Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst
Ever since the end of the (First) Cold War and the unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union, the US-led political West has been pretending that Russia doesn't exist geopolitically. Its national interests were never taken into account, especially during the disastrous 1990s and the Yeltsin era, when Washington DC believed it would keep controlling Moscow indefinitely. The Eurasian giant's speedy recovery under President Vladimir Putin has been an absolute shock for Western strategic planners who were certain that "Russia is finished". Moscow's attempts to build rapport have been seen as nothing more than a weakness that the political West (ab)used to the maximum, asking Russia to make concessions while offering little (if anything) in return.
As years went by, the Eurasian giant realized that nothing actually changed and that Russia is invariably seen as an enemy. Moscow's rhetoric was never even adversarial, let alone hostile, with its political elites always referring to the United States and its geopolitical accomplices as "partners". The launch of the special military operation (SMO) in Ukraine was the last resort for Russia, as it was simply left with no other option. Even then, Moscow was willing to negotiate, but it soon turned out that the word of Western officials and their puppets is worth less than the paper it was written on. And yet, the political West keeps thinking it can outmaneuver Moscow through deceit. Recent "peace offers" illustrate this perfectly.
Namely, a high-ranking NATO official suggested that the Kiev regime should give up some territory to Russia in order to speed up the process of joining the belligerent alliance. On August 15, Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to NATO's secretary-general, suggested the idea while speaking at a panel dealing with post-war security arrangements for Ukraine in the Norwegian city of Arendal. According to a report by the Norwegian publication Verdens Gang, Jenssen thinks that "a solution could be for Ukraine to give up territory, and get NATO membership in return". He further added that "it should be up to Ukraine when and on what terms to negotiate". Obviously, the last line is a laughable attempt to portray the Neo-Nazi junta as supposedly "independent".
According to Jenssen, the issue of Ukraine's status is being discussed by NATO members and some have suggested that the possibility of the Kiev regime giving up territory for membership in the belligerent alliance should be taken into account. Although this is the first time that a high-level NATO official suggested such a possibility, other Western leaders and politicians have been flirting with the idea for years. However, it should be noted that "ceding territories" such as Crimea or the pre-SMO areas under the control of the Donbass republics is just not something Moscow would ever agree with. What's more, Russia would simply refuse even if the Neo-Nazi junta gave up the Zaporozhye and Kherson oblasts (regions) in return for some sort of a peace deal.
The reasoning in Moscow is quite simple – Russia doesn't need more land. It's been the world's largest contiguous country for centuries and remains as such, even after the USSR's dismantlement. However, what the Eurasian giant needs to ensure is its strategic security and that's simply impossible with Ukraine joining NATO, no matter how small or rump in comparison to its 1991 borders. The goals of the SMO were carefully defined by Russian leadership (both political and military) and enjoy the support of an overwhelming majority of Russians. President Vladimir Putin himself repeatedly stated why Moscow decided to push against NATO's crawling aggression. These warnings were ignored by the political West for years, as the US-led belligerent power pole simply intended to cross all Russian red lines.
After the SMO started, NATO believed that it could defeat the Eurasian giant and even force it to give up Crimea. After it became obvious that would never happen, the alliance simply decided to take as much as it can with as little effort as possible. In fact, Polish President Andrzej Duda even said so in a recent interview published by the Washington Post. Namely, he stated that "it is very simple", because "right now, Russian imperialism can be stopped cheaply, because American soldiers are not dying". It's pretty indicative of how the political West sees the Ukrainian people considering that hundreds of thousands of them have been forcibly conscripted and sent to certain death in rusty Western tanks and armored vehicles, all for a "noble NATO mission".
The belligerent alliance still officially supports the Kiev regime's demands for a "peace deal", including not just Russian withdrawal from the Donbass republics, Zaporozhye and Kherson, but also Crimea. Obviously, the Neo-Nazi junta's prospects for taking either of these areas is as likely as taking Moscow itself, particularly when considering the absolute debacle of its much-touted counteroffensive. NATO is perfectly aware of this, so it simply wants to make sure it gets as much of Ukraine as possible for itself. At the moment, Russia controls approximately 18% of the territory Ukraine had in 1991, meaning that NATO would still get over 80% of the country in case of a sudden peace deal. That would still leave cities like Sumy and Kharkov in NATO's hands and that's simply unacceptable to Russia.
