IL SOLO NEGOZIATO POSSIBILE TRA UCRAINA E RUSSIA

Foto esemplificativa

Anton Gerashchenko è un consulente del ministro dell’interno ucraino e gestisce un canale Telegram di informazione sulla situazione in Ucraina, ricchissimo di informazioni.
E’ “di parte”? Si, lo credo bene. E’ obiettivo? Forse no, ma chi può esserlo in queste condizioni. Propaganda? Anche, ma ben venga, tutto sommato, perché è a favore della vittima (l’Ucraina) non del carnefice (la Russia).
Questo conflitto non ha molti sbocchi possibili e, a conti fatti, realisticamente, quello che ho proposto con una mail al sig. Gerashchenko credo sia il solo sbocco possibile che entrambe le parti possano digerire, sperando che Putin faccia uso di digestivi.

Good morning Mr. Anton Gerashchenko,

I’m among the followers of your Telegram channel Pravda_Gerashchenko_en.
Useless to say that my heart is close to Ukrainian and their heroic defense of their country.
I follow to the extent possible your messages on Telegram.

I have been thinking a lot on how to get out of this dramatic mass, and I do not see many escape solutions, being myself a realistic man.
Apart the ideal solution, that does not appear to be so close for now (Putin disappearing from Earth !!), the only scenary that appears realistic in my mind, to some extent, and imagining that also Vladimir Putin needs an escape solution as soon as possible, is the one shortly described in the attached document.

This preliminary draft proposal imagines that Russia cannot give up the free access to the coast of the Black Sea and Azov Sea, this being a MUST for Russia all allong its entire history. The Putin’s solution was, of course, to integrate the whole Ukrainian territory into the Russian Federation.
Excluding this outcome, that appears more and more not realistic for Russia, it could become acceptable for Putin to have a free access to the sea, from Rostov to the Crimea peninsula, along a shape of territory facing the sea. The russians are attempting to get military control of this territory by bombing all around, passing from Mariupol, and further.

My idea is to propose a negotiated solution that might keep the practical advantages of the russian idea without subtracting the region to the political control of Kyiv. Imagine the region becoming a sort of “special” region, neutral under the military aspect, a sort of Switzerland region placed among Ukraina, Russia and the sea. Such a region, in a condition of peace between Russia and Ukraina, with a substiantial autonomy, although still within the territory borders of Ucraina, could produce unbelievable economic results, with time, profiting of its relative independence from both Russia and Ukraina, although being the focus of all commerce to the south of the continent for both.
We have to turn the drama of the war into an opportunity, and we must be conscious that also the snake Putin needs an opportunity to say: I’m the winner.
The proposed solution imagines that the region be military free: no weapons on ground, from both parties.

There is a lot of details that such a negotiation must include, that I cannot ever imagine, but the substance is there, and I do not see any other realistic solution, a russian defeat being not realistic, unless with USA in direct conflict with Russia, with all the nuclear consequences.

Having given up the invasion from North, Putin is facing the control of the south-east territories of Ukraina and will not stop unless this is achieved.
It will take long, and costs, and deaths, also for the russians. The only solution is to overturn the face of the omelette, so that Putin achieves more or less what he needs, to feel as a winner, and Ukraina does not loose those territories for ever, although with a different configuration, saving the vital interests of Ukraina as well, hence full access to that territory.

In Europe we have already, since long time, small towns that are completely independent (Monaco, on the France coast, San Marino, in Italy, etc) which are, as a matter of fact, part of the larger territory where they are situated. Donbass is much larger, of course, and owns resources to be exploited that are of interest to both Russia and Ukraina, and the negotiation will have to include statements on how to share these resources, which is not an easy deal, but a solution, again, can be fond, if the exploitation of these resources has Donbass itself as destination, rather then Ukraina or Russia.

I do not think any other track could be followed.

Good luck and success.

Franco Puglia – Italy

DRAFT PROPOSAL TO STOP FIGHTING IN UKRAINA

The military operations in Ukraina have produced a dramatic amount of damages and lost lives on both parties to the conflict, and will have to stop, before or later, so let’s try to stop them now. This draft proposal is a reasonable basis to meet the fundamental interests of the parties to this conflict.

a) Immediate stop of fire from both parties to this conflict, keeping their respective positions as long as the peace agrement reaches its final conclusion with the signature of the parties. During this period the support of the people on ground with food, beverages and medical aid will be permitted, excluding any other supply aimed to reinforce the military capacity of both.

b) Mutual statement of the common historical origin of the russian and ukrainian people, and will to rebuild, with time, a climate of friendship compromised for long by this conflict..

c) Acceptance, from Russia, of the territorial integrity and independence of the Ucraina Republic, only excluding the Crimea peninsula, being recognised by Ucraina as being part of the Russian Federation, for historical and cultural reasons.

d) Modifications in the territorial organization of the Republic of Ucraina, establishng a special district in the south-est region of Ucraina, the so called Donbass region, with a substantial self-governmente autorithy, although still under the political sovereign authority of the Kiev government over this region, as well as over all other territories originally falling under the Kiev authority. This new region of Ucraina will extend all along the coast of the Black Sea and Azov See, to reach the Crimea peninsula, with the west-northern border to be defined in detail in the attachements to this agreement.
The Odessa region is non considered part of this territory.
This region, from now onward simply colled Donbass, will be set free from armies either of Ucraina and Russia origin, producing, as a matter of fact, a sort of neutral ground, where weapons will have to disappear and will not be used, as a consequence, against any party involved in this conflict. Both Russia and Ucraina undertake not to introduce in the future any military stuff and soldiers in Donbass, unless for joint mutuallly agreed defense from an external aggression.

e) Owing to the special status of this region, the Russian Federation will have a permanent free right of transit for non military people and mobiles from the russian territory to Crimea, and back, to make easier the transit in the southern region of Ucraina, between Russia and Crimea. This new status of the Donbass region will be assured and defended, as long as deemed necessary, by an international interposition military force, under the control of the United Nations, which are part and warranty to this agreement.

f) The Republic of Ucraina will keep its independent military autonomy, with no limitation of use of self defending infrastructures, either on ground, aerial or over the sea, excluding an integration in the atlantic alliance Nato, therefore undertaking not to host on its territory any Nato military infrastructure, however reserving the right of possibly asking Nato support solely to reinforce the defense of its own territory, in case of attack, excluding any coperation with Nato to support any military mission directed ouside its own territory.

g) Russia declares that will not try to interfere in the future in the internal political status of Ucraina, recognising as lawful the present Ucraina government.

h) Mutual undertaking to establishing permanent channels of cooperation at diplomatic level and on economic interchange aimed to the constant improvement of russian-ukrainian relationships.

i) This agreement requires the immediate withdrawl of the russian military forces inside the russian territories, leaving the Ukraina territory. It also requires the cooperation of the Kiev government to promote the gradual cancelation of the european sanctions against Russia, finalized to a gradual recovery of normal diplomatic and commercial relationship among all involved contries.

MESSAGE TO VLADIMIR PUTIN


WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO VLADIMIR PUTIN, ASSUMING I COULD TALK TO HIM, WHAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Franco Puglia

You jumped into big mass with Ukrainian invasion: things have not gone as expected.
The point, now, is how to get out of the mass. Non so easy, nor painless.
Let’s start from the beginning, from the idea which is beyond this war: to unify the slave population, weak, as individual nations, potentially strong if unified.
This concept is not new: it comes from all ancient empire dreams, since thousand of years, with the eaegyptiankingdom, with the Chinese Ming kingdom, ad there after.
Back to Russia, history tells us about the extensive dominations of the Russian kingdom from czar Ivan and the other kings after him, continued with the communist revolution and URSS. After that the disaggregation.

The idea of a slave union is not wrong, in itself, but doesn’t not takes into account the different historical period to take place. Back to Ucraina, for example, it is true that the resident population is Russian like: one might say, however, that the Russian population is ucrainaa like. The languages are non dramatically different, the physical aspect of the people is pretty similar. However they are different.
It happens everywhere, included Italy: one nation, with different people, and which are the differences is hard to say. Being a single nation is a rusultaof the history, not a free choice of the people. This was acceptable, many years ago; not now any more.

What might have led to a good result many years ago is resulting a disaster now days: ucraini people did not welcome Russians into their country: their answer was a strong fight, and it’ woldd be a mistake to imagine this be due to the fascination of Zelensky or to the pressure of Nazi troops. The whole people, with few exceptions, has reacted without being forced to do it. Why?

The reason is that people, now days, all over the world, tend tio disaggregation, rather then to aggregation, and the European Union is a demonstration of this tendency: it’s foundation was aimed to a big union of the European populations, to build a strong Europe.
This resulahas been achieved in a very little part, because the sentiment of the different populations drive them out, rather then into the Union. British people decided to leave ad many political organizations in Europe were willing to follow the same direction, until now.

You stopped all of a sudden this European aim starting the Ukrainian war. All European countries have overcome their divisions, unified by a single aim of defence against the Russian aggression to Ucraina. Also in this case you did not expect such a reaction.
These facts should suggest a conclusion: there is little space for unification of people, nowdayss, and any strategy aimed to unification must adopt different methods to reach the objective. The military option is not the most suitable one, as Ukrainian has shown.

We have to learn observing others, if any, adopting more successful strategies.
One is China. China is a completely different world then Europe or America.
Their old culture is deep-rooted in the Chinese soul and orients all their strategies.
China, nowdayss, does not need to even imagine any military war, unless for defence, and with Taiwan exception where, however, they never tried to make a military strike.
Chinese use a soft approach to set up a strong influence on territories where they have economic interest to pursue.

On the other hand it is not so different from the approach that Russia has followed so far in Europe, leading to becoming the main supplier of energy resources in important countries as Germany and Italy, plus others. And the European aim to Russia was pretty open and favourable, even if a residual non confidence, determined by the recent past, was still there, and the military approach to Ucraina has pushed back this confidence to the URSS period of the so called cool war. We all lost many years of progress on the sole route that makes sense, in perspective, for all of us: the unification of Europe, of a BIG Europe, from the Atlantic sea to the Urals mountains, which are the natural border of the European continent.

Why a big Europe? To counterbalance the big China and India, the asean continent, with a population exceeding by far the whole European population including Russia.
Russia is, by historical reasons, in a difficult geographical condition, covering territories spacing from Europe to Asia, as long as the Bering sea.
If no serious conflict has occurred so far between Russia and China for the northern regions of Asia is mainly due to the climatic conditions of those regions, which are not attractive for leaving, but with the increasing population in the planet, that exceed now 8 billions of humans, even those regions might become attractive for China.

The recent strong alliance between Russia and China is a tactical solution for both parties, but it is a weak liaison, considering the population ratio, one to ten, between Russians and Chinese. It cannot last much long, or Russia will become a slave of China in practical facts.
Even Europe and the USA are considering to get more freedom from the Chinese economical penetration, a soft invasion that has made disappearing many industrial activities in the western countries, producing slow of the internal income and slow down of occupation.

In this scenery, what to do about Ucraina?

This war is a great net loss for Russians and Europeans, not talking of Ucraina that has been much destroyed and needs to be rebuilt, either at Russian or European expenses, or both. At present the sole winner in this game are the USA, which are not touched by the war in their own territory nor they are touched by the energy lack and price. Winner because their economy will receive a great impulse in all activities correlated to the war, being a designer and producers of any king of military stuff. And they have now clients (NATO and not NATO countries) that will spend a lot of many to improve their military stuff as a deterrent against Russia, having become, all of a sudden, the public enemy for much of the world, in terms of number of nations, if not in terms of net population.
This is a defeat for Russia, whatever be the results onto the military ground.

At the best, based on what we can see, Russia could join the land from Rostov to Odessa under its’ control, closing any access to the Black see to Ucraina, and controlling that side of the black sea, face to face with Turkey. A very dangerous face to face, either because Turkey still belongs to NATO, either because they are Turkish and Muslim.
And such a result does it shorten the distance between the present and the initial goal you had in mind? Absolutely not: the opposite. Hence it would be a defeat.

Let’s now divide the Russian interests from your personal interests: in case the result of the war be the one described above, and it is not yet achieved, Russia will keep being isolated from much of the world, with their economy on ground and no measurable advantage from the control of the northern side of the Black Sea, while facing hostile territories at its borders.
You will keep your present power in the Kremlin, keeping on watching your shoulders to avoid being fired by internal opposition. Before or later History will describe Vladimir Putin as the man who turned back the destiny of Russia and Europe, producing the death of several tens of thousand of people, either Russians or ucraini.. You will find your place in the black book of the History, among others.

Or …. Or you overturn the cards on the table. How?

You have to admit that this war has been a mistake. Difficult to say that, now, more difficult or impossible tomorrow. If the conditions of the conflict become worse for Russia, this statement will appear as a public declaration of defeat. Even now it appears as a possibility, but you do not have another chance, in my opinion. It must be done, as soon as possible.
How to turn a defeat into a new perspective of success:

1. Get back to the original aim of the war, that you did not want to name as such, calling it as a “special operation”. It’s time now to explain to winch goal this operation was aimed.

a) to join the two souls of the major eastern Russian territories into a single great nation, from the Baltic to the Black sea, based onto information collected by the Intelligence, reporting that people in Ucraina were oriented to welcome this vision, also based onto the news coming from the south-east part of Ucraina, Don bass, where people were killing each other in absence of any successful undertaking of the Ukrainian government to establish a peaceful condition in the region.

b) to show to the slave territories west of Russia that a new unification of all people belonging to the slave etnia was possible, in view of an overall European unification where the role and political weight of these people become much more important the now, with the prominence of the elder states of Europe, like Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

2. Now the difficult statement: people in Ucraina did not appear to be as described by the Russian Intelligence. As a proof, you asked to the Russian military forces not to send in Ucraina their best professionals, but young soldiers with little experience, to test on ground what military operations are, with the minimum risk.

The result has been dramatic, with so many young Russian lives destroyed. But the boots where on ground, at this point, and the generals did not see any other option that keeping on. In few weeks the scenery has become very far from the one expected, and the initial goal of this operation disappeared, or even worse, produced effects opposite to the objectives.

3. At this point you state your decision to resign, underlining that the final objective of this unfortunate conflict remains valid, but has to be pursued following a different approach. Leave the command to somebody that appears the most welcome from the adverse parties, Ucraina and the others, to negotiate the stop of the conflict, bringing back the Russian troupes to Russia and trying to negotiate the reset of the international cooperation as before the war. After the new course you might keep in diffusing your story telling of the enlarged European unification, tailoring for you a new international role.
I can’t say if this will work, but it’s the only escape I see to safeguard your life and image.

Not doing that brings straight to the hell.

Ing. Franco Puglia

4 April 2022