Options for a Russia-Ukraine Settlement Treaty
Laurie Meadows
11 June 2022 [Edited 15 May 2024]

Tipping point in the Ukraine conflict   Russia's leadership outstanding - avoids loss   There won't be nuclear war   Russia's conflict resolution measures   There will be no mediators

The political border    demilitarised zone concept   Political borders and security borders are different   USA holds the key to 'settlement'   NATO military forces camped on Russia's borders   Ukraine a neutral state    

Ukraine statehood must be conditionally treated with respect 

option - redrawn Ukrainian      option - become an autonomous region of Ukraine     option - independent state     An Autonomous Port City of Odessa?    The demilitarized zone concept   

The Mother of all treaties

Occupy Ukraine - consequences     Negotiation or not?      Ukraine's terms for settlement     An Armistice?     No surrender - a negotiated settlement     Mediation  Lukashenko?   Russia's Terms for Settlement   Rebuilding Ukraine - whose responsibility?    dishonest and untrustworthy negotiators     Prosecution of neo nazis     Filtering Ukrainian Refugees    War Crimes     Ukraine - Russia reconciliation is only possible   

The issue of rockets    Roadmap to verification   

This is a follow up article to the article I wrote on 19th of February 2022, 5 days before the launch of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. It was called 'Mutually Assured Destruction - the Prelude to Mutually Assured Security'. At the time, I didn't think Russia would move into the Donesk. I wrote:

"The current lead that Russia has in missile and defensive systems might persuade the US to agree to verifiable arms control, but this is the work of years.
In the meantime, the West provokes Russia relentlessly, across all dimensions of life. This is dangerous. It is time for nations to comply with their obligations under the UN Charter. A mechanism must be found accelerate a move to universal security and the peace dividend it brings.
And Russia has done this, in a stunning and unexpected move, a move missed by the entire media."

I was referring to an article I published on the same day 'Blindsided by Peace?' The "stunning and unexpected move" was the December 2021 presentation to the US and to NATO of new draft Security Treaties. One was written for NATO as an organization, and the other for the United States. I note "The provisions are short and the language uncompromising. They secure Russia's security while at the same time securing European security."

Well, the USA didn't sign, and neither did NATO. I now suspect the Russians had intelligence that an assault against the breakaway republics and on into Russia's Crimea was planned, and was maybe only months from being launched. I now suspect the Americans knew that Russia suspected something was in the offing, even if the exact date wasn't known. As the Russian President Vladimir Putin commented in 2015 "Over 50 years ago the streets of Leningrad taught me a rule of thumb - if a fight is inevitable - you have to hit first".

"Embassy employees are being evacuated and Anglo-Saxons are urged to leave Ukraine as soon as possible. Some food for thought: what if the Anglo-Saxons are preparing something of their own and this is why they are evacuating their staff? We see their actions."
Sergey Lavrov 10 February 2022

No matter how many more months the conflict in Ukraine goes on, Russia has 'won'. Or rather, nearly achieved it's initial objectives of helping the former Lughansk and Donesk Republics to push out the Ukrainian armed forces - many of the Ukrainian units there were manned with white supremacist nationalists, espousing Nazi ideas. To the extent these extremists are captured, killed or pushed out, then de-nazification - another Russian objective - is achieved, at least in what were the new Republics (now part of the Russian Federation).

The tipping point

By January 2023 the tipping point seemed near. It was obvious the West (who are the armers and instigators of the conflict) would have to tell the Ukrainian government to come to terms. A signed peace treaty would be required. But what part could the Western governments play?  It is now a matter of historic record that the signature of Western politicians on agreements are worthless, and the more so the signature of Ukrainian politicians. In March 2022, Russia and Ukraine came to terms of settlement that both found acceptable. Then the UK's Boris Johnson swept in and the Ukrainians immediately backed out.

The question I was asking myself in early January 2023 was this - will Russia now ignore a future Ukrainian capitulation and brush aside Ukraine requests to agree on terms? After all, Ukraine had the chance for peace and ignored it.

The Russians, faced with a proxy NATO army that was constantly being re-armed by the US and it's NATO 'allies', had to change it's military approach. It called up conscripts, several hundred thousand, started training them, and at the same time set about destroying - with pinpoint accuracy -  the electricity supply to Ukraine - including to Kiev. With artillery dominance, air dominance, and the equivalent of ten battalions of fresh troops, it could grind on and capture as much Ukrainian territory as it wanted, as long as it was willing to pay for it in 'blood and treasure' - as the saying goes.

But thanks to NATO intransigence, the blood price NATO forced Russia to pay (and 'set up' Ukraine to pay) created a 'sunk cost' that meant the only possible outcome acceptable to Russia was Ukrainian surrender. But Russia was determined to create the conditions for inevitable surrender at the least cost in Russian lives as possible.

By February 2024 it was becoming clear the west was trying to move their war on Russia from a proxy war to proxy organised state terrorism, on the Ukrainian border (and probably on the eurasian borders).

I don't know what Russia will do in future. I do know what Russia wants for itself, and for others, because it has publicly stated it. I do know it wants normal relations with Ukraine, because it has said so. And the Russians almost never lie.

"Even some seemingly respectable media outlets write about an “operation” that we are supposedly preparing with the aim of seizing Kiev and other Ukrainian cities or that some “coup” is being prepared with a view to putting a puppet regime in power in the Ukrainian capital."
Sergey Lavrov 10 February 2022

Looking back to that date, we can guess an operation was being planned 2 weeks before the launch of the special military operation. But not to 'seize' Kiev. Not to 'seize' (note that word) 'other Ukrainian cities'. Not to place a puppet regime in power. In retrospect, Russia badly miscalculated. Russia thought the sheer display of will and power would cause Ukrainians to rise up and replace the unpopular Zelensky government, issues would be settled, the parts of the Donbass that wanted protection would be absorbed in Russia, and relations would start to be rebuilt. This 'soft war' approach failed. Where to from here?

We were left with the stated territorial aims - liberation of the 2 Republics. Kiev won't be taken. Lviv won't be taken. What of other Ukrainian cities?

Question: [...] Does Russia intend to demand that Kiev additionally recognise independence of the Kherson Region and part of the Zaporozhye Region currently controlled by the Russian forces, or their accession to Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: This question will be answered by the people living in the liberated territories. They are saying that they want to choose their future on their own. We fully respect this position.
Sergey Lavrov 6 June 2022

The question has now been answered.

"The Donetsk People's Republic, as well as the Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson region and Zaporozhye region, overwhelmingly supported joining Russia during their September referendums.

Russia's Federation Council ratified the treaties on the DPR's and LPR's admission to Russia on Tuesday, as well as Zaporozhye region and Kherson region. At the same time, the parliaments of the DPR and LPR also voted to ratify the agreements.

The DPR and LPR, Zaporozhye region and Kherson region held referendums on joining the Russian Federation on September 23-27. Despite shelling by Ukraine and the constant threat of attacks, voter turnout was considerably high, and most people backed the idea of becoming part of Russia: 99.23% in the DPR, 98.42% in the LPR, 93.11% in Zaporozhye region and 87.05% in Kherson region.

Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, former President Dmitry Medvedev addressed the votes, saying the outcome is clear and adding "welcome to Russia!"

Following the votes, President Vladimir Putin and the heads of two republics and two regions signed agreements on the accession of the territories to Russia.

Addressing the historical moment during the ceremony, the Russian president stressed that the people of the four territories had "made their unequivocal choice." He added that "the people living in Lugansk and Donetsk, in Kherson and Zaporozhye have become our citizens, forever," noting that Moscow will use every means to protect them."
Sputnik News 4 October 2022

Merge of the Russian and Ukrainian people of the Eastern Oblasts with the Russian Federation

"Citizens of Russia, citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, residents of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, deputies of the State Duma, senators of the Russian Federation,

As you know, referendums have been held in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. The ballots have been counted and the results have been announced. The people have made their unequivocal choice.

Today we will sign treaties on the accession of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye Region and Kherson Region to the Russian Federation. I have no doubt that the Federal Assembly will support the constitutional laws on the accession to Russia and the establishment of four new regions, our new constituent entities of the Russian Federation, because this is the will of millions of people. (Applause.)

It is undoubtedly their right, an inherent right sealed in Article 1 of the UN Charter, which directly states the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin 30 September 2022

This right of self-determination can be brought into play only if the cultural rights of a population - ability to use their native language, express and teach their cultural heritage - have been denied them. And this is exactly the case in Eastern Ukraine, where use of the Russian language is suppressed by law. Ironically, a Ukrainian local politician was fined for publicly using the Russian language social media.

"We call on the Kiev regime to immediately cease fire and all hostilities; to end the war it unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table.

We are ready for this, as we have said more than once. But the choice of the people in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson will not be discussed
. The decision has been made, and Russia will not betray it.

Kiev’s current authorities should respect this free expression of the people’s will; there is no other way. This is the only way to peace."

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin 30 September 2022

Time and again the Russian government has stated that the future of other areas will be decided by the people who live there themselves. Therefore, there will be a referendum on Odessa and Nikolaev. How will it be worded? We will have to wait to see. How long before conditions to hold it are suitable? Who should be at the table to discuss peace terms?

Talk to someone who has power.

"Where MacGregor sits is the head of the table"

This quote is from the book 'Rob Roy' by Sir Walter Scott. It embodies the reality that outstanding leaders are almost instinctively recognised by all who exercise power, whether they admit it or not.

Such leaders command true respect (not the respect that comes from fear) because they have earned respect. Not by dramatic actions, but by effecting popular outcomes, by being consistent over time, by being honest, calm, by not turning away and blaming others when things unexpectedly go badly, by being patient and far sighted. Such a rare person knows the all the dimensions of power - diplomatic, military, informational, and economic.

Russia, just like any other country, is concerned with one thing - the comfort and happiness of its people.

"Our greatest concern and the main task is to increase people’s incomes. This is our priority, our number one task, and we are not going to resolve it by simple linear methods. To do this, we must ensure the growth of the economy and a change of its infrastructure.

This is a long-term goal.

We are not going to use populist methods.

It is based on qualitative economic growth that we intend to resolve major social tasks - including an increase in the incomes of the Russian people and the demographic problem, which is our second most important task.

It implies a package of social issues: healthcare, education and support for families with children.

To resolve all these tasks, we have mapped out certain national development goals...Therefore, we should resolve the two main problems ‒ improve demography and increase people’s incomes, raise their quality of life on this serious economic foundation I have just mentioned. This is what we are going to do in the near future"
Vladimir Putin 14 October 2021

Russia signed into law a document outlining national goals and strategic objectives on 7th May 2018. They covered 12 areas, and in many cases, listed very specific key indicators of success which had to be met by 2024. The areas covered will be familiar to you, because most countries have similar desires for their people :
All this is expensive, both in money and effort. A huge amount of money has already been sunk into it. If you were the Russian government, would you risk destruction of all your hard won social progress with an endless Afghan-style war in Ukraine?

Ukraine's leadership had a small window of opportunity to stop their Western-fuelled self-destruction. That opportunity required a true leader, but none was forthcoming. The opportunity has passed, and the West continued to de facto destroy Ukraine by continuing and escalating the conflict.

The West has openly set out to destroy the Russian Federation. There are 4 possible means of destroying the Russian State:

We can dismiss nuclear strikes - even by the Americans. The Russian and American Presidents have signed a declaration that a nuclear war cannot be won, and must not be fought. Both are bound by chains of terror. I have fully covered this matter in my articles 'The Time Has Come' and 'The Time Has NOT Come'. Russia's nuclear strike policy was very clearly explained by the Russian President in 2018, and is appended to my article. Nothing more need be said.

Russia was always going to win the NATO proxy conventional war. Why? because Russia has advanced standoff missiles, superior electronic suppression, superior air defense, superior aircraft, superior training in warfare, superior general staff, superior logistics, superior state-owned military-industrial complex - the list goes on. If NATO didn't know that, then they are professionally incompetent.

Russia does full spectrum conflict resolution (except it doesn't do much propaganda work). It knows power comes from diplomacy backstopped by military competence (in all its many dimensions), and from a robust and self-reliant domestic economy. Its military-political responses are very carefully calibrated, constantly re-assessed and adjusted. Russia will not win 'at any cost'. It will create a military-economic-human nexus where the opposing party cannot but come to terms.

Biological warfare we can dismiss. When a new instance of a pathogen arises it's genome will be pulled apart and examined, the consensus origin found, it's genetic differences examined for structure and placement on and between chromosomes or RNA, and conclusions drawn. An attack on Russia with biological weapons will draw an immediate nuclear or hypersonic kinetic-energy response.

Economic warfare will eventually fail. It will cause quite a bit of pain for a year or two, but it has no chance of succeeding. What's more, it damages those who made the attack. I have covered this in detail in 'The West's Apartheid International Trading System'.

 Russia doesn't need and doesn't want armed conflict - Russia has always wanted peace
edited 13 April 2024

Ukraine will come to terms because it is reaching a tipping point, where the things that anyone cares about are being lost or have become uncertain and insecure. Reliable energy supplies - electricity and gas, healthcare, housing, education, a good job, a stable and reasonably comfortable life, certainty, stability, freedom from fear - this is what people must have.

According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (as of 29 May 2022), 6.8 million Ukrainians had left Ukraine. Around 60% (4 million) left for Poland. About 2.4 million left for Russia. Around 400,000 left for other EU countries.

Russia has targeted power distribution and transformer centers, which of course affects electricity, pumps for water and so on (Russia continues to supply Ukraine with gas for heating). Hundreds of thousands of young and middle aged men have been killed or wounded in the conflict. As a result, all manner of normal services have been degraded, and will remain degraded for years. Ukraine's public debt was about 50% of GDP in 2021, but by the end of 2022 it had reached about 78% of GDP. Ukraine is now deeply in debt to the West, as relatively little of the western military 'aid' is free. (In early 2024 Presidential candidate Donald Trump was promotng the idea that all aid to Ukraine should be in the form of a loan.)

The west supplies artillery and rockets that can reach further and further in Russia. Therefore the width of the Russian occupied 'buffer zone' between Russia's border and the rest of Ukraine becomes wider. No one can plan anything, everything is uncertain.

At a certain point the Ukrainian people will demand peace.

Russia will provide peace on reasonable terms. But the longer the Ukraine politicians keep up a fight they know is hopeless, the longer they deliberately kill civilians in the republics, the worse the terms will be.

"Any conflict ends sooner or later. This will happen to the conflict in Ukraine too, we are sure of that. By all means, the longer it lasts thanks to Western weapon deliveries to the regime in Kiev, the worse peace conditions will be for Ukraine."
Vassily Nebenzia, Russian Federation Permanent Representative to the United Nations 23 February 2024

Russia still sees Ukraine as part of the Slavic orbit, a kindred people. There are deep roots between the two countries. It will never set out to humiliate Ukraine, or try to bleed it dry. Russia thinks long term - very long term. But the terms will be set without US or European interference.

"The end, ways, and means, they lack that, to be able to go back to the pre-2014.

The second point that I would make is, you know, as you look at the DIME—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic—we’re woefully lacking on the diplomatic piece of this. If you notice, there’s no diplomacy going on at all to trying to get to some type of negotiations. And I don’t think that we can lead that, given where Putin thinks about us.

But if you sit back and think about those that could possibly be a part of this negotiation team, you know, you have the—two of them are in—that I’m going to list are in NATO. One is President Orbán out of Hungary. Perhaps he can help out in the negotiation effort. The other one is President Erdoğan of Turkey. Longtime friends of President Putin, although some view that relationship as transactional. I don’t know. Let’s put it to the test and see."
Stephen Twitty, former Deputy Commander of the United States European Command  (2018–2020), May 31 2022

USA holds the key to 'settlement'

The war in Ukraine will stop as soon as the USA and its vassals stop supplying Ukraine with weapons and munitions.

"Vladimir Putin: First, we have never refused – as I said a thousand times – to participate in any talks that may lead to a peace settlement. We have always said so. Moreover, during the talks in Istanbul, we initialed this document. We argued for a long time, butted heads there and so on, but the document was very thick and it was initialed by Medinsky on our side and by the head of their negotiating team – I think his name is Arakhamia but I don’t remember exactly. We actually did this but they simply threw it away later and that’s it....

...ultimately it is about the United States’ interests. We know that they hold the key to solving issues.

If they genuinely want to end today's conflict via negotiations, they only need to make one decision which is to stop supplying weapons and equipment. That’s it. Ukraine itself does not manufacture anything. Tomorrow, they will want to hold talks that are not formal, but substantive, and not to confront us with ultimatums, but to return to what was agreed upon, say, in Istanbul.

Ukraine's security issues are spelled out in great detail there. In fact, much of what is written there makes us wonder whether we should agree to it. To reiterate, it was initialed by both sides.
Vladimir Putin 13 June 2023

"As for the negotiations – we haven’t mentioned this yet, but I hope I won’t be criticised for it – what guarantees did that Istanbul document include? We were ready to provide extremely serious guarantees, as the Ukrainian delegation wanted.

Is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty serious enough? We did not reproduce it verbatim, but agreed upon a formula that was close. What I am saying is, those were very serious security guarantees. However, the document specifically stated that those guarantees did not apply to Crimea or Donbass. This meant that they could not be touched, otherwise no guarantees would work.

In terms of Ukraine’s demilitarisation, the document stated that there would be no military bases in Ukraine.

As President Vladimir Putin said during the Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg in the summer of 2023, the Istanbul document outlined the limits of the relevant weapons, personnel, etc.

It said that the armed forces of Ukraine would hold no manoeuvres or military exercises involving third countries unless all guarantor countries, Russia and China included, agreed. We were ready to sign the treaty.

It also said that the negotiations on other issues would continue, but only after the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, provision of security guarantees, and abolition of Ukrainian laws of a racist, neo-Nazi, and discriminatory nature.

When all this was agreed, Ukrainian negotiators came back and said they disagreed with some details, including the ban on exercises involving third-country forces with the consent of all guarantors. They wanted that clause to say “unless the majority of guarantors agree.” That was it. That was a red flag, which could mean they had been forbidden to sign the document overnight. Or that they decided to fool “those Russians” even more. This was a short story to illustrate that situation."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

The guarantors comprised of the permanent members of the UN Security Council - Russia, China, USA, France and the United Kingdom, plus Germany and Türkiye.Obviously, Ukraine would always have a majority which is under the direction of the USA.

On September10 2023, the American 'diplomats' slightly toned down their anti-Russian rhetoric, and gave faint signals the USA is ready for negotiations (using, as usual, their 'projection' technique of falsely asserting Russia is blocking negotiations, when in fact the opposite is true).

"...the G20 countries in the statement all stood up for the importance of territorial integrity, sovereignty, and that’s very clear. 

