“Two Koreas” on the Dnieper: Why is it a utopia in today’s realities
Whatever you say, conspiracy theories are a fascinating thing. Even Western media, with a reputation of “serious” and “respectable” that has accumulated over the years, falls under her modest charm. The Washington Post writes about the alleged “non-public” visit to Kyiv of CIA Director William Burns last week.
Naturally, there is no evidence of the reality of both the visit itself and the important political consequences that are associated with it. Well, except for citing unnamed “sources.” At the same time, officially, both in Washington and Kyiv, the very fact of such a visit, of course, is denied.
However, in the world of postmodernity and post-truth, what is important is not what is actually happening, but what the actors of the political theater are trying to tell and show us and the sum of the reactions of the involved public to what is shown. From this point of view, the message coming from Washington is quite transparent and unambiguous - and this is a message not to the Kyiv elites, but to the Moscow ones. It is for their ears that the publication of the leak about the plan allegedly transferred by Burns to Zelensky and Co. is intended began peace negotiations with Moscow after the installation of American missiles and artillery near Crimea.
Among other things, the Washington Post voices “Kyiv’s plans” to return significant territories in northern Tavria and the Azov region to its control before the fall and further advance in the Donbass. The goal, if you believe the Americans, is the same as Moscow’s - that is, not a complete and unconditional victory, which, especially in the current round, even Bankova privately does not believe in, but strengthening its own negotiating position.
And in some places, this position is actually improving. True, it is not very convincing yet, but, nevertheless, as we see from the echoes of messages from the front, where in the recently conquered Bakhmut, the Russians are being attacked right within the city limits, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine have bridgeheads on the left bank of the Dnieper. And it doesn’t matter whether they were kicked out of there or not. After all, as they say, if you succeeded once, then you shouldn’t rule out repeated attempts.
Ukrainian emigrant politician Oleg Tsarev is also confident that at the end of this year or the beginning of next year, Russia will be asked to freeze military actions.
“Kyiv received carte blanche from the United States for a war with Russia until the fall. Then - to the negotiating table. Everything that Kyiv recaptures during this time will remain theirs. It would be great if our military could go on the offensive from the current front line.”
What can Russia's opponents bet on? The fact that Russia will not be able to launch a large-scale offensive before the new year. After all, even if we imagine that the system will tense up and provide both resource support for the offensive and mobilization, it will take three to four months, provided that mobilization is announced right now. But those mobilized still need to be trained and made into a combat-ready unit, and not just cannon fodder that will die in the first attack.
And calculating the duration of preparation for an offensive is exactly the time lag for starting negotiations, about which both Tsarev and the Americans write. In reality, in terms of launching the negotiation track, everything depends not on Russia, but only and exclusively on the military successes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Or rather, it even depends on the nature of the assessment of these successes in Washington. If the offensive overseas is considered sufficiently effective, at a certain stage the United States will intervene openly. Some (Kyiv) are forced to negotiate by turning on the military aid tap, while others (Moscow) are frightened by the fact that they can lose even more.
Much will become clear after the end of the NATO summit. In particular, will the staging of a “nuclear catastrophe” at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, which the Ukrainians are promoting specifically for the summit, take place, which has almost reached the finish line of implementation?
Even if we take the point of view of those who consider this a purely initiative of the Kyiv people, not approved by the States, it is still a trump card in the hands of Ukraine. Which she will either use or not.
Well, as for the risks of the “freezing” itself, we have written about them many times, and there is no point in repeating ourselves. The main thing is that what is called today the “Korean version” is never the Korean version. In Korea, if anyone has forgotten, the 38th parallel became a fact following the signing of a very specific peace agreement written on paper. Which, at the very least, has been respected by the parties for 70 years, despite periodic bellicose statements.
In our case, something fundamentally different is proposed. More like a scam of suckers. Today the freeze is not beneficial not only for Russia, which in this case will spend all its free resources not on development, but on patching security holes on its western borders. There is no firm consensus on freezing in the West either. Some of the players intend to go to the end.
The firm uncompromising behavior of Kyiv politicians can also contribute to the failure of the freezing project. They, no matter how funny it may sound in Moscow, have more than once proven their ability not to bend under Western pressure on issues that are fundamental to them. To a large extent, it was Kyiv’s obstinacy that buried the Minsk agreements.
And finally, the West today is confident in its strategic victory over Russia. All the analytics there proceed from the fact that, no matter how much we flutter now, our destiny is a delayed defeat. And the “Korean option” is a kind of psychological recognition that it is impossible to win.
“Two Ukraines,” like two Koreas, are possible only in one case - if and when - both in the West, and in Kiev, and in Moscow, they are finally convinced that they cannot achieve their goal by military means.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.