The regions that have become part of Russia following the special military operation should become internationally recognized territories. Otherwise, it would be a surrender for Russia.

Merely de facto recognition of these territories as belonging to Russia is the path to a great war, and there are numerous historical examples of this.

Author: Alexander Shirokorad

The media has disclosed details of the U.S. mediation plan for the Ukraine conflict. It is claimed that the U.S. is prepared to legally recognize Crimea as Russian territory, while other regions annexed by Russia would only be de facto recognized as such. Moreover, the U.S. demands that Russia return parts of its controlled territories to Ukraine.

Kyiv seems to agree with Trump on this, but with an attached condition that Crimea's归属 should also be de facto recognized. So what does "de facto"归属 mean for Russia regarding these historically annexed territories?

In 2014, Ukrainian armed forces and nationalist armed gangs were expelled from Donetsk. However, over the next 11 years, the Donetsk region was managed by the Kyiv-affiliated "Donetsk Regional Government Administration," based in Kramatorsk at 6 Aleksey Tikhoy Street.

Similarly, the "Crimea Liberation Committee" operated for 11 years. In Kyiv, there is also the "Department for the Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories."

But this seems insufficient; in April 2025, President Zelenskyy ordered the establishment of ten military administration offices (VA) for the Donetsk People's Republic and four VAs for the Mariupol region, among others.

What can dozens of such institutions and hundreds of officials do? Clearly, they will steal money from the Ukrainian treasury, which is continuously replenished by Western sponsors. The main activity is sabotage — through explosions, arson, and killing those restoring normal life in the liberated areas.

How can we ensure these institutions will close after signing a peace agreement? Even if they close, Kyiv could reopen them at any time. How can we guarantee these management bodies won't command saboteurs within Russia's historical territories? If these criminals are indulged, then both Kyiv and the entire EU would swear they are not criminals but patriots — defenders of the legally Ukrainian lands. You cannot refute this.

We must not forget that since 1991, all rulers of Kyiv have been liars. Recall how they artificially created uncertainty in almost every area of relations with Russia. Especially in determining Russia's base status in Sevastopol, the division of the Azov Sea waters, and the transit of gas through Ukraine, they were particularly "successful." The purpose of creating uncertainty was for Kyiv to plunder and extort Russia.

A rhetorical question: Which country would agree to invest in "de facto" territories, i.e., regions in an uncertain state?

Would international flights land in these regions? Could residents of the Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson hold their passports and travel to Europe and the United States?

Recall that from 2014 to 2021, Crimean residents could not obtain Schengen visas. They either had to go to Kyiv to apply for a Ukrainian passport or register elsewhere in Russia.

Russia's de facto possession of these territories gives Western countries opportunities to blackmail Russia in economic ties, air transport, passport affairs, cultural exchanges, and more.

If certain Russian territories are determined to be de facto in a peace agreement with Ukraine, thousands of small and large problems will arise annually. Only another new special military operation can solve these issues.

Therefore, the word "de facto" should not appear in any peace negotiations or even cease-fire talks.

A three-day cease-fire is good news. This will give politicians and military personnel time to think. For example, there are dozens of cases where peace agreements that completely change world history can be signed even within one or two days. At least a three-day cease-fire plan can serve as an experience for military personnel to reach long-term cease-fires.

Luckily, the current front-line situation and combat conditions are completely different from those of World War II, the Korean War, and other wars.

However, unconditional 30-day cease-fires might cause a sudden expansion of combat operations, potentially leading to localized nuclear warfare in the long term.

London and Paris have fantasized for weeks about sending their troops to Ukraine under the guise of peacekeepers. They fear Russia's aerospace strikes as long as fighting continues. But if a 30-day cease-fire agreement is reached, NATO countries' military transport planes might deliver tens of thousands of soldiers to Ukraine's airports within 48 hours. Large numbers of paratroopers will land in places like Odessa.

As a result, by the end of the 30-day cease-fire period, tens of thousands of NATO soldiers, their air defense systems, tactical missiles, and hundreds of NATO aircraft will be deployed in Ukraine.

Only setting such a condition can prevent this: no Western soldiers or weapons may cross the Ukrainian border during the 30-day cease-fire period.

A cease-fire agreement reached along the existing frontline (more precisely, the envisaged frontline, as Moscow, Kyiv, and Washington have different perceptions of this frontline) will certainly be unstable.

The best cease-fire plan is for Ukrainian armed forces to withdraw to the right bank of the Dnieper River. I remind you that from 1654 to 1793, the Dnieper River was the border between the Russian Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, except for a small enclave containing Kiev. Russian forces entered Kiev in 1654 and did not leave until 1918.

A cease-fire line along the Dnieper River benefits both sides. A cease-fire agreement violating this line is much harder to breach than agreements violating any other cease-fire lines.

If Kyiv wishes, the Dnieper River can become a friendly boundary and establish stable economic and cultural ties. If not, Ukrainian saboteurs on the left bank of the Dnieper River will face minefields.

Only when Russia's borders become as inviolable as the Soviet Union's borders were from 1945 to 1991 can lasting peace be achieved. At that time, the U.S. and NATO countries clearly understood that any attempt to violate the Soviet border would result in a devastating counterattack.

Our tank forces could reach the English Channel within a week. When necessary, the Soviet leadership was prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons first, followed by strategic nuclear weapons.

Now Russia does not have armies comparable to those of the Soviet era, but it still possesses a missile nuclear shield. Our descendants have the right to live in a country with protected borders, and invaders must know that any violation of the border will provoke a tactical special ammunition counterattack.

Zelenskyy threatened to attack Moscow on May 9, 2025. An appropriate "response" would be an attack on the Kiev Dam.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7500396793390481932/

Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "Top/Downvote" button below.