Zelensky must soon decide: What are we fighting for next?

Resett - Comments by Helge Lurås-March 15, 2022

When the fog of war eases, the questions push themselves.

Every day news and analyzes of the war in Ukraine flow in. We read about the Ukrainian heroes and the Russian villains. In the West, many are shocked. We were told that war in Europe was unthinkable, but now it is happening.

From Ukraine comes the desperate cry that NATO countries must declare and enforce the no-fly zone. President Zelenskyj is also pushing for more help. He wants NATO involved in the fight against Putin's soldiers.

Such calls are also being made by Western journalists. And from some diplomats and politicians in the United States as well. The Estonian parliament has adopted a call to the UN for such a no-fly zone, but they did not address the call to their own alliance, NATO. Not yet.

The war has soon lasted for three weeks. Putin allegedly demands that Ukraine declare itself neutral, as he also demanded before the invasion, and now in addition that Kyiv recognizes Crimea as part of Russia and Donetsk and Luhansk as independent republics.

Zelensky says they must negotiate with Putin and that he is no longer as eager to join NATO because NATO "is not ready to take on Ukraine as a member."

It is a war no one can win, for many years. The Ukrainians are too many and too willing to fight. The Russians are too few, too poorly led, and too unmotivated. Both Zelensky and Putin have miscalculated in advance. Zelensky did not think Putin would attack. Putin thought it would be a simpler invasion.

Thus, should it be conducive to a negotiated solution? With each passing day, more of Ukraine is being destroyed, soldiers on both sides are dying, as are Ukrainian civilians. In Russia, the war is only accepted due to massive propaganda, fake news, and threats. The sanctions affect Russia and also the West itself, through scarcity and higher prices.

But it will require unpopular, courageous decisions to find a negotiated solution to this war. For both Putin and Zelensky, a lot is at stake. Both can risk being condemned by their own, and by history.

For Zelensky, it will stick with him that he spoke up Ukraine's wishes for NATO membership, equipped the country militarily with Western support, and expressed the belief that the West would stand by and sacrifice something on behalf of his country. Zelensky acted as a politician who wanted to take Ukraine into the fold of NATO because it would deter Russia from attacking. But Russia attacked before Ukraine became a member, thus failing the strategy of Zelensky and his predecessors. Now his countrymen are being killed, forced to flee and the country's infrastructure is being destroyed. And it's happening in Europe.

With each passing day, the cost of Kyiv's NATO aspirations from before the invasion grows larger and larger, while until Putin gets even more military and political problems, it is inconceivable that he will accept anything less than a guarantee of neutrality as a condition of end the military attack. Many will therefore ask themselves if Zelensky agrees to an agreement: What did Ukraine achieve by rejecting Putin's demands before the invasion?

Would not Zelensky have had to accept even worse conditions and at the same time inflict many dead, wounded, and great destruction on his country? Were the dead and the destruction in vain?

It will not be easy for Zelensky to say yes to a peace deal on terms Putin can afford to offer.

Putin also has a lot at stake. He can not appear as a failed leader. There are already thousands of dead Russian soldiers, the economic sanctions affect both the elite and ordinary Russians. Putin must have achieved something before he can repel the invasion. Otherwise, he will lose face and power, something a dictator can hardly do without putting his position at stake.

It is also an open question whether Putin's demands "only" are Ukrainian neutrality and secession for Donbas and Luhan in addition to the recognition of Crimea. Developments on the ground indicate that the Russian forces are occupying a belt from the Donbas to the Crimea and further west to Odesa and all the way to the Moldovan border. In that case, the rest of Ukraine will lose access to the Black Sea, and the territory that Russia in practice annexes is far larger than what they are now allegedly demanding from Crimea, Luhansk, and Donbas.

And such a thing is practically impossible for a Ukrainian leader to accept in an early negotiation. Developments on the ground make it probable that the war will continue for a long, long time.

And then there are the external actors, and their interests and roles. For most people in the West, the commitment to and empathy with the Ukrainians is real. And then one would like to welcome a peace agreement even if it in practice involves a Ukrainian capitulation to Putin's demands? Maybe, but maybe not.

For some on the western side, this war is probably seen as appropriate. The longer it lasts, the more weakened Russia becomes. We, in the West, can fight the Russians to the last Ukrainians. Will we not then also cheer on "our hero" Zelensky and encourage him to reject Putin's demands? Will we not continue to incite the Ukrainians to continue fighting in this heroic battle against the evil forces?

