Russia’s Perspective: Selling the War to Its People

Vladimir Putin has consistently shaped narratives to justify Russia’s actions in Ukraine. For any agreement to resonate domestically, Putin must present it as a win for Russia. This could involve highlighting two key points:

1. Crimea’s Permanent Status
   Putin might argue that his decision to go to war ensured Russia’s hold over Crimea “forever.” He could reference Crimea’s historical ties to Russia dating back to 1787, emphasizing that it was only detached due to what he might call “a mistake” by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. The rhetoric would likely frame Crimea’s status as a restoration of Russia’s rightful territory.
2. Blocking Ukraine’s NATO Membership
   Another point of emphasis for Putin could be preventing Ukraine’s integration into NATO. The Kremlin has long viewed NATO expansion as a security threat. For Russian audiences, this could be framed as a major geopolitical victory, ensuring Ukraine remains outside the military alliance.

Ukraine’s Position: Seeking Security and Sovereignty

For Ukraine, any deal must yield tangible benefits, especially after enduring months of destruction and warfare. A possible agreement might involve a few key promises to the Ukrainian government and people:

• Access to the European Union
  While NATO membership could remain off the table, Ukraine might be offered a path to join the European Union. This integration into Europe could provide economic and political support, helping Ukraine rebuild and align closer with the West.
• Demilitarized Zones
  To limit future conflicts, the deal could include the establishment of demilitarized zones along certain contested areas. This might help reduce tensions and create a buffer between Russian and Ukrainian forces.
• Enhanced Military Support
  As part of the agreement, Western allies, including the United States, might commit to arming Ukraine significantly. This would enable the country to protect its sovereignty more effectively in the future.

What Might the Agreement Look Like in Practice?

The contours of such a deal may result in a mix of concessions and guarantees. Some potential outcomes include:

• Russia’s Withdrawal to Pre-2022 Positions
  Part of the agreement could require Russian forces to retreat to the positions they held before February 24, 2022, the day the war escalated. However, this would leave contested areas like Crimea firmly under Russian control.
• Commitments to Peace
  Both sides might agree on a long-term peace framework to avoid future conflicts. This could involve international monitoring and guarantees from powerful nations to uphold the deal.
• Adjusting Alliances
  Ukraine’s path to NATO could remain blocked, but its integration with the European Union might accelerate. This would allow Ukraine to gain economic benefits while potentially scaling back military ambitions.

The Role of the United States

A U.S.-brokered deal, especially under Donald Trump, could come with unique dynamics. Trump has previously emphasized reducing America’s involvement in foreign wars while negotiating deals he views as beneficial to all sides. His approach might focus on finding practical compromises while minimizing new military commitments for the U.S.

Trump is also likely to position himself as a peacemaker. Preventing further NATO expansion and balancing relations with Russia would likely be part of his strategy. If he’s involved in brokering a deal, it could reflect his broader foreign policy stance of prioritizing negotiation over confrontation.

Challenges in Reaching a Resolution

While such a deal might appear feasible on paper, implementing it in reality remains complex. Both sides have deeply entrenched interests, and public opinion in Ukraine, Russia, and the West will heavily influence the outcome. Additionally, reconciling the desires of multiple stakeholders—some seeking justice and others stability—adds to the difficulties.

Final Thoughts

The potential for a negotiated resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war remains a subject of intense speculation. A deal involving Crimea, NATO membership, and enhanced support for Ukraine seems possible, but nothing is guaranteed. Leaders on all sides would need to navigate political, military, and public pressure to make such an agreement work.

As the global community watches closely, one thing is clear: any resolution will have lasting consequences on the regional and global order. Whether Trump plays a role in brokering this peace is yet to be seen, but the idea of a deal shaped by his unique approach to diplomacy is undoubtedly intriguing.

Video Summary generated with assistance from AI.

According to the Missouri Republican, such a move would risk a “from now until forever” conflict with Russia.

Partial transcript as follows:

INGRAHAM: Well, the deal that Biden and company scotched at the beginning of this war, before the war started. That would have avoided the war. It looks like what they’re going to end up with is worse than they would have gotten had they not done this at all. That’s what it looks like at least. It could change. But now, Senator, Zelenskyy has a magic solution to end the war. Watch.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, PRESIDENT, UKRAINE (VIA TRANSLATOR): If we want to stop the hot stage of the war, we should take on the NATO umbrella, the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control.