I was in the room when all the leaders spoke today with President Biden, and it was very clear from everything that they said that not only do they want to see this war end, but they want to see it end on just and durable terms, and it was also very clear that the consequences of Russia’s aggression are being felt throughout the G20 countries and throughout the developing world. 

So there was, I think, real clarity from the leaders in the room...I think it’s very important that the G20 spoke as one... what really speaks loudly, again, are the leaders in the room itself.  And I think if you were on the receiving end of what so many of them said, if you were in the Russian seat, it’s pretty clear where the rest of the world stands."
Anthony Blinken, USA Secretary of State, 10 September 2023

"...thus far, we see no indication that Vladimir Putin has any interest in meaningful diplomacy. If he does, I think the Ukrainians will be the first to engage, and we’ll be right behind them.  Everyone wants this war to end, but it has to end on just terms and on durable terms that reflect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

...So they have to make the basic decisions about how they’re going to defend their territory and how they’re working to take back what’s been seized from them.  Our role, the role of dozens of other countries around the world that are supporting them, is to help them do that. 

And ultimately, what we all want is an end to this Russian aggression and an end to the aggression that, again, is just and is durable.  That’s what Ukrainians want more than anyone else.  That’s what we’re working toward."
Anthony Blinken, USA Secretary of State, 10 September 2023 

"...this is the 21st century.  This wasn’t supposed to happen again.  And not just here, the heart of Europe, but around the world.  So we’re committedthe State Department and the United States – to do everything we possibly can to try to prevent conflict, to try to stop it, and to stand with those who are the victims of aggression."
Anthony Blinken, USA Secretary of State, 7 September 2023

"...we stated that peace formula is the foundation for stopping war and there is a historical moment in this.

And it’s first time, to my – in my memory, that the rules of the end of the war decided not – not by the aggressor, by – but the rules of stopping the war is setting by the country that was attacked. 

It’s very important for the international diplomacy, international law.  It’s very fair and just approach, and that’s why we agreed upon next steps we are going to take together...And I would like to thank also the State Secretary for everything that we discussed, all of the efforts like peace formula...
Dymytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister of Ukraine, meeting with Anthony Blinken 6 September 2023

The US referenced "the consequences" of the US incited conflict on the G20 countries. The consequences run deeper than most think.

The subtext is that the countries of the expanded G20 - now including the African Union - have left the USA in no doubt that the USA can end this conflict overnight, and yet they choose not to. But the consequences barely affect the USA, whereas other countries - mostly in Europe - are badly affected by the US government project. The NATO countries, nominally independent, are actually dominated by the USA, and as servants of the USA, they dare not do anything until their political master green lights it.

The US is under pressure from all sides. There is no doubt that it was not just Russia that was "on the receiving end of what so many of them said".

It's up to the US government to admit they have failed and stop the pointless flow of weapons to Ukraine, thereby saving lives, saving damage to Ukrainian infrastructure, and cushioning the collapse of the Ukrainian economy.

The US government alone holds the key to ending the destruction. Ironically, Russia is now in a position where negotiations are likely to be between Ukraine and Russia - with the USA sidelined to the role of cajoling it's puppet.

By late October 2023, it seemed to me that not only had USA military potential been neutralised to the point it was of relatively little relevance, but Russia's new military potential to strike mainland USA was so advanced (especially the new Kh-BD very long-range cruise missile) that the USA government was impotent. The USA is now balancing on the last rung of  the escalation ladder. Nothing to steady itself with, legs shaking.

Joseph Biden's 20 October 2023 address to the American people restated "we do not seek to have American troops fighting in Russia or fighting against Russia."  He created a false strawman argument that Russia intended to take over all of Ukraine, and then more countries, implying the Baltic countries and parts of Poland "if we don’t stop Putin’s appetite for power and control in Ukraine, he won’t limit himself just to Ukraine". America, he declaimed won't "walk away" from Ukraine. It will send weapons, especially old and outdated weapons. He then claimed a sort of 'victory', saying:

" When Putin invaded Ukraine, he thought he would take Kyiv and all of Ukraine in a matter of days.  Well, over a year later, Putin has failed, and he continues to fail".

No where did he mention Ukraine joining NATO. A clear signal to Russia. Then he repeatedly - and plaintively - claimed the USA was not going to 'walk away' (or withdraw) from Ukraine. He deliberately said "We are the essential nation...the indispensable nation". In other words, he claimed there would be no settlement of the conflict without the USA at the table. The Russian game is played with a fair hand. The America government plays with 'marked cards', as Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev put it.

America has a weak hand and plays a rigged game. It will not be allowed a place at the table.

Political borders and security borders - 2 different things

"Vladimir Putin has commented on the situation that emerged in connection with the arrival of the new weapons. I can only add that the longer-range arms you supply, the farther will we push from our border the line where the neo-Nazis will be able to threaten the Russian Federation...let me reiterate the following.  The West has decided to supply weapons that, in all evidence, are capable of reaching not only the border areas of the Russian Federation but also its more remote points. Politicians and legislators in Ukraine itself are laughing at the Americans, who said they believed Vladimir Zelensky’s promise not to shell Russia. ...I will stress once again: the longer-range are the systems supplied to the Kiev regime, the farther will we push the Nazis from the line from which threats emanate for the Russian population of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. "
Sergey Lavrov 6 June 2022

"...[The West] has significant leverage in the operation. We are now trying to move the Ukrainian artillery to a distance that will not pose a threat to our territories, but the more long-range weapons they send to Kiev, the further they will need to move them away from the territories that are part of our country."
Sergey Lavrov 2 February 2023

This is typical Russian thinking. Create a threat to Russia, and Russia will find a way to neutralise it. The consequences is that you lose something you didn't have to lose.  What is "the line" Sergey Lavrov refers to? It is the point at which shells and rockets can reach not just Russia, but also "the Russian population of Ukraine".  Where, then is the 'Russian population' of Ukraine located?  According to wikipedia, quoting a 2004 study, the percent of Russian language speakers by region (oblast) is:

Dnipropetrovsk      72%
Zaporizhia             81%
Odessa                  85%
Kharkiv                 74%
Mykolaiv               66%

This data is out of date, and populations will have shifted a great deal in the last 18 years. Many Ukrainians in the east have fled to Russia. Many families are made up of both Ukrainian speaking and Russian speaking people. And language spoken is not the sole determinant of how people identify themselves. Some Ukrainians may want to 'vote Russia', so to speak, for economic advantage. Some 'Russians' may identify with Ukraine for many reasons, from family ties, business, to ideological views.

Russiannlanguage imortance by oblast 2005

Kherson, just above Crimea, had about 25% of people who spoke Russia as their native language in 2001, and in a 2005 survey 46% of Khersonians thought Russian should have the status as a second state language in Ukraine. This is lower than the Oblasts that surround Kherson, yet Russia announced on June 22 2022 a referendum on accession of Kherson region to Russia would be in held in Autumn, and so it did. Kherson is a land bridge to Crimea and so is of enormous strategic importance to Russia. The oblast had already been 'Russified' before the referendum. The matter was decided in late September 2022. 87% of people in the Kherson region who participated in the referendum opted to join the Russian Federation. The Zaporozhye referendum was held soon after, with a similar high positive vote.

This means Russia can play the great 'definition game'. Russia can use any criterion that suits it's political objectives to decide for the population just where 'Russian Ukraine' ends and "Ukrainian Ukraine' begins.

One thing is certain - the longer the range of weapons supplied to Ukraine by NATO, the wider the 'demilitarized' zone has to be. So NATO effectively is causing a wider and wider band of Russian de-weaponisation bounding the Donbass. Once fully under Russian control, the demilitarised zones may well decide for themselves to join Russia, especially if Russia guarantees their security. The area currently under Russian control includes major crop growing areas as well as industrial plant, and produces around 50% of Ukraine's GDP. If Mykolaiv and Odssa (industrial areas) are lost to the Russia, then Russia will control +/- 75% of Ukrainian GDP. Ukraine is deeply indebted to the west, & will be unable to service it's obligations on a reduced industrial and agricultural base. It is on the way to becoming a failed state. (For current Oblasts and major cities see this map.)

Language spoken doesn't determine everything. Kherson, where only 46% of people used Russian as their native tongue voted by quite a large margin to join Russia. Mykolaiv and Odesa are 70% native Russian speakers. Odesa was "received under Catherine the Great" as Vladimir Putin put it. In a referendum, they would return to Russia in a heartbeat. Furthermore, Odesa, in particular has been a source of great trouble for the Russian fleet, as it is used for smuggled weapons and as a base for marine attack drones. Therefore, Russia can solve this problem by including it in the Russion Federation.

The Ukraine government policy of sending citizens to industrial scale death and injury instead of establishing an agreed border is incomprehensible. Protracting the war means even more trained people will flee overseas, many more will be killed. Ultimately people will move to where conditions of life are best. Ultimately, that will be the Russian Federation. No one wants war. The new Russian regions can focus on economic matters, without the waste of money on military equipment. Inevitably Ukrainian economic refugees will storm the borders of the new Russia.

But Russia is very sensitive to the problems of badly defined boundaries. The Russian President has spent endless hours mediating boundary disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan. When the Soviet Union dissolved itself it didn't fully define some borders. Even today, around 450 kilometres of the 970-kilometre Tajik-Kyrgyz border remain undemarcated, and remain a  source of constant disputes.

On 13 June 2023 President Putin (once again) defined the problem from the Russian Federation perspective. His first premise is that Lenin created Ukraine as a country in 1922 as a political convenience, (and giving away Black Sea territory that Ukraine never previously held) with the result that the culturally and linguistically Russian population in the east was 'wrong-headedly' included in the new country, and while Russia has to live with this reality, and is prepared to respect Ukraine, Ukraine has to respect Russia's absolute need for security from threats on its borders. The threats created by the west, using Ukraine as a tool, is what the conflict is about.

"With regard to “what Ukraine are they talking about,” Ukraine, such as it may be, does exist and we must treat it with respect. However, this does not mean that this is a reason for us being treated without respect. That is what it is about.

... For some reason, Vladimir Lenin decided to give up the entire Black Sea Region. Why on earth did he do this? In strictly historical terms, these are Russian lands. Of course, there was nothing linked with Ukraine there, nothing at all. Ukraine really only appeared in 1922, and this fact was sealed in the Constitution. Huge Russian territories were given away there – just for nothing. And, as I mentioned, I have read papers and letters from the archives. They made a decision at first, I think at the congress or a Politbureau meeting about one republic".

The President acknowledges that if a cultural entity established in 1922 on what were Russian territories has people who wish to remain there as a separate and independent people then fine, but not fine if it is at the expense of Russia's security, and in particular, from foreign anti-ballistic missile installations near the Russian border - let alone nuclear or non-nuclear hypersonic missiles (once the USA masters that technology - which, ultimately, they will).

"If some of the people residing in these territories believe that they want to live in a separate and independent state, their preference must be treated with respect. The only question is why they should live at our expense and in our historical territories? If they want to live in our historical territories, then they should influence their political leadership so that it establishes proper relations with Russia and no one poses a threat to us from these territories. This is the issue. This is what the issue is all about....

...As for those who want to feel Ukrainian and live in an independent state, for God’s sake, do what you want. It is necessary to treat this with respect, but then don’t create a threat for us."
Vladimir Putin June 13 2023

The Russian government defines the main problem as 'strategic' weapons (capable of causing crippling damage to the Russian people and state - whether hypersonic, nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons) on it's border. The weapons may be directly controlled by the USA government/NATO, or indirectly by a US government directed Ukrainian military. It amounts to the same thing. But even without foreign interference, Ukraine remains a threat to Russia because hatred for Russia has been actively promoted at all levels of Ukrainian society, and was a necessary pre-condition for the USA government to successfully incite Ukraine to abandon the Minsk peace agreement and attack Russia in its 'new territories' (as Russia considers them to be).

"No one would ever have thought about starting a conflict with Ukraine if we had normal relations as persons...But what they did there was they created an anti-Russia. They created it as a basis underlying their own existence. They created the anti-Russia and began to strengthen it. This is the problem."
Vladimir Putin June 13 2023  

NATO military forces camped on Russia's borders

"There is a NATO issue as well. After all, when Ukraine gained independence, the Declaration of Independence explicitly stated that Ukraine was a neutral state.
Who was it that, in 2008, when things were just fine with no Crimean events in sight, suddenly said they wanted to join NATO, and NATO opened its doors to them, declaring at the summit in Bucharest that NATO’s doors were open to Ukraine?

Not only did they cheat everyone when they said NATO would not expand to the east, but they planned to have our historical territories with a Russian-speaking population join NATO. This is totally out of line, is it not? It is. They are aware that they are creating a threat to us, but they are still working to this end despite our attempts to establish proper relations. This is the problem."
Vladimir Putin June 13 2023  

The Russian military operation is response to the west stepping over Russia's red lines. The west was warned constantly. Russia attempted to negotiate, with the individual countries of NATO, with USA, with Ukraine. They refused to engage. The special military operation was not only a response to the west and ukraine going too far in threatening Russian security, it also addressed the  problem of demilitarising Ukraine - one of the two stated goals of the military aspect of diplomacy.

But the 'military border' in Ukraine simply cannot be finally set until the political border is set. (Albeit when Ukraine comes to terms, a temporary border may have to be set while the political borders are finalised. At the moment, let's set aside the possibility of the total breakup of Ukraine).

Various solutions are possible, with ultimate configurations depending on the outcome of the special military operation and the costs that has imposed on the Ukrainian economy.

Autonomous regions of Ukraine

In my view, only Nikolaev and Odessa might in future possibly vote for autonomy, rather than join the Russian Federation immediately (although, as I noted above, when it came to a vote, Kherson, with a lower Russian speaking population, joined Russia, so the same could happen in Kharkiv and Dnipropetrosk). If so, they might as well sign up to a Minsk 2 - style agreement. After all, Minsk 2 was hammered out to suit all parties, and hammered out in not dissimilar circumstances. These agreements would likely be agreed by the United Nations.

Although this is hardly essential, it allows the West to save face a little.

The only change needed may be to embed de-nazification in the Ukrainian constitution.

In reality, it is far more likely, if conditions for a vote arise, the referendum question will be a simple 'remain with Ukraine or join the Russian Federation?'. But Odessa is a special case.

An Autonomous Port City of Odessa?
The Russian President made an obscure remark right at the end of his mammoth session at the Valdai International Discussion Club in October 2022:

"You know, Odessa is indeed one of the most beautiful cities in the world.As you know, Odessa was founded by Catherine the Great, and I think even the extreme nationalists do not dare to tear down the monument to the city's founder. Odessa can be an apple of discord, a symbol of conflict resolution, and a symbol of finding some kind of solution to everything that is happening now. It is not a question of Russia. We have said many times that we are ready to negotiate, and I recently mentioned this publicly once again speaking in the Kremlin."
Vladimir Putin, 27 October 2022

He was using Homers story of the Trojan war as a very loose allegory. Here is my extremely cut down summary:

In the Greek poet Homer's epic poem (The Iliad), the Trojan War was started by Eris, the goddess of Discord. She was known as an ungracious guest, well known for stirring bad relations between the Gods. In a fit of pique at not being invited to an Olympian God-wedding, she used her powers to throw a golden apple amongst the guests. The inscription on it read “For the Fairest”. Paris, a Trojan prince was picked to decide the winner. Aphrodite, one of the leading candidates, bribed him with the offer of the fairest woman on Earth. Unsurprisingly, Paris picked Aphrodite as the fairest of the assembled Goddesses.

The Greek Helen was acknowledged as the most beautiful woman on earth. Helen's father, King Tyndareus had agreed to chose a husband for Helen from the bevy of suitors on condition that, regardless who he chose, they would all unite and come to the 'chosen ones' aid if he found himself in trouble. King Tyndareus chose King Menelaus. But Aphrodite later caused the already-married Helen to fall for Paris of Troy, who then abducted Helen and brought her to Troy. King Menelaus and the eloquent Odysseus went to the King of Troy (King Priam) in a diplomatic effort to return Helen.

King Priam refused to release Helen. A grinding 9 year war ensued, which spilled over into neighbouring regions. Eventually, the Greeks pretended to yield and give up Troy, leaving behind a huge wooden horse, with Greek soldiers hiding inside. The Trojans dragged it into their defensive positions as a trophy of their success. That night, the soldiers crept out and opened the gates to the Greek military, who had returned under cover of dark. The Greeks wreaked havoc and destruction on Troy. King Menelaus found Helen, but could not bring himself to punish her as she was so beautiful...

The USA is Eris, Troy is Ukraine. Russian Federation Oblasts are the suitors. Odessa is Helen. King Menelaus and Odysseus are the Russian Federation Office of President and Minister of Foreign Affairs. King Priam is Zelensky.

Allegories are open to the interpretation. I interpret the President's remarks to mean he is presenting the classic 'negotiator's choice' between a bad out outcome and an imperfect but acceptable outcome. If the path the US offers (from a safe distance) is followed, grinding conflict is ensured, and all that is achieved is destruction.

The city is beautiful and should not have to endure this fate, a fate engineered by outsiders 7,000 kilometers away.

The city of Odessa could be "a symbol of conflict resolution". How? Well, Russia will have to give many guarantees to 'win the peace'. Odessa is a cosmopolitan port city with good tourist potential, well educated population, a gateway to the Black Sea, wide international contacts. Even if Russia takes the Oblast, Odessa could return to what it has been in the past - an autonomous city within Ukraine.

"In 1794, the city of Odessa was founded by decree of the Empress Catherine the Great. From 1819 to 1858, Odessa was a free port, and then during the twentieth century it was the most important port of trade in the Soviet Union...
During the 19th century, it was the fourth largest city of Imperial Russia, and its historical  architecture has a style more Mediterranean than Russian, having been heavily influenced by French and Italian styles. Some buildings are built in a mixture of different styles, including Art Nouveau, Renaissance and Classicist.
Odessa has 18 universities and higher education centres, with an emphasis on science. As a cultural centre it contains 9 theatres including the world famous opera house, more than 40 museums, 10 art galleries and 11 national cultural institutions.Aside from the tourism and health industries and the port activities, Odessa’s other significant  industry is the oil terminal and related activities."

Self-administered, with a Charter or similar guaranteeing unhindered local administration, neutral, Ukraine with certain rights, Russia with no particular rights, military installations prohibited, security guaranteed by the UN or Ukraine and Russia in concert, that sort of thing.

However, in late August 2023, the Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority signed a memorandum with the Port of South Louisiana and the Port of New Orleans involving "cooperation on technical planning, development, construction, administration, operation, and maintenance of port infrastructure, particularly when reconstruction begins in Ukraine" according to 'MarineLog'.

