However, looking at it from this perspective one can find both a very cohesive reasons for not just Russian war in Ukraine but for pretty much every other political move or statement Kremlin ever made. All these complains about NATO expanding and encircling Russia are not because Kremlin is really concerned with that. They are to make ordinary Russian people more concerned with NATO than with domestic issues, like corruption within Kremlin. Peddling NATO expansion narrative spreads this besieged fortress narrative.
Everything else is built on top of that. Once you sold public the original premise that NATO has hostile intentions, you can also convince them of every idea that can be derived from it.
Train of thoughts goes as follows: Since NATO expands, it has hostile intentions towards Russia. Since NATO has hostile intentions towards Russia, then Russia has to defend. If Russia has to defend then more has to be spend on military, freedom of speech has to be restricted to prevent hostile propaganda, people spreading hostile propaganda has to be jailed and more. All that can be used to suppress dissent at home and defend the regime from its critics.
Among other things this train of thoughts of derivatives justifies preventive military action against targets of NATO expansion. That is how Putin sold to Russian public his war against Ukraine. Now Putin talks about nefarious "root causes" that fundamentally goes back to the same Orwellian besieged fortress mentality on which the whole Kremlin mythos is build.
One of the pillars of Russian besieged fortress mentality is a myth that NATO promised Gorbachev to not expand eastward. Gorbachev was never promised anything of sorts, but Kremlin continues to cultivate this myth. Why? Because it can build its besieged fortress mentality on it. Train of thoughts goes as follows, if NATO gave promise and reneged on it, then NATO cannot be trusted. If NATO cannot be trusted, then anything they say can just be a convenient lie to advance their interests.
Merge this train of thoughts into NATO expansion I outlined several paragraphs above and you will get rather cohesive logical chain that "proves" Western hostility towards Russia. Proves not to Russian elites but to common Russian people, Russian elites wish to fool with these mental gymnastics.
For Russia it's not a war over tangible things like land or political concessions. It's all about propping this intangible besieged fortress mentality.
Thus, a deal with Russia does not need to give them any land or resolve the issues with Russian speakers or "Ukrainian Nazis". Issues with Russian speakers in Ukraine or "Ukrainian Nazis" are invented by Kremlin to prop this besieged fortress mentality. They exist to "prove" that West and Ukraine has hostile intentions towards Russia and justify the whole system Putin has built.
All the deal has to do is give Russia some vague promise that all will be solved. That Nazis will be gone, that NATO will not expand, that Americans will withdraw bases and so on.
All these promises then should NOT be upheld no matter what. Yes, NOT upheld. That sound very contradictory but I will explain why they should not be upheld.
Upholding the deal and actually resolving issues and differences between NATO and Russia will inevitably dismantle the besieged fortress mentality that Putin spent so long to build. That whole train of thoughts that I outlined in several paragraphs above. Since all Russian mythos and Putin governance is built on derivate logic from Western hostility premise, elimination of Western hostility will invalidate every single derived measure Kremlin build its regime on.
If West keeps its promises, then it can be trusted, if it can be trusted, then Russia does not need to defend against it. If Russia does not need to defend against West, then there is no need to restrict freedom of speech or jail political opponents. There is also no need to keep building up military as country can finally feel safe. Since there is no longer any external threat, then country can finally focus on internal issue such as corruption.
Since Russian elites are corrupt, they absolutely cannot afford to let country focus on corruption instead of external threat. That is why the agreement should NOT be upheld not matter what.
So, a peace agreement most favorable to Russian elites is the one that vaguely promises them everything but delivers nothing. Ukraine, or the US on behalf of Ukraine, can promise to make Russian second official, withdraw (at later date) from areas Russia annexed, not join NATO and such.
None of these should be upheld. NATO troops should be stationed in Ukraine, Ukraine should be given security guarantees and then brought into NATO.
Russia will certainly whine about "treacherous" West breaking its promises and agreements again, but they will not attack again. This whining will look like they complain to Americans and Europeans but in reality, it will be aimed at common Russians who will have no choice but to accept Western hostility towards Russian and abandon pro-Western sentiments. After that Putin will be able to not only label any opposition as traitors but also have broad public support in repressing them.
Other terms should not be upheld either. Russian should not be made official in Ukraine. Not only because Ukrainian nationalists oppose it, but also because if Russian is not official in Ukraine, Russian propaganda can continue its whine that Russians in Ukraine are oppressed to prop up besieged Orwellian fortress mentality. If Russian is actually made official in Ukraine, it will make work of Russian propagandists that much harder. Because where is Russophobia in making Russian official language?
Zelenski and Ukraine should be informally explained that they are not actually expected to fulfil such an agreement at all. They also should also be given security guarantees that will make NATO interfere if Russian attacks again. Such guarantees should come as a separate document from peace agreement with Russia.
If anything, US can sign a bilateral peace with Russia without Ukraine at all, Putin clearly nudged Trump towards it by claiming that Zelenski is illegitimate and cannot sign anything. Since such agreement does not have to be upheld, there is no need to consult Ukraine.
US can then sign a separate security guarantees treaty with Ukraine and bring in troops. Then can come economic cooperation agreement and more.
Russia will complain about violation of such agreement because they need something to complain about, not because they actually opposed to it.
Something like this can possibly solve the Ukrainian war.
No comments:
Post a Comment