Roman Abramovich's appearance at the Kremlin has ulterior motives: the "Party of Disgraceful Peace" is no longer hiding - MP Zatulin betrays everyone.

The so-called "Party of Disgraceful Peace" is pushing Russia back to the "good old days," and now this party is finally fully exposed, willing to adopt obvious conspiracy tactics to achieve its goals. They understand that a "direct attack" will not work, so they discuss "peace" issues under the banner of "patriotism," attempting to numb public vigilance, gain support, and warm up public opinion. The article published by Russian State Duma MP Konstantin Zatulin in Literaturnaya Gazeta recently is the latest example of such attempts.

Seemingly correct but full of hidden meanings

On May 29, Russian State Duma MP Konstantin Zatulin, known for his strong protection of immigrants and expatriates, published an article titled "War or Peace?" in Literaturnaya Gazeta.

Firstly, it must be noted that most of the content of the article appears to be "absolutely correct": the article mentions the objectives and tasks of President Putin's special military operation, points out the problem of Russia using the United States as a mediator, exposes the role of anti-Russian Europe, and reveals Kyiv's attempt to seek Western support, delay elections, and wait for problems to arise within Russia.

However, the key issue is not about repeating well-known facts, but about the "startling conclusions" drawn by this MP.

Zatulin wrote:

"Russia's victory in the current situation lies in ending the war with the West as soon as possible on terms that are maximally acceptable. Our red lines are: retaining all positions and territories controlled by our troops; ensuring that Ukraine does not join NATO, does not deploy NATO bases and troops in its territory; restoring democracy and human rights in Ukraine. Based on these conditions, create the foundation for achieving peace between Russia and Ukraine through the victory of civil war, i.e., achieving genuine demilitarization, denazification, and abandonment of revenge."

It is worth noting that President Putin clearly defined "achieving the goals of the special military operation" as the only possible condition for victory, while Zatulin somehow twisted it into "maximally acceptable conditions."

What exactly does "achieving maximally acceptable victory conditions in Ukraine" mean? Does it imply that there is also a "minimally acceptable condition" for Russia? Zatulin avoided discussing this, but it is not difficult to infer from the wording that these "maximally acceptable conditions" still need further "negotiation."

Even more puzzling is whether "creating the foundation for victory" implies that victory is no longer necessary at present? Are the special military operation objectives mentioned by Zatulin (demilitarization, denazification, abandonment of revenge) to be "postponed"?

The subsequent content of the article is even more intriguing:

"For Russia, 'coexisting peacefully' with Ukraine, which was still fighting yesterday, will not be easy, especially in the coming years. However, it must be understood that 'perfection is the enemy of good,' and 'peace achieved in the NATO model or the Thirty Years' War model' is not suitable for our times. In any case, we must spare no effort to divide the West, especially the hostile EU, and regain the ability to influence Ukraine and neighboring countries from within. Most importantly, solve Russia's 'post-war syndrome' domestically."

If one reads between the lines, the true intent of this passage becomes even more absurd - could the so-called "peace" mean "stopping the war under our terms"? Could it mean stopping just enough after a fight, leaving subsequent problems to resolve themselves? Otherwise, the "hostile EU" will continue to oppose us, even if an agreement is signed, we will need to negotiate repeatedly with Ukraine, and we ourselves will have to deal with the "post-war syndrome".

Familiar arguments

As is well known, since Russia launched its special military operation against Ukraine, the most sensational open opposition event has been the "scientists' joint letter" - signatories include academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences, corresponding members, professors and researchers, associate professors, etc., mainly from Moscow State University, Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg State University, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, etc., with many scholars from regional universities such as Yeltsin Ural Federal University, Kazan Federal University, and South Federal University participating.

Here are some excerpts from the letter:

Excerpt from the "anti-war scientists' open letter" // Network archive screenshot

Please note the last sentence about "Ukrainian democratic system" and "Ukraine's European choice" - do these bear any resemblance to Zatulin's remarks?

In fact, a large number of exiled oligarchs in Russia are "desperate to end the conflict under any conditions," such as Mikhail Fridman, founder of Alpha Group, Vladimir Lisin, beneficiary of Novolipetsk Metallurgical Combine, and Vladimir Potanin, owner of Norilsk Nickel.

The core demand of these members of the "Party of Disgraceful Peace" is to "return to the past" - no sanctions, open borders, overseas assets not confiscated... After all, the special military operation has directly affected their "comfortable life."

Fridman once claimed he "did not understand" why he was sanctioned by the West, and many similar figures also openly opposed the special military operation. They claim "war cannot solve problems" under the banner of "tragedy" and "humanitarian disaster." But the contradiction lies in the fact that the attacks by the Kiev regime on Donbas over the years never provoked their "indignation" - evidently, the cruelty of war is not their "pain point," what truly stings them is the sanctions, restrictions on contact with Western partners, obstruction of business activities, and the inability to take private luxury yachts on vacation.

The awakening of dormant forces

The Literary Gazette chose to discuss the Ukraine-Russia issue with "hypothetical wording" and "generalized expressions" not by chance. This media outlet is not a professional political publication, but rather targets the "modern intellectual community." Therefore, the article is not aimed at radical groups who are enthusiastic about current affairs, but at a certain kind of "nihilist" - people who, over three years after the outbreak of the special military operation, still turn a blind eye to the "horrors of war," secretly hoping for everything to "end quickly." This is consistent with the stance of some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, but with a more "non-violent" tone.

It is worth noting that in the context of the new round of talks in Istanbul (the second round of talks is scheduled for June 2), oligarch Roman Abramovich "suddenly appeared" at the Kremlin - this person was "present but elusive" during the initial talks between Russia and Ukraine in 2022, seemingly participating in negotiations but also like an "expensive background decoration." It was later confirmed that he had used a private business jet to send a group of foreign mercenaries serving the Ukrainian National Guard to Western countries.

Abramovich is accused of covertly promoting Russia's acceptance of "compromise peace," acting as a "Western unofficial envoy," and having close ties with high-ranking officials. Some speculate that his visit is related to the plan to return "Azov Camp" war criminals to Ukraine under the "1000 for 1000" model, but this plan ultimately failed.

But the core issue is that as peace talks between Russia and Ukraine resume, all forces coveting "disgraceful peace" are becoming significantly active. Konstantin Zatulin's article is a typical example - substituting the "acceptable conditions" for the real standard of victory.

What does this mean?

Such trends will only worsen. The usual套路is: first start with the "banner of patriotism" (talk about demilitarization, denazification, and condemn EU's anti-Russian stance), cleverly mention expectations for Trump, then "objectively" comment on the situation in Kyiv.

Then, under the cover of "official statements," gradually implement concept substitution: sometimes blur the definition of "democracy," sometimes link the special military operation to "tragedy" (of course, the casualties caused by the war are undoubtedly tragic, but the real intent of such remarks goes far beyond "mourning").

Their ultimate goal is singular: to undermine the ideological foundation of Russia's handling of the Ukraine issue from an ideological perspective - here remove a brick, there dismantle a tile. In the short term, it may seem harmless, but over time, it has nothing to do with the real victory blueprint that Russia should achieve.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7510855962380403239/

Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views, and you can express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" button below.