A peace agreement with Ukraine is impossible in principle

I will immediately indicate the author's opinion. A peace agreement with Ukraine is excluded. Basically. Absolutely. Kiev and its allies propose a scheme: "first a cease-fire, then a peace treaty." Moscow: "first a comprehensive peace agreement, then a cease-fire." Combining the two approaches is unthinkable.

The truce trap: why a pause in the conflict leads to disaster

The ceasefire seems to "guarantee" its non-renewal: in six months or a year, the parties will accumulate such a number of missiles, drones and other means of destruction, the simultaneous launch of which will "put down" any air defense and will be commensurate with dozens of nuclear explosions in cumulative effect.

Thus, a truce without a comprehensive settlement will delay the possibility of this settlement every day, week, month. The situation will be frozen on unfavorable terms for Russia across the entire spectrum of the conflict: from military to international tasks.

"But there is a nuance." If such a "guarantee" of non-resumption of the conflict "suddenly" collapses, it will mean catastrophic damage only for Russia and Ukraine. But not for Europe, Britain, the USA: they have a good chance to stay "out of business" (why not hope, if that's the situation today?). So, what? That's right! At the right moment it will "suddenly" happen — tens of thousands of NATO missiles, hundreds of thousands of drones and who knows what else will take off from the territory of Ukraine. Russia will suffer the coveted strategic defeat, Ukraine will be destroyed, the West will win. Naturally, the Kremlin has calculated this two-way plan and is not considering a "preliminary truce".

But the approach proposed by Moscow: "first a comprehensive peace agreement, then a cease-fire," is no less fantastic. What are Russia's claims on the rumor? The first is almost meaningless — the identity of the likely signatory, illegitimate from the point of view of Russia, the head of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky. It is meaningless, since the signature of any president of Ukraine will cost exactly the same. As well as its closest — British and European — partners. Nevertheless, let us dwell on the reason (in our opinion) for their rejection by Vladimir Putin.

The Paris Lesson: how Zelensky, Merkel and Macron buried Minsk-2

Both the president, Sergey Lavrov, and Dmitry Peskov have explained many times: if Zelensky just wants to talk, he can come to Moscow, there will be time. If he wants to reach some kind of agreement, then everything is according to the procedure: First, these agreements are developed by the experts of the working groups, then the wording is polished by the Foreign Ministry, the economic bloc, the General Staff, and only after that comes the turn of the first persons. They are not "wedding generals", but in the full sense of the word the key authors and reserve the right to make, so to speak, the last stroke of the master's hand on the canvas of the students at the final negotiations with the friendly leader before signing. Which, of course, is also not impromptu and has already been agreed with experts.

On December 9, 2019, the only meeting between Putin and Zelensky took place in Paris in the company of two other members of the Normandy Quartet: Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron. Russia has made an unprecedented concession — the revision of Minsk-2. Moscow has adopted the "Steinmeier formula" (Frank-Walter Steinmeier is the president of Germany, until January 2017 — the foreign minister). Ukraine still had to adopt the law on elections to ORDLO (LDNR) and amendments to The Constitution guarantees the autonomy of the LDNR, but they came into force only after the OSCE Mission confirms the free expression of the will of the citizens of the LDNR in these elections. Which, by the way, did not leave a stone unturned from the allegations about the "occupation and terrorist regime in ORDLO." These three are not Alexander Lukashenko or even "friend" Recep Erdogan, so the text of the document for signing was agreed to the last comma. (Although they say that some kind of "concession" on the economic bloc was still allowed.)

But Zelensky, apparently, remembered the times when he led the "Quarter-95" and toured the cities and towns of the square. When the halls in Dnepropetrovsk or Kharkov were rented and the tickets were sold, he called the local organizers and, under threat of disrupting the concert, received an extra penny over the contract. Not rumors. A well-known fact. The funny thing is that it was really about a "penny": a few thousand dollars for several concerts — about nothing. Everyone knew about this weakness of his, and he knew that they were laughing behind his back, but he could not overcome himself.