Continuing the Trojan War analogy, this may turn out to be a 'trojan horse' - stuffed with US Naval Base personnel. Any surrender document will have to include provisions to put paid to any US military plans for Odessa - no matter how heavily disguised.

There is a twist to this tale.The peace agreement signed in principle by Russia and Ukraine in 2022 - and then destroyed by the USA government warmongers - was rumored to have included provision for Odessa to come under either Russian administration or some neutral party administration for 15 years, after which a referendum would be held on whether to remain with Ukraine or join the Russian Federation. Either way, Odessa would have prospered hugely as both sides competed to create safe and hospitable conditions. This concept is based on brief mentions, not much more than gossip. If true, it explains why Mr. Lavrov commented some time after the agreement had been trashed by America's UK proxy that it perhaps 'gave away too much'.

Under the changed circumstances of 2024, it seems more plausible for Odessa to be Russian again, ensuring the west can't create mischief there again, but allowing Ukraine port access via some corridor or other - similar to Russia's corridor to Kaliningrad.

Independent State

Any Ukrainian Oblast that goes down the path to an independent state will likely  experience the economic blockades by the west. However, it may not be much different to what Odessa, for example, is already experiencing. An autonomy scenario is very unlikely for any part of remaining Ukraine (although the nationalist Oblasts of Lviv, Volyn and Rivne in the northwest might conceivably go down this path, and, as the white supremacy cultivated there has produced a useful thug-force for the west, it would probably be made immune to trade restrictions as a reward for services rendered).

In the extremely unlikely event northwest Oblasts declare themselves an independent federations, or independent states, it would probably be as a stepping stone move to merge with Poland.

Breakup of Ukraine Edited 24 March 2024

"When at last they [Ukraine] have the grace to suggest resuming the diplomatic process (something, as I understand, the Europeans are insisting they should do, but the Anglo-Saxons do not permit them), we will see what situation has emerged on the ground.
There are liberated areas there. The majority of the population cannot so much as think of returning under the control of the neo-Nazi authorities or the authorities that are in every way conniving at neo-Nazism....
Today I don’t see any possibility for Ukraine to make any proposals, and we are not going to suggest anything either. We have made our proposals long ago. The ball is now in their court. I don’t believe that Kiev will be allowed to resume talks.
Sergey Lavrov 23 June 2022

As discussed, it is not impossible that the remaining 'dark blue' Russian speaking Oblasts (Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Nikolaev and Odessa) might decide to join Russia, for all sorts of reasons - with perhaps a better economic future being the major one.

The 'bright green' regions already have an agreement with Poland that gives Poland a high degree of control of those irredeemably white supremicist and pro-Nazi Oblasts. The Poles are members of the European Union (and NATO) and if the bright greens vote to join Poland, their anti-European prejudices will be Poland's to deal with. Why would Russia care? How far could this go? What other post world war 2 'adjustments would be unravelled? John Helmer makes this observation:

"And what if the war ends in the US and NATO alliance retreat to Lvov; after which the Polish government will notify NATO HQ it is reviving its treaty claim to the Galician territory of the Ukraine; ...Berlin will then inform Brussels it requires the return of the ancient Danzig Corridor and Breslau, Polish territories currently called Gdansk, Wroclaw, and the Ziemie Odzyskane; and the Hungarian government will follow suit with the announcement of the recovery of historical Kárpátalja (Transcarpathia), the Zarkarpatska oblast of the Ukraine?

These were the spoils of the World War II settlement between the US and the Soviet Union in 1945-46. The territorial reversion claims aren’t new. What is new is that the US and the NATO alliance, plus the Galician regime still ruling between Kiev and Lvov, also in Ottawa, have aimed to change the terms of the post-war settlement by continuing the war eastward on to the territory of Russia itself, all the way to regime change in Moscow.

That is what Russia says it is fighting now to defend itself against. As Russian officials have been hinting in recent days, the foreign and defence ministries and the intelligence services are currently discussing in the Kremlin Security Council whether Russia’s long-term security on its western front may be best served by terms of a Ukrainian settlement in which the German, Polish, and Hungarian territorial claims are recognised.
John Helmer 'The US war in Europe isn't hot enough - dropping the climate bomb on Russia' 8 June 2022

Poland wants unpayably large amounts of money in 'reparation' for damage done by Germany in World War 2. If the results of the World War II US - Soviet Union settlement are revised, and Germany wants Gdansk, Wroclaw, and the Ziemie Odzyskane back, then Poland may settle the issue by regarding the territories as payment of war reparations. Poland may then feel emboldened to 'return' Galicia. Perhaps they will hold a referendum. All this seems far-fetched, to be honest.

By mid 2023, the far-fetched seemed a little closer at hand. The Russian government all but expressed no interest in Lvov being incorporated (President Putin described it as 'sold') into Poland. A revealing video chat (warning, R18) between a Russian soldier in Crimea and a Polish mercenary gave the tenor - Poland is helping to break up Ukraine in the expectation of gaining Lvov. Why? Because it is ultimately "profitable" for Poland.


The Russian President seems convinced that if Poland enters Ukraine, they wont leave, and may act as a catalyst for other claimants to take a 'bite' of Ukraine. Looking from the perspective of March 2024, this seems like an incresingly plausible scenario. At least, it can't be discounted.

"Second, it can lead to serious geopolitical consequences. If, say, Polish troops enter Ukrainian territory, allegedly for the protection of, say, the border between Belarus and Ukraine, or some other parts, to release Ukrainian troops and enable them to fight along the contact line, I think, Polish troops will stay there.

That is what I believe. It is their heart's desire to get back the lands they have historically regarded as theirs, the lands that ”Father of the Peoples“ Joseph Stalin took from them and gave to Ukraine. They certainly want to have these lands back. So if Polish troops enter Ukraine, they will hardly ever leave it.

In such a case, this example might be followed by other countries that lost parts of their territories after the Second World War. I think that Ukraine would face geopolitical consequences – at least as regards preserving its current statehood – in their full and unappealing magnitude."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2024

Whatever happens, Crimea and the Donbass is Russian territory, whether the west recognises it or not. This is the reality.

The political Border

Let's consider precedent. Russia used a popular referendum (involving outside monitoring groups) to determine if Crimea was to join Russia or not. An overwhelming majority voted to join Russia (yes, there were International monitors present, but the western part of the world refused to send any - they were well aware the result would not be to their liking). Russia was dissatisfied that a referendum was not used (by the EU) in determining whether Kosovo would become an autonomous region or not. But Crimea was strongly pro-Russia.After all the vast majority were Russian people, their grandparents had fought the nazi hordes there in extremely bloody battles.These other Ukrainian regions are much less easily defined one way or the other.

As a general principle, the choices on any referendum probably have to allow for four states (lets set aside the possibility Lyvov region might be annexed by Poland):
These options determine the political boundaries. Now we can guess at where the military line will be. Again we can look at precedent. There was a demilitarised zone around Lughansk and Donetsk, monitored by the OSCE. Large caliber artillery had to be pulled back a proscribed distance from the 'line of contact'. (This did not stop the Ukrainian government military formations killing 14,000 people by shelling, mortars and sniping in the breakaway regions over the course of 8 years. That was then. It will be totally different this time.)

The west would like to freeze such a line where it is at the moment, and hope Ukraine will leave existing Russian territory

Redrawn Ukrainian

Obviously, this will be status quo less Lughansk and Donesk in the east, and  Zaporozhye and Kherson Oblasts in the south. (Although Russia was forced to withdraw from the territory west of the Dneiper river, as Ukraine, with complicity of the USA, was attacking the hydroelectric dam on the river with American HIMAR missiles - and in June 2023 Ukraine did destroy the dam, possibly with a British storm cloud missile).

A line will be drawn at a distance from the Lughansk, Donesk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson Oblast borders that is a little beyond the point of the range of the longest range weapon that Ukraine currently has (see 'demilitarised zone' below). A similar maritime line will have to be drawn offshore the Black Sea (if a concession is made in Odessa). To simplify matters, all large weapons, even of shorter range, might be prohibited from the line up to the (new) borders of Russia.

Given military operations continue in Kharkiv (February 2024) are limited, it seems unlikely Russia will ultimately absorb this oblast. That said, the majority of the people there are Russian speaking. I suspect the terms of settlement may include a monitored referendum to see if the locals want to become part of the Russian Federation, or, as mentioned above, Kharkiv could become an autonomous region (and thus a kind of 'buffer' between the rest of Ukraine and the Russian border).

On the 17th of April 2014 the Russian President described the then Ukrainian Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Odesa as a group that together constituted what was called 'Novorossiya', historic Russian territories.

Odessa, as stated, is enigmatic. Common sense says it rejoins the Russian Federation. But there may be some concessions there, as has been outlined above.

By early 2024 the Russians are clearly moving into the post - conflict settlement stage. The Russian President made a heavily laboured point he has made before - all the land from Russia's western border up to the Dneiper (Dnipro) river was once Russian territory. All the northwest - Chernihiv, the eastern part of Kiev, Sumy, Poltava, Kharkiv, and the eastern part of Dnipropetrovsk. All historic Russian.

As was the strategic Black Sea region, Mykolaiv and Odesa.

"In all, after that act of 1654, 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland was concluded, “the eternal peace,” as it said.

And those lands, the whole left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, reverted to Russia, while the entire right bank of the Dnieper remained in possession of Poland.

Under the rule of Catherine the Great, Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west. This all lasted until the Revolution."
Vladimir Putin 9 February 2023

Mr. Putin pointed out to Tucker Carlson that the western part of Ukraine was given to Russia at the settlement of World War 2.

"...Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia, as under the well-known Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, part of that territory, including western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia.

Thus Russia, which was then named the USSR, regained its historical lands.

After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call World War II, all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to Russia, to the USSR.

As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation, the lands which had originally being German: the eastern parts of Germany (these are now western lands of Poland) "
Vladimir Putin 9 February 2024

Stalin wanted the new Soviet Socialist Republics to be autonomous entities, similar to a federal system. Lenin dropped a time bomb bomb which would explode many years later - he insisted at the time of constitution of the Soviet 'satellites' that they be given the power to withdraw from the quasi-federation of Soviet Republics (some American states have similar provisions). Worse, he transferred some parts of the Russian Soviet Republic into the new entity called 'Ukraine'. At the time of the breakup of the Soviet Unions, all these satellite states exercised their right of autonomy, but in Ukraines case, they also took part of Russia with them. Even that would have been OK, but in recent years these people were denied their cultural rights and rights to their native language. The rest is a history still being written.

"...In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before....

Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities.

For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR.

And, again for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine; and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine.

Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever."
Vladimir Putin 9 February 2024

This is a diplomatic signal. Russia is interested in returning the Russian speaking lands. Once again, Kharkiv may be returned via a face-saving (for the west) referendum (hardly any military action has taken place there by design). Odessa is too important not to take, yet military operations there have been largely restricted to the port. Again, it may be the subject of a referendum.

Who will run the referendum? Russia, with friendly country observers.

Prior to the USA ditching the 2022 agreement at the last moment, terms might have been restricted to the existing four oblasts plus Odesa by referendum, as discussed. But Ukraine caused more death and destruction, so terms have changed.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in early 2024 that if Russia and Ukraine come back to the negotiating table the talks will be different from those held in 2022.

"Should we begin the same negotiations, there’s a completely different reality now. And this new reality, no matter how painful it may be for the Kiev regime, must be recognized..."
Dmitry Peskov, RT 11 February 2024

And in on 28 March 2024, Sergey Lavrov bluntly said:

"Realities on the ground are common knowledge. First, this is the situation on the battlefield, and, second these are lawful interests (they are lawful from all points of view, including international law) of the people living in Novorossiya and Donbass. The Kiev regime has trampled underfoot their rights linked with education, the media, the use of the Russian language and the preservation of their history and memory of the Great Patriotic War. These realities will have to be recognised."
Sergey Lavrov 28 March 2024

Here Sergey Lavrov is lumping the 'unconquered' 'Novorossiyan' Kharkiv, Nikolaev, eastern Dnipropetrovsk and Odessa in with the oblasts that joined the Russian Federation by referendum. Just how the lawful cultural rights of the more or less ethnically Russian people in Kharkiv, Nikolaev and Odessa will be recognised is the vital point - Ukrainian constitutional change is one thing, monitoring and enforcing rights is another. Immediate absorption into Russia solves the problem, but for politico-economic reasons, that may not be Russias preferred option.

The demilitarised zone concept ('sanitary zone', 'buffer zone', cordon sanitaire, etc) edited 10 May 2024

John Helmer goes on to publish a 'demilitarised zone' concept, gleaned from various Russian and outside contacts. Essentially, Russia will push into west Ukraine, and in a very wide arc into the provinces that spawned the white supremacists, then pull back again. As they pull back, mines will be laid, along with movement sensors. The mines will be programmed to self destruct at a certain time or on command. The population in the area will be told to move out down defined corridors (as happened in Syria, when terrorists were allowed to leave the Syrian territories they had infested). The West will have to provide the buses.

In Mr. Helmer's minefield scenario, the border side of the minefield could end in a long concrete wall on the Russian border, guarded by all manner of observation means and anti-drone detection devices.(The Russian government has already mentioned that it will have to shoulder additional expenses for the next three years, and the cost of a long wall and protective equipment might form part of that cost. But a wall can't stop rockets, drones, and artillery fire.)

After that, all infrastructure - everything - in the zone will be destroyed by artillery and bombing. The area would remain, like the Korean demilitarised zone, an accidental wildlife sanctuary. The chief problem with his idea is that it would violate the rules of war outlined in the Hague Convention (1907).

His article is very detailed, with maps of infrastructure etc. It can be found here.

This would 'quarantine' the white supremicist Lyviv and and associated oblasts in the top west fragment of Ukraine.

This concept is essentially the same as the approach taken to divide the Korean Peninsular - a 'demilitarised' wasteland where neither side has any form of human presence. Although in both situations there are many similarities, it seems unrealistic at the practical level. It might work where the zone is only 4 kilometers wide and 250 kilometers long, as it is in Korea, but where the border is around 2,000 kilometers long, as the Ukraine-Russia border is, and a Taurus missile-range distance of about 500 kilometers you are talking about a million square kilometers of depopulated land. In my opinion, the idea could be mooted as a bargaining point, but that's all. Mr. Medvedev has been assigned the task of promoting this threat as realistic.

The Russian President has stated that the problem of Ukrainian shelling Russian territory and the problem of lightweight drones making cross-border incursions can be solved by either of two ways.

Either by increasing the effectiveness of counter artillery fire and drone location and elimination resources, or by creating a buffer zone in Ukraine so deep that artillery shells and small drones can't reach Russia territory.

But artillery fire can't deal with terrorists. Therefore there are two dimensions to consider - the military defense zone, and a political border that can be secured from infiltration by terrorists.

"...our country, formerly protected by the most powerful defence system along the length of its external frontiers overnight found itself defenceless both from the east and the west....

...As I have said many times already, we have found ourselves confronting crises, revolts and terrorist acts on more than one occasion. But what has happened now, this crime committed by terrorists, is unprecedented in its inhumanness and cruelty.

This is not a challenge to the President, parliament or government. It is a challenge to all of Russia, to our entire people. Our country is under attack...

...such wars do not end quickly. In this situation we simply cannot and should not live in as carefree a manner as previously. We must create a much more effective security system..."

Vladimir Putin addressing the nation on 4 September 2004 regarding the terrorists who murdered children in the Russian town of Beslan

"...we need to strengthen the border, and if any of you work there, you surely can see that this process is moving quite quickly, and this task of strengthening the borders will also be solved. But the possibility of shelling our territory from the territory of Ukraine certainly remains. And there are several solutions here.

First, increasing effectiveness and counter-battery combat; but this does not mean that there will be no missiles flying at our territory.

And if this continues, then we will apparently have to consider the issue – and I say this very carefully – in order to create some kind of buffer zone on the territory of Ukraine at such a distance from which it would be impossible to reach our territory.

...We have to see how the situation develops...

...the problem will be solved, either this way or the way I mentioned.
Vladimir Putin June 13, 2023

In June 2023 Dmitry Medvelvev expanded on the proposal that the security zone should be on the border with Lyviv .

"Yesterday, the Russian president said that it is necessary to create a demilitarized zone (‘cordon sanitaire’) for the security of our country.

Given the enemy’s decision to supply the Kiev regime with increasingly long-range weapons, such a line should run along the borders of Lvov (Polish Lemberg) (historically, Lvov was known as Lemberg in German and Lwow in Polish - TASS) in order for it to play a real defensive role.

These would be the new, secure borders of what used to be called ‘Country 404’ (Ukraine — TASS)."
TASS News 14 June 2023 

As noted above, Mr. Medvelvev's idea seems far-fetched, not least because it would be difficult to implement (it would probably require a full mobilisation of Russian forces). Although it does open up a better prospect for the rest of Ukraine to hold elections and evict the white supremacist elements from government, and then choose, should they wish, a better President. I The concept conforms to the 'maximum pressure' technique (in the style of Mr.Trump), able to be amended by negotiation.

There are other models for a 'cordon sanitaire'. Turkey imposed a 'buffer zone' on the Syria-Turkiye border stretching 30 kilometers deep into Syrian territory in order to prevent Kurdish PKK members in Syria carrying out terrorist activities on the Turkiye territory - the existing multi-layered tall concrete wall stretch all the way along that part of the Turkiye-Syria border haven proven inadequate. The details were a compromise between Turkiye and Russia, and came to be known as the 'Sochi Agreement'. The main point was combined Turkiye-Russian patrols, and intelligence sharing. However, as the routes were both limited in extent and the timetables fixed, the patrols were found to be relatively ineffective, and as of March 2024, seem to have been more or less abandoned. This seems like a rather ineffective approach.

It seems to me the only realistic solution is a buffer zone of a Ukrainian autonomous region that takes in Odessa, Nikolaev, eastern Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkiv. The alternative is to have no buffer zone at all and simply absorb these last 4 regions of historic 'Novorossiya'. Whatever the case, the key to success is the provision of a much better quality of life for the citizens than they had before.

"In Novorossiya and Donbas, projects are taking place to revitalize these regions and promote their integration into the country's unified legal and socio-economic field. Industry, agriculture and infrastructure are being restored. There is a goal to bring the regions to the all-Russian level by 2030 in key areas that determine the quality of human life. Most importantly, our new citizens are enthusiastically participating in all these processes and associate their future with Russia."

If an autonomous zone is the outcome, it will need to be able to trade with Russia without impediment. Regulations will need to be harmonised. The autonomous zone will have to agree not to allow subsidised EU goods to flood into Russia. An autonomous zone will create a situation where Russia and the west will both vie for the ability to to invest in the zone.

