The peace of the cannibal. How to understand the words of Russia about the willingness to end the war

The statement of the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about his readiness for the peace agreement is worth nothing, the analyst Alexei Kopitko warns. All this we could already watch the example of the notorious Minsk-2 international news in recent days are incited to write a series of posts with the epigraph of the classic: "It was already!". The mass is applied. 10 years of Russian aggression. 9 years "Minsk-2". Two years of full -scale invasion. Plus the NATO anniversary on the horizon.

Let us start with the accentuated statement of Lavrov about the allegedly readiness to look for a political and diplomatic decision if the "realities on the ground" are taken into account (that is, the occupied territories will officially cross Russia). This conversation about readiness for negotiations is a traditional deception of the Russian Federation to separate those who support Ukraine. Because it was already. It was called "Minsk-2".

I watched a little in the "Minsk process" in 2020 - early 2022 (especially during the period of the Ministry of Reintegration/TKG). So I have something to remind. I will not give an assessment of the fact of "Minsk-2"-in the FB of all aspects it is impossible to touch. Plus any assessment is the image of the feelings of a particular group of political believers, which will now take away from the substance.

The essence: because they were bondage for Ukraine, it is absolutely normal that our country was looking for the least devastating way to approach this issue. Moreover, the texts of documents contained many differences. The Kremlin was considered Minsk-2 as a torpedo against Ukrainian statehood and as a way to exclude Crimea from discussions. The interests of Donetsk/Lugansk in the Kremlin were not taken into account from the word at all.

Western intermediaries implied that they did not understand the Russian plan, and demanded that Ukraine the text could not be fulfilled (so the text of the "Minsk Protocol" and the "Complex of Measures" on its implementation). Not to mention possible political consequences. That is, directly offered to capitulate. Then these leaders with varying degrees of perseverance and sincerity sprinkled their head with ash. Some did not even repent now, but the former pathos lost.

The issue of negotiations with the Russian Federation (no matter what) is the issue of guarantees of arrangements. This is a matter of coercion. In Europe and the United States, quite a few people have accepted that negotiations with the Kremlin without guarantees are just a way to give Moscow a break and allow you to accumulate resources for new acts of aggression. And since no punishment of the aggressor will not be discussed in principle, it is the perfect incitement for new wars.

Dialogue on guarantees is not in place, but everyone sees how the fever will be a system of collective security of democratic countries (NATO and related structures) through elections in the United States. Therefore, Moscow has the word "negotiations" to lure the figures ready to cling to the illusion of certainty. If fans of dialogue with Moscow again fall on this fishing rod, the consequences will be for the whole world.

Because everyone who has eyes see: politicians who live in election cycles are afraid to show will, unable to draw conclusions and effectively act on a long segment. Even the most massive nuclear bomb weighs more than all the words of all the greatest "guarantors". And it is easier to interact with people who do not play democratic games, but move to the goal. Very seductive. It will be much more expensive to understand this.