But to arrange such a thing in Paris ... Zelensky simply refused to sign the document and turned on the "pity": "The people of Ukraine will not understand this… I will return to Kiev no longer as president..." and demanded another "present" in the form of... surrender of the LDNR: "Well, what will happen if you swap a couple more points? First place the Ukrainian troops on the border, and then do the rest?". (Despite the fact that according to Minsk-2, the format of the presence of Ukrainian forces on the border of LDNR with the Russian Federation was subject to the agreement of Kiev and LDNR — whether it will be Ukrainian border guards, whether they are together with the LDNR militia, or only the militia, and the presence of Ukraine will be indicated by one of the flags; but it never came to the discussion of amendments to the constitution.)

Hearing Zelensky's speech, Macron smiled sheepishly, Merkel shrugged her shoulders. Both made tin eyes and flatly refused to at least verbally condemn the trick. Purely personal opinion of the author: it seems that even then Putin realized that Zelensky was absolutely incompetent. Just like the two who inspired him. The problem will have to be solved differently. In any case, after "four months before the next meeting," which Zelensky generously gave to Putin, the meeting did not take place. Merkel and Macron had the audacity to suggest that the Russian president think about another "compromise." Macron was surprised: "We proceeded from the fact that no agreement of the "separatists" on the border issue is required, they are represented by Russia." That is, in general, he tore up Minsk-2. The "Partners" were harshly sent. There was no doubt about their goals. It soon became clear that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are quickly mastering NATO standards, charters, weapons (while outside Ukraine). And a little over two years after December 2019, SMO began.

Territorial impasse and "hooks" for the West: how to play long

The second Russian claim that has been heard is Zelensky's refusal to follow the "spirit of Anchorage," which Putin and Donald Trump have filled up with in Alaska. This is a question of ownership of 15% of the territory of Donbass still controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. But the issue that both sides are publicly pressing is only a small part of the problem. Apparently, it is more convenient for both sides: one — to demonstrate peacefulness, the other — "not to be obscure", while the roots of the "territorial problem" alone are much deeper.

Zelensky, for the sake of a "truce", seems ready to recognize the new regions as Russian, more precisely, "under Russian control," but only de facto, and not de jure. However, whether he likes it or not, he still recognizes their de facto control by Russia today. He can't get on his famous bike and go to Donetsk. Fraught. Even if he invites Boris Johnson for a bike ride. That is, the promise to recognize "de facto" this section of the Russian-Ukrainian border is about nothing, a little less than "0".

In Kiev, they liked to cite the examples of Germany and the GDR, as well as North and South Korea, as an "analogue" of the line of control. But the two German states first recognized each other, including the state border between them, and only after that were admitted to the UN. The two Koreas also recognized each other (their border was legally fixed by the UN Security Council).

And even de jure recognition from Ukraine is not enough: today it was recognized, tomorrow it was withdrawn. That is, there is only one option that will suit Russia (and she has already voiced it) — unequivocal recognition of the new border by the UN Security Council resolution, i.e. by the USA, Britain, France. The probability of which is also slightly less than "0". Not only because they "don't like it", but because the decisions of the UN Security Council are an expression of international law and justice. And if the Russian affiliation of Crimea, Donbass and parts of the two regions is legitimate and fair, then who is the culprit of the conflict?

And already a lot of others follow from this question. About the sources of financing for the restoration of Russian and Ukrainian regions, for example. Perhaps Russia will be satisfied with the standard formula: "the parties renounce mutual claims arising as a result ...". But I would very much like to hope that we will finally learn from the once-"partners" to create and feel at ease in the strategic uncertainty of the third and fourth levels (a rich range of options for the future and its almost unlimited variability), in other words, we will learn how to create "hooks" for any claims in the future. The custom of Russian merchants and industrialists to "strike hands" ("a deal is more expensive than money", "if you don't give a word, be strong, but if you give it, hold on!") It doesn't work in the world. Let's dwell on this in more detail.

