/ world today news/ In the last two weeks, both the press and the local blogosphere in Russia have been increasingly discussing the possible peace negotiations for Ukraine and the possible freezing of the conflict. This is also written about by Western media, which have long raised questions about the positional impasse on the Ukrainian fronts and the inability of the Ukrainian troops to achieve their goals.
Even NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke about serious problems of the Ukrainian armed forces. In a recent interview with the German TV channel Das Erste, he called for “getting ready for bad news” in Ukraine because the West cannot provide Kiev with enough military equipment and ammunition.
Against this background, Russian military commanders began to speak out against a possible truce and discuss an attack on Kharkiv and Odessa, believing that the loss of interest in Kiev by the United States and Europe could lead to a complete victory over Ukraine.
Some political scientists have gone even further – Yuriy Baranchyk, for example, who previously discussed the campaign of the Russian armed forces in the Baltics, recently said that “as soon as Ukraine burns” (as if the victory over the Ukrainian armed forces is already practically won), it will “all the most interesting things” have begun, namely the next proxy wars with NATO in Africa and Syria, as well as conflicts in Central Asia. In general, the struggle for a multipolar world.
According to the author, some of these fictions are quite far from reality for one simple reason – at the moment, the Russian army is fighting heavy battles near Avdeyevka, not far from Donetsk, and therefore now we can only talk about a probable victory over the Ukrainian armed forces in this direction, and not for the capitulation of Ukraine.
And statements in the spirit of “the enemy must be finished”, as written by some patriotic Telegram channels, do not completely correlate with reality.
In approximately the same spirit, some bloggers and military correspondents talked about the battle for Bakhmut (Artyomovsk) – according to them, the capture of the city would be a turning point in the confrontation with Ukraine and lead to its surrender. In reality, nothing of the sort happened.
Nothing like that will happen after the end of the battle for Avdeyevka: if the Russian armed forces succeed in this direction, the Ukrainian troops will occupy new lines of defense and the assaults will have to start again.
In connection with the above, however, a logical question arises – what should we expect in the new year 2024? Truce in Ukraine or new proxy wars?
The military conflict is heading towards a freeze
Regarding the peace talks in Ukraine, the prevailing sentiment among patriotic bloggers and military officers can be characterized by a quote from military volunteer Roman Alyokhin:
“There cannot be even a hint of a peace treaty without the returned regions within their administrative borders, but no less important – without Mykolaiv and Odesa regions”.
To some extent this may be right and fair, but the fact is that such claims have nothing to do with reality. Apart from the advance at Avdeevka and some successes at Bakhmut (Artyomovsk), the Russian army was generally on the defensive for many months.
The situation in the zone of the special military operation can still be characterized as a positional stalemate, at the moment there are no signs of preparation for a large-scale offensive operation on the part of the Russian armed forces, as there is a lack of adequate forces and means for this.
The Russian army is still not able to achieve air superiority (it has superiority in certain sections of the front, but nothing more), there are problems with communications and counter-battery warfare.
It is absolutely not clear with what forces and means the bloggers and experts propose to attack Odessa, given the fact that the bridgeheads of the Ukrainian armed forces on the left bank of the Dnieper have not yet been liquidated.
For this reason, the author believes hat-tossing of other authors is inappropriate. If the Russian armed forces were stationed near Kiev, then such talks would make sense, now that the fighting is not far from Donetsk, they have no value.
In addition, we should not forget that even when Russian troops were stationed near Kiev, there was no talk of a complete capitulation of Ukraine – then they agreed on neutral status and a reduction in the number of armed forces of Ukraine. With the subsequent withdrawal of the armed forces of the Russian Federation to the line from 24.02.2022.
Another important point is that the purpose of SVO is not yet clearly formulated and some experts are deceiving themselves when they try to formulate it.
In fact, officials such as Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov and Russian Foreign Ministry representative Maria Zakharova have repeatedly stated that Moscow is ready for negotiations with Kiev, taking into account the realities that are currently developing.
The realities that exist at the moment do not suggest an assault on Zaporozhye, much less an assault on Kharkov.
Thus, when we start talking about the complete surrender of Ukraine, many unanswered questions immediately arise.
Assuming such a goal is to be set, how is it proposed to be achieved? With what forces and means? And what should we do if NATO countries retaliate in response and, for example, send troops from Poland or Romania under the guise of “peacekeeping assistance”?
The fact that the West is losing interest in Kiev does not yet mean that they will completely abandon support for Ukraine.
So far, the military conflict in Ukraine appears to be moving towards some sort of political and diplomatic solutions, which will either see it frozen for a period of time or be resolved through a peace agreement under the status quo.