INGRAHAM: Your reaction, Senator.

HAWLEY: No, absolutely not. They should not put any part of Ukraine in NATO. And listen, this administration is already risking World War III by greenlighting the use of American weapons into Russian territory. What will happen if Moscow responds by sending a weapon, a missile, you name it, into the territory of a NATO country, we’ll all be at war. The idea that now we would expand NATO to include Ukraine is extremely dangerous. It is a recipe for constant conflict, including American soldiers boots on the ground in Europe from now until forever. It is a disastrous idea. It’s exactly the wrong thing to do.

And listen, here’s another point about the need to settle this conflict. What the Biden administration has been telling senators behind closed doors for literally two years now, Laura, is that there will have to be a negotiated peace. The Secretary of State was saying that two years ago. So out in public, they’re saying, war forever. Behind closed doors, they’re saying, well, we’re going to have to negotiate.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

HAWLEY: They just don’t want to make the hard choices to do it. And here we are. […]

— Read More: www.breitbart.com

Britain and France are in talks to send troops to Ukraine to deter Vladimir Putin, it has emerged.

London and Paris want to create a “core of allies in Europe” as fears intensify that President-elect Donald Trump could withdraw military support for Ukraine.

This was one of the top stories on the Drudge Report today.

Our allies in Europe are making it very clear that they plan to continue with the war no matter what Donald Trump decides to do once he is inaugurated.

NATO’s top military official is warning that Europeans may have to make sacrifices in order to support Ukraine if Trump reduces the level of U.S. funding for the war…

Europeans must be ready to sacrifice some “luxuries” to pay to support Ukraine and to prevent a “wartime scenario” coming to the nations of the continent if they are insufficiently prepared, NATO’s most senior military officer said in a speech namechecking both Russia and China as threats.

Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, who probably has no idea what a real war looks like, is also encouraging European businesses to “adjust their production and distribution lines” for a wartime scenario…

A top NATO military official on Monday urged businesses to be prepared for a wartime scenario and adjust their production and distribution lines accordingly, in order to be less vulnerable to blackmail from countries such as Russia and China.

“If we can make sure that all crucial services and goods can be delivered no matter what, then that is a key part of our deterrence,” the chair of NATO’s military committee, Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, said in Brussels.

It certainly does not sound like he expects the war to end any time soon.

In fact, it very much sounds like he expects it to escalate significantly.

Meanwhile, the New York Times is reporting that the Biden administration has actually discussed giving nuclear weapons to Ukraine…

So U.S. and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire.

Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications.

Needless to say, the Biden administration should not be discussing such a thing, and the New York Times should not be printing such a thing.

If the Russians think that there is even a small chance that nuclear weapons are going to be given to Ukraine, that is going to make them even more paranoid than they are now.

Most people in the western world have no idea how the Russians view this conflict.  They were promised that NATO would not expand one inch eastward, and now NATO is right on their borders and long-range missiles provided by NATO are being fired into their territory.  The Russians truly believe that they are engaged in an existential struggle with western powers, and they also truly believe that those western powers want to overthrow their government and carve their beloved homeland up into dozens of little countries.  They have seen “regime change” happen in so many other nations in recent years, and now they fear that the exact same thing is being done to them.

If the Russians feel that they have been backed into a corner with no other options, they will use nuclear weapons.

Alarmingly, it is being reported that FEMA has just released “a spine-chilling survival guide for a nuclear attack”…

As global tensions mount, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency has released a spine-chilling survival guide for a nuclear attack amid the escalating Ukraine conflict and intensifying Middle Eastern disputes.

Echoing Cold War-era preparedness, the agency’s updated advice aims to shield Americans from the horrors of a nuclear explosion. A nuclear simulation grimly tallies the death toll should Russia target Washington DC with a nuke – the numbers are staggering, reports the Irish Star.

If the Russians use nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, they won’t just hit one city.

Instead, they would hit hundreds of targets simultaneously, and America as we know it would cease to exist.

The Germans are so concerned about the possibility of all-out war with Russia that they are actually creating a list of bunkers that civilians could potentially use when missiles start falling…

Germany is drawing up a list of bunkers that could provide emergency shelter for civilians, the interior ministry has said, at a time of rising tensions with Russia.

The list would include underground train stations and car parks as well as state buildings and private properties, a ministry spokesperson said.

A digital directory of bunkers and emergency shelters will be drawn up so people can find them quickly using a planned phone app. People would also be encouraged to create protective shelters in their homes by converting basements and garages, the spokesperson told a press briefing.

