Will Putin agree to the February 23 borders? What is understood in Moscow

3 January, 03:40 PM

This is a kind of interrogative position for a future trade

Recently, in a column titled How to Avoid Another World War for the British weekly The Spectator, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called the cessation of hostilities along the "borders" by February 24 as the first condition for dialogue.

The question arises — which country's point of view did he express? I think it certainly wasn’t the U.S.’s, because he repeats in his proposals everything that has already happened. He has said all this many times. He has put forward these, in my opinion, amazing concepts before. And now, I think that he has been used again to communicate what Moscow wants to get today.

Video of day

Russia is really running out of weapons

Moscow has understood that there would be no victory on the battlefield. That they can assemble hundreds of thousands of regular mobiks (slang for Russian conscripts -ed.), and they will still be destroyed. According to military experts, Russia is really running out of weapons. If they are bringing to the battlefield tanks that were produced in the 1980s, it means that the situation there is truly catastrophic. There are not enough shells, nor enough aircraft. The fact that the "second army of the world" has gone around the world collecting UAVs in countries like Iran or asking North Korea for weapons means that their state is truly disastrous.

Under these circumstances, what should be done? We need to position ourselves as a country that advocates for peace, that wants to restore peace, and so on.

The fact that nobody trusts Russia today is already an axiom. Therefore, one must look for someone who can bring these ideas to the surface. Well, the use of Kissinger in this regard is quite clear. He has always been a Russia lover, and probably not unselfishly. That is why he was instructed to do something similar again for a certain bonus. Therefore, we are most likely talking about Moscow's plan for a kind of diplomatic retreat. “We are turning around,” they say, “we don't owe anyone anything, what has happened has happened.” They add their traditional twist with "this is how it was historically:" Crimea is ours, part of the Donbas is ours, and from there, we’ll see.

So I think this is a kind of question mark for a future trade. However, I think that no one will react to these things anymore. It turns out that Putin will agree to the borders of February 23 and is ready to abandon his new pseudo-annexations, because if the Kremlin declares that they have already "started to study" something, it means that they are not rejecting this idea, and there may be certain options opening up. Although, from the point of view of the goals they set for themselves — to capture the south of Ukraine and cut it off completely from the sea — well, they must publicly renounce them.

Then the question arises — what about the land corridor to Crimea, without which the peninsula cannot function?

This should be taken calmly, as another attempt to somehow take the initiative in the "struggle for peace," as they say now. Our main argument will remain the victory of the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the battlefield. As for the proposal voiced by Kissinger, the question here is not with him, but in the proposal itself. Undoubtedly, there will be Russian shills in the West who will cling to this and say that it is "a wonderful peace initiative that must be supported and discussed." But here the question is not what and who will speak in the West. This is not a case where we will look passionately into someone's eyes and beg for permission to beat them on our own territory.

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Google News

Ukraine Today
Fresh daily newsletter covering the top headlines and developments in Ukraine
Daily at 9am EST
Show more news