Ukraine will need foreign capital no matter what happens. In the long run, Ukraine will be best served by exploiting cheap Russian natural gas, and exploiting the land-based logistic lines that penetrate deep into Eurasia and beyond - to South East Asia. In the long run, Ukraine will benefit by the Arctic transport route, assuming it remains open (although the complexities of the climate system cannot guarantee that).

Occupy Ukraine - consequences
Regulations: Article 42
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Regulations: Article 43
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Hague Conventions 'Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land.' 18 October 1907

Why would Russia want a demilitarized zone (or autonomous region), rather than occupy (temporarily) all of Ukraine? Because regardless of the form of settlement, there will be embittered ideological elements who will be ripe for recruitment into Western-trained sabotage groups. Russia is more than aware of this, and it was commented on at the time of the public Russian Security Council Meeting that convened prior to launch of the special military operation. That meeting mulled over what to do in response to the NATO-proxy intent to solve the civil war by attacking the Donbas, and perhaps even Crimea. Looking ahead to post-conflict conditions, the head of the Russian Interior Ministry commented:

"The point of view of the current and former Kiev authorities is that they were forced to sign the Minsk agreements in a difficult situation back then, because they were driven into a corner, and that the Minsk agreements are akin to an act of capitulation. Well, then, “colleagues,” let us draw a historical parallel and remember May 1945. Supposedly, Germany signed the Act of Surrender and failed to comply with it for seven years citing a variety of circumstances such as getting into pockets in the streets of Berlin and the like. This is an analogy.

So, what can we talk about today when our foreign partners invite us to play a fair game at the negotiating table? We can play a fair game only when we have honest and trustworthy partners at the table. However, when you have partners with marked cards who are trying their best to justify official Kiev’s hypocritical and deceitful position, what is there to discuss then? Who is inviting us to start this dialogue? We are encouraged to do so by our foreign partners who, having presented a vial with white powder, proceeded to bomb Iraq, change the legitimate government, and drown the people in blood. Having done that, they are inviting us to a dialogue."
Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev 21 February 2022

The first point is that even if Kiev signs an Act of Surrender, attacks across the border will continue for year, with the Ukrainian Government claiming it has nothing to do with them.

Second, any security guarantee given by Western governments is utterly worthless, as lying and deceitful behaviour is normal for them.

If words are worthless, all that is left are concrete measures. Russia no doubt observed that Turkey has an extensive and high concrete wall on it's border with Syria, in part to 'keep out' Kurdish terrorists. The zone on the Syrian side of the wall contains a zone of Turkiye's proxies, so-called Syrian 'rebels', many of whom are Islamist terrorists, and many of whom are terrorists, some of whom are Uyghur Muslim extremist terrorists imported from as far away as China's Xinjiang. In spite of Turkish garrisons dotted across the 'de-militarised zone' on Syria's territory, religous extremists continue to sporadically launch attacks within Syria from time to time. Syria, with Russian assistance, has had to punish the terrorist cells whenever they launch a bombing or drone attack against the Syrian government.

Analogous to terrorist imports into Syria that are protected by a major power, extremist Ukrainian nationalist terrorists paid and assisted by major powers would almost certainly infiltrate a Russian occupied 'demilitarised zone', whether Russian occupation is a series of garrisons or something more extensive.

Negotiation or not? Legal barriers.

"..last September [2022] Vladimir Zelensky passed a decree prohibiting anybody in the Ukrainian government from having any negotiations with the Russian Federation. And the fact that people keep asking us when Russia is going to be 'ready for negotiations' does not do credit to the people who raise this issue - especially in the media.
Sergey Lavrov 14 April 2023

"We have to state that the regime of Vladimir Zelensky is not inclined to make peace. Its representatives think in terms of war and resort to highly aggressive rhetoric. There is no talk of ending hostilities. On September 30, 2022, Zelensky banned talks with the leadership of Russia, and this ban remains in force. You are free to draw your own conclusions."
Sergey Lavrov 28 December 2023 

"Kiev’s current authorities should respect this free expression of the people’s will; there is no other way. This is the only way to peace."
President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin 30 September 2022

The Russian President's statement was probably partly in response to the Ukrainian President passing a decree making it illegal to negotiate with Russia, which is tantamount to passing a death sentence on Ukrainian soldier, as well as Polish and French NATO proxies fighting on the Ukrainian side.

The reference to "current authorities" suggests that part of terms for peace will include an inclusive government that bars any party with extreme racist views. Perhaps the Russian President is hinting that the Black Sea oblasts will be asked to vote on whether or not they wish to join the Russian Federation, perhaps not. Based on the survey on use of Russian language (above), it seems fairly likely they will vote to join Russia. 
If a negotiated settlement has been agreed, Russia might contribute something to the EU's aid efforts while the Ukrainian people transition to a new inclusive government. Possibly it would focus on restoring Ukraines power system, seeing as both countries used the same Soviet designed systems.

But which comes first? Negotiations and then an agreement requiring a new election in Ukraine, then a treaty with that new government? Elections first, a new government, then a treaty?

"The procedure for terminating the bilateral treaty with Ukraine on its sovereignty is hampered by the absence of such a treaty. In Article 1 of the Treaty on the Principles of Relations between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR of November 19, 1990, the two republics recognised each other as ‘sovereign states.’ The 1990 treaty was then replaced by the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine of May 31, 1997 (Article 39), which was denounced by Ukraine and terminated on April 1, 2019."
Maria Zakharova 21 June 2023

'Denounced' is a formal term meaning that Ukraine has, in effect, torn up the treaty and scattered it it the wind. This means that Ukraine does not recognise Russia as a sovereign state.

Even if the "current government" in Ukraine came to the obvious conclusion - it must negotiate with Russia - it has taken the bizarre position that there is no party to negotiate with. Circumstances in March 2024 are now such that it may be that Russia comes to the same conclusion with the regard to the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government.

Ukraine's terms for settlement Edited 1 April 2024

As at late August 2023, the conflict continued. There were some small signs the Russian Federation would soon switch from defensive attrition to an offensive. The Washington Post, the US government's proxy propaganda bullhorn, published 'leaked' intelligence that Ukraine would not be able to cut the land bridge to Crimea. This was a major US government objective, as if the USA could get it's hands on the Crimea naval base, it would be entitled to bring warships into the Black Sea (prior to the expiration of the Russian lease on the naval base in Crimea, before Russia re-took it, the USA requested bids for a contract to build US own naval facilities there.) Once in the Black Sea, the USA could then threaten Russia from cruise missile installations on land directly abutting Russia, as well as sea launched missiles from it's surface and submarine weapons platforms. In effect, the US was admitting defeat. A Crimean naval base was now a destroyed dream.

As a consequence both NATO and the the US started muttering about the need for negotiations. The terms the west suggested - Russia would "be allowed" to keep the territories it has taken (which are now Russia, according to Russian constitutional law), and Ukraine would join NATO.

This idea is absurd, as the US knows. One of the objectives of the special military operation is for Ukraine to return to it's former status as a neutral country.

In turn, the Zelensky government came up with a list of deliberately absurd terms and preconditions. Which they demand are fulfilled in full before Zelensky will discuss terms.

All this is irrelevant - terms are set by the victor, not the defeated.

"..the special military operation’s goals set by President Putin. In addition to demilitarisation, it is to denazify Ukraine. In Ukraine, we are at war against the West and against Nazism, which has reared its head in that country and is being thoroughly cultivated by our Western colleagues.

Take, for example, their approach to talks. Every time this issue comes up, they say there is only one baseline for the talks, which is the Zelensky formula (10 items).

Lately the West has been trying to use every avenue to talk the leading developing countries of the Global South into supporting this formula. The West's position is the only basis underlying the Zelensky formula. The president of Ukraine and his administration are saying there can be no other baseline whatsoever.

...it is about Russia withdrawing from all territories to the borders of 1991, the Russian leadership being put under a special (or already existing) tribunal, our country paying reparations, after which a peace treaty will be concluded.

The West says this is the only way out of the existing situation. In this war, Ukraine is upholding European and Western civilisation’s values. Josep Borrell, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and other Western politicians have made a point of it. No one has any doubt that Ukraine is run by a Nazi regime. This is a racist regime because the Russian language is banned everywhere you go in Ukraine, anyone who dares to break the law that states that Ukrainian is the only language that is allowed to be spoken can be subjected to physical violence.

This means that Europe identifies with racism, Russophobia, and Nazism because it claims that the Kiev regime promotes European values.

Since this is the case, we are left with no other choice than to prevent a revival of Nazism right on our borders.

Question: If I have a correct understanding of Vladimir Zelensky’s position, the conditions you have mentioned are necessary just to begin talks, not for signing an agreement. If I understood him correctly, talks can only be held after Russia surrenders. But who would he talk with?

Sergey Lavrov: ...The preliminary conditions include Russia’s withdrawal to the 1991 border, criminal prosecution and reparations, after which they would be ready to talk.

Question: Can you name a serious power that would accept such conditions unless it had been defeated on the battlefield?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot. But there are powers that are widely considered to be serious which support this logic. I am referring to those who have gambled their reputation and political future on Vladimir Zelensky.

The West cannot back down from deadlock without losing face.

On the other hand, they have learned to present their loss of face as an achievement."
Sergey Lavrov 28 June 2023  

Are we ready to negotiate? We sure are. But we are definitely not ready for talks that are based on some kind of ”wishful thinking“ which comes after the use of psychotropic drugs, but we are ready for talks based on the realities that have developed, as they say in such cases, on the ground."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2024

The west, including Switzerland, proposed a settlement negotiation based solely on the delusional and deliberately provocative Zelensky terms. This meeting would not include Russia. It seems like some kind of silly time-wasting pantomime, meaning nothing. Yet apparently normal Swiss poiticians presented it to the Russian foreign minister. Clearly they were attempting to cheekily and maliciously troll him.

"I had two meetings with the ambassadors of the Global Majority in Moscow. Another meeting will be held in early April. We explained to them our assessments of the Ukraine situation and developments. The last time we talked was about two months ago, and we reviewed Vladimir Zelensky’s formula. They asked us questions. I suggested that we focus on just one aspect of this formula – Russia must vacate Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya and go back to the 1991 borders. First, in 1991, the Ukrainian SSR seceded from the Soviet Union under the Declaration of Independence, which stated that Ukraine was a neutral and non-aligned state, was a good neighbour with all former republics, and respected human rights and the rights of ethnic minorities. None of this is the case now.

Second, let’s hypothetically fantasise that Ukraine is back to its 1991 borders. Look up online what Ukrainian politicians and parliamentarians have been saying about their plans for the people who now live in Crimea, in the Lugansk and Donetsk republics, in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. What they are calling for does not even sound like a “cleansing.” There is one lady in the Verkhovna Rada who said that 25,000 people in Crimea should be executed for show. If this is what this formula is about, it is an invitation to genocide. Our colleagues from Africa, Asia and Latin America must understand where they are being invited.

Now the Swiss are initiating another get-together as part of the Copenhagen format, where everyone is invited and forced to agree with Vladimir Zelensky’s formula, to support it or at least declare their readiness to discuss parts of it.

In addition to what I said, it also includes food security, energy security, and nuclear safety issues. This is all just for appearances’ sake, precisely to lure people by this seemingly innocent agenda.

I met with Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis in New York in January 2024. He told me they realised that nothing can be solved without Russia, that it is unfair and our country must participate. He said they would convene another meeting in Switzerland and invite Ukraine, the West and as many countries of the South as possible. Russia would not be invited, he said, but they would fine-tune and finalise the Zelensky formula and try to make it more acceptable.

More acceptable – how? Does this mean that Russia would be told to leave not tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow? When they finally agree on it, when it evolves into something they all share, they say they will be happy to invite us and present it at the next meeting.

This is a serious and mature person talking. A minister, and former President of Switzerland. You would expect someone with this kind of experience to be more aware of what they are saying and doing.
Sergey Lavrov 28 March 2024  

Armistice [edited 23 February 2024]

The West 'would like' a frozen conflict (as they term it). The idea is to have a prolonged (maybe years) 'humanitarian pause', during which time the west will re-arm and re-train the Ukrainians so they can attack Russia again. This will never happen. But for the sake of argument, what is required?  An armistice along the line of contact, or some other agreed line.

A cessation of hostilities may be agreed in certain areas. From the Russian point of view, hostilities cannot cease on Russian territories - the 4 new oblasts. But once Russia eventually fully occupies these oblasts (and possibly one or more others that have predominantly Russian speaking populations) there may be a local zone from which and into which neither side conducts any form of military operation. The rules on Armistice are covered by the Hague Conventions (1907).

Regulations: Article 37 
An armistice may be general or local. The first suspends the military operations of the belligerent States everywhere; the second only between certain fractions of the belligerent armies and within a fixed radius.

Regulations: Article 39
It rests with the Contracting Parties to settle, in the terms of the armistice, what communications may be held in the theatre of war with the inhabitants and between the inhabitants of one belligerent State and those of the other.

Hague Conventions 'Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land.' 18 October 1907

The problem of Ukrainian compliance remains.

Regulations: Article 40
Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately.

While the Hague Conventions does cover the case of supposedly 'non-state' saboteurs, it would be trivially easy for such criminals to escape punishment, even if Ukraine cooperated to catch them.

Regulations: Article 41
A violation of the terms of the armistice by private persons acting on their own initiative only entitles the injured party to demand the punishment of the offenders or, if necessary, compensation for the losses sustained.

No surrender, a negotiated settlement Edited 13 April 2024

The West broke Ukraine, and it is the West's cost to bear. If Ukraine surrenders, then, as the occupying power, Russia would have to provide everything for the civilian population. Therefore, it now seems to me that Russia is unlikely to require Ukraine to surrender. It most certainly does not want to carry the burden of caring for a deeply divided and corrupt Ukraine.

For this reason, while there may be a temporary occupation, the Russian Federation is unlikely to require a surrender, but rather, a negotiated settlement, albeit more or less unilaterally imposed.

This line of thinking arises from remarks made by Russian officials:

 "Nazi leaders assumed that there was no need to storm the city because this made it possible to avoid troop casualties. At the same time, they did not want its people to surrender because surrendering is part of warfare implying that they would have been obliged to care for the civilian population."
Maria Zakharova, Foreign Ministry spokesperson 12 January 2023

"In March of this year, the Ukrainians asked for negotiations. After several rounds on March 29 in Istanbul, they finally gave us something on paper. We agreed with the principles of the settlement contained in that document. Among them was ensuring Ukraine's security through respect for its non-aligned status (that is, its non-accession to NATO), its nuclear-free status (Vladimir Zelensky would no longer be able to declare that abandoning nuclear weapons in 1994 was a mistake); and the provision of collective guarantees not by NATO, but from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Germany and Turkey.
We agreed to that

In a day or two, the American handlers said to the Ukrainians: “Why are you doing this?” It is clear that the United States expected to wear out the Russian army by using Ukraine as a proxy, as well as have European countries spend the maximum amount of their weapons, so that later, Europe would be buying replacements from Washington, securing revenue for the American military industry and defence corporations.

They said the Ukrainians were too early in expressing their readiness to receive security guarantees from the Russians and reach a settlement on this basis.

They keep accusing Russia of seeking negotiations all the time in order to “buy time to raise and send in reinforcements for the special military operation.” This is both ridiculous and frustrating. These people are blatantly lying.

We have never sought any negotiations, but we have always said that if someone is interested in negotiating a solution, we are ready to listen. The following proves my point – when in March of this year, the Ukrainians made such a request, we not only met them halfway, but were also ready to agree to the principles that they put forward.

The Ukrainian side was not allowed to do this at the time, because the war had not yet brought enough wealth to those who are supervising and directing it – and this is primarily being done by the United States and the British.
Sergey Lavrov 01 December 2022

"And let me be clear about something: We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores — our own stockpiles with new equipment..."
Joseph Biden 20 October 2023

"President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said many times that we never reject any proposal to achieve diplomatic agreements. The terms on which we agree to discuss them are well known. The fact that four territories belong to the Russian Federation is an indispensable condition for talks. But this is not all that must be discussed....

The second large block of problems, in addition to the destinies of the people who do not want to live under the current regime with its open Nazi and racist views is the security of the Russian Federation that has been subjected to numerous threats created on Ukrainian territory."
Sergey Lavrov 28 December 2022

"In general, as you know, we have never rejected a peaceful settlement of disputes. Moreover, this is what we were inclined to do... Once again, I would like to emphasise that we are in favour of talks."
Vladimir Putin 11 April 2024

"Sergey Lavrov again emphasised the possibility of a peaceful solution but only with due regard for the new realities and Russia’s interests and concerns."
Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Türkiye Mevlut Cavusoglu 7 April 2023

"When he [Victor Orban, President of Hungary - Ed] asked me about the possibility of a peaceful settlement, I said what I have said many times before, that if the Ukrainian side really wants to negotiate, it should not make any theatrical gestures but instead start by cancelling the presidential executive order prohibiting talks [with Russia].

It is rumoured that they are presumably ready for negotiations now. Several high-ranking officials in charge of foreign policy, who only recently spoke about inflicting strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield, have changed their tune and say that such issues should be decided through peaceful negotiations. It is a reasonable change, a shift in the right direction...but it is not enough. Practical steps must be taken if there is a real desire to hold negotiations."
Vladimir Putin 18 October 2023

The United States government does not want peace, it wants war. It aims to avoid the cost of disposing of old military equipment, and at the same time, soak the US taxpayer to manufacture new armaments. Yet the US knows that Russia has won and there will have to be a settlement. And as it knows Russia will not allow the USA to decide terms, it remains both in the dark about Russia's intentions, yet determined to get rid of as much old stock as possible. This is an irreconcilable contradiction. They continue to play for time, spinning out the conflict for as long as possible while shovelling as many old model armaments into Ukraine as possible, even in the face of obvious Ukrainian exhaustion. A cynic would say that Mr. Zelensky's purpose is to keep the conflict active for as long as possible because that is what the Americans pay him to do. Payment will stop when US warehouses of outdated arms are finally empty.

"Tucker Carlson: ...[the conflict in Ukraine] seems like it could...evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict, and could initiate a nuclear launch, and so why don’t you just call Biden and say “let’s work this out”?

Vladimir Putin: What's there to work out? It's very simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies.

I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership: ”If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That's it. And then we can agree on some terms before you do that, stop.“

What's easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what? ”You're going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid, please don't. What is there to talk about?"
Vladimir Putin 9 February 2024

The sequence is clear. First, the USA stops providing arms to Ukraine. Ukraine has no arms manufacturing facilities. When imported armaments dry up. the conflict has to stop.

After a period of weeks during which a temporary ceasefire is instituted, negotiations, which are really terms of surrender (that phrase will never be used so that the west and Ukraine can 'save face') will be drawn up.

After which the mechanics of the buffer zones, the monitors and so forth will be put in place.