I don’t know if they understand what they are potentially facing.

Those shelters may do some good if conventional weapons are used, but if nukes start flying entire cities will be pounded into oblivion.

Let us hope that cooler heads will prevail.

But for now, fighting continues to rage in Ukraine.  In fact, the Russians are telling us that they hit 149 locations inside Ukraine in just one 24 hour period…

Russian forces carried out strikes on Ukrainian military airfields, personnel and equipment over the past 24 hours, the Ministry of Defense (MoD) reported.

“Operational-tactical aviation, strike drones, missile forces, and artillery targeted the infrastructure of military airfields as well as concentrations of enemy personnel and military equipment in 149 locations,” the Mod said.

Even though we have been warned about this exact scenario for many, many years, we continue to march toward the unthinkable.

I don’t understand why so many people out there want an all-out war with Russia.

I hear from readers all the time that are absolutely obsessed with “defeating” the Russians.

But there will not be any winners in this war.

When push comes to shove, the Russians will use nuclear weapons, and by then it will be way too late for the warmongers to admit that they were wrong.

Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Russian offensive actions in the east have greatly accelerated and now in the south the vital city of Vuhledar is set to fall within a couple days (if it hasn’t already).  Their attrition based strategy and artillery superiority have created a shield for small fast moving units to strike Ukraine’s trenches and fixed defenses, and their drone game has dramatically improved.  This has led them to capture multiple towns and cities in the past three months, with their forces closing in on the key eastern operational base of Pokrovsk.  If Pokrovsk falls, the entire east of Ukraine could easily fall.

Beyond the shift to attrition tactics, Russia is gaining territory quickly because Ukraine is low on manpower.  No amount of NATO technology or weaponry is going to help this fundamental weakness.  This is the reality in Ukraine; they are losing the war.

The western media is unable to gloss over the situation any longer, which means something dramatic will have to happen to change the course of the war in Ukraine’s favor.  Their government is scrambling to initiate an October surprise in preparation for the US elections in November.  The US runs NATO, and Ukraine is entirely dependent on US aid. 

The notion of a Ukrainian “Victory Plan” is by itself questionable given the circumstances, but what is reportedly contained in Vladimir Zelensky’s strategy seems to be a over-optimistic wish list relying heavily on escalation between NATO and Russia.  In other words, the only way Ukraine can “win” is for NATO to engage in open warfare with the East.

While the full plan hasn’t been divulged, senior U.S. officials who are familiar with its contents don’t see anything original or innovative in it. As one told The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 25, “I’m unimpressed, there’s not much new there.” From what we can grasp, the “victory plan” is less a “plan” and more a continuation of Zelensky’s lobbying campaign to keep U.S. arms flowing in perpetuity.

Zelensky is dead-set on getting permission to use US and European long range missile systems against targets deep within Russia.  The problem, as Vladimir Putin rightly noted, is that these systems cannot hit such targets accurately without NATO satellite intel and acquisition.  Meaning, the missiles must be guided by US and European military technicians and assets.

It is likely that the majority of Ukrainian long range drone strikes within Russia are already being aided by NATO intel, but the use of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles far from Ukraine’s front line is another matter entirely.  There’s no plausible deniability for NATO involvement.  The use of these weapons within Russia would be akin to a declaration of war and would trigger escalation outside of Ukraine.

What would the consequences be?  Not necessarily the use of nuclear weapons (though Putin did just change his bottom line on a nuclear response to include long range attacks using NATO weapons), but the spread of more advanced Russian armaments to countries like China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and even the Houthis in Yemen is a good bet.  Meaning a more significant threat to NATO interests in Asia and the Middle East.  The war would spread.

So far the Biden Administration has refrained from supporting the long range option, but has offered another $8 billion in support.  Under a Trump presidency, the money train is likely to stop abruptly.

Zelensky has offered no practical measures for negotiations, arguing that concessions are off the table.  Furthermore, he claims that peace is only possible once Ukraine has taken back all territory seized by Russia, including Crimea which was annexed in 2014.  He then demanded that Russia pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction and that Putin and a multitude of other Russian officials be handed over to be tried for war crimes.  This is never going to happen.

The core of Ukraine’s victory plan relies on long range strikes using NATO guided missiles and acceptance into NATO.  Both factors at this stage would cause WWIII.

