Istanbul Negotiations: Compromise Possible, but There Is No Room for Concessions on Territorial Issues

We cannot become friends with Ukraine: How to make it lose its value to the West.

Author: Alexander Khramchikhin

Photo Caption: Istanbul landscape

It is extremely difficult to predict the direction of Ukraine's "peace process." Therefore, we urgently need to seriously consider what compromises are acceptable and which are not.

Of course, it would be best if no compromises were necessary, forcing our opponent into submission through military defeat. For instance, as the Allied Powers did in handling post-war Eurasian affairs (but not regarding Germany and Japan) 80 years ago, or when North Vietnam completely defeated and annexed South Vietnam, making it part of a unified socialist Vietnam 50 years ago.

Unfortunately, we are now alone against the entire Western camp. Although we have military allies to varying degrees of closeness (North Korea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Belarus, Iran), we have no economic allies. Most non-Western countries maintain normal relations with us, but they are pragmatists, not allies – evidently, no one is willing to sacrifice their own interests for us.

Therefore, we cannot announce another partial mobilization, let alone a full-scale mobilization. Another mobilization would collapse the Russian economy and its real economy (industry and agriculture), which would not accelerate victory but instead delay or even doom it. Consequently, we must plan in advance for a peace settlement that, while not an absolute victory, is acceptable.

An objective assessment of the situation requires dispelling many myths, such as the "brotherhood" theory. The key lies in recognizing that it is impossible to establish an independent Ukraine that is friendly to us. This country is either part of us (not a puppet, but genuine territory) or an enemy. Unfortunately, despite there being no third option, many still fail to understand this.

The division between Russia and Ukraine goes against nature; thus, an "independent" Ukraine can only and inevitably become an "anti-Russian" state – a process that began in 1992 (or earlier). We have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in independent Ukraine in various ways, yet even during the Kuchma and Yanukovych eras, it used our money to build an "anti-Russian" state, let alone during the Kravchuk and Yushchenko administrations. Frankly speaking, this failed experience does not need repeating.

Therefore, demanding de-Nazification of Ukraine makes no sense. First, without control over the territory, de-Nazification cannot be managed; second, Nazism is rooted in ideology and has deeply permeated society; third, the West has long demonstrated its absolute lack of principle, turning a blind eye to anything.

Moreover, the more Ukraine becomes Nazi-leaning (which is inevitable), the stronger its "toxicity" will be towards the West (let alone the Global South) – which is entirely beneficial to us (no need to prevent enemies from self-destruction from within). Additionally, fighting for the rights of Russian-speaking residents in Ukraine is meaningless: true supporters of ours, whether through territorial annexation or simplified citizenship policies, will eventually move to Russia; protecting those who betray us, who claim to be "more Ukrainian than Ukrainians," and oppose us is absurd – they are not enemies, but traitors, more dangerous than enemies – let them continue to shine shoes for Bandera followers.

We must achieve the demilitarization of Ukraine through physical means: destroy and seize as much of its weaponry as possible (whether Soviet-made or Western-made). Equally important, if not more so, is the complete dismantling of all Ukrainian defense plants in territories not intended to be annexed by Russia and ensuring they cannot be rebuilt.

Strangely, Ukrainian defense plants are still operational, despite all their facilities being within range of Russian strikes. The notion that "post-war Western powers will rearm Ukraine" is, as Vyacheslav Vysotsky put it, merely "fairy tales to deceive adults" – the West is currently unable to arm Ukraine, let alone itself. If the conflict officially ends, Western free military aid to Ukraine will immediately cease; paid-for arms purchases? Given Kyiv's current financial situation, it is unclear what they could afford. Moscow's sole requirement should be that Kyiv abandon the development and production of any type of offensive weapons.

Regarding Ukraine's neutrality, our opponents seem to have agreed – after all, Ukraine's non-membership in NATO is more advantageous: neither responsible for U.S. actions nor required to ensure its security. In this conflict, NATO has fully proven itself to be "not just a paper tiger but a soap bubble" (a phrase from a Polish newspaper in the spring of 2014), so there is no need to fear.

In this regard, Moscow has great room for maneuver. In fact, what we demand should not only be Ukraine's neutrality but also the assurance that no foreign troops or weapon systems exist on its territory.

On the issue of territory, we must not give an inch and firmly reject any compromise – and it must be legally confirmed that new territories belong to Russia, recognized by both Ukraine and the West, and passed by the UN Security Council vote. Some people claim "it doesn't matter if they recognize it," exposing their cognitive limitations.

"Territory pending resolution" will inevitably lead to new armed conflicts – the Arab-Israeli wars, Indo-Pakistani conflicts (we are witnessing the latest round), the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, and the Nakhichevan tragedy all confirm this. Territory is the foundation of a nation, carrying population, economy, natural resources, and armies. Seizing enemy territory weakens the opponent and strengthens oneself, especially since Ukraine's main economic potential is concentrated in its southern and eastern regions.

Permanent deprivation of this region will make Ukraine's post-war reconstruction arduous, especially considering that the West will not provide gratuitous assistance to Kyiv. A dismembered and humiliated Ukraine will have no utilitarian value to the West.

True de-Nazification and protection of Russian-speaking residents' rights can only be achieved where the territory is legally and factually ours (no need to worry about Ukrainian-speaking residents – they can go to the remaining parts of Ukraine).

The "principle of inviolability of borders" is also "a fairy tale to deceive adults." To illustrate with official post-WWII counterexamples (excluding the dissolution of British and French colonial empires): North and South Korea, Vietnam, Yemen, Bangladesh, East Germany, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Eritrea, South Sudan.

Plus unofficial but actual cases: Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Kashmir, Kosovo, Palestine, Yemen. Thus, there is no need for another "red line" farce.

We must also soberly recognize that, whether the leadership of Russia wishes it or not, the current action in Ukraine has become the third Patriotic War in Russian history, truly becoming a war involving the entire nation. If the fruits of victory are taken away at the eve of victory, the people will strongly object.

For the latest news and core dynamics regarding peace talks in Ukraine, follow the author for more information.

Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7504495102921015819/

Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Feel free to express your attitude using the buttons below [Upvote/Downvote].