Putin has three options not to lose Ukraine
A blogger and a military expert Alexey Arestovich estimates the likelihood of the UN peacekeepers deployment to the eastern Ukraine and speaks about three options that Vladimir Putin could put himself to in order not to lose Ukraine in his interview to Apostrophe.
I have said that the Russian strategy against the West extends up until at least 2030. The Ukrainian vector is an essential part of this strategy. Nobody will stop it [Russia] under any circumstances. Therefore, for now, peace plans belong to the category of political concepts generated by the US establishment, the European elite, and a part of Ukrainian elite. The logic of such statements is dictated by the pre-election cycle of political life. Those ideas have little to do with the reality, it’s all in the realm of political anecdotes: “And here we have not stopped the Donbass”. Donbass will become peaceful when Mr. Putin decides that it needs peace. Or when the Russian troops would be literally removed from the region, if the US gets really evolved and helps us, and we really throw out the invader. Unfortunately, the chances of such a development are extremely low.
Therefore, the war will continue, it is a classic frozen conflict that could last for years. Note, in Syria, the intensity of military operations / battles is much higher than ours. There 400 thousand people died, and we have more than 10 thousand. But nevertheless, it continues, and it is not going to end [any time soon].
Under what conditions should they agree on the deployment of peacekeepers?
“We need to introduce peacekeepers throughout [the occupied] territory, especially we are interested in [re-establishing the] control over our borders because the so-called LPR and the DPR won’t survive two weeks without Russia support. This is the main problem – the siege of the supply. “Caravans are coming from Pakistan, which means there is [going to be a] work for the “black swan”. This was true at the Afghan war, if the border is open, then the war will be endless.
What is the significance of reformatting ATU into the “United Forces Operation”?
First, it eliminates the unnecessary bureaucratic structure, which means that it makes us more efficient in making decisions. Second, it builds a correct model of interaction between the law enforcement agencies and the executive branch of the state. Before, there was an endless confusion when the SBU was supposed to plan combined special operations that were far from its area of expertise.
Russia did the same in Chechnya. In two Chechen wars, the Russians repeatedly tried various options, assigning as a head of the operation the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the General Staff, the FSB and so on, depending on the phase of the conflict. When there was a phase of active fighting, the military took full control. Because, as it happens, the Ministry of Internal Affairs does not know how to use artillery or aviation. The same goes for SBU. But the military knows how to do it. Usually, in a normal country, the war is always controlled by the military. Hopefully, we are finally evolving into a normal country in this respect.
This has an indirect international significance. This is an additional sign, and very important one, that we are still fighting with Russia, that it’s not an anti-terrorist operation with some small local terrorists. And it has still a greater significance within the country. Finally, the chain of command, the relations between the military and Interior Ministry are defined and regulated – and this is very a positive change because there was a slight mess. In fact, the military ruled all the time. And for a very long time.
Responsibilities also change.
Responsibilities are changing, one important moment is added. The Joint Operational Headquarters is a newly created body tasked with managing diverse forces, connecting them through representative offices, and working groups, that can be used in any other conflicts, other cases of using the armed forces, for example, in the aftermath of natural disasters. That is, we have a governing body, where the officers-functionaries begin to grow, who will later have the necessary experience for managing diverse problems. To create such a headquarter is very important, to have it operational is even more so. It is very important to have an officer who can manage DIVERSE situations, identify problems of legislation that do not allow it, write a memorandum, liquidate, plan. It takes years, even decades to grow such an officer, a process similar to creating a good orchestra conductor.
There was a recent statement made by the deputy head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Viktor Kononenko, that this coming autumn, Russia is planning to conduct a series of provocations in Ukraine in order to create prerequisites for a full-scale troops deployment / invasion. How reliable is his assessment of the current situation?
“We must take this seriously.” There are a large-scale military exercises taking place within Russian forces deployed along the border with Ukraine, the enemy troops that could be used against Ukraine.
I was trying to look at Putin for strategic options. Ukraine can not [afford to] lose under any circumstances. They can not defeat us by brute military force. What’s left for him? What would I do in his place? I can see three distinctive ways:
First, install a successful peacemaking president [in Ukraine], for example, some pretty woman. To do this, it is necessary to create a military threat, then let this presidential candidate to forge a peace agreement, then lead that candidate to the presidency on the laurels of the peacekeeper. The second option is less promising: the future president [of Ukraine] has to have no support from the Ukrainian Parliament. The third, the least favorable option: the parliament should have no majority, many fractions of it fighting against each other, and that is what effectively makes impossible any reform in Ukraine.
Here are three tasks. For any of them [to succeed], one way or another, a worsening of fighting is required, so it is quite possible to clearly distinguish between the parties of peace who will criticize the party of war, the blood, that would say that in fact, it is possible to make peace, and the rascals who make a fortune in the war do not want this do.
It’s a very popular discourse, a simple and understandable message that society will swallow. And, given the media support, that’s what they most likely will do. Hence, we must create a military threat. It will be created, in which version – we’ll see.
Image credits: Telegraph