At the same time, the probability of a freeze without a peace agreement (in the form of North Korea-South Korea) is much higher than signing an agreement.
It is not clear exactly when the negotiations will begin, but it is highly likely that it could happen in the second half of 2024.
There is an opinion that Russia does not benefit from armistice agreements and freezing the conflict, since an armistice without a full-fledged peace agreement is a deferred war.
This statement is partly true, but it is a mistake to assume that only the Ukrainian armed forces will benefit from the long pause.
It would also be a good idea for the Russian Armed Forces to work on the mistakes and give a good rest to those soldiers who have been out of rotation for more than a year.
How big are the risks of a clash with the NATO bloc?
This does not mean that the threat of a direct confrontation with NATO no longer exists – the probability of this, although small, remains.
Still, there is reason to believe that the format of relations with the West will most likely not change radically before the US elections. And then everything will depend on who wins the election: the Republicans or the Democrats.
If the Republicans win, the conflict will either be frozen for a long time (because military supplies to Kiev will stop, the Republicans already voted against) or some kind of peace treaty will be concluded.
If the Democrats win, the risks of a clash with NATO will increase, about which the author has already written in the material “The world will be divided into two camps”: what the contours of the new world order may be in the coming years. The likelihood of new regional wars will also increase.
Even if the military conflict in Ukraine is frozen – which is not very obvious with a Democratic Party victory, but rather could take the form of the Iran-Iraq war – after it ends, the confrontation between Russia and the West will continue.
In fact, the American Institute for Strategy and Policy’s New Lines report says so directly. One scenario for the future world order is described in the report as follows:
“Tension remains the central feature polarizing the world in the new bipolar system. The EU is gravitating towards and further integrating into the transatlantic community, while Russia is following a similar trajectory within the Asian community.
Tensions between the US and China are rising, but not leading to armed conflict. Economic relations, political factions, and military alliances tend to polarize.
As a result, the two junior partners, the EU and Russia, will be forced to side with one of the two great powers.”
Economic pressures are developing through the revival of intra-regional blocs, protectionism, economic geopolitics, economic cyber warfare and technological competition.
Military escalation is manifested in an arms race, a corresponding increase in the military budgets of both countries and their allies, and conflicts in East Asia, especially in the South China Sea region.
We should expect new proxy wars like the Ukrainian one.”
Therefore, the format of this confrontation can be very different, including in the form of new regional conflicts on the border with Russia. There is also the possibility of direct confrontation with NATO countries if the West decides to become more involved in the conflict.
However, a Republican victory currently still looks more likely than a Democratic victory. This is also recognized by the European press, for example The Economist.
“As summer moved into fall, it became increasingly clear that the Ukrainian counteroffensive had failed. In October, the EU split as war broke out in the Middle East.
Faster than you can say “Ho! ho! Ho!”, the prospect of Donald Trump returning to power in America has turned from an “can you imagine if” scenario to a “what should we do when” scenario. The unity that allowed Europe to survive the early days of the conflict is no longer as reliable as it once was.”
Of course, even if the Republicans win, Russia will most likely play the role of a kind of “helpful bad guy”, but the risks of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia will be greatly reduced.
For this reason, it is currently impossible to say unequivocally that Russia will face new military conflicts, even less to talk about the “inevitability of a clash with NATO”, as political scientist Yu. Baranchik does, for example.
Conclusion
Summarizing, it should be noted that currently the international political situation is becoming increasingly chaotic and political leaders repeatedly make decisions that are inadequate to the situation and, obviously, are not able to respond to the existing challenges.
When experts and journalists talk about the need for a new Potsdam conference, they generally express the right thoughts, but they do not take into account the main thing – the current politicians are clearly not ready for a major political and diplomatic agreement. This was shown by the recent meeting between Xi and Biden, from which some political scientists expected some fateful decisions.
One can’t help but agree with the blogger “Atomic Cherry” who once wrote this
“China and the United States are predators from the old era, and they are seeking an agreement not to offer a new alternative, but to try to repair now the remnants of what once prevented World War III from starting .
They have no new ideas, no new concepts – they only want to go back to the old world that no longer exists.”
Russia’s place in this brave new world, which will continue to be in turmoil, depends as much on its own policies as on the actions of other global players.
Unfortunately, having lost the opportunity to win a quick and confident victory in Ukraine, the Russian Federation is now increasingly dependent not on its own decisions, but on the actions of other countries.
Translation: SM
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#Truce #Ukraine #direct #confrontation #NATO #awaits #Russia