Ukraine’s chest beating is the national equivalent of “short man’s syndrome.”  That said, Zelensky would not be making these kinds of demands if he was not being encouraged by someone behind the scenes.  Many officials within the US and Europe have given Zelensky delusions of grandeur about his chances, perhaps because they want the war to grind on forever.  These same officials have hinted consistently that they will not accept a Ukrainian loss.

Regardless of what side people think should win, the fact is that Russia is the inevitable victor according to all the evidence on hand.  While the extent of Putin’s goals in the region are unknown, it’s unlikely that he intends to march beyond Ukraine.  He may simply stop at the edge of the Donbas and annex the region like he did Crimea.

This may actually be the best case scenario for all parties involved.  The longer the war goes on the greater the chances of a powerkeg moment and a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.  Ukraine should not be talking about “victory”, that time has come and gone. They should be talking about peace.

He said in an ABC News interview published Tuesday, “I think that we are closer to peace than we think.” But he caveated this by saying this will only be assured if Ukraine comes from a “strong position” with the help of Western backers.

He described his so-called victory plan as not being focused on seeking to negotiate with Russia, but rather it is “a bridge to a diplomatic way out, to stop the war.”

“We just have to be very strong, very strong,” Zelensky said, and this is largely dependent on the “quick decisions”. He has also of late said that “bold” decisions must be made by Washington, in reference to the request for NATO to greenlight long-range missiles strikes on Russia.

“Everybody’s looking up to [Biden], and we need this to defend ourselves,” he told ABC, in an obvious effort to increase pressure on a somewhat hesitant White House. Ukraine also wants a firm path to NATO membership.

He further said his plan is about “the strengthening of Ukraine, Ukrainian army and Ukrainian people. Only in the strong position we can push [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to stop the war – diplomatic way.” He emphasized: “That is why we are asking our friend.”

Despite this optimism about Ukraine’s battlefield chances from Zelensky, Reuters on Tuesday has more bad news for Kiev, centering on rapid gains in Donetsk as another key town is about to fall.

Zelensky is pulling out all the stops in a final push to wring U.S. taxpayers for more money.

He knows the policies of unlimited funding and escalation supported by the Harris-Biden Admin have an expiration date. https://t.co/GeeUC6lMEA

— Rep. Eli Crane (@RepEliCrane) September 24, 2024

“Russian forces have begun storming the eastern Ukrainian town of Vuhledar, a stronghold that has resisted Russian attack since the beginning of the 2022 war, according to Russian war bloggers and state media,” Reuters writes.

“Russian forces in eastern Ukraine advanced at their fastest rate in two years in August, according to multiple open source maps, even though a Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk region sought to force Moscow to divert troops.”

One well-known regional journalist and war observer, Leonid Ragozin—formerly of the BBC—agrees that things are looking bad for Ukraine forces in Vuhledar…

As confirmed by both Russian and Ukrainian sources, the Russians have entered Vuhledar – a key Ukrainian stronghold at the junction of eastern and southern fronts. The potential effect of its capture is hard to overestimate.

They are also closing the lid on the near-encircled…

— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) September 24, 2024

“The situation on the frontline couldn’t be worse for Zelensky-Biden summit,” Ragoniz writes.

So it seems Zelensky is busy in Washington ramping up the hawkish talking points even as his forces are against the ropes in the Donbass. “Russia can only be forced into peace, and that is exactly what’s needed — forcing Russia into peace,” Zelensky had told ABC further. But so far, it seems the opposition situation is unfolding.

Zelenskyy made the remarks at a press conference in Kyiv on Friday during a visit by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and additionally in a briefing to the Observer, per The Guardian.

As The Epoch Times’ Tom Ozimek reports, the Ukrainian president said at the presser alongside von der Leyen that he plans to meet with President Joe Biden in Washington on Sept. 26 and lay out his “victory plan,” details of which remain scant.

“All the details [of the plan] I will discuss first of all with the president of the United States,“ Zelenskyy said.

”Most of the decisions from the plan depend specifically on him. On other allies too, but there are certain points which depend on the goodwill and support of the United States. I hope he supports this plan.”

Zelenskyy added that success of the plan is “predicated upon quick decisions from our partners,” adding that key decisions on which the plan rests should be taken between October and December.

“We really want to see this, and we would then consider that the plan has worked,” he said.

In a separate briefing with the Observer in Kyiv on Friday, Zelenskyy said that the plan involved carrying out deep strikes inside Russia with the use of Western-supplied missiles, which the United States and the United Kingdom have so far refused to allow.

