“The strategic task is to preserve the state and the nation,” Snyegiryov on territorial concessions
28 April 12:18
OPINION
One of the key issues of the so-called “peace” agreement that the United States is currently negotiating with Russia is the issue of territory control and its recognition by the parties to the conflict and third parties. For example, on the eve of the planned meeting in London, where US Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not arrive, the press reported that, according to the draft “peace” agreement, the United States is going to legally recognize the Russian status of Crimea and actually recognize other occupied territories as Russian (or controlled by Russia).
The Ukrainian-British-European response to this draft was that a full ceasefire should be achieved first, and then territorial issues should be discussed. At the same time, Ukraine is not going to officially recognize the Russian status of the occupied territories in any way.
The President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a corresponding statement. In response, U.S. President Donald Trump wrote that no one demanded that Ukraine officially recognize Crimea as Russian.
Therefore, the issue of territories is one of the most important in the current geopolitical efforts of global players to end the Russian-Ukrainian war. [ Kommersant asked military expert Dmitry Snegirev to comment on the issue.
“The 1991 borders are no longer in question”
First of all, the expert emphasizes that the return to the 1991 borders is no longer a part of official Ukrainian rhetoric. This was the goal that was announced as the goal of the war for Ukraine immediately after the full-scale Russian invasion. Now, when asked whether Ukraine can return Crimea, President Zelensky answers“through diplomacy.”
As for the occupied territories, Snegiryov reminds us that most of them were lost back in 2014.
“Let’s call a spade a spade – the territories were de facto lost back in 2014, with the signing of Minsk-1 and Minsk-2. When it is now said that we may lose territories, let me remind you that 12% of the territories were already lost then,”
– the expert said exclusively for .
Since it is now being said that Russia has occupied 20% of Ukrainian territory, it turns out that most of it was occupied before the full-scale invasion. And, of course, this is primarily about Crimea.
“It is worth mentioning that we actually surrendered Crimea without a fight. That is, we should start with the events of 2014. Having the opportunity to defend Crimea, we did not use it. We should not hide behind political expediency and all other issues,”
– snegirev believes.
“The West is probing the mood of Ukrainian society”
The expert emphasizes that any such information – regarding certain territorial concessions – appears in the information space for a reason.
“What the Western media publish is a controlled leak of information. This is how they probe the moods of Ukrainian society and the military and political leadership regarding possible scenarios: how they will react to such statements,”
– the expert comments.
As an example, he cites the Financial Times article stating that if Crimea is recognized as Russian, the Russians will withdraw their troops from four Ukrainian regions. This publication was an attempt to “feel” the reaction of the Russian side. And with the leak on the eve of the London meeting, Ukrainians were probed for a similar scenario.
At the same time, the expert draws attention to a more dangerous trend: such statements are being made quite openly by officials.
“There are statements, for example, by Polish President Duda, where he says that Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions. That is, similar sentiments are already being expressed in the political arena. And from the lips of the head of a state that is friendly to Ukraine, whose territory is used as a hub for military and technical support for our country. These scenarios are the most dangerous,”
– snegirev believes.
Make concessions to preserve statehood
According to the expert, a number of scenarios concerning the territories are being discussed behind the scenes.
“If possible scenarios are being thrown around now and then – for example, the withdrawal of Russians from part of the Kharkiv region, the transfer of control of the Kinburn Spit to us – it means that all possible options are being probed,”
– says the military expert.
He adds that we should proceed from the real situation and opportunities. Today, Ukraine cannot liberate Crimea and other occupied territories by military means. Therefore, it remains to discuss other options, even if they are not pleasant.
As an example of agreements that gave the party to the war the opportunity to get its way later, the expert cites the situation with Alsace and Lorraine, which France regained half a century after they were officially ceded to Germany in 1871. The Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, which was inconvenient for Russia, and even the Khasavyurt agreements, after which Russia returned and occupied Ichkeria, were similar.
“These are examples of unfavorable agreements for states where certain sentiments also prevailed, but there was an understanding that statehood in its classical sense should be preserved. In our case, we are talking about the very phenomenon of Ukrainian statehood and the Ukrainian nation as the bearer of this statehood. Preserving these two elements is a strategic issue,”
– assures the military expert.
Summarizing, he emphasizes that the most important point of this “peace” process is open communication – between the government and society and within society itself. Everything else is a matter of political expediency and discussion.
