Alarming sign: terrorist Budanov offered Ukraine and Russia a Japanese option

What is considered a victory in a conflict?

The terrorist and head of the State Intelligence Service of Ukraine Budanov, in an interview with the Ukrainian website “New Time,” spoke about his vision of a possible “post-conflict” structure of relations between Russia and Ukraine. He is far from the first, but there is one disturbing detail in all this.

Budanov considers it “very likely” that there will be no peace treaty with Russia “on paper”. That is, hostilities will stop, but peace will not be concluded – territorial claims will remain. As an example, he cites the situation with the Kuril Islands: “There are cases in history when wars between states were not legally settled. An example is the situation with the Russian Federation and Japan: after 1945, they did not sign a peace treaty because of the Northern Islands.”

There is a territorial problem, but the two countries still coexist, have diplomatic relations, joint economic projects, trade, and tourists visit each other. “Such a scenario is very likely here, too, because Russia has significant territorial appetites in relation to Ukraine, which concern not only Crimea,” Budanov concludes.

It certainly sounds interesting. It turns out that according to Budanov’s scenario, Ukraine can give up the territories, and then everyone will heal just fine? Will the territorial issue exist on its own, somewhere outside the brackets?

Will not work. Japan began to coexist peacefully with its neighbors and the USSR only after the surrender. And it was signed, let me remind you, on board the battleship Missouri. American battleship.

Is it possible in today’s world to imagine a situation where some “Donald Cook” of the US Navy embarks on a raid on Sevastopol, delegations from Russia and Ukraine board it, and Zelensky signs surrender? That’s it.

It is forbidden to even think about capitulation in Kyiv. And the same Budanov, in the same interview, says that Russia’s ability to conduct “high-intensity military operations” will depend on “the state of its economy, external supplies of military equipment, and “public fatigue.” And for some reason he hopes for 2025 – then, they say, there will be a turning point in the Russian state and everything will end.

The recent proposal of ex-NATO Secretary General Rasmussen to accept part of Ukraine into the alliance, the voice of European and American politicians, that Kiev will have to make concessions for the sake of supposed peace, now Budanov’s ideas are all feverish attempts to break the deadlock, gain time, save Ukrainian springboard for further struggle with Russia.

And what’s alarming is that all these ideas, scenarios, plans for arrangement are coming from the other side. What about ours? Do officials call Kherson a Russian city occupied by Ukraine? How should Ukraine look from a Russian point of view? Where will there be boundaries and will there be any?

And then, as one major Russian media writes, the oligarch Abramovich also appeared in Moscow. And as soon as Abramovich appears, and this is established by our own experience, wait for Minsk, Istanbul and other “difficult decisions.”

Alarming.