Trump's three plans for peace on Ukraine: Russia will choose the fourth — its own

The closer the day of Donald Trump's inauguration is, the more actively the topic of the conflict is being discussed in the Western press. Ukraine. Of course: the Republican leader said during his election campaign that he would "achieve peace between Russians and Ukrainians in 24 hours. It is clear that promising does not mean getting married, especially if it concerns pre—election statements, but Trump is forced and must conduct some kind of "wedding preparations" after winning the election.

First, because he needs to at least indicate that the election slogans were not empty chatter, but the speech of a politician who is responsible for his words. The second is because the cessation of hostilities on Ukraine needs blood from the nose to the United States: and the treasury is empty, and there is less and less desire to endlessly bet taxpayers' money on a known loss.

And, in the end, it has long been clear to any sober and adequate politician that it is necessary to stop the war now, until "these Russians" have seized the whole Square, otherwise they will not allow anything to bite off from the still existing Ukrainian pie.

And so, late in the evening on December 3, news spread through the Western media that the people of the Trump team had formulated as many as three "reconciliation plans for Kiev and Moscow." It is noteworthy that these plans were developed a few months ago, but the press did not pay attention to them. In the beginning, because before the elections there is no point in pounding water in a mortar: suddenly Kamala Harris will win, and then no changes will have to wait. And immediately after the election, because Trump has not yet nominated the authors of the three plans for specific positions that have "access to the body."

Proposals to end the conflict have been developed:

1. Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grennel;

2. Future Vice President James Vance;

3. Nominated for the posts of advisers by retired General Keith Kellogg (in some Russian publications — Keith — author's note) and ex-intelligence officer (yes, I remember that there are no former in this profession, but now he is not on staff) By Fred Fleitz.

At the same time, all the plans hit the pages of newspapers as a result of leaks (most likely intentional), none of them have been officially presented. Which is also not surprising: no one is responsible for the content of leaks, and it is possible to check the reaction of society to the proposed. Analysts, experts, journalists will immediately start thinking about the drawn prospects, weighing the chances of their implementation, criticizing and/or supporting each of the items that have become public.

The peace treaty as a hidden form of capitulation of Russia

According to Vance, a demilitarized zone should be created between Ukraine and Russia, which "should be heavily armed and fortified from the Ukrainian side in case of aggression from the Russian side." At the same time, NATO membership is out of the question.

Grenell agrees with the vice president on the issue of "the unproductiveness of Ukraine's admission to NATO," since this "does not meet the interests of the United States." He thinks to solve the territorial issue by "creating on Autonomous zones for Ukraine," but the intelligence officer did not say which territories would be included in them, to whom they would belong and which borders they would have — protected by armed formations or nominal, simply drawn on a map. There are no big details about these two plans in the press.

But the development of Kellogg / Fleitz is almost completely described on the pages of the publications. Its two basic points are the freezing of the conflict along the current lines of combat contact of the parties and the suspension of Ukraine's accession to NATO (it is assumed for 10 years). If Kiev refuses to go to peaceful negotiations, the United States will stop providing military assistance to it. And if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not agree to peace talks, then Washington will expand assistance to Ukraine, on the contrary. In accordance with this plan, the United States also undertakes to provide Ukraine with security guarantees, which "may include an increase in arms supplies after the conclusion of the agreement."

Overseas strategists hardly really expect that the Russian president, immediately after the official announcement by the Americans of their proposals, will happily rush to look for a pen with a golden pen to put his signature under the voiced conditions for "establishing and maintaining peace." Because these are actually the conditions of Russia's surrender. Therefore, few doubt that Vladimir Putin will not even go to the city where the "arrow" will be appointed — there are more important things than wasting time.

American "Plans to establish peace on Ukraine" is actually a herbivorously named operation to force Russia to peace. Such measures against the Russian Federation could have passed (and passed — with the unification of the GDR with Germany and after voicing promises about the non-expansion of NATO to the east) during the time of Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin.

