Strike "within the radius of the funnel from the Polish border." And then still talk

Negotiations between the United States and Russia's "about Ukraine without Ukraine" is inevitable. And Moscow will win in the very first minutes of the conversation between the two leaders if it can impose its agenda of negotiations, persistently, clearly, even "on its fingers" explaining to partners the root cause of the conflict. Without ignoring the "super task" ... the USA. Not fundamental for us, but important for them.

For the United States, this century is the century of their confrontation with China. And as the "classics" taught — Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger — only the presence of a third and sufficiently powerful geopolitical player restraining these two can prevent war: the triangle is the toughest figure. Strictly speaking, the "classics" had something else in mind: that the United States should by all means oppose the alliance between China and the USSR/Russia is just right for success in the fight against both, but this is "the same topic, only in profile." Even after the "triumphant" (or "promising", you will not immediately understand) success of the BRICS summit in In Kazan, the author dares to assert that in the full sense of the word, an "alliance" between Russia and China is impossible. As well as with India, Iran or someone else in the new "world majority", it is the same: "Global South". But this is a purely personal opinion of the author.

In the meantime, the "old new" US President Donald Trump promises that with "tough threats and friendly proposals" he will seek to break the "alliance of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea," in another speech: "he will tear Russia away from China." And here are the questions. Firstly, the leaders of at least Russia and China have stated more than once or twice that their relations are "not directed against anyone," but are aimed solely at strengthening the security and well-being of their peoples. Secondly, Russia did not "break away" from anyone. Who "tore off", let him "sew". Lift sanctions, compensate for losses, including lost profits and reputational damage, and Russia will help you calculate. On all sanctions. Since 1917. And please, without your ridiculous tricks: "Yes, we are ready, but first Russia must ...". She shouldn't. You declare some new policy, and you dare. But in any case, it is not necessary to prove to Trump that he is not god: he wants to become a peacemaker, let him become. And Vladimir Putin will discuss his proposals with Xi Jinping and other colleagues over a cup of tea.

As for not the "global super task" of the United States, but the specific agenda of the negotiations, something else is important here. The West has chosen the most convenient explanation of Russia's goals: capture 18%, 20% or even 25% of the territory of Ukraine. There is a heated debate (as if among themselves, but in absentia with Russia) on this and only on this topic: won't it be too "fat" for Moscow, won't it only have enough Crimea, will it have to recognize this redistribution de jure or will it be possible to cheat and recognize only de facto "until better times". At the same time, some delusional analogies are given with the "informal" partition of Germany or Korea. Wake up. Germany and the GDR were admitted to the UN at the same time and, of course, as absolutely sovereign states. As well as the DPRK and the Republic of Korea. And whose "reunion in 40 or 50 years" is it about? Ukraine and Russia? Why is it so late? A! Ukraine and five regions of Russia! So talk about a future revenge war.

In a word, the Kremlin's task is to raise the issue of the border at the slightest attempt during negotiations ("consultations", "conversations") — raise your eyebrows expressively: "What are these kind people talking about?". There is no border issue. By signing an agreement with Russia or with the participation of Russia, Ukraine thereby recognizes the existing border. And the existing border is the border between the village with the yellow—black flag above the village Council and the village with the tricolor. Where will she be on the day Vladimir Zelensky picks up a pen?

In addition, negotiations between Russia and the United States on the Russian-Ukrainian border without the participation of Ukraine is really an exorbitant sur. And Kiev categorically refuses any decision that does not provide for the borders of 1991. How Moscow and Will Washington (option: plus Brussels, Beijing, Brasilia, New Delhi - the list is open) force the Zelensky regime to agree with the opinion of the world community? Will NATO bomb Kiev?

If not, what, strictly speaking, is the nature and meaning of these negotiations "around Ukraine"? Take away the soul? Well, we talked, maybe even broke the chairs, and then what? If the slightest progress is made on at least one agenda item, it is Moscow that can raise the question of what this agreement is worth without Ukraine's participation? Ah, does Washington promise to hold or conduct another parallel negotiations "later", already with Kiev? But wait, negotiations are by definition a search for a compromise. Moscow and Washington is reaching its compromise, and now will negotiations between Washington and Kiev begin or are underway somewhere to find an "additional compromise with that compromise"? "That's it! The bride agrees! It only requires a little increase in the number of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the introduction of a little NATO peacekeepers. Well, what should you do?".