"As for where we should go....We need to fully ensure our interests. What does it mean to fully ensure our interests?
First, we need to complete the tasks of the special operation that our president spoke about.
Secondly, we need to create the necessary protective cordon that will insure against all kinds of encroachments on our lands. Not only from shelling, but also from active offensive operations. And so on.
And only in this case will we be able to admit that our tasks have been completed."
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council 25 February 2024

Thats it.

Mr. Zelensky initialed a mutually acceptable agreement with Russia in March 2022, but the USA rushed in and cancelled it.

""The only people who could settle the war against Ukraine are the Americans. During the peace negotiations in March 2022 in Istanbul with [then-Ukrainian chief negotiator] Rustem Umerov, the Ukrainians did not agree on peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they discussed," Schroeder said in an interview with the newspaper on Saturday.
The former German chancellor said that Kiev had contacted him in 2022 to learn whether he could mediate talks with Russia, after which he had meetings with Umerov and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Schroeder told the newspaper that the potential peace agreement included five key points.
First, under the draft deal, Kiev was supposed to abandon its NATO aspirations.
Secondly, Ukraine should have restored the official status of the Russian language.
Thirdly, Donbas was supposed to remain part of Ukraine, but with a special territorial status, like South Tyrol, an autonomous province in Northern Italy.
Fourthly, Ukraine should have received security guarantees from the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.
The final, fifth issue under discussion was the status of Crimea, Schroeder told media.
He said that Kiev had demonstrated willingness to compromise, including on the provision about NATO membership, but the talks still failed because everything "was decided in Washington."
"I think the Americans did not want a compromise between Ukraine and Russia," Schroeder was cited as saying by the newspaper."The opportunity has now passed.

Time is on Russia's side. New terms will be worse for Ukraine. If this is to be permanently settled, then any negotiated agreement must be water-tight. The West in any manifestation or proxy must be kept out of Ukraine. Therefore, the two 'blocks' of problems (recognition of new territories as Russian and Russian security from NATO threat) must be negotiated at the same time, with NATO and with Ukraine. The more NATO stalls, the more territory Ukraine loses.

Both terms - recognition of the loss of the eastern area and neutrality plus prohibition on the West guaranteeing Ukraine's security - must be met.

In the meantime, Ukrainian troops will be expelled from the Russian territories, and Russia will do whatever is necessary to protect Russian people living in Ukraine from harassment, discrimination, torture and murder by the neo-nazi element in Ukrainian society. Obviously, after settlement, the burden of this work - rightly - must be shouldered by the Europeans (who gave silent consent to the rise of far right and nazi ideology in Ukraine in the first place).

"We are in no hurry. President of Russia Vladimir Putin talked about this. We would like to finish, as soon as possible, the war the West was preparing for and eventually unleashed against us through Ukraine.

Our priority is the lives of the soldiers and civilians that remain in the zone of hostilities. We are patient people. We will defend our compatriots, citizens and lands that belonged to Russia for centuries, proceeding from these priorities."
Sergey Lavrov 28 December 2022

Mediation Edited 15 April 2024

Russia will not deal with 'mediators', or, at least, not Western mediators.

"This is the gist of the EU’s mediation. Some process started in the Balkans after Kosovo proclaimed “independence” unilaterally and without any referendum. The UN General Assembly invited the EU to mediate between Pristina and Belgrade and its effort was rather successful: in 2013, the agreement was reached on establishing the Community of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo.

In 2014, when a coup was staged in Ukraine and the “counterterrorism” forces launched an operation against Donbass and Russians in Ukraine, the EU also acted as a mediator. This led to the signing of the Minsk agreements that established certain rules, just as with regard to the Serbian municipalities in Kosovo.

The EU made a solemn promise to support a special status for northern Kosovo and eastern Ukraine. The status did not imply any complicated things: to let people speak their native tongue (Serbians were supposed to be allowed to speak Serbian and Russians in Ukraine to speak Russian), teach children in schools in their native tongue, use it in daily life and have a certain autonomy as regards law-enforcement and economic ties with neighbouring regions (northern Kosovo with Serbia and eastern Ukraine with Russia).

Identical agreements were made, which urged respect for national minorities in full conformity with international European conventions on the rights of these groups.

The EU announced that it had succeeded in both cases.

But it shamefully failed in both cases and had to admit it later on by saying it could not persuade Kiev to fulfil the Minsk agreements [pdf] or make Pristina abide by its agreements with Belgrade.

There is something in common as regards the EU’s treatment of different areas in our common geopolitical space, its goals, its competence and its ability to make deals...I have repeatedly emphasised the main geopolitical conclusion from this situation: it is now impossible to agree with Europe on anything and be sure that they will deliver on their obligations."
Sergey Lavrov 6 June 2022

EU 'mediators' have failed twice now. They are useless. Not only useless, events have shown they are also duplicitous and untrustworthy.

There will be no US mediators (although there will need to be channels to coordinate the removal of all US military personnel, including their proxies and their NATO 'pseudoUkrainian nationals' from Ukraine).

"When asked by reporters over possible bilateral talks with Washington on Ukraine, Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko replied, “No, we are not.”
However, the diplomat stated that Moscow is ready to hold negotiations with Ukraine “without any preconditions,” except for the key condition – “that Ukraine shows goodwill.”"
Andrey Rudenko, Deputy Foreign Minister, RT News, 8 November 2022

"Recently, these instructors received the right to acquire Ukrainian citizenship in a simplified way. This is sacrilegious and humiliating. People who have lived in Donbass forever are deprived of the opportunity to have the legal right to their own language, while those who have never lived in Donbass and have come there obviously not to establish peace are granted the right to receive Ukrainian citizenship easily and without any ties. ...

...What are the Ukrainian authorities after? They are trying not only to legalise the presence of military instructors in the country but also to skirt around the demand of the Minsk Package of Measures on the withdrawal of foreign armed formations, combat hardware and mercenaries from Ukraine.

If it transpires that foreign military instructors are present on their territory, they will tell us that these are not military instructors but holders of Ukrainian citizenship."
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, 24 December 2021

There will be no western mediators from unfriendly countries, of whatever nationality. American, Polish, and French military personnel posing as Ukrainian citizens who joined the Ukrainian armed forces as work as 'Military instructors' and specialist combat fighters are being killed. Absolute numbers will come out in time, but they number in the hundreds, at least.

"But we are also aware of Kiev’s position – they kept saying they wanted talks, and even sort of asked for them, but have now passed an official decision that bans such talks. Well, what is there to discuss?

As you may be aware, speaking at the Kremlin when announcing the decision on the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, I said we are open. We have always said that we are open. We reached certain agreements in Istanbul, after all.

These agreements were almost initialled. But as soon as our troops withdrew from Kiev, the Kiev authorities lost any interest in the talks. That is all there is to it.

If they ever get ready for this, we will welcome it. At that point, the mediation efforts of all the stakeholders may come in handy.
Vladimir Putin, October 14 2023

"Today, when I talked with Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Ms Sheikh Hasina, she asked when this [conflict in Ukraine] all might come to an end. 

Many people ask this question, including what Russia is able to do. But it should be addressed to others.

...almost every time President of Russia Vladimir Putin speaks in public, he makes a point of stressing, in response to such appeals, that Russia is not against talks.

It was not we who disrupted the signing of a peace agreement as early as April 2022, when, soon after the start of our military operation, the Ukrainians suggested that we have talks and presented to us, in Istanbul, a number of principles that could serve as a basis for signing the agreement.

We accepted them. But when the agreement itself was drawn up, an agreement that was based squarely on the Ukrainian proposals and originally initialed both by us and the Ukrainians, the British and the Americans forbade its signing (although already a venue was being discussed for the presidents to meet), saying that if the Russians were ready to come to terms, this meant they were weak and could be “squeezed” for more concessions and “let’s wear them out some more.” So, all of this has continued ever since.

When they ask us whether it is possible to end this process, and whether the talks have any future, we should recall that, as far back as September 2022, Vladimir Zelensky had signed an executive order banning any talks with the Government of Russia headed by Vladimir Putin.

...those elites that have now gained power in most Western countries, and that have no historical memory are acting in accordance with precisely these positions....They are saying that it must either be defeat and capitulation (which are by definition impossible), or the problem must be resolved on the battlefield. There is no other choice.

If they change their minds and realise that it is foolish to support a Nazi regime headed by drug addicts and to waste such huge sums of money, then, perhaps, we would be ready to hear them out."
Sergey Lavrov 8 September 2023

"First, we have never refused – as I said a thousand times – to participate in any talks that may lead to a peace settlement. We have always said so.

Moreover, during the talks in Istanbul, we initialed this document. We argued for a long time, butted heads there and so on, but the document was very thick and it was initialed by Medinsky on our side and by the head of their negotiating team – I think his name is Arakhamia but I don’t remember exactly. We actually did this but they simply threw it away later and that’s it. This is the first point.

Second, you said the Europeans have their approach and the Americans also have their approach.

But, you know, it’s like in every joke about the Europeans versus the Americans.
Point one – the Americans are always right.
Point two – if the Americans are not right, see point one.
So, that’s why there isn’t anyone to talk to especially...

...there is point three: if the interests of Ukraine are not in sync with point two, see point one, because ultimately it is about the United States’ interests.

We know that they hold the key to solving issues.

If they genuinely want to end today's conflict via negotiations, they only need to make one decision which is to stop supplying weapons and equipment.

That’s it.

Ukraine itself does not manufacture anything.

[Then] Tomorrow, they will want to hold talks that are not formal, but substantive, and not to confront us with ultimatums, but to return to what was agreed upon, say, in Istanbul.

Ukraine's security issues are spelled out in great detail there. In fact, much of what is written there makes us wonder whether we should agree to it. To reiterate, it was initialed by both sides.

Therefore, if they want to get back to it, we are ready to talk to them. But for now, they want to defeat Russia and to achieve success in their counteroffensive operation."
Vladimir Putin June 13, 2023

For us to hold negotiations now just because they are running out of ammunition would be ridiculous. Nevertheless, we are open to a serious discussion, and we are eager to resolve all conflicts, especially this one, by peaceful means.

However, we must be sure that this is not just another pause that the enemy wants to use for rearmament, but rather a serious conversation with security guarantees for the Russian Federation."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2024

Notice that "mediation efforts" of stakeholders will be useful. It does not mean the west will be directly involved in negotiations. It means the west will be engaged in second level coercion - bribing the Ukrainian leadership, threatening them economically, telling them what to do. Making promises about security. Of course, the negotiations will probably prohibit any western military foot in Ukraine, and prohibit any western military person who becomes a Ukrainian citizen from joining or being in any way associated with the Ukrainian military.

Who are the stakeholders? The 'stakeholders' are the United Nations, the Red Cross, and perhaps the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). In investment terms, China, like the EU, has significant investments in Ukrainian agriculture and in grain export facilities in Odessa. Turkey has significant investment in grain processing and re-export. China is a good trade partner for Ukraine (in early 2023 the combined bilateral trade between the two was around $1 billion a month). Chinese imports into Ukraine provide Ukrainians with cheap and affordable consumer goods, and trade between Ukraine and China is balanced. Truly massive amounts of money will be needed to rebuild Ukraine, which China to an extent can provide. Ukraine joined the 'Belt and Road Initiative' in 2014, so it is in Ukraine's long-term interests to see China further develop transport infrastructure from China, through Russia (with 'belt and road' links to Eurasia and beyond) to Ukraine and into Europe.

As before, issues will be dealt with between competent officials, and only when everything is worked out in greatest detail will any agreement be signed. Turkie, the UAE, Egypt, maybe Hungary, might play a role - but China or Belarus seems likely to take the lead.

On February 18th 2023, at the Munich Peace Conference, China announced an intention to play a role in mediating peace. On February 24th it publicly released it's 12 point peace plan. In March 2023 President Xi was scheduled to visit President Putin - not long after President Xi successfully negotiated a reconciliation agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps his team worked with the Ukrainian and Russian sides to come to a mutually acceptable agreement behind the scenes, with the March visit by Mr. Xi to be the final movement of a well orchestrated piece. As it happened, there was no result.

By late September 2023 it was obvious from American officials public statements that the USA government intended to provide a Ukraine with on-going supplies of HIMARS missiles, at least, and participate in re-building the Ukrainian military force. The UK government would most likely handle on-going sabotage and terrorism in the new Russian territories. The Ukrainian hierarchy openly stated that even if they signed a negotiated settlement, they would never stop trying to regain their former territory.

By February 2024 it was obvious to everyone that the Ukrainian military was running out of both war materiel and personnel. It was clear to any thinking person that once the winter mud turned hard and firm (about May, when the current Ukrainian President's mandate also runs out), the Russians would be well placed to develop offensive operations in the directions of their choice and that Ukraine had no way to stop a massive multi-front push. The only question was whether Ukraine would capitulate and save lives, or whether it would stubbornly and pointlessly resist. The Americans could stop the destruction at any time by stopping supplying weapons. Whether the Americans do or not, the end result is the same - defeat of Ukraine. But stopping now saves Ukrainian lives. If the US deliberately keeps the war going needlessly, well, the implications for Ukrainian popular sentiment towards the US are obvious.

Russia will not accept foreign military bases on Ukrainian territory. It will demand a buffer zone between its border and where artillery rockets are deployed, the width of which is equal to the range of the missiles. Russia also demands de-nazification, which can only be done by Ukraine changing its constitution to prohibit far right ideology.

To me, all this implies that a new Ukrainian constitution outlawing nazi ideology and guaranteeing equal rights for all, and free and fair elections will be Russia's preconditions for a negotiated settlement. A new Ukrainian President will inevitably be voted in.Russia will probably only negotiate once these are cemented in place.

Only then will Russia's preference for a negotiated settlement be possible - and sustainable in the long term.

Perhaps a trusted President (possibly Mr. Xi or Mr. Lukashenko) will be the facilitator. The photo op will be with the new President of Ukraine and the President of the Russian Federation, maybe plus high level military officials from both countries. Where might the photo op be? Odessa would once have been a good choice, but Ukraine's insistence on needlessly pursuing a lost cause has now closed that out. It is much more likely it will be in Belarus.

"Question: How feasible is China’s peace plan in current conditions? We know that a discussion aiming to allow China to take part in this conference is now underway in Switzerland....

Sergey Lavrov: ...China’s 12-point plan and Switzerland’s formula are incompatible....China’s idea implies that, at first, it is necessary to resolve systemic security issues in our common region and to deal with the root causes of the current situation in Ukraine. The latter reflects a hybrid war against Russia that has prepared for a long time now and was eventually unleashed by the West. ...According to China’s approach, it would only be possible to seriously discuss an agreement (that would, I repeat, heed legitimate security interests of all parties) after eliminating these root causes....

China and Switzerland voice incompatible approaches. Switzerland’s “initiatives” merely fulfil the “order” of the United States and its allies. I do not see any way we can “hitch the restive steed and the timid deer into one cart.” This is hard to imagine.

China’s approach completely meets our common philosophy, including in the context of a more active current discussion on how to facilitate Eurasian security on our entire continent, in its European section, in Central Asia, in the Caucasus and in other regions of the continent where the situation is unstable, and where conflicts are flaring up."
12 April 2024

"Naturally, we will talk about security issues in the western borders of both Belarus and Russia....In general, as you know, we have never rejected a peaceful settlement of disputes. Moreover, this is what we were inclined to do. It was not Russia that started this war in 2014. Everything began with a coup d’etat in Ukraine. Later, when everything moved to a hot phase, you [President Lukashenko of Belarus initiated the conduct of peace negotiations in Belarus. We launched them in two cities.

Later, the negotiating teams moved to Turkey, to Istanbul.

We largely completed this work there, which took us much time and effort. We initialed it on both sides. Ukraine also initialed it. This paper, this document was initialed.

As you know, later, under pressure from the West, the Ukrainian side opted out of these agreements. I would like to remind you that at the time we were told that we could not sign the document in this manner, that Ukraine could not sign the document “with a gun to its head,” that we had to withdraw our troops from Kiev. So we did. Immediately after we did that, our agreements were discarded.

Now, as you know, the idea of holding some kind of conference in Switzerland is being promoted. We are not invited there. Moreover, they think that we have nothing to do there, and at the same time they say that nothing can be solved without us.

Since we are not going there (it has now turned into a kind of nonsense), they say that we refuse to negotiate. We were not invited, but they say that we refuse.

It would be funny if it were not so sad. Once again, I would like to emphasise that we are in favour of talks. But not in the format of being imposed any schemes that have nothing to do with reality. Why do I say that? Because if the need arises, I will allow myself to turn to you, and maybe we will continue consultations with you in this area.

...if everything gets down to solving the issues we talked about from the outset, and in the energy sector they are related...to solving one of the tasks that we set for ourselves, which is demilitarisation… Above all, we proceed from the fact that in this way [destroying power generation and European gas reserves/reverse flows in Ukraine - editor's interpretation] we directly impact the military-industrial complex of Ukraine.

But if we do get to the point where I started, if we move on to talks about resolving all the issues in other ways, then of course, as I have already said many times, we are ready for that.

You and I will talk about it in greater detail, I will tell you everything in detail.

President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko:...you and I revisited these issues on numerous occasions...and discussed them, including the peace settlement. They are planning to hold what they call a peace conference in Switzerland. But if they want to talk about peace in Ukraine without us, let them do it....we believe that the only thing they can agree on there is how to intensify the escalation of this conflict. Without Russia, what peace process are we talking about? No peace settlement is possible without Russia.

...there is actually nothing to talk to them about when they try to invite more than 100 states and dictate something to us or enforce something on us. This does not sound like a proposal for peace talks....

Vladimir Putin: But our goal is not putting everyone in a tough spot. Just the opposite: we are ready for constructive efforts. But clearly, nothing detached from reality can be imposed on us.

Alexander Lukashenko: ..I wholeheartedly support, absolutely wholeheartedly, the Russian authorities and you personally when it comes to the peace process in this conflict.

There are all the conditions for sitting down and negotiating the issue. If they do not want it, the reason is clear to us...Ukrainians should know, especially the ordinary people, that the issue does not depend on us...the ball is in their court.

I remember the process that began in Belarus. ..First you showed me the document...then you forwarded the copy to me, just as we had agreed. It was the initialled document. It registered major concessions from both Russians and Ukrainians. And then a visitor called them [Ukrainians] down and ordered them to keep fighting to the last Ukrainian.

..we wholeheartedly support the peace process, which Russia never refused to discuss, including today. If we can contribute to this, you are aware of our capabilities. We will always stand together and act in the same spirit as you...

Mr Putin, I believe – and my instincts have never failed me – that your initiatives for a peaceful settlement of the conflict will find a response in Ukraine. They will. Strange as it may seem, they will draw a response among the military...

