Victory in the war with Russia must have a Ukrainian version

A person with critical thinking - and not only in Ukraine! - should have been stressed by a considerable number of experts possessing different competency levels, or even having no competency at all. However, the number of forecasters is balanced by a small number of proposed options. And it is demonstrative: none of them consider a specifically Ukrainian one, which could later also become a textbook model for others.

Political scientist Maksym Rozumnyi divides such forecasts into two options. The first one is that the war will end in Ukraine’s defeat. The second, completely opposite, in the defeat of Russia. But if the first option is rightly considered incompatible with Ukraine’s existence as such, and, accordingly, its development, the second option, according to Maksym Rozumnyi, contains at least 4 scenarios. Each of them may well have other sub-scenarios, which is fully consistent with the content of the Ukrainian table song: "Oh table, table, behind the table - a table, and behind that table - another table".

Putting aside reflections on the details of peace and the search for what is beneficial to Russia there, prophecies about the AFU parade on Moscow's Red Square, commanded by Zaluzhnyi and hosted by Zelenskyy, are basically “erotic fantasies”. There are also talks on the prospects of returning the Kuban, the establishment of a demilitarized zone in the Kursk and Belgorod regions under the control of NATO "blue helmets" and similar futurology.

Political scientist Yevhen Mahda emphasizes the fact, for some reason still not obvious to such futurologists, that "Russia is too big and has nuclear weapons to be somehow repressed, even by the biggest sanctions against it in world history.” This means that the US intervention in the war will not bring its end and the defeat of the "bad guys" closer, as it happened in almost all wars of the XX century, from the First World War to the Balkan War. Hitler committed suicide in a bunker, and Goebbels committed mass suicide with his family (his wife and 6 children) because Germany was invaded by several armies from all sides: the Red, the British, the American, and the French, who joined them. And the dictator Slobodan Milosevic fell after the NATO forces bombed Belgrade in 1999 at the US’ request. In the XX century, the world had not yet faced the challenge of an aggressive nuclear power. Therefore, no one will occupy or bomb the Russian capital by military means.

“Possible options for ending the war after discussions are reduced to two: Korean and Finnish”

Therefore, the possible options for ending the war after discussions are reduced to two: Korean and Finnish.

For example, British international journalist Gideon Rachman mentioned the Korean one. According to him, part of Ukraine will be occupied, but the other part will receive both financial and material assistance. He emphasizes that "It will become a prosperous country like South Korea.” But the conditional division of Ukraine on the principle of 2 Koreas has been considered since 2015. Moreover, by the Ukrainians themselves. North Korea meant the so-called "LDPR", that is, the territories of Donbas occupied by Russia. And by the South - the rest of Ukraine. The trick is that supporters of this option of ending the war with Russia are already ready to expand "North Korea 2" to the occupied territories of Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions. And in both versions, Crimea did not belong to any of the conditional "Koreas", it remained outside the brackets.

“The conditional division of Ukraine on the principle of 2 Koreas has been considered since 2015. Moreover, by the Ukrainians themselves. North Korea meant the so-called "LDPR", that is, the territories of Donbas occupied by Russia. And by the South - the rest of Ukraine. The trick is that supporters of this option of ending the war with Russia are already ready to expand "North Korea 2" to the occupied territories of Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions. And in both versions, Crimea did not belong to any of the conditional "Koreas", it remained outside the brackets”

The Finnish version suggests almost the same scenario, including ignoring the "Crimean issue". That is, to give Russia the occupied territories, turn the demarcation line into a new state border and continue to develop, rebuild, join the EU and NATO with the remaining Ukraine. The difference is in the political interpretation. Because in the case of "Koreanization" Donbas remains Donbas, a puppet quasi-state formation with its fake ministries and funny ministers. And in the case of "Finlandization", the occupied regions become federal districts of the Russian Federation, without even a hint of fake statehood.

“In case of "Koreanization" Donbas remains Donbas, a puppet quasi-state formation with its fake ministries and funny ministers. And in the case of "Finlandization", the occupied regions become federal districts of the Russian Federation, without even a hint of fake statehood”

It is indicative that the "Finnish" and "Korean" options for the development of Ukraine are considered both as consolidation of the current state of affairs at the front (the occupied territories remain so) and in the format of access to the demarcation line as of February 23, 2022. The liberation of the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, and the return of the borders to the state as of March 1, 2014 is seen as a desirable option for the vast majority (89%) of Ukrainian citizens. However, for the reasons mentioned above by Yevhen Mahda, this option has the least prospects. It cannot be achieved without a military victory, a lot of weapons are needed, but the West does not provide them, because Russia has inadequate leadership and a nuclear bomb.

Interestingly, for the same reason, the "Croatian" option is unattainable for us. After the signing of the ceasefire agreement in 1992, the Croatian war for independence was paused. And 3 years later, in 1995, the Croatian army conducted first Operation Lightning and then Operation Storm, during which the Croats eliminated the Serbian Krajina - an analogue of the “LDNR” -  and finally de-occupied their territories.

“The size of the territory and nuclear weapons are not the biggest problem for the victory of Ukraine on its terms. Much bigger problem is the integration of Russian agents into the political establishment of all states on the planet, big and small, without exception. And the existence of a pro-Russian agenda in various societies”

The size of the territory and nuclear weapons are not the biggest problem for the victory of Ukraine on its terms. Much bigger problem is the integration of Russian agents into the political establishment of all states on the planet, big and small, without exception. And the existence of a pro-Russian agenda in various societies. It is not necessary to fight Russia with weapons. It is enough for all influential countries at all levels to perceive Russia in the same way as Hitler's Germany. And the Russian agenda should be officially equated with the fascism condemned in Nuremberg with all the consequences, including criminal punishment for supporting Russia or even a polite smile towards a Russian.

This will be considered the Ukrainian version of victory in this war. Criminalization of everything Russian in the short term will strengthen military support first of all. This will help to implement the "Croatian" option, but without ceasefire agreements and other operational pauses. And one more indispensable component, without which the Ukrainian victory will be incomplete, is the development of a real, not pro-Russian "sovereign" democracy inside the winning country. A country in which Russia sympathizers will be purged from political life and will not have access to public service. And Nestor Shufrych will not be responsible for freedom of speech in Ukraine.

Exclusively for Espreso TV.

About the author: Andriy Kokotiukha, writer, screenwriter.

Espreso TV does not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.