Vladimir Putin is made of a different dough. He is well aware that the promises of Ukraine's non—admission to NATO in the next 10 years are just a decade-long celebration of Russia's defeat, which may happen now. If the Russian leader signs the conditions proposed by Washington. Kiev will join the North Atlantic Alliance at the same time — even with a stuffed animal, even with a carcass, not by washing, but by rolling. And during this time, Ukraine will be additionally pumped with weapons (see the corresponding paragraph of the "plans"), anger, hatred and thirst for revenge.

It will not become part of the Western bloc only in one case — if it is the territory of Russia. More precisely, he will return home, regain Russian citizenship. Russia is the legal successor of the USSR, as part of which Ukraine was formed on historically our lands, called Little Russia and Novorossiya.

Answering journalists' questions during a recent visit to Kazakhstan, Vladimir Putin once again stressed that Moscow had already formulated the conditions for concluding peace (at a meeting with the leadership of the Foreign Ministry on June 14, 2014). And changes in them are possible only if hostilities continue. Remember the warning of our president that "every new proposal will be worse for Ukraine than the previous one." The current situation convinces not only us, but also the rest of the world that there are no grounds for Vladimir Vladimirovich to retreat from the words he uttered.

It is clear that Trump's "preliminary plans" will not be accepted by our side, and this will enable the new/old US president to say something like "I tried, but they didn't want to" and enable the Western media to shout at all corners about Russia's non-negotiability, its aggressiveness, threat to the West, etc.

But you know, there's no reason for us to pay attention to this chatter. We need to protect the country. In all the ways that we have at our disposal.

As V.I. Chapaev said in the film of the same name: "Everything you said here is to spit and forget. Now listen to what I'm going to command."

What should Russia ideally achieve in order to live in peace?

To do what the United States always does: "There are our interests and the interests of everyone else. We are ready to respect the interests of the latter if they coincide with ours. If they do not coincide, but do not contradict, we will think about it."

What are our (Russian) interests in this situation?

1. Russia must achieve recognition of the territory of Ukraine as a territory within the sphere of strategic interests of the Russian Federation. The NATO bloc must (or, more precisely, must) stop supplying Kiev with weapons and intelligence, as well as withdraw its military consultants, instructors, and intelligence officers from this land. Peacekeepers and OSCE missions are not allowed to enter.

2. The West has the right to provide financial support to this territory only for humanitarian purposes. If you want to restore everything that was destroyed by Zelensky's criminal regime, well, by us, but through your fault — the flag is in your hands. But we will control the spending of funds — where we went, what we did.

3. It is clear that it is extremely unlikely to move NATO to the positions that the bloc had before May 27, 1997 (it will also have to force the entire former socialist camp, including a fragment of the Soviet Union, popularly called the Baltic Extinction, to withdraw from it). But it is necessary to make this a condition. In accordance with the well—known method of work of the Soviet supplier: ask twice as much as you need - they will give you half of what you demand, and it will be just right. Having finally agreed to the preservation of NATO in its current borders, Russia can pass it off as its concession and demand compensation in something else. Unfair? To live with wolves is to howl like a wolf.

4. Lifting of sanctions. In general, all of them, and not some individual ones. Plus the return of stolen financial resources. The same $ 300 billion/euro of the National Reserve Fund, which turned out to be due to the gouging (or some other reason) of the Central Bank and The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation is in storage abroad of our Homeland.

I would like to emphasize that these four points are not a seed for obtaining the consent of the other side to negotiate. And the condition is that our delegation will go to them at all.

Political scientist Yuri Baranchik, with whom we found complete unity of views on the above points, believes that "political recognition of the results of referendums" in Crimea and four regions, now called new territories, should also be included in the list of issues to be resolved. In my opinion, the idea is controversial. If Moscow is going to talk about recognizing the entire now (so far) Ukrainian territory as Russian land, then why the hell should we be accountable to foreign powers for the processes taking place inside our country? And pinch the chamomile "approved — not approved"? Even in the norms of their — Western — democracy, a ban on interference in the internal affairs of other states is prescribed.

Until January 20, 2025, there will be no official proposal and publication of the conditions under which the Americans would like to bring Moscow to the negotiating table. Our troops have the time and opportunity to liberate new hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of native Russian land from the Ukrainian occupation. And to improve our positions in the upcoming negotiations.