Take the document that you once showed me, put it on the table and negotiate...It includes acceptable terms for Ukraine as well. They have agreed with that. Therefore, I think we will have an extensive discussion on these issues as well."
Vladimir Putin 11 April 2024

The Russian President and the Belarus President are discussing two possibilities. On the one hand, the prospect of an imposed, non-negotiated settlement with Ukraine of Russia and Belarus security and energy flow concerns. The specifics are not mentioned, but would probably include imposed demilitarised zones, some form of military policing of the zones, short and medium range missiles in Belarus (at a minimum) and so on.

Another potential option if Ukraine refuses to negotiate is for the 'return' of Ukrainian territory that was historically southern Belarus.

"The northern part of the territory of Ukraine, a significant part - Volyn, Rivne, Zhytomyr, Kiev, Chernihiv and Sumy regions - Ukrainian Polesia, historically and ethnically closely connected with Belarusian Polesia. Polesia - one of the largest forest areas on the European continent, a marshy space divided between Ukraine and Belarus has been a relatively isolated region for many centuries, where a special ethnic, cultural and linguistic community of “Poleschuks” was formed.

One of the founders of the Ukrainian political movement in the Russian Empire and one of the authors of the use of the term "Ukrainians" as an ethnonym and polytonym, historian Nikolay Kostomarov, in the middle of the 19th century, separated "Poleschuks" from "Ukrainians". The first, in his opinion, are the descendants of the East Slavic tribe of the Drevlyans. The second are the descendants of the Polyans.

Later, Ukrainian nationalist discourse shifted towards classifying the inhabitants of these territories as "Ukrainians". In Soviet times, the Poleshchuks, who lived north of the administrative border of the Belarusian and Ukrainian USSR, were recorded as Belarusians, who lived to the south - as Ukrainians. However, in reality, the inhabitants of the border areas used the land on both sides of the border.

In the 1990s and 2000s, the question arose of demarcating the border in Polesia. Started after 2014, it met with resistance from illegal amber miners from the Ukrainian side. As noted by the Belarusian political scientist Petr Petrovsky, Belarus could “give a helping hand, take under humanitarian and political protection and guardianship the inhabitants of Ukrainian Polesia, Volyn and Podolia, those who have been in the same state with us for many centuries. Those with whom we share a common history and mentality.“

A guardianship, protectorate system or the creation of a temporary security zone under the control of Belarus could decriminalize this area, which otherwise would become a concentration of "Bandera and uncontrolled gangs that escaped from the left-bank Ukraine to Podolia, Volyn and Polesia." Theoretically, residents of the border regions could also choose whether to remain part of the new Ukrainian state entity or join Belarus...."
See the article for details 11 March 2022

The problem of insecurity on Russia and Belarus western borders remains. This issue is with NATO and the EU, primarily. Ideally, bilateral security agreements with those countries would solve the issue.

"According to China’s approach, it would only be possible to seriously discuss an agreement (that would, I repeat, heed legitimate security interests of all parties) after eliminating these root causes.

We voiced nearly the same proposals in December 2021, and we suggested agreeing on indivisible security, and how it would be embodied in the form of practical measures, including the non-expansion of NATO, essential guarantees and all the rest.

We have been advancing our well-known initiatives since 2007 when the President Vladimir Putin addressed delegates of the Munich Security Conference and warned the West against a temptation to conquer additional geopolitical space using an openly anti-Russia approach. We repeated this in 2008 and 2010.

We agreed on indivisible security within the OSCE framework. The West solemnly pledged at the top level that not a single country or organisation in the OSCE region would strive to aspire to domination. In fact, what NATO engaged in was none other than domination.

...China’s approach completely meets our common philosophy, including in the context of a more active current discussion on how to facilitate Eurasian security on our entire continent, in its European section, in Central Asia, in the Caucasus and in other regions of the continent where the situation is unstable, and where conflicts are flaring up.
Sergey Lavrov 12 April 2024

Minister Lavrov has pointed out that the proposal from China only mentions Ukraine once - in the title. In other words, a universal settlement is needed covering all countries in Eurasia. This could be modeled on Mr. Medvedev's 2008 proposal, it could include elements of the NATO Security agreement rejected by the west in 2021. However China has framed it, it is based on the concept invented by the Europeans themselves - indivisible security. (I cover Russia's 2008 proposal here and Russia's 2021 NATO proposal here.) Russia is using the Ukraine problem as an opportunity to pressure the west into a much larger and much more important 'universal' security treaty. I suspect China would be very pleased to be included.

But the NATO countries are now most unlikely to agree. So the problem of Russia's (and Belarus) security at the border will have to be solved by Russia with antimissile complexes and advanced hypersonic missiles stationed as close as possible to the borders of those countries, Russian bases in Belarus, Russian  nuclear weapons on aircraft stationed in Belarus, shared satellite data.

On the other hand, Ukraine may agree to negotiate. President Lukashenko's "instincts" tell him that Ukraine military hierarchy is at a point where a revised version of the original peace agreement would be acceptable to them, at least. The Ukrainian Rada is reportedly barely functioning anyway, so Mr. Lukashenko's instincts that there is a military coup in the wings may be well founded.

In any case, Belarus would be the ideal mediator from the Russian point of view. Whereas previously Ukraine was militarily strong enough able to reject Belarus as a mediator, the situation has now changed. If the Ukrainians don't come to the table directly themselves via a newly elected government - or via a military or popular coup - then Russia may simply impose Belarus as mediator, on the basis that if Ukraine doesn't agree, then Russia will simply dictate terms without any further discussion.

Text of a Settlement Treaty - Minsk Model

All we need do is look at the text of the Minsk 2 agreement. It is all there. Of course the language will be changed, from 'Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine' to the Ukrainian territories bordering the Russian Federation. The monitoring of military lines will likely be done by Russian and Eurasian Economic Union military or military police. Once the situation has calmed down, normal electronic monitoring methods by Russia, including with satellite and drone assistance, should suffice.

Minsk 2 clause 4 is no longer relevant, but an initial peace agreement will likely require Ukraine to acknowledge that the relevant Oblasts are now irrevocably part of the Russian Federation. The principles of preventing reprisals of Russians in other parts of Ukraine is mentioned in clause 5 ("...a law that forbids persecution and punishment of persons"). This will have to be passed in the Ukrainian Rada before Russian occupation forces leave areas where there is a significant risk of persecution of Russians. The President of Russia has undertaken to protect all Russians. Of course, the Europeans, who worked so assiduously to cause this disaster, will be charged through the OSCE with making sure the population remains safe and any criminals are found and punished. And the OSCE will have to implement suppression of Nazi ideology and ensure the freedom of information and expression, protection of minorities and human rights - that is their job.

Clause 8 is no longer relevant; part of clause 9 will be kept to ensure no control is handed back to Ukraine until the constitutional changes to de-nazify (rather than decentralise, as stated in the Minsk 2 Agreement) are passed in the Rada.

Clause 10 is needed to de-militarise Ukraine (expelling all foreign forces), and this too will have to be embedded in the constitution to prevent NATO or any other similar grouping placing itself in the country (including by issuing a Ukrainian passport to NATO military staff, foreign mercenaries, and other proxy imposters).

Clauses preventing Ukraine ever developing or hosting nuclear weapons will be required, and also the terms will have to include wording to recognise that nuclear weapons  pose an unacceptable existential threat to Russia and the existence of which on Ukrainian territory will result in a military response. This allows Russia to attack Ukraine at any time that they renege on this key part.

"The head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergei Naryshkin, has stated that the SVR had obtained intelligence showing that Ukraine was working on building its own nuclear weapons."
- Sputnik News 03 March 2022

But we have to pay attention the 'all inclusive' nature of Sergey Lavrov's statement. The Russian government has previously commented that Ukraine is not really the main problem for Russia. Clearly, Russian and European mutual indivisible security is. And this must include 'detaching' USA, as it has embedded itself into it's European host's tissues very deeply. But we have to acknowledge that the European leaders are not only incompetent in matters of securing peace, they are obedient subjects of the US government, and therefore impotent.

What are Russia's Terms for Settlement? Edited 7 May 2024

By early April 2023 the Ukrainian President had started to prepare the public mind for the prospect of defeat on the battlefield, and the need for a settlement. By February 2024 the concrete fortress of Avdeyevka had fallen. The Ukrainian President allegedly visited all important parts of the front line to assess from front line forces how long they could hold the line. The road to Kiev is now much less well defended, and Russian forces are said to be able to reach Kiev by Autumn. A sudden collapse and route could happen at any time between now (May 2024) and then (late 2024). Much of the Ukrainian military potential has been degraded, and Ukraine is deeply in debt. Ukraine, once an exporter of electricity to Europe, now (May 2024) relies on European electricity to meet its shortfalls. The situation worsens every month.

The Russian Government, in the meantime, had publicly listed it's broad terms for settlement, and again in July 2023. All the terms had been mentioned before, but there was one new one. This is fully in line with the long-standing Russian practice that where Russia has the upper hand the first and earliest terms are always the ones with the most concessions to the other side. In the West, this is done the other way around - the best terms are offered at the end of a long and protracted negotiation.

But the framework for good faith negotiations have been corroded by previous Ukrainian and Western deviousness, duplicity, and deceptiveness.
The bad faith verbal promises have not been forgotten.
The signatures on agreements which never intended to be adhered to have not been forgotten.
The insolent refusal to implement the Security Council resolution has not been forgotten.

Most of all, the Ukrainian insistence on a 'good faith' gesture by Russia - withdrawing from Kiev - followed by Ukraine then treacherously attacking the Russian troops as they withdrew, and junking the very agreement they had just initialed will never be allowed to happen again. There will be no unilateral 'goodwill' gesture on Russia's part. Russia has not forgotten the cost of the goodwill withdrawal early in the conflict.

On the 19th of April 2024 Mr. Lavrov revealed - for the first time - details of the agreement that Ukraine ultimately rejected:

As for the negotiations – we haven’t mentioned this yet, but I hope I won’t be criticised for it – what guarantees did that Istanbul document include? We were ready to provide extremely serious guarantees, as the Ukrainian delegation wanted.

Is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty serious enough? We did not reproduce it verbatim, but agreed upon a formula that was close. What I am saying is, those were very serious security guarantees. However, the document specifically stated that those guarantees did not apply to Crimea or Donbass. This meant that they could not be touched, otherwise no guarantees would work.

In terms of Ukraine’s demilitarisation, the document stated that there would be no military bases in Ukraine.

As President Vladimir Putin said during the Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg in the summer of 2023, the Istanbul document outlined the limits of the relevant weapons, personnel, etc.

It said that the armed forces of Ukraine would hold no manoeuvres or military exercises involving third countries unless all guarantor countries, Russia and China included, agreed. We were ready to sign the treaty."

It also said that the negotiations on other issues would continue, but only after the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, provision of security guarantees, and abolition of Ukrainian laws of a racist, neo-Nazi, and discriminatory nature."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

"Istanbul is history."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

No-one should imagine that the agreement Russia agreed to in Istanbul will be resurrected clause by clause. There are new realities, driven by the greed, malice, and moral corruption of the western leaders, and the greed, callousness, utter corruption, and intransigence of the Ukrainian leadership.

The conflict (including the wests security aggressions against Russia) can only be solved if both parties have enough "good will" as Dmitry Medvedev points out, to work out a compromise that suits both parties. The only alternative is for one party to surrender.

"It is perfectly clear to everybody – including the brazen Western liars – that in war time, even in much easier circumstances, peace can be achieved either through the parties’ good will based on sensible compromise, or by means of one of the conflict parties’ surrender."
Dmitry Medvedev 15 March 2024

Mr. Medvedev goes on to state that if Ukraine doesn't have the will to 'negotiate' under the new realities - Russian terms worsen the longer the other side drags out the conflict -  then Russia will come up with its own "realistic" and "humane" terms:

"The so-called former Ukraine doesn’t show any will to enter negotiations – in any case, based on recognizing the realities that V.V.Putin noted yesterday. For them, realities are nothing but the mind-numbing “peace formula” by a green tricot-clad provincial clown [France]. Just that. It looks so far-fetched that the only way out is to come up with our own Russian formula, orderly and quite realistic, humane to everyone.
Like what? For example, like this:"

He then goes on to list possible terms. I have included them below:

1. Recognition by the former (further, f.) “Ukraine” its military defeat in the conflict; total and unconditional surrender of the f. “Ukraine” represented by the neo-nazi clique in Kiev; demilitarization of the f. “Ukraine” and banning the creation of military formations within its boundaries in the future.

2. Recognition by the international community of the nazi character of the f. political regime in Kiev, and carrying out –supervised by the UN – forced denazification of all of the government agencies of the f. “Ukraine”.

3. Assertion by the UN the f. “Ukraine’s” loss of its international legal personality, and inability of any of its legal successors’ to join military alliances.

4. Resignation of all the constitutional bodies of the f. “Ukraine”, and holding immediate election to a provisional parliament of the f. “Ukraine’s” territory, self-governing under the UN aegis.

5. Approval by the provisional parliament of the bills concerning all due payments to Russia, including those to our country’s deceased citizens’ relatives, and health damage compensation for the wounded; establishing order of compensating for property damage done to the subjects of the Russian Federation.

6. Official recognition by the provisional parliament of the f. “Ukraine” that all of its territory is the territory of the Russian Federation; adoption of an act of unification of the f. “Ukraine’s” territory with Russia.

7. Self-dissolution of the provisional parliament; recognition of the unification act by the UN.

Such can be a soft Russian peace formula. This is a compromise position, right? I believe, following this very formula can we seek benevolent consensus with the international community, including the Anglo-Saxon world, and hold productive summits, counting on mutual understanding of our close friends the western partners.
Dmitry Medvedev 15 March 2025

Mr Medvedev will probably exclude the neo-nazi clique, as he puts it, from any negotiation process if it is found that this group was involved in the March 22 terror attack on the Crocus Center or financed or directed terrorist attacks on Kursk, Donbass or Belograd citizens. Point 3 would become redundant in such an event. His point 4 would be elevated to the status of point 1. This would still be a 'soft' peace formula.

On or about 5th of May 2024 the Russian Courts issued arrest warrants for:
- President Zelensky
- Poroshenko former president of Ukraine)
- Alexander Pavlyuk, Commander of the ground forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
- Mikhail Koval, former Minister of Defense of Ukraine
- Litvinenko, former Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine,
- Nalyvaichenko, former head of the SBU
- Petrenko, former Minister of Justice of Ukraine,
- Kubiva, former head of the National Bank of Ukraine
- Shlapak, former Minister of Finance of Ukraine

As at May 5 2024, the specifics of the charges have not been revealed. It is likely they will relate to directing, organising, and financing terrorist and/or genocidal acts against citizens of the Russian Federation or ethnic Russians within Ukraine. (The 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide' says in Article 1 that "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish." It further clarifies in Article 2 that  "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", and examples include killing group members, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. Punishable acts (Article 3) include not only listed genocidal acts, but also "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide" and, most importantly, "complicity in genocide". Article 4 says persons committing these acts " shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals."

Article 6 provides for trial "by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed". The territory in Russia's case are the new territories, Belgorad, and Moscow (drone attack on the Kremlin).

This is a clear signal that Russia will not negotiate with Mr. Zelensky - whose term ends on 21st of May anyway. There is no hope for a peaceful settlement as long as Mr.Zelensky is in power. If Mr. Zelensky 'cancels' the upcoming elections, and continues to ban political discourse and public discussion the current agony will be unnecessarily protracted. In that case, Russia may decide it has to end the agony and in effect declare war.

A 'hard' peace formula would be elevation of the Special Military Operation to a condition more similar to all-out war, with the massive civil destruction of Ukraine.

The War of attrition continues without pause until all terms have been agreed and signed

[The Istanbul document] also said that the negotiations on other issues would continue, but only after the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, provision of security guarantees, and abolition of Ukrainian laws of a racist, neo-Nazi, and discriminatory nature."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

The security guarantors to the Istanbul Agreement were to be Russia, China, USA, France and the United Kingdom, plus Germany and Türkiye. But the west pulled out, collapsing the deal. This means that the west cannot be allowed to act as a security guarantor - and as Mr.Lavrov revealed on 19 April 2024, they have already said as much. That settles who won't be a security guarantor, but not who will be. Hostilities will continue until the issue is either settled or a settlement is imposed without any guarantors (except those the UN Security Council could give in times of conflict).

Given the history of Ukrainian duplicity, Russia will not allow NATO and it's Ukrainian proxy to drag out negotiations as a subterfuge to allow Ukraine time to be re-armed.

"We were promised that the Minsk agreements would be honoured...instead they only took a pause to arm the Bandera regime in Ukraine.

We were promised a lot of things...promises alone are not enough.

...we must be sure that this is not just another pause that the enemy wants to use for rearmament."
Vladimir Putin 13 March 2024

The consequence is that the Russians will likely continue the war right up until the moment of signature. There is one possible caveat - if the West verifiably stops the flow of arms, then Russia may agree to a time-limited pause to finalise terms. But with zero further time extensions.

Settlement terms - putting it all together

Taking all the above into account, plus recent developments, we can flesh out a general contour of a proposed settlement. Some of these items might be negotiated out of the final agreement.

1. Ukraine must recognise all new territorial realities.
That is, territories Russia has occupied and held referendums which confirm a majority desire to join Russia must be recognised by Ukraine as part of Russia (Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions).

"I do not know what will happen to Western Ukraine. A lot of politicians also voice their opinions on this matter. However, the future of the originally Russian Ukraine, which wants to be part of the Russian world, speak Russian, educate its children in this language, and bring flowers to the monuments of those who shed blood for this land during the time of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and the Great Patriotic War, is beyond any doubt."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

Mr. Lavrov's words are rather ambiguous. The future of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhye have been sealed. They are constitutionally Russia. The other oblasts that were also once part of Russia - Nikolaev, Odessa, Kharkov - may be taken by military force and subsequent referendum. Or the 'Russian future' of these oblasts could be put 'beyond any doubt' by a new Ukrainian constitution making them autonomous regions, regions which control their own affairs (except for foreign affairs), but which remain legally part of Ukraine. Autonomous regions are not uncommon in various states around the world.

Ukraine has stubbornly refused to negotiate terms even after western arms supplies slowed down. This intransigence, coupled with strikes on Russian infrastructure lauched from the port of Odessa makes the incorporation of Odessa (and maybe Nikolaev) into Russia much more likely. That will have to be subject to referendum - and Mr. Lavrov has as much said so in the past.

