19 mar, 2025 14:15
Ivan Timofejev: Tukaj je razlog, zakaj se Trump s Putinom pogovarja o miru
Okno za mir v Ukrajini je odprto – toda kako dolgo?
Avtor: Ivan Timofejev, programski direktor kluba Valdaj.
Torkovi pogovori med ruskim predsednikom Vladimirjem Putinom in ameriškim predsednikom Donaldom Trumpom so pomenili premik k rešitvi konflikta v Ukrajini. Vendar so rezultati zaradi številnih nerešenih vprašanj še vedno nejasni, zato se lahko vsak trenutek zgodi nazadovanje.
Pomanjkljivosti v evropskem varnostnem sistemu bodo še dolgo ogrožale možnosti za normalizacijo. Kljub temu je priložnost za dosego miru še vedno odprta. Motivacijo za izkoriščanje teh okoliščin oblikujejo rezultati, ki jih je Rusija doslej dosegla v svoji vojaški operaciji, ter možni scenariji, ki bi se lahko razvili za obe strani, če bi se konflikt nadaljeval.
Med ključnimi rezultati lahko omenimo pripravljenost Rusije, da uporabi silo za obrambo svojih interesov v Evropi. Tri desetletja po koncu hladne vojne je bila sposobnost Moskve, da svoje interese zaščiti s silo, pogosto zavračana. Vojaška operacija v Ukrajini je to napačno prepričanje odpravila. Pokazala je, da so se varnostni odnosi z Zahodom tako zapletli, da se je z vidika Rusije zdelo, da druge možnosti ni. Postalo je jasno, da sta uporaba sile in obsežen spopad v Evropi realni možnosti, zato zahtev in skrbi Moskve ni bilo mogoče odmisliti z nejasnimi zagotovili. Rusija je za obrambo svojih temeljnih varnostnih interesov pripravljena utrpeti velike izgube in prevzeti velika tveganja. Ni se pripravljena umakniti, tudi če bi si s tem lahko rešila obraz.
Na področju diplomacije je opazno, da nezahodne države niso oblikovale večjih protiruskih koalicij. Zahodni blok, ki je združen proti Rusiji, ni uspel pritegniti dodatnih akterjev. Kitajska, Indija, Brazilija, Južnoafriška republika – in druge države – so se distancirale od politike sankcij. Čeprav so podjetja v teh državah previdna zaradi sekundarnih sankcij, ki bi jih lahko uvedle ZDA, in niso vedno pripravljena sodelovati z našo državo, se njihove vlade izogibajo uvedbi protiruskih ukrepov.
Trgovina s številnimi državami globalnega juga se je povečala. Te države niso zavzele proruskega stališča niti niso oblikovale enotne protizahodne fronte. Vendar pa so se razprave o diverzifikaciji svetovnih finančnih, trgovinskih in političnih institucij precej razširile. Na koncu je odpornost zahodne koalicije začela slabeti. Zdi se, da je nova ameriška administracija spoznala, da je konflikt prišel v slepo ulico, in sprejela preventivne ukrepe za njegovo končanje.
Med diplomatskimi rezultati lahko omenimo sposobnost Moskve, da zadrži stopnjevanje vojaške podpore Ukrajini. V daljšem časovnem obdobju so bile ruske „rdeče črte“ pogosto prekoračene, saj si je Rusija prizadevala ustaviti naraščajočo dobavo orožja Ukrajini. Te dobave so se povečale, oborožitveni sistemi pa so postali bolj daljnosežni in smrtonosni. Spremembe v ruski jedrski doktrini in namestitev nove rakete srednjega dosega z nejedrsko konfiguracijo so bile ključni odvračilni signal proti morebitni množični uporabi zahodnih manevrirnih raket in drugih oborožitvenih sistemov s strani Ukrajine.
Drug pomemben rezultat je bila zmožnost sodelovanja v obsežnem spopadu z nasprotnikom, ki je prejel znatno zahodno podporo v obliki orožja, obveščevalnih podatkov in finančnih sredstev. Ruski obrambni industriji je uspelo ohraniti visok tempo in obseg delovanja ter se hitro prilagajati novim izzivom, ki jih prinaša napredek na področju vojaške tehnologije, vključno s proizvodnjo in uporabo brezpilotnih letal. Hkrati je Moskva pri svojih vojaških akcijah v bistvu ohranila ekspedicijski pristop, pri čemer se je izogibala obsežni mobilizaciji in se namesto tega zanašala na vojaške prostovoljce in pogodbene vojake. Sposobnost izvajanja obsežnih in trajnih vojaških operacij s profesionalno vojsko, ki ni vpoklicana, je bil ključni vmesni dosežek.
Opazna je tudi odpornost ruskega gospodarstva med soočanjem s kolektivnim Zahodom. Njegova globoka vključenost v globalna omrežja, odvisnost od zahodnih dobavnih verig, finančnih institucij in regulativnih okvirov so v luči morebitnih obsežnih zahodnih sankcij povzročili precejšnja tveganja. Takšne sankcije so bile uvedene takoj po začetku konflikta in so se od takrat še okrepile. Proti Rusiji so bile uporabljene skoraj vse vrste omejitev, vključno z blokirnimi finančnimi ukrepi, nadzorom izvoza, prepovedjo uvoza in drugimi. Prijateljske države, ki sodelujejo z Rusijo, se soočajo s tveganjem sekundarnih sankcij. Kljub temu je presenetljivo, da se je Rusija izognila kakršni koli večji finančni ali gospodarski krizi. Jasno je, da je gospodarstvo utrpelo izgube in škodo, kar so občutili tudi navadni državljani. Vendar pa je bila Rusija glede na zgodovinske standarde sposobna zelo hitro prestrukturirati trgovinske mreže, trge in uvozne vire.
Poleg gospodarstva je tudi politični sistem pokazal izjemno odpornost. Nasprotniki Moskve so računali na hitro spremembo režima in razkol med elitami, vendar se to ni zgodilo. Niti ideološkim nasprotnikom niti radikalnim privržencem ni uspelo destabilizirati političnega sistema države. Čeprav je bil v vojnih razmerah uveden strožji red, se je državi uspelo izogniti zdrsu v totalitarni model, za katerega je značilen pretiran in demoralizirajoč nadzor. Družba je pokazala odpornost v ekstremnih razmerah in se je po začetnem obdobju zmede hitro prilagodila. Visoka človeška cena vojaških ukrepov, gospodarskih izzivov, vključno z inflacijo, in drugih sprememb ni privedla do večjih dezintegracijskih procesov. Javno razpoloženje v zvezi s konfliktom ostaja mešano, vendar ni kritično razdelilo družbe.
Z vojaškega vidika so nekateri neposredni rezultati ruske vojaške operacije izčrpavanje ukrajinskega vojaškega potenciala (kljub znatni zahodni podpori), omejevanje morebitnih protinapadov in nadzor nad več strateško pomembnimi lokacijami. Zdi se, da Moskva razmišlja o možnosti nadaljevanja sovražnosti in da ima za to potrebna sredstva.
Po drugi strani pa je mogoče, da s podaljševanjem konflikta ne bo mogoče doseči bistvenih vojaških in političnih koristi. Nadaljevanje spopadov bi bilo smiselno le, če ključne zahteve Rusije, ki so bile prvotno določene med pogajanji v Istanbulu leta 2022, ostanejo neizpolnjene. Vendar se tudi nova ameriška administracija zaveda, da podaljševanje konflikta predstavlja precejšnje tveganje. Poleg možnosti nadaljevanja ruske ofenzive obstajajo tudi pomisleki glede nadaljnjega izčrpavanja vojaških zalog in ogromnih finančnih stroškov brez jasnih možnosti za poraz Rusije. Navsezadnje sedanji rezultati in omejitve spodbujajo tako Washington kot Moskvo, da razmislita o mirni rešitvi. Pomembno je, da imata obe strani še vedno dovolj sredstev za nadaljevanje spora. Vsak od udeležencev za pogajalsko mizo ima močna stališča; nobena stran se ne pogaja s šibkega položaja. Vsaka stran razume svoje interese in je pripravljena razpravljati o njih. Rusija in ZDA se že zelo dolgo nista pogajali s takšno miselnostjo.
Vir: https://www.rt.com/russia/614497-ivan-timofeev-trump-putin-call/
*** Prevod www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) ***
Originalni prispevek (če vir ni na voljo):
19 Mar, 2025 14:15
Ivan Timofeev: Here’s why Trump is talking peace with Putin
The window for peace in Ukraine is open – but for how long?
By Ivan Timofeev, programme director of the Valdai Club.
Tuesday’s talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump have marked a shift towards the resolution of the Ukraine conflict. However, given the number of unresolved issues, the results are still unclear and a setback could occur at any moment.
The flaws in the European security system will continue to jeopardize prospects for normalization for a long time. Nonetheless, the window of opportunity for achieving peace is still open. The motivation to leverage these circumstances is shaped by the results that Russia has achieved in its military operation so far, as well as the potential scenarios that could unfold for both sides if the conflict continues.
Among the key results, we may note Russia’s readiness to use force to defend its interests in Europe. For three decades following the conclusion of the Cold War, Moscow’s ability to protect its interests using force was often dismissed. The military operation in Ukraine put an end to this misconception. It has demonstrated that security relations with the West had become so complicated that, from Russia’s perspective, there appeared to be no other option. It became clear that the use of force and a large-scale conflict in Europe were real possibilities, so Moscow’s demands and concerns couldn’t be brushed aside with vague reassurances. Russia is willing to incur significant losses and take substantial risks in order to defend its fundamental security interests. It is not willing to back away, even if it can save face by doing so.
In the field of diplomacy, it’s notable that the non-Western countries have not formed any major anti-Russia coalitions. The Western bloc, united against Russia, has failed to pull in additional players. China, India, Brazil, South Africa – and others – have distanced themselves from sanctions policies. While businesses in these nations are wary of the secondary sanctions that could be imposed by the US and are not always eager to engage with our country, their governments have avoided imposing anti-Russia measures.
Trade with many nations in the Global South has surged. These countries have neither adopted a pro-Russian stance, nor formed a unified anti-Western front. However, discussions about diversifying global finance, trade, and political institutions have gained considerable traction. Ultimately, the resilience of the Western coalition has begun to falter. The new US administration seems to have recognized that the conflict has reached a dead end and has taken preemptive steps to end it.
Among the diplomatic outcomes, we may note Moscow’s ability to contain the escalation of military support for Ukraine. For an extended period of time, Russia’s ‘red lines’ were often crossed, as it struggled to halt increasing weapons supplies to Ukraine. These deliveries increased, with weapons systems becoming more long-range and lethal. Changes in Russia’s nuclear doctrine and the deployment of a new medium-range missile with a non-nuclear configuration have provided a crucial deterrent signal against the potential mass use of Western cruise missiles and other weapons systems by Ukraine.
Another significant outcome has been the ability to engage in a large-scale conflict with an opponent that has received substantial Western support in the form of weapons, intelligence, and funding. Russia’s defense industry has managed to maintain a high pace and scale of operations, quickly adapting to the new challenges posed by advancements in military technology, including the production and use of drones. At the same time, Moscow has essentially maintained an expeditionary approach in its military actions, avoiding extensive mobilization and instead relying on military volunteers and contract soldiers. The ability to conduct a large-scale and sustained military operation with a professional, rather than conscripted army has been a key interim achievement.
The resilience of the Russian economy amid its confrontation with the collective West is also notable. Its deep integration into global networks, its reliance on Western supply chains, financial institutions, and regulatory frameworks had created significant risks in light of potential large-scale Western sanctions. Such sanctions were imposed immediately after the start of the conflict and have intensified since. Nearly all kinds of restrictions have been employed against Russia, including blocking financial measures, export controls, import bans, and more. Friendly countries that partner with Russia face risks of secondary sanctions. Nevertheless, remarkably, Russia has avoided any significant financial or economic crisis. Clearly, the economy has suffered losses and damage, and this was felt by ordinary citizens. But Russia was able to restructure trade networks, markets, and import sources very quickly by historical standards.
In addition to the economy, the political system has also shown remarkable resilience. Moscow’s opponents had counted on a swift regime change and a split among the elites, but none of this happened. Neither ideological adversaries nor radical supporters were able to destabilize the country’s political system. While stricter order has been imposed amid wartime conditions, the country has managed to avoid sliding into a totalitarian model characterized by excessive and demoralizing control. Society has demonstrated resilience in extreme conditions, and has quickly adapted following an initial period of confusion. The high human cost of military actions, economic challenges, including inflation, and other changes has not led to major disintegration processes. Public sentiment regarding the conflict remains mixed, but it hasn’t divided society in a critical way.
In military terms, some of the direct results of Russia’s military operation include the depletion of Ukraine’s military potential (despite substantial Western support), the containment of possible counter attacks, and control over several strategically important locations. It seems that Moscow is considering the possibility of continuing hostilities, and has the necessary resources for it.
On the other hand, there may be no substantial military and political gains to be had by prolonging the conflict. Continued fighting would only make sense if Russia’s key demands – initially laid out during the negotiations in Istanbul back in 2022 – remain unmet. However, the new US administration also recognizes that dragging out the conflict poses significant risks. Beyond the possibility of a continued Russian offensive, there are concerns about further depleting military stockpiles and incurring enormous financial costs without clear prospects for defeating Russia. Ultimately, the current results and limitations create incentives for both Washington and Moscow to consider a peaceful resolution. Notably, both sides still possess the resources to continue the conflict. The players at the negotiating table each hold strong positions; neither side is negotiating from a weak position. Each side understands their interests and is willing to discuss them. It’s been a very long time since Russia and the US engaged in negotiations with such a mindset.
