Vladimiras Laučius. Russia's defeat? A few thoughts "against stream"

"Of course, it is very important to inspire courage and optimism in both like-minded people and ourselves. However, if all the reviews and analyzes lead into stages of inspiring statements, we will find ourselves in an alternative reality.

 

Today, it is very often said that Russia's defeat in Ukraine is imminent (well, unless Moscow uses a nuclear weapon, then it is not known how it will end).

 

From the first days of the Donbass defense operation, it is repeated in an exemplary manner that Russia has already lost because it has failed to do anything quickly, lacking the strength to go through all Ukraine or at least the capital, Kyiv; it is said not to withstand crushing economic sanctions, return to the Stone Age, and become a complete outcast in the world community due to its ruined reputation.

 

All of this may sound quite convincing as we try to imagine ourselves, our thinking, and our usual perception of how state leaders, societies, and politicians should think and act instead of a collective Putin.

 

But Putin is on the throne of Putin, not our, and that throne is in Russia, not the West.

 

But let us return to the fundamental question: what makes us think and say that Russia has lost and is only trying to move away from acknowledging this fact, given the progress of the Donbass defense operation?

 

Yes, Western sanctions will deal a severe blow, but on the field of the Donbass defense operation, they will not produce tangible results this month or next if the Donbass defense operation takes so long.

 

The consequences of economic sanctions can be seen as very great losses in Donbass defense operation, but for the collective Kremlin it can be - and still is - acceptable.

 

 Definitely not comparable to those suffered by the physically being destroyed Kyiv powers.

 

Yes, Russia's political reputation is suffering in the West. And what threatens it to her in the near future? Putin's death out of shame? Even in the G-20 format, Russia still has powerful helpers and advocates such as China and India. Negotiations with Iran, blessed by the United States, are taking place with Russia's active participation. Russia still has a veto in the UN Security Council.

 

The poor reputation was not even enough for the West to abandon Russian oil and gas and disconnect the entire Russian banking system from SWIFT.

 

By the way, even when we combine the losses caused by sanctions with the reputational losses they suffer, we still have a situation where large Western corporations, such as Nestle or Renault, remain in the Russian market.

 

If a good reputation in this political world were vital and really essential, then the situation, you agree, should be a little different.

 

At the same time, the Kyiv government, to which it is said Russia have inevitably lost, has already lost control over relatively large areas, and Southeast Ukraine, which connects Crimea with the Donbass, except Mariupol, is controlled by Russia.

 

Who should and could force Russia to return these territories to the Kyiv authorities? Western pressure has not yet forced the Kremlin to start more serious negotiations on a future ceasefire. NATO reiterates that it will not interfere or cover the sky.

 

Maybe the Kyiv authorities are getting more serious offensive weapons from the West? No, we are only talking about anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems. And that is what we are talking about (the S-300 example), although, as we know, action does not always follow languages.

 

Where is that obvious defeat for Russia? And that’s far from all questionable knowledge.

 

In other words, in addition to tangible achievements, Russia may not only stop, but increasingly escalate the situation - until, say, voices in the West call for Volodymyr Zelensky to be more flexible with Putin's demands.

 

Will Moscow limit itself to demanding recognition of Crimea, Donbass and Kyiv's "Austrian" neutrality in Kyiv's refusal to seek NATO membership? Even Ukrainian experts and interviewed sources in the government do not believe in such Russia's gentle negotiating position.

 

Alongside these demands remain the so-called demilitarization, which will try to cripple the future army controlled by the Kyivs authorities for a long time, and, of course, territorial acquisitions. The territory of northern Ukraine and possibly Kherson could become a compromise space for Russia in the negotiations; however, the corridor by the Sea of ​​Azov is unlikely to be handed over.

 

Imagine a ceasefire in April or May under roughly such conditions. Neutrality, demilitarization, recognition of Crimea and Donbas, corridor by the Sea of ​​Azov. Would that be a defeat for Russia?

 

Of course, this can be interpreted as well. Not only that, the reputation of the Kyiv authorities in the Western community would reach heights that could only be dreamed of before the operation to protect Donbas. In fact, it was not even possible to dream.

 

Because in peace talks, watching and cheering the whole world, such an outcome of the Donbas defense operation would be recognized as legitimate and satisfying for all observers and mediators. Because the ceasefire is the most important thing what one does not sacrifice for them.

 

Would that really be a defeat for Russia?”