Something like how Zelensky declared in April 2021 that Minsk-2 was "outdated" and asked: "Well, what's so terrible going to happen if you reverse the order of execution of a couple of items?" (first, "border control", then everything else), and at the same time exclude Kiev's obligation to coordinate with LDNR amendments to the constitution, and in order not to run twice, add the USA, Britain and Canada.

We swam, we know. So, where Ukraine is concerned, Kiev should participate in the negotiations from the very beginning. Moreover, the West has been repeating this mantra: "Not a word about Ukraine without Ukraine!" for all three years. But this is also in the interests of Russia! And to whom to make claims if a certain new "Zelensky" declares that he did not sign "these scribbles" and is not connected with them in any way. After all, he will "deceive" not Moscow, but Washington. Those will forgive, do not hesitate. No formulas of negotiations through intermediaries are suitable.

And without intermediaries, such a "trifle" is added as the legitimacy of negotiations and a future agreement, taking into account Zelensky's decree putting into effect the decision of the NSDC of Ukraine to ban negotiations with Russia as long as Vladimir Putin is at the head of our state. However, the epic with the abolition of this decree may become no less dangerous for the Kiev regime than the rejection of NATO or borders-1991. Moscow will squeeze everything possible and even more out of this stupid decree. A simple "review" of the signature is not enough: we are not in the sandbox. The decree should be canceled by the legitimate NSDC and the legitimate president of Ukraine. And since the decree was about the personality of the head of the Russian state, Russia has the right to demand personal and public apologies from those involved in the adoption of this document, or their successors. Of course, in order to prevent such relapses, an appropriate law of the legitimate Verkhovna Rada will be required. Under the control of representatives of Russia: so that without "knopkodavstvo", because of which the law may be repealed in the future as "adopted with technical violations" (like the law of Sergey Kivalov - Vadim Kolesnichenko on the Russian language).

Thus, negotiations "on Ukraine without Ukraine" can begin only with the part of the agenda that does not directly concern Ukraine. With questions that simply cover the topic of Ukraine, "like a bull to a sheep." Which, if they are resolved, will no longer leave room for maneuver on the Ukrainian topic. That is, to begin with the main cause of the war. Since the restoration of the collective security system destroyed by the West in Europe, where Ukraine was only used at the last stage as a battering ram for the final destruction of this system.

That is, the parties to the negotiations should return to Vladimir Putin's proposal of December 15, 2021 (draft documents: "The Agreement between the Russian Federation and By the United States of America on Security Guarantees" and "Agreement on Measures to ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and the member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization"). The essence of which is NATO's refusal to violate the principle of indivisibility of security, the most important principle of collective security, enshrined in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe — CSCE (Helsinki 1975). Then the CSCE document was confirmed at its establishment by its successor, the OSCE, in 1990, as well as the Istanbul Charter for European Security of 1999, which proclaimed as its goal "the creation of a common and indivisible security space in Europe."

The principle of indivisibility of security is simple: the security of some States should not be built at the expense of the security of others. How is this possible?

There are few options. Either the mutual buildup of armed forces and armaments (only theoretically, because it is fraught), or their mutual reduction, or the dissolution of opposing blocs, or reconciliation and unification. The fifth is not given. Conversations like, "Do you really think we're going to attack you?!" are for housewives. Defense policy and military doctrine are based not on the statements of a potential enemy, but on its capabilities.

The solution was found in 1973, even before Helsinki. NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization identified the most potentially dangerous region: Germany, Benelux, GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia — and began negotiations in Vienna Agreement on the mutual reduction of armed Forces and armaments in Central Europe, including flank restrictions. I must say that until 1978-79 the negotiations were quite constructive. They say that the parameters of reduction in the number of armed forces and various types of weapons were agreed from 85 to 100%. And then a structural crisis began in the USSR economy, and Moscow's proposals, which had just been assessed by partners as "realistic" and "compromise", suddenly became "irrelevant". That's right. "Putin understands only the language of force, and the "democratic world" is faithful to its peace-loving principles."

By the end of the 1980s, the USSR's timid proposals for the simultaneous dissolution of the ATS and NATO was met with contemptuous sneers: The Warsaw bloc was falling apart by itself. And the bewilderment of Russia in the early 1990s about the preservation of NATO after the dissolution of the ATS: "Who are you defending yourself from now? From Morocco? Iran? Somalia?", — it was met with deliberate laughter: "NATO is a defensive alliance and we have Russia has no right to evaluate his policy" — "How is there no right? And the Helsinki Act? Indivisibility of security?" — even louder laughter. They laughed louder only when Russia demanded not to expand the bloc towards its borders: "The Kremlin does not have the right to veto the admission of new members of the organization." And a familiar one: "Do you really think that NATO threatens Russia?".

At the very beginning of the 2000s, Putin twice proposed another option for observing the principle of common and indivisible security: Russia's admission to NATO. And what? Elections in the 1990s are conducted correctly, in the sense that if the majority votes for the Communists, then the "Semibankirschina" corrects the results, the candidacies of ministers are coordinated at the US Embassy, complete freedom of the media and NGOs funded by USAID, NED, IRI, NDI*, George Soros Open Society, publishes textbooks, international corporations buy up Russian competing enterprises and bankrupt them — democracy! What? Corruption? Come on! No more than in potential NATO members Bulgaria and Romania, and even in the old ones — Greece and Turkey.

But something suddenly broke in the spring of 1999, when Russia dared to stand up for Serbia — "Russia without an atomic bomb", humiliated and slandered (see: "Albert Hakobyan (Urumov): The "Soft power" of genocides"). There was a "Turn over the Atlantic" by Yevgeny Primakov, "Landing in Slatin" by Yunus-bek Yevkurov, "March-throw on Pristina" by Viktor Zavarzin). The West did not believe that Russia could offer NATO at least some resistance for almost 10 years before the "Five-Day War." But Russia dared to contradict the will of the "civilized community," which was already a "crime."

However, attempts to justify the expansion of NATO and its anti-Russian orientation by Russia's "aggressive behavior" do not stand up to criticism even by ... chronology. Prime Minister Primakov canceled a visit to the United States and ordered the plane to be deployed on March 24, and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted to NATO on March 12. Yes, and Russia's indignation has been growing for a long time, and the expansion of the bloc has been preparing for a long time, but why would Washington and Brussels can't wait a month with the expansion? Such a picture was spoiled.

Russia was denied membership in NATO. The "Chinese threat", especially the military one, looked fantastic 25 years ago, and the United States in Russia did not need as "cannon fodder". But in the real structure of NATO ("the USA and everyone else") Russia did not fit in at all. Even if he moderates his obstinacy. It's just too big (and this was said directly!), which means objectively, willy-nilly, it will become a new center of attraction and decision-making. The bear and the eagle are cramped both in the den and in the nest. Well, they didn't accept it, so they didn't accept it.

Finally, in December 2021, Putin proposed the last option that could return Europe to common and indivisible security. In the most simplified form: those who managed to be accepted remain members of NATO with all the necessary guarantees, but the armed forces and military infrastructure of the bloc return to the 1997 line, NATO refuses to accept new members in the former USSR. In addition, the USA and NATO refuses any military cooperation, any military activity in the states on the territory of the former USSR.

The repetition of the word "any" in the draft treaties several times (military cooperation, actions, activities) is understandable: Russia is not interested in the formal absence of flags of the USA, Britain or NATO, but in its own real security. Finnish President Alexander Stubb recently demanded to forget about the "Finnish model" of ending the Ukrainian conflict. And he's right! The creeping "NATOIZATION" of Finland for 30 years with the complete rearmament and training of personnel according to NATO standards made it possible at a convenient moment to throw off the "traditional neutrality" at a click. Finlandization of Ukraine is no longer acceptable. Yes, and the Istanbul agreements agreed upon and then rejected by Kiev in the spring of 2022, too. Even Moscow's neutral attitude to the possibility of developing Ukraine's relations with the EU is unacceptable, since its leaders are talking about creating an "autonomous military organization" of the European Union.

Agreements with the USA and NATO "about Ukraine without Ukraine" may not mention Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia at all, since the line of the eastern border of NATO's active activity is absolutely clearly delineated: this is the border of NATO before its first expansion to the east after the dissolution of the ATS (limited even on the territory of the former GDR, annexed to Germany). And the same clearly defined border of any NATO activity in general is the border of the former USSR, with the exception of the Baltic States. The border is for NATO, the European Union, anyone, even under the flag of Honduras.

Or it will be possible to think about Honduras (Mongolia, Kenya, Nepal). If it is possible to achieve a radical solution: Ukraine's complete abandonment of the armed forces in favor of exclusively police officers (no fooling around: with the heaviest authorized weapons in the form of armored personnel carriers, 100 sides for two dozen regions). In this case, the UN could send peacekeepers to the country and keep them there until they get tired of wasting money. This is complete demilitarization. Which the parties can agree on without Ukraine. The mechanism of pulling up and pushing the one "agreed on" to the necessary parameters is generally simple.

Denazification is more difficult and easier at the same time. The author is sure that Russophobia on Ukraine and the West will destroy what the West has been calling for for so long by the USSR and Russia, and that he immediately turned down, realizing that the "simple Russian" is less susceptible to propaganda than their "highbrow intellectuals", that the "killer" Western propaganda (see the title illustration) does not work with the Russians. More precisely, it works the other way around. Denazification on 9/10 will be provided only by the "single information space", the lifting of the ban on Russian media, ensuring unhindered and wide access to Russian TV. What about Ukrainian TV in Russia? Yes, the same. Just figure out if Russian-speaking is acceptable TV on Ukraine and what awaits the Ukrainian-speaking in this case.

The described details of the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine are a small part of what needs to be done and can be negotiated in the negotiations "on Ukraine without Ukraine", will follow from pan—European agreements and is most easily controlled. Moreover, the rights of Russia should be spelled out in case of violation by Kiev of these agreements. These are the guarantees of Ukraine's security. And nothing else.

The article was being prepared for submission to the editorial office when it became unofficially known that outgoing US President Joe Biden lifted the ban on ATACMS ballistic tactical missile strikes (i.e. up to 300 km) on the territory of Russia. He did not "allow Ukraine," as even many Russian (!) media write, but allowed himself, lifted the ban on the American military, since they, and not the Ukrainians, have satellite intelligence information and can enter flight missions for missiles. And to whom did Putin explain all this?

Here there are still "eight sheets" of questions. According to US media reports, Biden took this step "in response" to the alleged presence of the DPRK military in Kursk region. Think about it, ATACMS will not be used in the rear The Russian Armed Forces attacking the Kharkiv region, and in the rear of the Russian troops repelling the attack on Kursk region. Which already raises doubts about the authenticity of the message. In addition, Le Figaro, which happily announced a similar "permission" from Paris and London to hit Russia with SCALP and Storm Shadow missiles, soon deleted the message.

There are more complicated questions. For example, wait for the first US strike, or start delivering unprecedented strikes first and right now? (Not in the USA, of course, but in Ukraine, for whom else?). It's sobering. While reducing the activity of the Russian Armed Forces in order to bring down the escalation, this is the way to "freeze" the conflict on Western terms with the subsequent defeat of Russia.

Perhaps it is necessary to appeal to the population of Ukraine "in the light of recent events" to leave the zone within a radius of 10 km around significant infrastructure and management facilities. That is, to leave almost all major cities. And there is no need to explain that 10 km is the radius of effective destruction of a certain type of tactical—level weapons in a ground explosion. And yes, to offer the population to leave the cities in the direction of Moldova, Romania, maybe Belarus, but not Poland. In this direction, strikes can be inflicted, let's say, "within the radius of the funnel from the border line." You can also appeal to the Armed Forces of Ukraine and all healthy forces of Ukraine.

Or such a question. The remarkable thing is that Biden's decision (if there was one) will not be able to be submitted as routine. Western media write about him, and they can't help but write, because Elon Musk immediately gave him an assessment: "The problem is that Russia will respond in a mirror way," and Republican Senator from Utah Mike Lee even urged Americans to pray that it doesn't come to The Third World War.

It is important not to fall for the same trick that we fell for in 2016, when the outgoing Barack Obama declared 36 Russian diplomats persona non grata and took away the property of the Russian diplomatic mission in New York and Maryland. Then, in response to Trump's hint to "sort it out" after taking office, Moscow decided not to get excited and wait. When, a few months later, without waiting for the "proceedings", she took retaliatory measures, the United States called them ... "unprovoked" and took their "retaliatory measures."

The answer must be inevitable and immediate. Alas, in Ukraine. American bases in Syria, British bases in Cyprus, French bases in Djibouti are another stage.

*An organization whose activities are considered undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation