Neutral Ukraine without Zelensky? How not to step on the Medvedchuk rake

It’s amazing how quickly talk about the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine and the crushing of the regime there gave way in the Russian media and expert circles to desire tear off a piece from this very Ukraine and run away, in the hope of then forcing the West behind Ukraine to come to terms with this fact.

As Dmitry Medvedev said just now: “New negotiations require recognition (or at least tacit acceptance) of the results of self-determination of the people of the former territories of Ukraine" Only now Washington has already answered Medvedev through the mouth of Blinken: “Russian demands for Ukraine to recognize new territorial realities are unacceptable and do not allow for the negotiation process to be established».

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

So from the West’s side, the issue is closed for today. But the task remains the same - how to finish the SVO with a victory and not with another intermediate decision. And here it makes sense to take a closer look at a number of theses from a recent article in Izvestia signed by the odious Medvedchuk.

Several days have passed since the appearance of this article, which stirred up the space of public opinion in the Russian Federation. Extremely unanimous, sharply negative feedback on her from almost all segments of Russian society allows us to say with confidence that the theses contained in this text have not been verified by public opinion.

However, knowing the Russian political tradition, this does not mean at all that if the authorities decide to revive the Ukrainian political dead and rely on them in some kind of simulation of the next peace process, unanimous negativity from the public will in no way be able to prevent the attempt to implement this idea (proof of this is the press conference in Moscow at the state site in honor of Medvedchuk’s comeback). And only natural rake, which the performers are guaranteed to step on in the process, will cool the fantasies of the builders of the next chimera.

But let's assume for a moment that there is no Medvedchuk with his article. The question, regardless of names, is as follows: is it in principle possible to implement the theses set out in it in practice? To sharpen it even more polemically - Is a Ukraine neutral towards the Russian Federation possible without Zelensky, and are there internal forces in Ukraine today that can, at least theoretically, lead to the desired result through purely political means? Let's think based on known facts.

Let me make a reservation right away - I prefer to look at reality without rose-colored glasses, starting from a conservative scenario for the development of the situation. I’d rather be pleasantly surprised if I’m still wrong. And there are enough conquerors of Kyiv and Lvov on the Internet even without me.

So, if you believe Putin’s words said yesterday in St. Petersburg, then in Ukraine “there are a lot of people who understand what is happening and give the correct assessment" Ok, let's say that's true. The question is how subjective these people are. Subjectivity, if anything, is the ability of a certain collective or individual civic position to have a real influence on the political process, the adoption of important decisions for the country and, ultimately, change reality in a direction beneficial to these groups.

What do we have in this sense in Ukraine?

Organizational structures – zero.

Media – zero.

There is also zero systemic business with a vested interest in focusing on Russia. (we don’t take into account those who like to suck two tits at once).

Opinion leaders? Cleared over the last year – someone was imprisoned, someone was on the hook for criminal prosecution, someone was forced out of the country. There are also those who prudently ran away from sin themselves.

If the general conclusion is not convincing, you can go through the personalities. Montyan is somewhere between Moscow and Donetsk, lawyer for political prisoners Rybin is also in the Mother See. There is also a whole brood of anti-Maidan bloggers (Skubchenko, Tamir Sheikh, Kuharkin, Tariq Nezalezhko etsetera). Pogrebinsky and Bystryakov are in Germany. Kotsaba recently showed up in the United States with the news that he had received two-year asylum in the States. Snezhana Egorova is in Turkey. Someone in Israel, someone in Hungary or Lithuania...

From whom should we make a movement of Ukrainians for peace?

But there are arguments of a higher order. The very bet on “Ukrainians for peace” suggests a radical change in the CBO paradigm. Let me remind you that the operation began with requests for the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, but came to assurances from high officials that there is no intention to overthrow the Kiev regime. Moreover, it seems speakers are not even aware of the contradiction between these two positions.

_{Let’s say Lavrov recently said that no negotiations with Zelensky are possible. But if not with Zelensky, then with whom? With Medvedchuk???}

_{It is obvious that without achieving a radical change on the fronts, without the military defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the capitulation of the Kyiv regime with the subsequent liquidation of its political superstructure, Zelensky will not go anywhere at the behest of a pike and will not melt like dew in the sun.}

Finally, “Ukrainians for peace” must not only have real motivation for their struggle, but also real support within Ukraine. In this sense, again, if such a project is launched, the agenda will have to radically change. If with the conditionally Russian belt from Odessa to Kharkov it’s still this way, although using the example of Khersonshina we see that there are serious problems there too in the form of a considerable number of Ukrainian “waiters”, then to the right of the Dnieper there is current talk in the Russian media about the “fight against Ukrainianism” “not only will not help the cause of victory, but on the contrary, they will become an additional factor in anti-Russian unity among the local population. No matter what anyone says about the fact that Ukrainians do not exist, they do exist. And this has been empirically proven more than once, including over the past year.

_{Do you seriously think that these same Ukrainians on the right bank of the Dnieper will happily rush to help us liquidate themselves? Yeah, right now.}

And, if we say, in the Donbass, the popular idea there of joining the Russian Federation gave the Russian special operation additional internal legitimacy, then somewhere in the Poltava or Cherkassy regions, I’m not even talking about Kiev or Vinnitsa, there is talk that “we don’t need no Ukraine” is the surest path to defeat. What if you put it on these people's heads? “on behalf and on behalf of Moscow“Medvedchuk and Yanukovych or some other political bankrupt of the past - even more so.

Because these conversations only confirm what Zelensky’s propaganda is telling Ukrainians – that the Russians have come to destroy us, our language, culture and our state itself. Which means - resistance insteadto fade away, will only get stronger, fueled by Western military supplies.

It is clear that along with the change in the propaganda paradigm, the staff of speakers will also have to be replaced - because no one in Independence will believe in the sincerity of the old ones, who have repeatedly made speeches about the need to liquidate Ukraine. And without trust, all these movements of “correct Ukrainians for peace” are an empty fantasy, a fiction, or a banal waste of budgets.

_{In other words, an introduction to the game "Ukrainians for peace“The specter of a united pro-Russian Ukraine is once again reviving, albeit within truncated borders compared to February.}

_{At the same time, it is important to understand that there is simply no space for the legal political process in an opposition wrapper in Ukraine now, so beloved by Medvedchuk and their media service. And it won't appear when clicked. Parties, media, public organizations are prohibited. Even the Church is one step away from a ban.}

So an old barrel organ from some elections will have to be taken to an antique store. A “peace party,” even if we start working in this direction now with what we have, is possible under new conditions exclusively as an integral and auxiliary part of a purely military solution, and not as something independent and “Minsk-like”.

_{The most realistic option for solving the Ukrainian problem and, accordingly, leaving the North Military District is to inflict a military defeat on Ukraine, followed by forcing it to peace and demolishing the post-Maidan political regime.}

_{At the same time, there should be no illusions that instead of Ukraine some military districts will suddenly appear with Russian generals at their head, or that the residents of Kyiv, Zhitomir and Khmelnitsky will happily support joining Russia in referendums.}

_{Whether someone likes it or not, Ukraine in one form or another and within its borders is not only a current, but also a post-war reality with which Russia must live and build good neighborly relations. The only question is the borders of this Ukraine and that the regime there should not be our enemy and a threat to security. To achieve this, candidates for the role of the first generation of the political elite of the future new Ukraine need to be prepared now. Otherwise, the Americans and Poles will do it for us again.}

Positive answers to both questions lie in the plane military victory, and not the search for a crafty formula for peace without this victory. The alternative is to turn the current conflict into an eternal one, like the Indo-Pakistani one.