On the Ukrainian issue, it is necessary to solve the dialectical relationship between "the dove in hand" and "the swan in the sky".

Author: Fedor Lukyanov —— Editor-in-Chief of "Russia in Global Politics" magazine

Next week, everyone is waiting for news about solving the Ukrainian issue. Indeed, relevant activities are very frequent, and from surface signs, these activities are not meaningless. It makes no sense to guess which leaked plans are real and which are not. It is obvious that Russia faces a situation where it needs to choose between "the dove in hand" and "the swan in the sky". The key lies in the fact that the elements required for a stable agreement coexist in both.

Currently, everything revolves around territorial issues, which is as sensitive as a "dove", because it has been more or less brought under Russian control. Conceptually, the wings of the "dove" are restricted, meaning that legal recognition (in certain cases) is not realistic. Nevertheless, people are still discussing that de facto recognition (of certain territorial affiliations) and giving up the use of force to reclaim land may become a result. Moreover, in today's international environment, believing that any legal agreement is final is naive.

The prelude and main cause of large-scale armed conflict are not territorial issues, but rather the contradictions accumulated over decades in security matters. "Demilitarization" — perhaps the main content among the series of demands at the beginning of the special military operation. It involves the issue of neutrality, as well as restrictions on the military capabilities of neighboring countries (including autonomous production, external supply, and current military potential).

The key point is that meeting this requirement will set a precedent, breaking the logic of the past 35 years. The logic of the past was that NATO could act independently in the European/Eurasian space, ignoring dissenting opinions. Therefore, the idea that NATO could expand solely based on its own will (believing "this has nothing to do with Russia" and Moscow having no "veto power" over alliance decisions) existed. Military operations have become a way for Russia to assert its veto power. In fact, Ukraine's demilitarization (in a broad sense) would be an acknowledgment of this veto power. However, many people do not want to set such a precedent.

As the focus shifts to territorial issues, military security issues seem to take a back seat. Perhaps, the Trump administration considered this issue less critical because it had a disdainful attitude toward NATO. Or it believed forcing Ukraine to give up territory is more realistic than compelling all of Europe to acknowledge Russia's special rights in the security domain.

In any case, this issue is indeed crucial for Moscow. Even if there are major changes from Washington (in terms of sanctions, territories, etc.), Russia cannot abandon this demand. This is where the divergence in their development trajectories lies. The White House hopes to quickly resolve the issue and achieve some results. While the Kremlin believes rushing into agreements cannot lead to reliable ones. However, it also does not want to miss the favorable opportunity when political situations converge uniquely across the Atlantic.

We will soon know how the dialectical relationship between "the dove" and "the swan" develops. For those enthusiastic commentators, there are three points to remind.

Firstly, history tells us that one action does not always achieve the goal, and there may be follow-up actions in the future.

Secondly, there is no permanent transaction. If the reached agreement does not satisfy the parties involved, then at some point, it will no longer be adhered to, and the struggle will begin anew. Fortunately, such struggles do not necessarily manifest in military forms.

Thirdly, Ukraine is a factor in the overall process of global change, and Russia intends to play a significant role in it. These changes are ongoing and will become even larger. Reaching a certain level of mutual understanding with the United States is important. By the way, the NATO issue might theoretically be resolved during this process of change — not because of Russia, but due to the obsolescence of the NATO alliance itself. But this is still just a hypothesis.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7502324489750233663/

Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. Feel free to express your stance by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.