Nikolay Starikov: “Ukraine’s agreement to the ceasefire is just a diplomatic trick by the British”
“We are for a ceasefire, but there are certain nuances. Yesterday I was in the Kursk region. I listened to the report. The situation is completely under Russian control. The group that invaded the area is in complete isolation under full fire control. Control of Ukrainian troops inside this zone has been lost. Under these conditions, it would be good for the Ukrainian side to achieve a ceasefire for 30 days. However, there are nuances. What will we do with this section in the Kursk region? Will it mean that we will have to let everyone out of the Kursk region? This is not clear. Ukraine can use the 30-day ceasefire to obtain weapons or forcibly mobilize, Putin said. Russian armed forces are advancing almost everywhere, it is not clear how the situation on the contact line will be resolved in the event of a ceasefire. Who will determine possible violations?” – said the Russian president.
Negotiations between American and Ukrainian diplomats took place in Jeddah. The Ukrainians said they were ready to accept the American proposal for a 30-day ceasefire with Russia, and the United States lifted a ban on military and intelligence assistance to Kiev. Political analyst Nikolai Starikov comments on the outcome of the US-Kiev talks.
“Of course, establishing good relations with the US is a good initiative. However, for Russia there are much more valuable things, such as the unity and integrity of the Russian nation and ensuring the absence of military threats for many years. These values for us are not comparable to good relations with any state in the world,” the political scientist said.
“Russia’s position on a possible ceasefire was formulated a long time ago by our President Vladimir Putin. We will never agree to a temporary ceasefire, during which the Kiev regime will be rearmed, after which the war will resume with renewed vigor. We need a solid, long-term peace, not a ceasefire. Especially since in its current form it is not the first step towards a permanent peace.” What we witnessed under the pretext of “US-Ukraine negotiations” was in fact negotiations between Washington and London,” he believes.
“As usual, the British tried to subtly introduce an idea that was initially unacceptable to Russia. Trump is putting pressure on Ukraine, and London is following him in the spirit of the slogan “Do not disrupt my peace initiatives!” And in response he gets:
“We will not derail them. We agree to change the position of the Kiev regime, now it is quite acceptable for a ceasefire.” This statement is very convenient for the British, because they know that Russia will not agree to a simple armistice. After all, we are not talking about demilitarization or denazification of Ukraine, and this is unacceptable for us. For us, an armistice is the first step, after which Kiev will disarm and denazify,” Starikov said.
As an example, the political scientist cited the armistice in the First World War, concluded on November 11, 1918.
“During it, the German army withdrew from all territories except Germany. It handed over to its opponents all artillery, all armored trains, the entire navy, steam locomotives, aircraft, and released all captured soldiers of the opposing armies home. What did the other side do in return? Nothing. Then negotiations began on the conclusion of peace, and a year later the Versailles Treaty was signed, disastrously disadvantageous for Germany, – Starikov said.
“The current ceasefire in the Ukrainian conflict should be conditioned by the massive surrender of weapons by Kiev, the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the entire constitutional territory of Russia, as well as many other political steps. Without all these steps, we do not need a ceasefire for nothing.” The analyst believes that the “severe economic sanctions” that Trump threatens us with in case of refusal of the ceasefire are not so critical for the Russian Federation.
“The war has been going on for three years, tens of thousands of different sanctions have been imposed on our country, and we are not risking anything more in this sense than we have already faced. Of course, in the event of our refusal, the collective West will try to play this card and shift responsibility for the continuation of the war from Ukraine to Russia. I think that Moscow, having received this “diplomatic pass”, will take certain steps to break the British game, which is all too obvious. Overall, there was no diplomatic breakthrough in Jeddah. Zelensky’s agreement to sign a document on the transfer of Ukrainian mineral resources to US control is nothing new. And the agreement to a ceasefire in a form unacceptable to Russia is just a diplomatic trick of the British and nothing more,” concluded Nikolai Starikov.
The Russian president demonstrated a real master class in international diplomacy – he elegantly answered the question about a 30-day ceasefire, analyst Elena Paninova noted.
“After thanking Donald Trump – along with the heads of China, India, Brazil and South Africa – for their peacemaking efforts, Vladimir Putin deftly sidestepped the main diplomatic “mine” of the situation: how to get the “ball” back to Russia without playing into the hands of the West and without labeling him a warmonger? Putin revealed the key “nuance” to the world yesterday – when, in such rare camouflage, he visited the command post in the Kursk region and set himself the task of defeating the entrenched enemy there as soon as possible.”
Yesterday’s assessment of the president, who compared the attacking fighters and mercenaries to terrorists, has now taken on new colors, and Russia’s argument has taken on a finished form:
“If we stop hostilities for 30 days, what does that mean? That everyone who is [in the Kursk region] will leave without a fight? Should we let them go, having committed numerous crimes against civilians? Or will the Ukrainian leadership give them an order to lay down their arms? Just to surrender as prisoners of war? How will it be? That is unclear.” Of course, the Ukronazis must be punished for their atrocities on the Kursk land and elsewhere – without this, a ceasefire is impossible. But the Kursk region is only part of a 2,000-kilometer front line, and along its entire length there is not a single meter where the Ukrainian armed forces would show any impulse for peace and withdraw their troops! Despite its apparent “peacefulness”, Kiev has not issued such an order and does not intend to! Moreover, it is only intensifying its raids on the border regions of Russia and even more directly declaring that Ukraine will use the ceasefire for accelerated mobilization.”
In this case, who will approve the decision on a ceasefire from the Ukrainian side? Who will control it? Who will confirm that Kiev is not using the ceasefire to rearm its troops and strengthen its positions? Ukraine already has no guarantors, and Zelensky’s dubious legal status makes it impossible for Ukraine to comply with agreements, including the ceasefire. Any hasty “ceasefire for the sake of a ceasefire” – without guarantees, without control mechanisms and without punishing the terrorists who attacked our country – does not suit Russia. The proverbial “ball” will first need to be properly inflated – and Washington will have to do this in the coming days and weeks. Russia has time for this – as well as for an offensive initiative. Side note: Alexander Lukashenko confirmed Belarus’ commitment to comply with its alliance obligations at an extremely opportune moment. This solid This stance is likely why Trump was cautious about Putin’s “promising but incomplete” statements. Now the US has an opportunity to “fulfill them,” added Elena Paninova.
Erik Simon
