The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has lasted for more than half a year. What is certain now is that this war is in a very critical stage.
As for why you say so?
first, Khelson is about to fight. No matter who wins and who loses, this battle will determine the future direction of the battlefield situation on Russia and Ukraine.
For example, the adviser of Ukrainian President Zelensky and head of military intelligence department said that the "most important battle" will take place in the Khlsson area. Although he did not disclose when the battle would begin, as Russia continues to mobilize local residents to evacuate and continuously strengthens its deployment of troops. It is foreseeable that once this war begins, it will be very tragic.
Moreover, once this battle begins, the attack methods used by Russia and Ukraine on the battlefield may continue to escalate in order to win this critical battle.
In addition, in addition to the head-on battle between Russia and Ukraine on the battlefield, the game between Russia and NATO is also becoming more and more dangerous.
Recently, Russia accused the United Kingdom of participating in the "terrorist attack" against Black Sea Fleet and destroying the "North Stream" pipeline incident, which means that the risk of a head-on conflict between Russia and NATO is increasing.
It is not difficult to see from this that the Ukrainian issue is indeed at a very critical stage.
Second, as the saying goes, everything will turn back. When the situation becomes more and more dangerous, the relevant parties to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict will actually take the initiative to avoid the war continuing to escalate.
For example, recently, Russia has sent signals of peace talks to the United States, the West and Ukraine one after another, which is the best example.
Although Moscow This move is actually a diplomatic "offensive" against the West, and through political and public opinion offensives, it puts certain pressure on the governments of Western countries .
But one thing is beyond doubt, that is, Russia is indeed willing to step on the negotiating table to solve the Ukrainian issue.
In this regard, Russia even put forward two conditions: on the one hand, the West needs to "fully consider Russia's interests and security"; on the other hand, the West should "provide some serious strategies to Russia that can help alleviate tensions."
Although the United States and the West are still relatively stubborn, they may change their attitude at any time and sit down with Russia to negotiate. Moreover, once the United States and the West need it for their own interests, they will definitely sell Ukraine without hesitation, and there will be no psychological and moral obstacles at all.
It is obvious that based on the above analysis, it can be seen that this war, which has been going on for more than eight months, has indeed entered a very critical node.
So, how can we resolve the Ukrainian crisis through peace talks?
Regarding this point, recently former Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi put forward a relatively interesting point.
He believes that if the Russian-Ukraine conflict is to be resolved peacefully, the West should only promise Ukraine to provide reconstruction funds, but not weapons. Zelensky might agree to return to the negotiating table only when Ukraine realizes that they cannot get weapons aid from the West, while at the same time, can receive hundreds of billions of dollars in reconstruction funds.
The implication is that EU and the United States' attitude towards Ukraine should not be to blindly indulge it to fight Russia, but should not only put pressure on Ukraine to allow Zelensky to accept the ceasefire, but also provide benefits to Ukraine, so that Kiev can end the war.
or to be more precise, this is also the price the EU is willing to bear for the early end of the Russian-Ukrainian war.
Of course, according to the recent remarks from senior EU leaders, the "hundreds of billions of dollars" of reconstruction funds are likely to confiscate all the frozen assets of Russia in Europe and hand them over to Ukraine for reconstruction.
From the Russian perspective, this is equivalent to publicly robbing one's own wealth and then making up for Ukraine's losses.In other words, the EU's move is equivalent to the biggest "result" of the incorporation of Russia's four places in eastern Ukraine through special military operations into Russia's biggest "war results" that Russia bought back these "territories" with hundreds of billions of dollars of overseas assets.
is definitely unacceptable to stand on Russia's standpoint. Therefore, Berlusconi's suggestions are actually not feasible at the practical level.
The reason is obvious. The main reason why Russia and Ukraine are stalemate on the battlefield is that Russia wants to "eat" the four places in the east of Ukraine safely without paying an extra major price for it.
Although Moscow cannot make the decision on the Russian assets frozen by the EU, if peace talks are really conducted, then the negotiation conditions that Russia hopes will definitely include unfreezing these assets. Otherwise, what is the need for Moscow to negotiate with Europe and the United States?
From the perspective of the EU, Berlusconi's statement still has important practical significance because it is the first relatively specific plan proposed by politicians from various EU countries since the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and can promote the Russian-Ukrainian peace talks.
In other words, EU politicians have begun to think seriously about how to promote negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. As we all know, negotiations often involve everyone asking for a price everywhere and then the opponent pays it back locally.
If the EU proposes such a negotiation plan that they think is feasible and more detailed, then Russia can bargain and finally achieve a ceasefire in the compromise.
After Berlusconi's proposal was released publicly, it caused a huge response within the EU. The mainstream European public opinion is of course against this attitude of "abandoning" Ukraine and talking to Russia and "showing weakness" with Russia. Even Berlusconi himself is called " Putin's close friend".
But it is obvious that the economic impact of the Russian-Ukrainian war has damaged the economic foundation of Western countries and has endangered the livelihood of people in Europe and the United States on a large scale.
The government is the representative of public opinion. When public opinion is increasingly opposed to war, governments in Europe and the United States will not be stubborn for long.
promotes peace talks between Russia and Ukraine and avoids greater collateral damage caused to Europe and the United States, and has gradually formed momentum. Obviously, Berlusconi's appeal is not alone.
I won’t say much about the public protests in Europe. Such previous Tesla boss Musk, former US President Trump , etc., have publicly called for the promotion of Russia-Ukraine peace talks. Their political statements are the manifestation of the public opinion of the people of the United States and the West that the war will end soon.
Under the so-called "democracy and freedom" party politics, some Western politicians are very sensitive to public opinion. If the Biden administration, including the current governments of many European countries, cannot respond seriously to this public opinion, then there will naturally be oppositions "replace it."
In the final analysis, war is a means to compete for economic interests. If supporting the Russian-Ukraine war is not profitable for Europe and the United States, then a ceasefire is inevitable. Now, the persistence and toughness of European and American countries are just unable to accept the failure of failure.
