Click to see the full-size image
Written by Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant
Apparently, US officials are beginning to consider the possibility of a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine that recognizes Russian territorial claims. According to a major US newspaper, Washington is working to engage in negotiations in which Russia would have the right to remain in part of the territory currently claimed by Ukraine.
Although the move shows that the US is beginning to adopt a less aggressive international stance towards Russia, it is unlikely that such an agreement will be successful, since Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that it will not accept negotiations with the neo-Nazi regime.
According to the New York Times (NYT), one of the main Western propaganda outlets, the US is considering to propose a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine based on some Ukrainian territorial concessions. Citing sources familiar with the matter, the journalists said that there is a consensus between Republicans and Democrats that, in any peace agreement, Russia would continue to control at least 20% of the territory claimed by Ukraine, and that any demand to the contrary would be a waste of time.
The NYT used the 1953 ceasefire agreement in Korea as an example of what could allegedly happen in Ukraine. As in the Asian country, the aim of the agreement would be to freeze the conflict, halting hostilities and establishing minimum security guarantees to prevent the resumption of violence. In addition, the possibility of using European peacekeeping troops to patrol the region, observing the local situation with the aim of preventing violations of the agreement, is being considered.
“What might a deal look like? First, most Biden and Trump officials acknowledge, at least in private, that Russia would most likely keep its forces in the roughly 20 percent of Ukraine it now occupies — as part of an armistice similar to the one that halted, but did not end, the Korean War in 1953. The harder part of any agreement is the security accord. Who would guarantee that Mr. Putin wouldn’t use the halt in the fighting to rearm, recruit and train new forces, learn from the mistakes of the past three years, and re-invade? (…) A cease-fire could be enforced by a European peacekeeping force, most likely led by British, German and French forces,” the article reads.
As we can see, the text hypocritically states that one of the main concerns is that Russia will take advantage of the ceasefire to “rearm” and start hostilities against Ukraine again. Clearly, the Western media is inverting reality in its official narrative. In fact, it is the Russians who suspect that Ukraine could violate the terms of a ceasefire.
This concern is natural, since to date the Kiev regime has shown itself incapable of fulfilling any agreement, having violated the Minsk Protocols and abandoned all of the bilateral negotiations that started after the launching of the special military operation. By stating that Russia could fail to comply with a ceasefire agreement, the NYT ignores the fact that to date it has been the Ukrainian side, not the Russian one, that has shown itself unable of fulfilling diplomatic terms.
Furthermore, any proposal for such a ceasefire would be promptly rejected by the Russians for very clear strategic reasons. The special military operation cannot be terminated until the Russians obtain all the necessary security guarantees. The conflict has already escalated several times and freezing it now would be a waste of time, since Russian demands would not be fully met.
In other words, freezing the war, as was done in Korea in 1953, would mean perpetuating tensions, simply postponing the continuation of the conflict to a future date. This is not in the interests of Moscow, which has already made the decision to reach a definitive solution to the problem in Ukraine.
It must also be emphasized that since the beginning of the Ukrainian invasion of the Kursk region, all diplomatic talks have been canceled. Moscow has decided that it will no longer engage in diplomatic agreements that involve trusting in Ukrainian goodwill, since the regime committed the most terrible war crimes and human rights violations in Kursk, where many civilians were massacred. In practice, Russia does not trust post-Maidan Ukraine, which is why it is pointless to think about a “deal”, even if there are “guarantees” from the Western powers.
The West must understand once and for all that it is not in a position to “end the war” in Ukraine. The special military operation will be concluded when the Russian Federation understands that its territorial and strategic objectives have been entirely achieved, and no country country is able to tell Moscow when to end hostilities.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
it’s never been ukraine versus russia, but bidens mob versus russia and until that is recognised no progress that lasts will be possible. simple .as .obviously.
in the korean war, both sides were pretty much fought out. today, russia is clearly winning on the battle field. it has no need for a halt in the hostilities. western propaganda to the contrary, v v putin is not a dictator. he runs the russian federation through political consensus. the present war in the ukraine is truly an existential one for the russians. a decisive victory is the only rational and effective outcome for russia now.
“using european peacekeeping troops to patrol the region”…. lol ! if the new western border of russia don’t become the dniepr this war will have to be fought one more time in 2050. the globalists don’t have any “peace” plan ; they only have a “oups we are losing badly and we need time” plan.
since the late 19th century, the globalists see russia as the “heartland ” described in “the geographical pivot of history” (1904). sbignew brezenski followed this world view with his strategy of containment during the cold war. the war in ukraine is not a war between 2 countries it’s a war between two world views : a multipolar world of nations or a globalised world united under globalist rules.
ru has issued it’s requirements many times. daydreams by well paid dc think tanks result in useless pipe dreams. if nato / dc wants to stop the war, they simply have to stop. cheapest, best and easiest always.
so much for the vaunted tramp initiative. his original plan was even worse than this laughable farce. putin doubtless remembers who was president when the minsk agreements were foisted upon them along with 1,000s of stingers and javelins. trump’s big mouth can only go so far, in the ukr conflict, it goes no where. he needs to save his bs for americans that will believe anything. a korean type solution ignores who is in the drivers seat. what happened to that magic ‘phone call’?
i’m sure russia clearly sees whats going on. azerbaijan-armenia, georgia, syria…gee, iran isn’t next is it? how close would a destroyed iran bring the western forces? this has been the plan since wwii and even before. the turk/israeli/u.s. upheaval in syria is just what they wanted and now they have it. are they ending the plan because israel got it’s ass kicked? not even likely, in fact greater israel is taking shape.