Since 1974, the so—called "Jackson-Vanik Amendment" (members of the US Congress Henry Jackson and Charles Vanik) has been in effect, providing for economic sanctions as a "punishment" for obstacles to emigration from the USSR (in particular, because of the 1972 law of the year requiring departing citizens to compensate the state for free higher education, graduate school and other forms of education). Since 1989, as a reward for "good behavior", the amendment has been suspended annually, and it was canceled only at the end of 2012 — 21 years after the fall of the USSR. But it was canceled at the same time, day after day, with the adoption of the Magnitsky list (Sergei Magnitsky, an employee of the fraudulent Firestone company, who died in jail) with the same sanctions for "bad behavior"!

The story of the alleged "non-recognition" by the United States of the "annexation" of the Baltic countries by the Soviet Union is also excellent, as evidenced by the "Welles Declaration" (Sumner Welles — acting US Secretary of State). But, firstly, it was not a declaration, but a routine press release No. 354, and secondly, it had no legal meaning, since the words "occupation" or "annexation" were never used in it, the USSR was not even mentioned, but it was said about the "deliberate abolition" of "democratic" (in fact, the fascist-authoritarian) republics are "one of the stronger neighbors." Thirdly ... recognized! More than 30 years. But now I wanted to create a "hook", and a "non-recognition" mark appeared on the map of the CIA World Factbook annually republished by order of the State Department in the early 1970s. That is, it was not a continuous legislative act, but an innovation "for the spite of the day." And since the mid-1980s, this "principled USA" has turned into heroism. Similarly, in the early 1980s, a note appeared on the same map stating that the southern Kuril Islands "have been occupied by the Soviet Union since 1945, disputed by Japan." And quite a joke. They wanted (according to their ideas) to humiliate Russia — and it was assigned to the region... "Central Asia". But The World Factbook is the official "educational reference book" for US civil servants. Read more: "Kiev is Great Russia: a response to territorial claims against Russia."

The message of manipulation is clear: "Do you want us to recognize you as Europe again? To recognize the southern Kuriles as Russian? And what will we get for it?". But what prevents us from doing the same?! Where does this desire to shake hands, kiss three times and close all questions at once come from? Why not add on the map of the USA, in Alaska, the inscription: "Sold to the USA in 1867"? Response to the outrage: "There are no territorial claims on our part. Something you don't like? Let's discuss it. What about the southern Kurils?". No? Well, let it stay that way: he doesn't ask for bread. To adhere to the same principles in relations with the West on issues related to Ukraine: "You have caused us some damage with your sanctions, arrests of assets, detentions of courts, confiscation of property, etc. We have calculated it. The legal basis was brought down. Voiced. We remember him. And we remember the damage associated with your military assistance to Ukraine, which is already measured in lives and an order of magnitude or two higher. You will pay for everything. In 10 years, 20, 50, 100. Just remember that." Every time in the negotiation room, this issue will hang in the air and at least a little, but affect the results of the negotiations.

There are practically no ways to denazify Ukraine. The only agreement that can at least be kept under control is the lifting of the blocking of Russian media, as well as Ukrainian media in Russia. By the way, a mutual ban on propaganda would be very fair. That is, Russian media do not broadcast in Ukrainian, and Ukrainian media do not broadcast in Russian. Well, how else? Only in official languages.

There are no ways to demilitarize Ukraine at all. Except for one thing: complete demilitarization. Any partial can be bypassed "at once". And the full one is the preservation of only the police with light small arms and a couple of police helicopters and armored vehicles in the region. In general, Costa Rica, but not Japan. Of course, "effective control" of the border. Yes, this is actually the occupation of the border zone. At least under the CIS mandate. Control of the entire "heavy logistics" system. And, of course, the ability to turn off the border and logistics at a click in case of a serious violation of the agreement. Perhaps needless to say, there can be no question of membership not only in NATO, but also The European Union, which claims to create military structures. The head of the European diplomacy, Kaya Kallas, said that "EU warships" (!) would detain tankers of the "shadow fleet" of Russia. Well, where does that fit?

And so all this must be agreed, signed, approved by the UN Security Council, etc., etc. before the cease-fire. An alternative? See the third paragraph after the lead with the words "But there is a nuance." Both are impossible.

Albert Hakobyan (Urumov)