The protracted military-political crisis between Russia and Ukraine has been a hot topic on the world’s agenda for more than a year now. The author will not go back to the reasons that laid the foundation for this most extensive conflict in Europe since World War II. In short, the Collective West, led by the US, has put a lot of effort into this by ignoring the strategic security interests of a nuclear superpower (Russia), and by breaking its own promises following the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact of not moving NATO eastward to the borders of the Russian Federation.
However, almost a year and a half after the start of the special military operation to protect the rights and freedoms of the Russian and Russian-speaking population of the now former eastern regions of Ukraine, the West has not encouraged the cessation of hostilities, the ferocity of which is claiming thousands of lives of ordinary Russians and Ukrainians, or the beginning of peace negotiations. On the contrary, the US and its allies have unleashed a veritable hybrid war against Russia, combining massive supplies of various types of weapons, military equipment, military technology, intelligence and technical information, instructors, and mercenaries to the Kiev regime with brutal anti-Russian sanctions in the hope of undermining the foundations of Russian statehood and forcing Moscow to its knees.
However, the West’s efforts have not yet yielded the desired results and hopefully will not do so in the future. Despite the unprecedented scale of the West’s collective assistance to the eternal candidate for NATO and the EU, the situation on the frontlines is not changing in favor of the puppet Kiev regime. Under these conditions, the search for alternative methods of resolving the Ukrainian crisis becomes obvious. What other course of action outside negotiations and successful diplomacy can be used in place of military action, keeping in mind the competing interests of all parties to the dispute in the context of the summer of 2023?
Given the Ukrainian side’s months-long training at NATO training bases in Europe and the USA and the significant upgrade of the arsenal with NATO weaponry, the topic of an impending counterattack by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) has been discussed in the international media over the past four months. However, it is already July, and the AFU have not achieved any significant progress, despite the fierce fighting.
Naturally, the combat experience and coherence of armies on the eve of and during hostilities may make a certain difference. Whoever and whatever they may say about preparation for war, historical experience shows that no army has ever been 100% ready for an offensive and defense. War is always a random forest, and its success is determined not only by the quality of armaments and the number of troops but also by the motivation of soldiers and the competence of the troops’ management by a professional command.
Of course, many factors influence the outcome of hostilities. In particular, the nature of the combat theatre; the political balance of external forces (allies and adversaries) in relation to the parties to the conflict; the armament and degree of combat training of troops and mobilization reserves; the coherence of front and rear operations; the presence of effective intelligence and counterintelligence services; the personnel capacity of the top and middle levels; communications and transport; and much more. However, all other variables become ineffective without the intellectual foundation of the military campaign itself and competent management (leadership).
Today, it is becoming obvious that one of the global and systemic issues of contemporary international relations is the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis and the definition of a new world order. Given its size as the biggest superpower in the world, Russia must unquestionably assume its proper position in the new system of relations. Additionally, it shares a nuclear triad with the United States and has access to strategic resources that have an impact on the global economy.
The Russian economy, despite the unprecedented onslaught of numerous packages of harsh sanctions and, in fact, the obvious costs of the transit period, nevertheless managed to withstand and react quickly to the change of course from Europe to the Asian market. Time has shown that it is better to speak to Russia not in the language of war, but in the language of peace and balance of interests.
Some foreign experts (for example, the Azerbaijani political analyst Ramis Yunus, who now lives in Washington) believe that the counteroffensive by the AFU has not yet begun, but is only a combat reconnaissance to determine advantageous areas for the subsequent massive strike. Moreover, Ramis Yunus notes that the intelligence agencies of the United States and the UK (and perhaps some other NATO countries) were aware of the planned military mutiny of PMC Wagner. According to the Azerbaijani expert, this is the reason why the Western partners, who had nothing to do with the very fact of the organization of the mutiny with an attempt to oust President Vladimir Putin, did not recommend the Kiev regime to launch a major counteroffensive before the completion of the Prigozhin’s “march of justice.” In addition, Yunus believes that such an offensive by the AFU is untimely because Kiev has not yet received the entire arsenal of weapons and equipment promised by NATO (including F-16 fighter jets, new Patriot air defense systems, HIMARS and ATACMS long-range artillery systems, Abrams and Merkava tanks, etc.).
Meanwhile, on June 24–25 this year in Copenhagen, as we know, a closed meeting of presidential advisers on national security and political issues of a number of countries on Ukraine was held. In particular, the meeting in Copenhagen was attended by representatives of the United States, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, the EU, Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Brazil, India and Ukraine. The main topic of the summit was the Ukrainian settlement. Formally, all participants agreed that the settlement should be based on UN principles (including territorial integrity and sovereignty). But what about those territories that, by the right of hostilities, ended up under the control of the Russian army? Moscow cannot give up the new regions, whose population has come out in favor of joining the Russian Federation. The UN, on the other hand, accepts the right of nations to self-determination along with the principle of territorial integrity.
The meeting in Copenhagen revealed differences in the participants’ positions on methods for resolving the Ukrainian crisis. It is likely that representatives of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Brazil, India, and even France had a somewhat different opinion from that of the United States and other partners on the fate of Crimea and other territories that were ceded to Russia during the special military operation.
Moreover, to begin even formally discussing the issue of withdrawal or disengagement of forces would require, at a minimum, Russian participation in such consultations and negotiations. Compromises are reached at the table in real meetings, not online far from the frontlines. However, the Kiev regime rejected the conditional “Minsk-3” and legally banned any negotiations with Russia until the military resolution of the conflict.
Meanwhile, the Danish format of consultations did not appear out of nowhere, but because the AFU have so far failed to seize the initiative on the battlefield and regain control of its lost territories. Furthermore, although the meeting in Copenhagen was a closed discussion, the theme of the summit was outlined, and some of the participants in the consultations maintain quite collaborative working relationships with Russia (for example, Turkey, Brazil, India, South Africa). The latter means that the United States and the UK, i.e. the main allies of the Kiev regime, are obviously counting on Ankara, Brazil, New Delhi or Pretoria to inform Moscow promptly, so that Russian intelligence does not waste time in getting information about the results of the Danish meeting.
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan could not go to Copenhagen because of the political situation in Russia related to the attempted military mutiny on June 23-24 of this year. Instead, a woman, head of one of the US National Security Council offices, flew to Denmark. Sullivan, on the other hand, kept in touch online with the summit.
At the same time, the Danish format did not include China, which is a member of the UN Security Council and whose position to a large extent determines the course of important decisions on the world’s topical issues. However, no matter who is involved in resolving the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, the issue is unlikely to be settled without the participation of Russia itself.
The Ukrainian crisis is not fundamentally caused by Russia’s hostile attitude toward Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. The issue here goes much deeper and has to do with the formation of a balanced system of world order where the interests of the Russian state will be taken into account and respected. Therefore, no matter how hard the West tries, there is no order in the world without Russia…
Aleksandr Svarants, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.