The Russo-Ukrainian war has just entered its fourth week, and this is only a "gradual improvement" for a modern and high-intensity war. But in stark contrast to the dreary situation on the battlefield, the Russian and Ukrainian governments have made major breakthroughs at the negotiating table:
On March 16, local time, the Russian delegation to the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations announced that the Ukrainian government had proposed in the negotiations to transform Ukraine into a neutral country with an army similar to Sweden or Austria, and the Russian President's press secretary Peskov welcomed this: "This is a real compromise solution."
Screenshots of related news
According to reports, this news was first released by Mezinsky, head of the Russian delegation who negotiated between Russia and Ukraine. "The Ukrainian side proposes to transform Ukraine into a demilitary neutral country similar to the Swedish or Austrian model, but with its own army and navy," Mezinski said. The negotiations are discussing a range of issues related to the size of Ukraine's military, including the maintenance and progress of Ukraine's neutrality and the demilitarization of Ukraine. ”
The so-called neutral country refers to a country that does not take hostile action against any of the belligerents in the event of armed conflict, and is specifically divided into two types: neutral in time of war and neutral in permanent time. In the war-torn European continent, neutral countries abound, such as Sweden, which began to declare neutrality after 1815, and Austria declared permanent neutrality in 1955. But Sweden and Austria both have enough military strength to defend themselves, and they are also actively involved in various international affairs, which is a sufficient balance between defending their rights and interests and not participating in geopolitical disputes.
Mezinski specifically emphasized: "When Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991, it had already written neutrality into the declaration of Ukrainian sovereignty. This implies that the current war is entirely the fault of the Ukrainian side – if it were not for Ukraine's easy acceptance of the Biden administration's instigation, its insistence on joining NATO, and the undermining of Russia's national security tolerance for Ukraine, Russia would not have been so bitter.
Also on the 16th, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that "for obvious reasons, negotiations [with Ukraine] are not easy", but "now the two sides are seriously discussing Ukraine's neutrality and, of course, the issue of security and security." ”
Russian presidential press secretary Peskov also said that Russia believes that the Swedish neutrality model proposed by Ukraine can be seen as a compromise.
Mezzensky said that despite the difficult and slow negotiation process, Russia still wants to reach a "generational" peace deal with Ukraine as soon as possible. The purpose of the Negotiations has not changed, and Russia needs a peaceful, free, neutral and independent Ukraine.
Therefore, since the United States, the initiator of all the problems, has long announced that it will not send troops to help Ukraine win this war, it has never mentioned the admission of Ukraine to NATO, while the Russian side has maintained a fairly positive attitude toward Ukraine's "neutrality". For Ukraine, which is in a dilemma, achieving neutrality such as that of Sweden and Austria is the best chance to end the war as soon as possible.
The scene of the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations
But that's where our question lies. In this war, Russia undoubtedly has an overwhelming advantage from beginning to end, and from the perspective of ensuring its own geopolitical security, taking advantage of this momentum to completely win the war, overthrow the Zelensky government, and support a puppet regime is the most profitable plan.
Today, the willingness to accept Ukraine's "conditional armed neutrality" is nothing more than a huge concession to the Ukrainian side. What exactly prompted Russia to make such a compromise?
The problem is simple: Russia is almost unable to bear the cost of this war.
Putin's original intention was to quickly disarm Ukraine and overthrow the Zelensky government with a rapid and resolute comprehensive military operation, forcing the Ukrainian side to bow to Russia with the greatest practical advantage. However, due to the lack of its own military strength and the effective resistance of the Ukrainian army, this rapid "decapitation" operation is now facing long-term risks.
Just hours earlier, the White House had announced that it would provide Ukraine with an additional $800 million in military aid, ostensibly to turn Ukraine into a quagmire of War for Russia. In a way, Russia is the country that most wants to end this war at the moment.
Russian army
In any case, the concession of the Russians was a huge victory for Ukraine, but the most interesting part of the whole thing is precisely this:
After the Russian side had already given the plan the "green light" by default, also on March 16, Podoriak, adviser to the director of the office of the President of Ukraine, flatly refused: Ukraine could not accept the Swedish or Austrian model of neutrality, and neutrality could only be "Ukrainian".
Why did Ukraine refuse? This has to do with the cost proposed by the Russian side for this "neutrality".
Just a few days ago, the Ukrainian media "Weekly Mirror" claimed to have learned from "reliable diplomats" about russia's six truce conditions for Ukraine. At the request of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the first five of them are to be enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution.
These six conditions are:
1. Ukraine abandons its demand to join NATO and remains neutral. Russia will guarantee the security of Ukraine;
2. Make Russian the second official language of Ukraine and remove all restrictions on The Russian language;
(3) recognition of Russian sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula;
(4) recognition of the independence of the "Donetsk Republic" and the "Luhansk Republic";
5. De-Nazification of Ukraine. Prohibit ultra-nationalist, Nazi and neo-Nazi parties and repeal existing laws glorifying Nazis and neo-Nazis;
6. De-militarization of Ukraine. Ukraine completely renounced offensive weapons and became a demilitarized state.
Putin
But most of these conditions are unacceptable to Ukraine.
First, the issue of the "neutralization" of the Ukrainian army.
Russia's declaration of the militarization of Ukraine on the one hand, and its agreement to retain enough troops to achieve the condition of "armed neutrality", which means that Russia will have the right to "supervise" the Ukrainian army after the war, and even directly intervene in the daily affairs of the Ukrainian army.
This, of course, is intolerable for Ukraine.
Ukrainian army
Secondly, the question of Ukraine's territorial sovereignty.
The recognition of Russian sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and the recognition of the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts are the core demands of the Russian side for the Ukrainian peace talks, which cannot be compromised even if Ukraine agrees to neutrality.
But such an excessive demand, which is a blatant violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereign independence, is of course unacceptable to the Ukrainian side.
Finally, the issue of de-Nazification of Ukraine.
It should be noted that despite the existence of Nazismized military organizations such as the Azov Battalion, the Ukrainian government and society in general have not shown a tendency to Nazismization – Russia itself is fifty steps ahead of the question of nazi ideology.
So Russia has to criticize ukraine's Nazi problems in this war, and the real purpose is actually quite realistic — Russia needs to occupy the international moral high ground and reduce the moral burden of its own war behavior.
As for the need to add de-Nazification to the peace talks, it is because Russia is also worried that Ukraine, which accepts such harsh ceasefire conditions, will become a hotbed of Nazi and anti-Russian ideas, as Germany did after World War I – not to mention that in Ukraine, which russia is actively attacking, Nazi and anti-Russian ideas are more justified.
In addition, the implementation of de-Nazismization means that the Russian government has the right to continue to supervise and direct relevant matters after the war, which is also beneficial to Russia's ability to exert influence on Ukraine after the war.
However, from the perspective of internal sovereign independence, this is a naked interference in Ukraine's internal independence, which is naturally unacceptable to the Ukrainian side.
Camp Azov
Most importantly, the Ukrainian side has already seen that Russia has made such concessions in the hope of ending this war of labor and wealth as soon as possible. Therefore, although Ukraine is bound to reconcile with Russia in the end, taking advantage of this momentum, testing Russia's real bottom line with a refusal attitude and striving for greater advantage for itself is a necessary negotiation skill.
In the final analysis, no matter who proposes this reconciliation plan first, Ukraine will not be able to achieve true "armed neutrality" in the end – even if Ukraine is really willing to accept all the conditions proposed by Russia, Ukraine's geopolitical location and the various consequences of this war are destined to continue to be the center of the storm of Russia's long-term confrontation with the West in the future.
Peace and this country are bound to drift apart.