It is possible that a new settlement agreement will include some sort of agreement for Odessa to be a free port, and the oblast would hold a referendum in 10 so years time to see if it wishes to remain with Ukraine or join the Russian Federation. Nikolaev may be included with Odessa. Kharkov, a majority Russian speaking oblast, until recently has had very little military action, so at 15 May 2024 there is relatively little damage there. A northern front was opened up in Kharkov (and probes into Sumy, further north) in mid May, forcing the hugely depleted Ukrainian military personnel to be constantly robbing forces from one front to reinforce another more active front.  Attrition warfare carried out by Russia means less damage to infrastructure than woul be the case in a full-blown war of maneuver of massed combined forces. It seems to me increasingly likely that Kharkov, too, might ultimately be taken by referendum.

2. There must be bilateral security guarantees provided (to both parties) on Russia's western borders.
The countries on Russia's western borders are Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, and maybe Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Guarantees would relate to the size of armed forces, inadmissibility of hosting nuclear weapons etc. This is the subject of the December 2021 Security Guarentee Agreement with NATO, which Russia demanded that NATO countries individually sign with Russia. (This, by the way, is an application of coercive diplomacy.). The west's collective position is that Russia hasn't defeated them in war, so Russia cannot demand anything. They are probably right. The time is not yet ripe.

"Our position has not changed radically. We are open to dialogue, but we will be guided by our legitimate interests, and our stand on a possible settlement will be adjusted in accordance with the situation on the ground.

Because the conflict...has a geopolitical dimension, its settlement must include security guarantees on Russia’s western border.

I would like to remind you that this is the essence of the initiative which President Vladimir Putin advanced in December 2021. The West represented by the United States and NATO contemptuously rejected it."
Sergey Lavrov 13 July 2023

While Russia is unlikely to achieve the security guarantees it wants from the west at this time (if ever), collective guarantees of Ukraine's security can be achieved through the offices of the UN Security Council plus others.

"...We agreed with the principles of the settlement contained in that document. Among them was ensuring Ukraine's security through...the provision of collective guarantees not by NATO, but from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Germany and Turkey."
Sergey Lavrov 01 December 2022

The implication is that if Ukraine is threatened by external forces, the Security Council will authorise a UN force to go to Ukraine's aid. The west has unecessarily extended the conflict (with the complicity of top Ukrainian government figures), causing the death of many more Ukrainians and Russians. Perhaps the lineup of guarantors may change, or the mandate may change.

3.  All Ukrainian anti-Russian sanctions must be lifted.

4. All claims against the Russian government and Russian legal entities and Russian individuals must be withdrawn.

5. All attempts to prosecute Russian government officials, entities and individuals must be terminated.

6. Ukraine must respect the rights of its both its Russian population and other ethnic populations, including the right to speak and read in their own language.
The Russian language must be given official status, as other languages are already. This must be embedded in the constitution. ("abolition of Ukrainian laws of a racist, neo-Nazi, and discriminatory nature" Lavrov April 2024)

7. Ukraine must restore friendly relations with all neighbours (i.e. Russia and Belarus).
It must do this by re-opening the borders and re-establishing all the legal frameworks (including all former Soviet States such as Belarus) previously in place before the coup.

8. Ukraine must restore Ukraine's founding principles of neutrality and non-bloc (non-aligned) status outlined in the 1990 declaration of independence.
Ukraine will have to embed this principle in its constitution.

9. Ukraine must de-militarise
This is already largely accomplished by Russia's attritional military strategy and the Ukrainian leaderships contempt for the lives of its conscripts.

Ukrainian arms and personnel will be restricted in size. "the Istanbul document outlined the limits of the relevant weapons, personnel, etc." Lavrov 19 April 2024.

Russia will probably impose a temporary 'de-miltarised zone' on Ukrainian territory where Ukraine's rockets and artillery will have to be kept a 'maximum-range restricted' distance away from Russia's border.

".. if this [shelling by Ukraine] continues, then we will apparently have to consider the issue – and I say this very carefully – in order to create some kind of buffer zone on the territory of Ukraine at such a distance from which it would be impossible to reach our territory. ...We have to see how the situation develops..."
Vladimir Putin June 13, 2023 

President Putin put it clearly when answering the question of how to make our territory safe. He said that we should move back the line from which they can target our territory. I understand that Kharkov plays not the least role in this respect."
Sergey Lavrov 19 April 2024

Sergey Lavrov's remark suggests that Ukraine's Kharkov might remain Ukrainian territory, but become a de-militarised buffer zone. Logically, Sumy and parts of Chernihiv would complete the buffer up to the Belarus border. (Perhaps plus parts of Kiev, Zhytomyr, Rivne and Volyne as autonomous oblasts or buffers for Belarus). Dnepropetrovsk and Poltava oblasts might form the western buffer, and Nikolaev the southern buffer (I suspect it will be absorbed it into the Russian Federation by one or other means). If Russia is forced to end the conflict through use of a massive military strike, then logic suggest the buffer zones would be targeted by Russian forces moving from all directions simultaneously, including from Belarus. The current banderist government would be deposed, elections held, and buffer zones formalised by agreement and under threat of force of arms for non-compliances.

Just how wide a buffer zone is needed is a crucial question.

The range of the Storm Shadow/Scalp missile is around 400 kilometers. Any missile of this type located in Kiev can hit Russia's northwest. A buffer zone here to a depth of 400 kilometers would mean all military equipment in Kiev would have to move to the central west region of Ukraine, about where the city of Vinnytsia is. A buffer in southern Ukraine would go to the Moldovan border and also extend north to Vinnytsia. In effect, most of the military equipment would be quarantined to the Volyn, Rivne, Transcarpentia,and Lviv general area in the west of Ukraine. But Ukraine has modified some older missiles to increase their range to 1,000 kilometers. This would require virtually all of Ukraine to be a giant buffer zone.

If Russia takes Odessa, the 400 kilometer buffer zone will go almost to the Polish border. Some form of compromise will probably be agreed.

In any case, if some Ukrainian (or NATO provocateurs) cheat on the buffer zone and fires at Russia (almost certain, in my opinion) it will take either a massive punitive strike to dissuade further breaches, or a massive peace-keeping force to make sure there is no cheating or breach in the first place. Such a force should probably come from the Russian-speaking CSTO countries, maybe UN supervised. No western foreign forces will be allowed in Ukraine, including dual citizen foreigners posing as Ukrainians.

"President Putin has said many times, both in January and early February, that Russia will not tolerate a model of European security that relies on NATO as the dominant force. Especially when it's right on our doorstep.

We've repeatedly said that we want to find an alternative solution - a solution that would reliably address security concerns of Ukraine, the nations of Europe, and, naturally, Russia. And that's the direction we should take.

President Zelensky said that he was interested in security guarantees for Ukraine. I see this as a positive development. Our negotiators are ready to discuss these guarantees..."
Sergey Lavrov 2 March 2022

8. Ukraine must de-nazify
This must be embedded in the constitution. Appropriate laws passed banning white supremicist and nazi and neonazi symbols, groups, meetings etc. A meeting was held by the Russian Security Council on the 22nd of March 2024 to address the problem of neonazism, probably mainly in a post-operation Ukraine, but also at home.

9. Ukraine must never join NATO.
Again, the security treaty signed with Russia must preclude Ukraine joining any security organisation that secures Ukraine's security at Russia's expense. This is for Russia's security.

10. Ukraine must re-affirm its non-nuclear status.
This must be embedded in Ukraines constitution.

11. Ukraine must never join the EU without the issue of subsidised trade being resolved.
Russia wants to allow trade to flow between Ukraine and Russia. But if Ukraine joins the EU, Russia will be flooded with cheap EU (not Ukrainina) goods, destroying Russian businesses. Russia will never.allow this. A solution, such as equalising tariffs, must be found.

12. The west must pay for the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure destroyed by Ukraine’s military.
The launch of the Ukraine government's military attacks on the eastern oblasts under the pretext of fighting secessionists has caused a great deal of damage to what is now Russia. Ukraine is in no position to pay reparations, but the west is. This condition can be satisfied outside Ukraine, using the Law of State Responsibility.

Most elements are political, and are a matter of a series of political steps:

1. Statement by the current government of Ukraine that they recognise they are militarily defeated and that they surrender unconditionally.
This creates certainty in the mind of Ukrainian citizens that there is no point in resistance, and it indeed would be prohibited as a breach of terms and therefore subject to punitive action.

"Recognition by the former (further, f.) “Ukraine” its military defeat in the conflict; total and unconditional surrender of the f.[former] “Ukraine” represented by the neo-nazi clique in Kiev..."
Dmitry Medvedev 15 March 2024

Mr. Medvedev distinguishes between "former" Ukraine neo-nazi led government, which must be the one to surrender, and a "further" Ukrainian government. This refers to a Ukrainian government that is voted in after the current government surrenders.

On 22 March 2024, 'ISIS in Khorasan (IS–KP)' Salafi Muslim terrorists attacked and killed over 139 people at the Crocus City Hall near Moscow.  US advisories publicly suggested an attack might happen about the 8th or 9th, the date a Shaman concert was due to be held there. I believe the Shaman concert was timed to boost national determination just before the Presidential elections in Russia. It is likely the terrorists initially planned to attack on that date, as it would have made people fearful of congregating to vote. Heavy security at the Shaman concert made them postpone their attack. In any case, Russia, it seems, believes the terror group has been supported and enabled by the SBU, the Ukrainian Secret Service (at least), and so Russia subsequently bombed one of their headquarters.

The Russian President said on the 23rd of March:

"All perpetrators, organisers and masterminds of this crime will face fair and inevitable punishment, whoever they may be and whoever directed them. I emphasise once more: we will identify and bring to justice each and every individual who stands behind these terrorists, those who orchestrated this atrocity"
Vladimir Putin 23 March 2024

Mr. Medvedev said on 25 March 2024 "...those who are involved, regardless of the country of origin and status, are now our main and legitimate target." As it happens, the Russian Security Council had convened at 1425 hours on the 22nd to discuss measures to counter neonazism. Most likely the meeting related to measures to deal with neo-nazis in a post-conflict Ukraine. The Terror operation at the Crocus venue was 'given the signal to go' that same evening, suggesting the customer who ultimately purchase this attack was a government agency seeking to show the impotence of the Russian government.

These statements suggest that Russia regards the Ukrainian government as being the orchestrators. By specifying "whoever they may be" he allows the inclusion of state figures who would ordinarily be protected by their status and diplomatic passport. In effect, if the current Ukrainian government is found to be involved in this crime, it will automatically mean it will be regarded as an illegitimate government, and therefore can be targeted for retribution.

At that point - and this is very important - it cannot be a partner in any negotiation process.

2. Elections
Technically, the Zelensky government ends in late May. Then there must be elections. This is an inflection point.

3. Changing the Ukrainian constitution.

4. Demilitarisation

""demilitarization of the f. [furrther] “Ukraine” and banning the creation of military formations within its boundaries in the future."
Dmitry Medvedev 15 March 2024"

Militarily, the template has long been in place - it simply follows the OSCE guidelines (more or less) that were in place to protect Donetsk and Lugansk. And this is more or less what was agreed to in the 2022 draft agreement that Ukraine was persuaded to ultimately refuse. It is about a buffer zone.

1. Restriction on the numbers and types of weapons deployed within a certain distance of the border (the buffer zone). This is the protective cordon to protect Russia that Dmitry Medvedev has previously referred to.

2. Monitoring by agreed outside parties. The OSCE has lost all credibility - it is very biased to the west.

"The way the OSCE has acted and is acting with regard to the crisis in Ukraine is a total fiasco. Its Special Monitoring Mission has not only failed as a mediator within the framework of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, but has also stooped to a lawbreaking step.

Instead of monitoring activities, some of SMM staff were reviewing and passing intelligence to Kiev.

It is hard to believe that the Mission's leadership was not aware of that...

...It is with ever growing concern that we are watching how virtually every tools and resource at the disposal of OSCE has been assigned to the corrupt tasks of total "Ukrainization" of the Organization’s agenda...We are outraged by the active involvement of the Chairmanship-in-Office in the Western campaign to whitewash the criminal actions of the neo-Nazi Maidan authorities.

I appeal to the Maltese Chairmanship - do not deceive yourselves. By ignoring the heinous attacks by armed formations of the Zelensky regime against peaceful Russian cities, you show solidarity with them. Thus, being an accomplice, you also share responsibility with the Kiev regime for atrocities against Russian servicemen and civilians, committed i.a. on the territory of the Russian Federation."
Vassily Nebenzia, Russian Federation Permanent Representative at the United Nations 19 April 2024

Russia and Ukraine will have to find an acceptable group. Probably Russian speaking Eurasian countries would form the backbone. Intriguingly, as Russia participates in peacekeeping in Africa, it may ask Africa for help in monitoring at least the Russian side.

"Given a common understanding of the root causes and reasons for the crisis in Ukraine, the ministers discussed future opportunities for a contribution by South Africa and a number of other members of the African Union in the search for a peaceful settlement to the conflict."
Sergey Lavrov 22 February 2024

Rebuilding Ukraine - whose responsibility?

According to an interview with Scott Ritter on September 30 2022 with Andrey Gurulyov, member of the State Duma Defense Committee, demilitarisation will require Russia to occupy the remainder of Ukraine. Occupying forces are responsible for the provision of the maintenance of essentials for life - food, water, shelter. Did the Western occupying forces do this in Afghanistan? Most of the aid was from 'foreign donors'. According to the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 'donors' gave $1.67 billion to Afghanistan in humanitarian aid in 2021. The United States gave $425 million of that. Why would Russia penalise it's own domestic economy by replacing the current Western largesse to Ukraine with Russian largesse? It makes no sense.

It does make sense to give carefully targeted aid to Ukraine so that it can rebuild what is left of it's economy. But with full accountability.
There may be limited, temporary occupation of Ukraine as part of the terms of settlement of a negotiated settlement, but even this is problematic. I doubt Russia has any intention whatever of an occupation of Ukraine beyond Oblasts that might vote to merge with the Russian Federation.

A good paper written by
Christopher Knowles in 2013 lists universal principles for an occupying force to follow to ensure peace and stability returns to the occupied country. While he was discussing post war Germany, after Germany had surrendered, the principles apply anywhere. The summary covers the main points, and nothing much else needs to be said:

In Ukraine's case, EU aid organisations will be in the drivers seat. As far as the new Ukrainian government is concerned - and the Ukrainian people - whatever they give will be "not enough". It is obvious to me that in post-conflict Ukraine blame for the disaster will be placed less with Russia but with the US and EU. The fact that Ukrainians were being used as a disposable tool of the West will become widely known. Ukrainians will - rightly - draw the obvious conclusions.

In mid May NATO's Stoltenberg as much as said no aid would be spent on Ukraine 'if' it loses the conflict. Perhaps it was not serious, but simply a threat designed to coerce Ukraine to continue to fight. Perhaps not - the EU has made its money out of supplying weapons, loans and buying and encumbering Ukrainian assets Ukraine, and, having parasitically bloated itself on Ukrainian blood, is ready to abandon its host.

According to one US so-called 'think'-tank, USA will have to provide Ukraine with aid for years to come. (They include military aid, which is, of course, another delusion.)

"Ukraine cannot continue to fight and to recover without continuing aid from the U.S. and other powers. Moreover, if the war drags on as it well may do, the total costs of both the war and recovery states could easily rise well over $500 billion.

A truly long war could put the total cost of the war and recovery to a trillion dollars or more...while U.S. aid to Ukraine has scarcely been cheap, U.S. spending has been at token levels compared to the economic burden that the cost of the Ukraine war and economic sanctions have placed on Russia....

...moving towards a viable peace settlement is critical to both Ukraine’s survival and limiting the cumulative cost of aid....the U.S. should expend its current efforts at cooperation the build [sic] such a planning and management effort and make current wartime flow of civil aid cost-effective as soon as possible.

It should expand current efforts to develop the kind of longer-term post conflict planning that is really needed. Any realistic peace settlement will depend upon the existence of a functional and credible form of Western recovery aid to Ukraine – one where the U.S. will almost certainly have to pay a major share....

...Past experiences warns that this will require an ongoing management effort with demanding controls of corruption and cost-effectiveness, and a postwar planning effort that will link the Ukraine to the EU and the economy of Europe in ways that would allow it to export without the same dependence on naval routes that Russia might challenge or interdict...

...it is critical to remember that the West is also supporting Ukraine by conducting the equivalent of economic warfare against Russia. Economic sanctions, controlling on the levels and technologies involved in trade, and taking measures to limit European dependence on energy exports are all additional ways of cutting the cost of aid to the Ukraine, and pushing Russia into some form of viable peace agreement...

...Creating truly effective international bodies to plan and manage civil and military aid efforts, with representation from a full range of donors, can limit the future flow of aid to some extent, but the U.S. and its allies must face the possible need for years of future support.

...Any other course of action would leave Ukraine far too weak to offer any clear hope of stability and undermine many of the gains the U.S. has made...

...In any case, the U.S. must accept the fact that the cost of U.S. aid will remain high as long as the war continues and during the peace years of Ukraine’s postwar recovery...it must be stressed that the U.S. also cannot push Ukraine too far in making compromises to obtain an end to the fighting or cut aid to the extent that it effectively abandons it."
US 'Center for Strategic and International Studies' 22 November 2022

Those that ruthlessly engineered the destruction of Ukraine - for their own ends - now have a moral duty to rebuild it.

Ukraine - Russia reconciliation is possible but not inevitable

Sadly, Ukraine, with Russia (and Belarus) could once have had a very good future. Ukraine - much like Turkey - had a foot in both camps, and Ukraine could magnify it's economic hand by balancing between east and west. Not much chance of that now. Even so, Russia will try to rebuild relations with Ukraine once the nazi element is dealt with.

"We will not tolerate neo-Nazism on the territory of Ukraine. We are fighting neo-Nazis, rather than the people of Ukraine, and we have nothing against the latter.

This nation is closely related to us, we are intertwined at the level of human destinies, and this concerns millions of families with a multitude of ties, spiritual, cultural and other bonds.

I am convinced that the neo-Nazi government in Kiev will be unable to undermine this genetic code; at the same time, we must also accomplish a lot.

It is necessary to offer specific ideas, involve civil society and facilitate contacts between people in Ukraine and Russia. The Russia-Ukraine-Belarus format existed some time ago, and public organisations and experts met within its framework in Minsk and elsewhere. For obvious reasons, this is not happening today, but we need to think about the future. 

The people of Ukraine will be liberated from neo-Nazi rulers, and they deserve to live in neighbourliness, friendship and prosperity together with fraternal Slavic nations."
Sergey Lavrov 26 November 2022

Time will tell. The West will be more interested in supporting groups of saboteurs to infiltrate Russia and attack infrastructure and people. Russia has had long experience in dealing with this with the Chechen criminal grouping. But that was within Russian borders. It is a lot harder to deal with a constant stream of Western-trained saboteurs from an adjacent, Western-backed country.

Reconciliation may be protracted, and is not necessarily inevitable.

Prosecution of neo nazis Edited 17 December 2023

"..the special military operation’s goals set by President Putin. In addition to demilitarisation, it is to denazify Ukraine."
Sergey Lavrov 28 June 2023

"German militarism and Nazism will be extirpated and the Allies will take in agreement together, now and in the future, the other measures necessary to assure that Germany never again will threaten her neighbors or the peace of the world....

...(a) All German land, naval and air forces, the S.S., S.A., S.D., and Gestapo, with all their organizations, staffs and institutions, including the General Staff, the Officers' Corps, Reserve Corps, military schools, war veterans' organizations and all other military and quasi-military organization, together with all clubs and associations which serve to keep alive the military tradition in Germany, shall be completely and finally abolished in such manner as permanently to prevent the revival or reorganization of German militarism and Nazism...

...destroy the National Socialist Party and its affiliated and supervised organizations, to dissolve all Nazi institutions, to ensure that they are not revived in any form, and to prevent all Nazi and militarist activity or propaganda...

...4. All Nazi laws which provided the basis of the Hitler regime or established discrimination on grounds of race, creed, or political opinion shall be abolished. No such discriminations, whether legal, administrative or otherwise, shall be tolerated...

...5. War criminals and those who have participated in planning or carrying out Nazi enterprises involving or resulting in atrocities or war crimes shall be arrested and brought to judgment. Nazi leaders, influential Nazi supporters and high officials of Nazi organizations and institutions and any other persons dangerous to the occupation or its objectives shall be arrested and interned....

...6. All members of the Nazi party who have been more than nominal participants in its activities and all other persons hostile to allied purposes shall be removed from public and semipublic office, and from positions of responsibility in important private undertakings. Such persons shall be replaced by persons who, by their political and moral qualities, are deemed capable of assisting in developing genuine democratic institutions in Germany...

...7. German education shall be so controlled as completely to eliminate Nazi and militarist doctrines..."
Joint Report With Allied Leaders on the Potsdam Conference August 2 1945

Obviously, this level of de-neo nazification in Ukraine is impossible. Indeed, Russia seems to have been ready to accept primarily de-militarisation, if the 2022 draft agreement is anything to go by. Possibly the Potsdam Conference Agreement principles were introduced as a starting point of negotiation, and then most dropped as bargaining points. Except for constitutional reform to once again align Ukraine's constitution with European standards on freedom of use of language and cultural expression.

If Ukraine wants to join the EU, it will have to de-nazify anyway. And expressions of white supremacy and other such racist manifestations will have to be suppressed by the Europeans, because it is the European countries themselves that will experience the consequences of these organisations.

"Today I want to particularly emphasise the significance of the work performed by regional and district courts in recognising incidents of genocide against civilians during the Great Patriotic War.

We continue to collect evidence of the atrocities and crimes committed by the Nazis, and every piece of evidence must be given legal and judicial assessment."
Vladimir Putin, in an address to the 10th National Congress of Judges, 29 November 2022

"Mikhail Podolyak...said the following about the Ukrainian counteroffensive: “There is only one plan: the most brutal advance, killing as many Russians as possible on this route...Russia will not leave such plans and calls unpunished, as it has been pointed out many times, including by President Vladimir Putin at the SPIEF. The Nazi criminals will be called to account and punished for their crimes...

On June 19, 2023, a conference on the crimes committed by Ukrainian troops in Artyomovsk was held in Donetsk. The evidence of their atrocities included witness testimony by local residents. The Ukrainian thugs massacred the Russian prisoners and wounded soldiers, killed civilians and blew up buildings with people in them during their retreat.

This evidence of the Ukrainian forces’ crimes will be forwarded to the UN and other international organisations. Witness testimony will be used in a series of criminal cases. Human Rights Commissioner of the Donetsk People’s Republic Darya Morozova has said that the assessment of the crimes committed by Ukrainian troops must not be limited to the ongoing work within the framework of Russia’s national legislation. The Kiev regime is flagrantly violating international humanitarian law.

War crimes have no statute of limitations. A tribunal for Ukraine will be held sooner or later, and the thugs and functionaries of the Kiev regime will be called to account.

Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova 21 June 2023

Russia will pursue those who have committed atrocities without limit of time. Russia has documented the crimes every step of the way. Some criminals self-documented their crimes on social media. (The first trials started in late June 2023.) But what can be done about the Ukrainian and Western officials who gave support and training to neo nazis?

"European leaders are emboldening the Ukrainian government and encouraging neo-Nazi acts...I operate on the premise that Europe is part of the processes that seek to revive neo-Nazism. It’s hard to draw other conclusions."
Sergey Lavrov 26 November 2022

I doubt anything can be done about officials who supported the neo nazis in the Ukrainian government. The terms of surrender may prohibit members of neo nazi groups from participating in government, but this is probably all that can be done. It is likely to be ineffectual anyway.

The issue of what proportion the of the conscripts thrown into what has been termed 'the meatgrinder' of the Ukrainian 'offensive' of 2023 are Russian speakers and what proportion are Ukrainian speakers is an issue for after peace returns - this may or may not have very serious implications for the western enablers, depending on what the facts are.

As for Europe, the greatest punishment for politicians who would betray the sacrifice of those who helped liberate Europe, those who cynically use neo nazis against Russia, is to have to live in a nightmare they themselves create. Russia, severely reduced electricity in Ukraine over winter 2022, effectively pushing Ukrainian people into seeking shelter in European countries. All the problems the West was trying to stir up in Russia with it's economic blockade will boomerang (the US excluded, of course).

Filtering Ukrainian Refugees
In late December 2023 the Ukrainian government drafted a law for mobilisation of 500,000 people between the ages of 25 and 60, including women. The attrition rate of Ukrainian troops sent to the front is very high. In fact, many commanders no longer give them individual radio call-signs, because they are now either killed or wounded so quickly that its pointless. The loss of the productive portion of the Ukrainian population is offset by the refugee population elsewhere in Europe and the UK. Perhaps the refugees will ultimately be 'filtered'. Those useful (such as the medically trained) might be retained by the host country, and those who aren't - especially neonazis - sent back. Ukraine could also act as a useful repository for unwanted immigrants to the USA - those with gang affiliations etc. In this manner a cadre of thugs willing to act as terrorists against Russia could be raised, some of Europe's culturally unassimilable immigrants shifted out, and the danger fromwhite supremicists and other neonazi groups eased somewhat.

Such a plan may help ease Europe's nightmare of ever-rising popular anger at government, massive logistic problems of accommodation, shortages of energy, shortage of food, clashes of ethnicities in the face of white supremacists, sharply rising criminality, huge monetary cost, massive inflation - the list goes on.

War Crimes

Prosecution of those who have committed war crimes started in 2023. Russia has formed an Investigative Committee which can lay indictments and petitions Russia's courts to lay charges against those responsible for war crimes. The head of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate Kyrylo Budanov has been charged in absentia with 104 charges of terrorism carried out inside Russia. Russia's Federal Security Service alleges he is behind the attack on the Crimean bridge which resulted in the death of a young woman and destruction of part of the bridge. Charges have also been laid against Ukraine's Air Force Commander and the Commander of the Ukrainian Air Force Regiment comprised of pilots of 'Remotely Piloted Aircraft'. Presumably drones from the regiment were were responsible for the over 100 drone strikes against civilian targets in Russia, including the Kremlin (a world heritage building).

And so it will go on.

After Ukraine, the Main Problem remains unsolved

The US and West simply used the Ukrainian people as their tool to put pressure on Russia, hoping to break Russia up. But the main problem, the intolerable problem, the problem of security in Europe does not go away, regardless of boundaries.

"It is very clear what the West thinks about the current situation. Ukraine is used as an expendable product. The stake of the West is not to allow a single event to cast doubt on its claims to dominate the world order. It is as simple as that. And everything in the minds of some people is limited to the resumption of talks between Russia and Ukraine.

First, we did have such talks in March 2022. The Ukrainians backtracked because the Americans told them that it was not the right time: “keep fighting.”

Second, it is not going to resolve the situation because it is not about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. It’s about the Western geopolitical struggle for dominance and for the prevention of the creation of a multipolar, polycentric world order.

We have many interesting events and developments ahead of us. Keep watching."
Sergey Lavrov 14 April 2023

"Our Western “colleagues” are fiercely fighting to preserve their domination in world affairs (in the financial, economic, political and security areas). This is exactly what triggered the current situation in relations between the Russian Federation on the one hand and NATO and the EU on the other, as regards the processes in Ukraine....

...Such problems must be resolved not on a momentary basis but on the foundation of long-term agreements that would primarily be multilateral and would consider the security of all states without exception. This is the principle of indivisibility of security where not just one country enhances its security at the expense of the security of other states and will not try to dominate anyone in this area.

This was the essence of the political commitments that the West together with our country, Ukraine and other post-Soviet states solemnly assumed in the OSCE in the early 2000s. But the West has not made a single attempt to fulfil them."
Sergey Lavrov 17 April 2023

"it is also obvious that the crises in Ukraine and other parts of the world cannot be settled without settling the main geopolitical issue, which is the desire of the West to maintain its hegemony and to dictate its will to all and sundry.

It you read China’s 12-point peace plan carefully, you will see that Ukraine is only mentioned once, in the headline.

The rest of the text has to do with ensuring indivisible security and pledging not to pursue one’s own security at the expense of others’ security and not to adopt illegitimate unilateral sanctions.

These issues cannot be settled with Vladimir Zelensky, who is a Western puppet, but only directly with his handlers.

We have long been ready for this dialogue. We submitted our proposals in 2009, and the last time we sent them to the Americans and to the NATO Headquarters in December 2021.

The West arrogantly rejected our proposals. But we will eventually have to discuss this issue, seek solutions to all these problems and return to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, first of all the principle of sovereign equality of states. This discussion will be held sooner or later. We are ready for this. We are patient people."
Sergey Lavrov 5 May 2023

It is clear that Russia will prosecute military means against NATO (via it's Ukraine proxy).
It is clear that if Ukraine won't accept terms, then Russia is able and willing to go as far as the Polish border - permanently ending Ukrainian access to the Black sea.
It is clear that if Ukraine won't accept terms, then Ukraine will have a demilitarized and no-fly zone of at least 150 kilometers on it's side of the border imposed on it; and it will have, in effect, a 'no foreign base policy' imposed by force of long-arm strikes (if necessary).
It is clear that Russia will use every circumstantial advantage to push for the end of NATO and removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe.

It is also clear Russia will use the defeat of the NATO operation in Ukraine to push for a new Europe security Treaty - or rather, a Eurasian Security Treaty - a treaty that brings in nuclear armed France, United Kingdom, and possibly Israel.

It will have to cover anti ballistic missile deployment in Romania, Poland, and potentially in Japan as well, as these upset the strategic balanced mutually assured destruction by nuclear weapons.

It is clear Russia will use the military defeat of the West's proxy army to insist on an expanded multilateral security Treaty with USA - and probably bringing in China as well.

Whatever happens, it is clear that Russia and China will continue to develop their individual and combined military potential to a level far beyond that of the United States - and, if necessary, form an opposing alliance.

The  'Mother of all Treaties'
Edited 15 May 2024

Russia, I believe, wants a treaty that finally ends the NATO threat. It wants security in Europe for everyone - but not at any given countries expense.

"The thing is that for twenty years, both you, the British, and the Americans, and all other NATO countries were urged to do what all of you subscribed to in 1999: no country shall strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others. Why can’t you do that? Why is it that the commitments signed by your prime minister, the presidents and prime ministers of all other OSCE countries proved to be lies?...You moved closer to our borders on five occasions (a defensive alliance!). The Warsaw Treaty and the USSR are no more. Who are you defending yourselves against? Five times you decided all on your own where your lines of defence would be. What’s that? This smacks of megalomania."
Sergey Lavrov 6 June 2022

"We are seeking a comprehensive, sustainable and just settlement of this conflict through peaceful means.

We are open to a dialogue on Ukraine, but such negotiations must take into account the interests of all countries involved in the conflict, including Russia's.

They must also involve a substantive discussion on global stability and security guarantees for Russia's opponents and, naturally, for Russia itself.

Needless to say, these must be reliable guarantees.

That is where the main problem is
, since we are dealing with states whose ruling circles seek to substitute the world order based on international law with an ”order based on certain rules,“ which they keep talking about but which no one has ever seen, no one has agreed to, and which, apparently, tend to change depending on the current political situation and interests of those who invent these rules."
Vladimir Putin 15 May 2024

Security for all Europe is what the two treaties Russia presented in December 2021 were designed to achieve. I have covered them in my article  'Blindsided by Peace?' . If  Ukraine is allowed to join the European Union, Russia's Europe-relevant treaty (the NATO treaty) would then bind Ukraine. If NATO signs it. It may not.

Europe will eventually sign, there is no other sane choice (although this may take a decade or two). But US will never 'allow' it, and therefore NATO will have be dissolved first. Once NATO no longer exists, the way is open for the 2008 Security Treaty to be brought back into the light.

"Back in 2008, Russia put forth an initiative to conclude a European Security Treaty under which not a single Euro-Atlantic state or international organisation could strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. However, our proposal was rejected right off the bat on the pretext that Russia should not be allowed to put limits on NATO activities."
President Putin, February 21, 2022

This is a possibility for some time in the future. A Russia-Ukraine settlement will have to come now.

The Time Has Not Come

The Russian Federation may not be able to use the necessity of a Ukraine settlement to achieve a wider Europe - Russia mutual security settlement. The time for a security Treaty with the west may not be now, and conditions for a settlement may not mature for a long time, perhaps a very long time, into the future.

Perhaps that doesn't matter. Russia may achieve it's security through its highly developed air defense system, combined with an ability to use it's hypersonic missiles to immediately punitively strike those who dare to strike it, no matter how wide the ocean between Russia and the US mainland.

Russia may have to fund and deploy more - perhaps many more - submarines and ships that can deliver hypersonic strikes to coastal USA within 4 or 5 minutes of launch, coupled with mass supersonic bomber launched cruise missiles launched against the US west coast and beyond - but launched from within Russia's territorial borders. In other words, to create the same 'instant and unstoppable strike' threat to the US that the US government creates to the Russian Federation.

The issue of rockets

There is the enduring issue of rockets. As Ukraine (or Poland, or Romania, or Lithuania, of Finland, or Sweden, or Moldova) is 'donated' bigger, faster, and more sophisticated rockets (or builds them) the deployment distance from the Russian, Donetsk and Lughansk borders will have to increase. In reality, it is not about distance, it is about time from launch to arrive at the target. Russia needs time to alert the layers of defense.  So the faster the rockets go, the further back the rocket launchers must be placed to allow that reaction time, if some limited strategic balance is to be kept.

Ukraine (in particular) is the second largest country in Europe, and that raises the issue that rockets may be concealed. If Russia had to create a patrolled 'demilitarised zone', as they have in Syria, then it would have to be so wide that patrolling in the hope of finding hidden rockets would be impractical.

At some point in technical development rockets will be too fast to be deployed anywhere in Ukraine or adjacent countries. The issue is not so much Ukraine - after all, a treaty can be signed prohibiting weapons over a given caliber/reach. The real issue is rockets deployed in Europe. Whether deployed by NATO, a European army, or some British/Polish cobbled together alignment. And as Russia develops rockets faster than mach 20 (which they already have) Russia's rockets (if there ever was a reciprocal agreement) may have to be deployed thousands of kilometers away on Russia's East Coast.

This is an absurd situation, and an agreement will have to be reached with Europe on limiting the range of rockets by whatever technical means (such as smaller motors and fuel capacities). This will require dialogue and intensive and intrusive verification.

Rockets as a platform for delivering nuclear strikes is one thing. Highly mobile nuclear-capable aircraft is another. And this is the NATO plan. Every NATO country (and Japan) will have American nuclear-capable F35 fighter aircraft. Every NATO country (and Japan) will host American nuclear gravity-glide bombs (these bombs will eventually be rocket-assisted, increasing their range dramatically). NATO will conduct regular exercises which will include F35s with 'dummy' nuclear bombs attached doing practice bombing runs, in some cases to within 20 kilometers of the Russian border (if past NATO nuclear bomber exercises are a guide).

The forseeable future may be the one outlined above - strong Russian domestic defense networks, immensely powerful Russian punitive strike capabilities within just a few minutes of the aggressor launching its 'surprise' attack. This 'unbalance of power' between the Western politicians and the Russian Federation is very high risk, but incredible though it seems, this dangerous and unstable imbalance is what the Western politicians want. All safer options have been maliciously and willfully destroyed by the West.

"We can see that we are dealing with proactive and talented people, but within the elite, there are also many people who have excessive faith in their exceptionalism and supremacy over the rest of the world.

Of course, it is their right to think what they want. But can they count? Probably they can.

So let them calculate the range and speed of our future arms systems. This is all we are asking: just do the maths first and take decisions that create additional serious threats to our country afterwards. It goes without saying that these decisions will prompt Russia to respond in order to ensure its security in a reliable and unconditional manner.

I have already said this, and I will repeat that we are ready to engage in disarmament talks, but we will not knock on a locked door anymore.

We will wait until our partners are ready and become aware of the need for dialogue on this matter."
Vladimir Putin, February 20, 2019

"There are some mutual grievances and differences in approaches to resolving issues but that is no excuse for starting a confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis that occurred in the 1960s...If someone wants it, let them have it. I said today what would happen."
Vladimir Putin, February 20, 2019 at a media briefing

Well, the West has destroyed all diplomatic relations with Russia. They have destroyed all treaties that limit the range of rockets in Europe. They have dug themselves into an impressively deep hole. Their diplomacy, when it comes to Russia, is simply incompetent, in the literal sense.

Roadmap to verification

As Scott Ritter points out in his new book 'Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika' we have been here before, we have overcome practical difficulties, and we have achieved arms limitations - to everyone's benefit. We know we can do it because it has been done before.

When Trump arbitrarily pulled out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, it was clear he wanted to cut another 'deal' that dealt with Russia's hypersonics. Biden has walked right to the very edge of the precipice by running with the aggressive NATO plan, organising and inciting the Ukraine conflict, funding and fanning race hatred, continuing the biggest propaganda program in human history, and imposing an economic blockade on Russia of unparalleled malice - designed to cause as much damage to the Russian people as the effects of war.

America has reached the outer limits of it's malignancy. One step further is destruction.

It is being shown to it's place. And that is not at the head of the table.

"Let me assure you, dear friends, that we are objectively assessing our potentialities: our intellectual, territorial, economic and military potential.
I am referring to our current options, our overall potential.

Consolidating this country and looking at what is happening in the world, in other countries I would like to tell those who are still waiting for Russia’s strength to gradually wane, the only thing we are worried about is catching a cold at your funeral."
Vladimir Putin 22 October 2020

Index of articles on security