Because this is what happens in practice. Politicians and commentators in the West paint a picture of a morally justified resistance struggle on the part of the Ukrainians. We want them to fight on. We tell the whole world that it is crucial that Putin does not win. Ukrainians are fighting for themselves and for our values. They need to get more weapons, and that quickly, so that they are not beaten.

But it is a country with 45 million inhabitants that we are fighting here. And it is a battle no one can win in many, many years. It is a war that will take the lives of many people. It will send millions fleeing and destroying Ukraine's economy, its culture, its values.

In what way does it matter that the media here has received a case that concerns, which provides viewers and readers? Aid organizations have received the same relevance. NATO has gained renewed relevance. And for the military-industrial complex, war is a goldmine. In the short term, weapons will be sent to Ukraine, in the long term, defense budgets will increase in all NATO countries.

And in the midst of this chaos of interests and emotions, the Ukrainian leaders must make some extremely difficult choices: Should they accept Putin's conditions sooner rather than later, in order to stop the immediate suffering and destruction? Otherwise, they will fight, fight and fight, until Putin gives up his three demands? And is it really certain that Putin "only" has these three requirements?

And the background for these decisions is probably that the three demands in practice are already a political reality. NATO will never include Ukraine in the alliance. And Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk will never again be ruled from Kyiv. Probably Putin also intends to occupy even larger parts of Ukraine, and it is only a long-running rebellion that can push the Russian occupiers out in the long run.

So when heroism and enthusiasm eventually subside, Ukrainians will probably increasingly also ask themselves: What are we really fighting for?

At the moment, many Ukrainians are probably excited and willing to fight. They rightly feel that their opposition is legitimate. But what happens in a few months? When the horrors and hopelessness of war characterize people's future prospects. When one realizes what a ruined future the country has had. When interest in Ukraine also declines in the West. What will the Ukrainians then think about everything that has happened?

Turning to NATO and the EU should give Ukraine a better future. And the West encouraged them to flirt with us. But when the old girlfriend (Russia) reached out, we are not ready to sacrifice ourselves in the fight for the object (Ukraine's) favor. It will create bitterness, as Zelensky's statements about the West are already showing. Ukrainians feel cheated, abandoned.

The strategic situation is not good for either Russia, Ukraine, Europe or the United States. It is a permanently divided Europe we now have to settle on. An iron curtain will sink in Europe, with Russia against the rest. Ukraine will be divided.

Some people think that this also has some bright spots. Finally, Western European countries will understand that Russia is a threat and we must expand our military forces in order to meet a conventional Russian attack.

Also read: From hating to cheering on ourselves

But there is nothing good about having to spend money on military equipment and forces. It is at best a necessity. It is money that could otherwise have been used for other things.

And the winner in this is the non-western world. Not least China.

For it is China that is the most important and greatest challenger to the values ​​and position of power of the United States and Europe. And Russia could, potentially, given its also European and Western features and geopolitical position, become a player the West could ally with up against China in a protracted strategic conflict. But now Russia has no other choice, they must link up with China. Russia becomes a player completely on the opponent's team.

We will never know what the story would have been like if NATO had failed to expand after the end of the Cold War. Could it actually change the political development in Russia? Could the West-facing forces easily win internally or could even a man like Vladimir Putin develop differently and more pro-Western?

Maybe, maybe not. But an outcome that now seems to be the case is an absolutely catastrophically bad development for Ukraine, as well as Russia, as for us. There is war in Europe, innocent people are dying, the world is being divided into two blocks and we have become enemies with people we share a common European cultural and religious history with.

There is nothing uplifting about this war from any perspective. It is a human and strategic tragedy for everyone in the West and the western part of Eurasia.

EDITORS' REMARKS:    It was not just the threat of membership in NATO and the EU which caused Putins`need to invade Ukraine, but more the un-elected appointment of President Zelensky, schooled and brainwashed by the studies provided by WEF/Klaus Schwab for selected, young, eager traitors distributed and infiltrated into the worlds political leaderships in order to realize the dogma of a dystopic Illuminati New World Order. As successfully already realized in Canada, France, and many other western countries.  Zelensky should go, or at least commit himself to neutrality from outside countries and influences.

How to understand Joe Bidens Ukrainian Connection.

ALL ABOUT UKRAINE FROM A LOCAL FRIEND - 12 MARCH 2022

Further info. in our Human Synthesis library of some 1.400 articles

COPYRIGHT

Copy & Paste the link above for Yandex translation to Norwegian.

WHO and WHAT is behind it all ? : >

The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehavior acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.

Commentary:

Administrator

HUMAN SYNTHESIS

All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified