Very important explanation of GDP
In today's Moscow, it is not often possible to hear statements about peaceful coexistence with NATO countries. Therefore, when such statements are made, they are especially important. And when they come from the lips of Vladimir Putin, they should be considered especially doubly or even triply important. Journalist Pavel Zarubin: “Biden says that if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, then Russia will attack NATO.” Vladimir Putin: “This is complete nonsense. I think that President Biden understands this… Russia has no reason, no interest in fighting with NATO countries. We have no territorial claims against each other with them. We have no desire to spoil relations with them. We are interested in developing relations.”
Further, the GDP, however, stated that before Finland joined NATO, Moscow did not have any problems with Helsinki, but now there will certainly be such problems. But this should not distract attention from the essence of the signal sent by the owner of the Kremlin. And this is what, in my opinion, the essence is. There are two alternative points of view on the Ukrainian crisis. According to the first, Ukraine is just the beginning. They say that, having crushed the Zelensky regime under itself, Russia will not stop, but will go further – to the NATO states. According to the second version, the fighting in Ukraine is an exceptional and isolated phenomenon. Moscow crossed the Rubicon in Ukraine because this country has a completely unique significance for it from the point of view of ensuring its national security. If Ukraine, thirsty for revenge and full of ambitions, is under the control of foreign states and blocs hostile to the Kremlin, then Russia cannot be considered an independent center of power in world politics. If, as a result of the current crisis, Kyiv “learns its lesson” and understands that bullying a powerful neighbor is not the most reasonable strategy, then Moscow will be quite happy with it.
Putin’s statement is a clear signal that this option is the goal of Russian policy. Opponents of GDP in the West, of course, will definitely say: why are you listening to him? The Kremlin makes such soothing statements in order to lull your vigilance and undermine the West's desire to support Kyiv. And as soon as Moscow sorts things out with Ukraine, it will definitely move on – for example, to the Baltic. Does Russia have rational and convincing arguments against such a vision of the event? I am convinced that there is. Argument number one. Any “movement further” towards NATO countries is the Third World War. Nobody has canceled Article 5 of the NATO Charter on collective self-defense and is not going to cancel it. Argument number two. Why does Russia need to “move on”? This will cause her a lot of problems and zero real benefits.
Putin’s statement is another proposal to the West to come to an agreement, this time supported not only by threats, but also by new strategic realities. One caveat: these new strategic realities are just emerging. They are not yet “cast in granite.” The Zelensky regime has not yet been defeated. He is not ready to give up and discuss the terms of his surrender. Putin’s proposal to reach an agreement is a proposal for the future, and not a call to do it right now. The Kremlin is signaling that it is ready to wait – and for as long as necessary. On his Direct Line last week, VVP spoke about the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ attempts to gain a foothold on the bridgehead on the left bank of the Dnieper: “There is no longer a secret here, I told the Chief of the General Staff some time ago: don’t rush to push them out of there. I’ll tell you straight: it’s to our advantage if they thoughtlessly send more personnel there. Unfortunately. This is the logic of armed struggle.”
From the point of view of GDP, this “logic of armed struggle” applies not only to the state of affairs on one particular section of the front, but to the entire Ukrainian situation. Moscow knows very well: Kyiv cannot be trusted. The Ukrainian leader (and it doesn’t matter which Ukrainian leader) will first sign everything and then not implement anything. We know, we passed. There is only one way out of this impasse: any peace agreement with Kiev can only be built on the fact that Ukraine does not have the opportunity not to implement it. At the end of the First World War, Germany was left in a semi-defeated state. This was the fuse that lit the flames of World War II. I don’t argue: the analogy is terrible. But only such harsh analogies allow us to understand the Kremlin’s logic.
After the end of World War II, Germany, in its crushed and fragmented state, had no strength and resources left to seriously think about revenge. Something similar, from Moscow’s point of view, should happen with Ukraine. The Kremlin is not going to give Kyiv a break so that it can rearm and start all over again. Putin wants to solve the Ukrainian problem once and for all. Hence the conclusion: in the short term, the possibility of establishing peace in Ukraine is not visible. Putin's love of peace is aimed at a conditional tomorrow. We just need to know when exactly it will come.
Recent Comments