Zelensky did not rule out “unacceptable compromises” with Russia. Why you shouldn't be happy

Zelensky’s latest interview with the AP agency contains an important thesis, which was uttered by the Ukrainian president for almost the first time since the start of the SVO. Here is the thesis: if Ukraine loses Artemovsk, Putin “will sell this victory to the West, his society, China, Iran and will try to get international support to force Ukraine to make unacceptable compromises.” ㅤ

Developing this idea, Zelensky added that “a defeat anywhere at this stage of the war could jeopardize Ukraine’s stubborn momentum.” To elaborate: “If Bakhmut falls, there will be pressure both from the international community and inside Ukraine. Our society will feel tired and will push me to compromise with them.”

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.

Zelensky also fears that the outcome of the war may be affected by political changes in Washington, in particular, the results of the presidential elections there. The Ukrainian president cannot be denied realism - indeed, by fighting at someone else’s expense, the country loses the threads of controlling the course and goal-setting of military operations, because donors can turn off the tap at any time in accordance with some of their own considerations, and then that’s it.

_{And in this sense, Artemovsk is now becoming a nodal point for Zelensky’s political and image prospects. The loss of this city could be a costly tactical defeat and a major political setback. So, in terms of a possible “anti-crisis” in the “Artemo case,” Bankova has exactly two options: either stand in Artemovsk until it stops, in the hope that some external circumstances will prevent the Russians from taking the city (in the current circumstances, despite all the victorious reports from the military commanders - quite a realistic option).}

Or try to reverse the thesis formed by propaganda in Ukrainian and Western public opinion about the extreme importance of Artemovsk as a “fortress of spirit” and then sell a possible withdrawal from it as a tactical circumstance that does not fundamentally affect the overall pattern of the war and, thereby, minimize image damage from such a step.

Zelensky has little choice: either keep the bird in his hand (holding the current front line), or go all-in with the risk of losing everything. However, the latter, in the case of Ukraine, is clearly a figure of speech. Any possible compromises on unfavorable terms are disadvantageous, first of all, to Zelensky himself and the beneficiaries of his regime.

In general, for Ukraine this option is more than beneficial, since it will be based on the actual (that is, with a high probability, not even documented by any agreement) exchange of part of the territories for the preservation in Kiev and the remaining territory of the nationalist regime formed after the Maidan with all its political-ideological superstructure and pro-Western anti-Russian course.

_{And the exchange of figures nominally ruling in a given territory on behalf of and on behalf of the collective West is a completely acceptable price.}

In this sense, the joyful notes in the texts and speeches of Russian propagandists regarding Zelensky’s recognition of the high probability of “unacceptable compromises” do not seem entirely appropriate to the real situation. Because any compromise with Kiev will be neither a defeat for Ukraine nor a victory for Russia.

What this will mean for Ukraine has already been said above. For Moscow, this will mean the actual failure of the Northern Military District, which has not achieved any of the stated strategic goals and, as in the case of Kiev, the exchange of the never-caught crane of denazification, demilitarization and elimination of the threat from the Ukrainian side - for the tit of new territories in hand.

Moreover, what is important – and this is openly talked about in the West – there will be absolutely no talk of any international recognition of the Russian status of these territories.

_{So, “a compromise unacceptable for Ukraine” will mean a negative profit for Russia - Russia could have Crimea and the LDPR, unrecognized by the world, without all this.}

However, on issues of war and peace, the Kiev and Moscow authorities are in different circumstances. If in Moscow, having achieved from Kyiv, with the approval of the West, any real compromise for the here and now, they will breathe a sigh of relief and curtail the SVO, plunging into a much more understandable internal political agenda that is controlled by the Kremlin administrators, then for Kyiv this option is completely excluded.

Unlike the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian authorities have plunged their country into the military agenda to the very top, without a trace. Ukraine literally lives by war, and if it stops, the only mechanism remaining in the hands of the authorities to control the situation will be lost. Zelensky’s current rating rests solely on the expectations of military victories of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from a society that has been hyped up by propaganda.

_{The authorities write off any failures in domestic politics, corruption scandals and economic failures as future victories. Apart from vague hopes for a victorious end to the war, Bankova has nothing else to offer Ukrainian society as a motivator.}

Therefore, it is not surprising that Zelensky is so afraid of a change in the trend in public sentiment from upward and “perevering” to downward and “hot”. Propaganda simply will have nothing to cover such a powerful blow to the morale of the army and society. Hence the amazing obstinacy with which the Ukrainian Armed Forces are holding Artemovsk, despite all the seeming strategic futility of this matter. The arithmetic is simple and cynical: it is better to lose a few thousand more cannon fodder than to allow a collapse and make the West doubt the advisability of further investment in the war.