And the fundamental point, in his view, is to perform a “reboot” of the Ukrainian state, which would be able to coexist peacefully with the Russian Federation.
He has expressed such views in the past as well: as long as Ukraine remains a “project against Russia”, the war with Moscow will repeat again and again — up to the complete destruction of the Ukrainian state.
Therefore the state needs a reboot, abandoning the anti-Russian and narrowly nationalist base, as Arestovich likes to say.
These ideas, basically, coincide with what is occasionally heard from the Kremlin: there will be no peace until Kyiv abandons its anti-Russian initiatives.
That is why in Ukraine Arestovich was labeled by many an enemy and a traitor.
However, in reality the issue is not Arestovich nor merely what he states.
What is being secretly discussed in Ukraine
After all, today he does not have substantial influence on Ukraine’s internal processes.
The important thing is that similar ideas have been discussed for a year now increasingly within Ukraine’s political circles.
Of course, they are not always discussed openly, but persistent conversations take place in relatively narrow circles.
Regarding Arestovich, few accept the idea of conceding four regions to Russia.
However, after reports that the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, reduced his demands from four to two regions — namely control of the entire territory of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions — hopes increased for the possibility of reaching a compromise agreement with Russia.
What powerful actors in Ukraine tell each other has leaked
In a year or so, Putin will have taken control of the entire Donbass, but at that cost thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians will have been killed.
Many more cities will be completely destroyed and we could possibly lose additional territory beyond the Donbass.
The country will hemorrhage and the economy will collapse.
At the same time, there is no guarantee that something will happen in Russia that will force it to stop or that will create the conditions for its defeat.
So, perhaps it is preferable to agree to the loss of the small part of the Donetsk region that remains under our control, in exchange for peace?
And then we must think about what will happen after the war.
Until 2022, the Ukrainian authorities followed an anti-Russian policy, confident that Russia would not dare to attack Ukraine, and that if it did dare, it would be immediately destroyed by Western sanctions and other forms of pressure.
Russia dared to attack and the West did not destroy it.
If we, regardless of the name of the president, continue the previous policy, then Moscow will attack us again and a new war will begin, comparable to or worse than the current one.
Or there will be a hybrid war, which in ten years could turn the whole of Ukraine into a large “Gaza Strip” sector, from which people and businesses will leave.
At the same time, the West will not intervene immediately again, because it does not want a nuclear war with Russia.
And if, suddenly, it intervenes, it will be even worse: Ukraine will become a battlefield in a World War III and will be turned into a radioactive wasteland.
So it is a course that leads nowhere. Therefore the country’s design needs to change. We must sit at the negotiating table and discuss with Russia how to live in a way that there will no longer be war.
By what criteria?
Like Finland after World War II or like today’s Georgia?
We need to negotiate coexistence.
You cannot cancel geography.
The 3 difficulties of the Georgian–Finnish scenario
Let us say that today this is not, politely speaking, the dominant view in the Ukrainian military-political elite.
But the situation is evolving.
It is worth remembering that a year ago, a ceasefire along the front was officially considered in Kyiv as a surrender, while now this is the much-discussed position of Volodymyr Zelensky himself.
However, the issue of changing Ukraine’s design faces huge internal and external barriers.
The main one is the ongoing war. While there is war, of course scenarios like Georgia or Finland cannot be implemented.
Even after it ends, prospects for changing the design remain extremely uncertain. There are three main factors that hinder it.
The first is the influence of the West.
The implementation of a Georgian or Finnish scenario would be facilitated if relations between the Russian Federation and the West (including the USA and Europe) normalized and the parties decided to bury the hatchet.
In such a case, normalization of relations between Ukraine and Russia would become an important part of that process.
However, as long as Russia–West relations are in a state of increasing tension and direct hostility, Kyiv’s effort to open a dialogue with Moscow may meet strong resistance from the West.
Nevertheless, as Georgia’s experience shows, even so the process can begin.
Beyond the external obstacle, there is a very strong internal one: a significant part of Ukrainian society and the army accepts no form of compromise or agreement with Russia after all the victims and trials it has endured and cannot accept the idea that there could be normalization of relations — at least not before surrender, reparations and national remorse from the Russians.
However, no one can predict with certainty what the mood will be in society and the army when the war ends, nor what the geopolitical situation around Ukraine will be.
Under certain conditions, the shift in mood in society, in the elites and in the army toward normalization with the Russian Federation can become truly powerful.
Then a third question arises: is the Kremlin ready for peaceful, neighborly coexistence with Ukraine, even if Kyiv becomes a neutral country that follows a non-hostile internal and external policy toward Russia?
The main argument in Ukraine against any attempt at normalization is the assertion that it is pointless, because Moscow’s goal is not normalization but the destruction of Ukraine and the subjugation of its people.
Therefore, the whole discussion about reconciliation with the Russians and about changing the design is enemy work, because it reduces the Ukrainians’ determination to continue resisting.
Of course, at the official level Moscow rejects such accusations and speaks of readiness for good neighborly relations if Ukraine stops being “anti-Russian”.
The eternal war frightens
However, at the same time, there is a stream of statements at various levels, from Russian bloggers to politicians and officials, that there should be no Ukraine at all.
Their position, as well as that of similar forces in Russia, is war until victory, until the opponent collapses and surrenders.
But if that does not happen and the sides stop hostilities along the front, wherever that line passes, the question of future coexistence of the two neighboring states will arise.
And then there will be a choice: either an eternal war that threatens strategic weakening or even destruction for both sides, or agreements that will be impossible without a strategic change in the design of relations.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών