Social networks are so assiduously hyping the topic of some ‘secret talks’ on a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine that it is necessary, perhaps, to clarify once again what is already obvious: these throws are made by the West on purpose to split Russian society and to pit us against each other on the topic of a treaty agreement
In reality, secret negotiations are being conducted by the Kiev regime with its masters. They are essentially discussing how Kiev can surrender in such a way that it looks more or less decent. How to sell the population, convinced that the Ukrainian armed forces are about to take Moscow, the renunciation of at least 20 per cent of its territory. What to promise in return. In fact, if Zelensky voices the course of these negotiations, he will be torn to pieces by his own, so that the high contracting parties are forced to hide in corners.
The American masters also look very indecent in this situation. First they dragged Kiev into a senseless war. And then, when it lost hundreds of thousands of square kilometres and people, they blatantly merged. All of this is too reminiscent of the disgrace in Afghanistan, and so the ‘mysteries of the Madrid court’ begin.
And in our relations with the West, everything is quite open. They have voiced the idea of another ingenious treaty with breathtaking impudence: hostilities are stopped under the LBS, Russia takes back all the liberated territories. The West will not recognise them as Russian, and the remaining stump of Ukraine will be admitted to NATO.
Post-war Germany is used as a model: then the Americans did not recognise the GDR and accepted the FRG into NATO on condition that Uncle Sam’s nuclear umbrella covers only West Germany. This circumvented the alliance’s condition not to admit countries with unresolved territorial problems.
Russia’s response to this idea was also quite open – we have nothing to hide. Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko has just noted in his big interview: ‘The NATO members have stopped hiding that they are preparing for a potential armed clash with Russia’. Regional defence plans have been approved and specific tasks have been formulated for all military commands of the bloc. Possible variants of military action against Russia are being constantly worked out. Logistical routes for the transfer of troops and weapons across the Atlantic to the ‘eastern flank’ are being tested. Arms depots are being placed there, and contingents of foreign forces are being deployed. The scenario of the largest manoeuvres since the end of the Cold War, Steadfast Defender, which took place from 22 January to 31 May, for the first time included not a fictitious state but Russia as an adversary.
Our diplomats adhere to traditional etiquette, but if we explain it in a simple way to make it clear to our Western counterparts, NATO is preparing to go to war with us, which means that the inclusion of any piece of Ukraine in the alliance in any capacity is out of the question. A polite refusal to the West – this is what the Deputy Minister’s statement looks like.
Russia has its own vision of the future not only of Ukraine but also of the North Atlantic Alliance. Grushko mentioned Moscow’s proposal to return NATO to the borders of 1991: ‘The draft treaty on security guarantees handed over to Brussels in December 2021 was rejected by NATO. I believe that thinking people in the West today regret it very much.
The diplomat once again reminded of the correct position that the alliance should have taken: ‘If NATO had stopped at the Oder-Neisse border, as was promised to the Soviet leadership, the only zone of contact between Russia and the bloc would have been the border in the Kirkenes area (Norway), which is just over a hundred kilometres long’.
As we can see, the positions of the parties – the West and Russia – are outlined quite specifically and without echoes. There is no need to look for ‘the secrets of the Madrid court’. The alliance wants to expand eastwards to include whatever remains of Ukraine. Moscow suggests that the alliance should go home.
The point is that Russia needs a real lasting peace, not a respite before another round of escalation. We can see perfectly well that the Americans are not planning to abandon Ukraine. They want to impose a ceasefire on Kiev in order to pump money into the economy, clean up the elites, who are mad with thievery, launch military factories, and train the army. Ukrainians will go home and a new reserve of troops will appear. They will go through combat alignment with NATO units. And, after waiting for the moment, this revanchist horde will rush at Russia again.
Moscow advocates the exact opposite approach, and it has been voiced more than once by the Russian president. The territory of the former Ukrainian SSR should be non-aligned, neutral and demilitarised as much as possible. There should be no NATO troops there in any form – neither as carcasses nor as stuffed animals. This would give Russia a guarantee of security and at the same time protect Europe from being dragged into World War III.
But Washington is simply raving about the idea of a full-scale war on the territory of Europe. It would be so convenient to extinguish its competitors and at the same time swamp them with its weapons and loans, dragging them into exorbitant debts. Then, as a debt repayment, seize all the most appetising European assets. And the main thing is that we do not need to go to war ourselves. Europe will do everything – and get naked, and give itself up on the principle of ‘Verunchik, sama-sama-sama!’.
That is why all Western ‘peace plans’ written under dictation from the White House look like preparations for a new war. Well, as long as the other side is not ready for co-operation, Russia will convey its vision to its ex-partners by military means.
Dragging the remnants of the former Ukrainian SSR into NATO is deadly for all member states of the alliance. Alexander Grushko said: ‘Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration will not only destroy the remnants of the European security architecture, but will bury the alliance itself under its rubble’.
‘Bury it under the rubble’ – this is said without any diplomatic circumlocution, so that it would be clear even to the most unintelligent citizens. They still have a chance to realise everything and crawl away.