By allowing the use of U.S.-supplied missiles to carry out long-range strikes inside Russia, Biden would “earn a place in history,” Zelenskyy said.

“Biden can strengthen Ukraine and make important decisions for Ukraine to become stronger and to protect its independence while he is U.S. president,” he said.

“I think it is a historical mission.”

In a statement on social media on Friday, the Ukrainian president said that he and his team are preparing for negotiations in the United States, where he intends to also meet with former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

“We are ready to present a concrete plan—not just for Ukraine to endure, not just to maintain our resistance at the current level, but to strengthen ourselves right now. To strengthen in such a way that brings a just peace closer, that brings victory closer,” Zelenskyy said.

The Ukrainian president said on Sept. 16 that the plan was nearly complete and that it rests on four pillars: military, political, diplomatic, and economic.

Zelenskyy elaborated somewhat on the four parts of the plan in an interview with CNN several days ago.

“It’s about security. It’s about geopolitical place for Ukraine. It’s about very strong military support available to us, and that we have to be free in how to use one or another item. It’s about economical support, decisions, which I think will be interesting,” he said.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Russia has warned that allowing strikes deep inside its territory with the use of Western-supplied missiles would amount to a declaration of war.

Several days ago, Vyacheslav Volodin, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, warned Western governments that a nuclear war would break out if they gave Ukraine permission to use long-range Western weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Friday that the West should stop supplying weapons to Ukraine and sponsoring “terrorist activity” if it wanted to send a signal that it is serious about putting an end to the war.

“As soon as they stop supplying arms to the Kyiv regime and sponsoring the terrorist activities of Bankova, then it can be perceived as a signal for political and diplomatic settlement,” she said.

“Everything else is either strengthening of anti-Russian ties with the West, or an attempt to attract other members of the international community to their reckless schemes, or elements of the current White House’s electoral program, so to speak, or manoeuvring,” she said. “In fact, this has nothing to do with peace.”

Michael Carpenter, senior director for Europe at the National Security Council, told Voice of America (VOA) on Friday that discussions between Zelenskyy’s team and members of the Biden administration could include Ukraine’s need for long-range capabilities, with “very active discussions” on this topic already underway.

“We will be having the broad conversation on all the range of capabilities that we think are most important for Ukraine right now, to put it in a position of strength,” he said.

Biden considers Ukraine’s sovereignty and success a key part of his legacy, Carpenter said.

He warned this will be the case “if Zelensky, who has done everything contrary to the interests of Ukraine, remains in power bypassing the elections. Surely no one will tolerate this.”

But already, the government had canceled elections which were supposed to be held last spring, citing martial law and the necessity of no disruption in government due to the Russian invasion. This is a situation which looks to persist longer, angering many Ukrainians who are dissatisfied with Zelensky’s handling of the war.

President Putin had called Zelensky ‘illegitimate’ as a result, but NATO allies including the United States had accepted the cancelation of elections. Putin had said that his term “expired together with its legitimacy, which cannot be restored by any tricks.”

Dubinsky, the opposition lawmaker now highlighting the issue, has actually been under investigation for treason stemming from a years-long alleged criminal conspiracy involving corruption.

Kiev has long maintained that indefinitely postponing elections was in accord with the nation’s constitution:

Ukrainian legal experts consulted by DW said they expected Zelenskyy would remain in power until a new president is elected. “The Ukrainian constitution states this clearly,” said Andriy Mahera, of the Center of Policy and Legal Reform in Kyiv. “The president does not automatically lose his powers five years after inauguration. These powers are only removed when the newly elected president takes office, i.e., after elections.”

Presidential and parliamentary elections are currently out of the question. Ukraine’s constitution places a temporary restriction on the former, whereas martial law bans both — in part , officials have said, to protect voters from harm.

So long as Zelensky has the support of the West, it’s expected he will continue to rule without problems.

Lawmaker Alexander Dubinsky is a deeply controversial figure in Ukraine…

One potential coup scenario, however, might involve far-right elements connected to Ukraine’s military – such as Azov Brigade – stirring strong dissent in the scenario of Zelensky being willing to go quickly to the negotiating table with Moscow. While much of the Ukrainian populace is surely tired of the war, and might be willing to let go of some pro-Russian far eastern territories for the sake of peace, groups like Azov and Right Sector would be out for blood.