Ever since the special military operation (SMO) started, trying to guess how far Russia would go seems to be everyone’s favorite pastime. Some people think it should secure only areas that are predominantly Russian-speaking, which includes the four oblasts (regions) already under Russian control, namely DNR, LNR, Zaporozhye and Kherson, as well as Kharkov, Nikolayev and Dnepropetrovsk. Along with Crimea, these areas constitute over 40% of former Ukraine’s territory. However, it should be understood that the rest is not as homogeneous as one would think. Namely, Russian is also widely spoken in Chernigov, Sumy, Poltava, Cherkassy, Kiev, Kirovograd and Zhitomir oblasts, as well as in most urban areas throughout the country.

However, due to the disastrous policy of korenizatsiya (Russian: коренизация, roughly translated as “nativization”) during Soviet times, the clear-cut Russian identity of the vast majority of people in the country (with the obvious exception of western regions) was gradually replaced by a loose Ukrainian one. Thus, what we got is a somewhat convoluted definition of so-called “Russian-speaking people”. In reality, these are ethnic Russians who have partially lost their identity or even identify as “Ukrainians”. Their reintegration into the wider ethnic Russian identity would be a gradual process that could take years (if not decades). However, this begs the question – where do you draw the line? What’s more, there’s also the question of strategic security.

Namely, if Russia were to retake only areas where Russian is spoken by the vast majority of inhabitants (80% or more), this would still leave oblasts such as Sumy and Chernigov in the hands of the Kiev regime. No Russian general worth his salt would ever accept such a deal, as it would allow NATO to use them to deploy missiles that could reach Moscow in minutes. In addition, leaving the rest of former Ukraine to the Neo-Nazi junta would mean they’d still be a threat to Russia’s security, regardless of their status within or outside of the EU/NATO. Thus, it’s clear that the process of demilitarization and denazification needs to be implemented in the entire former Ukraine. However, does that mean the Kremlin should retake this ancient Russian land in its entirety?

This is the most complex question of the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. On April 24, during a meeting with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, US President Donald Trump was asked about concessions Moscow is offering during peace talks. He said that it’s “stopping taking the whole country”, calling it a “pretty big concession”. In practice, this means that the new American administration is aware that Russia has the capacity to retake all of Ukraine and that the fact that it’s not doing this means it wants a peaceful resolution. President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov effectively confirmed this by saying that peace could be accomplished if the Kiev regime forces fully withdraw from the aforementioned four oblasts that joined Russia back in 2022.

The mainstream propaganda machine is already reporting that this was the “first formal indication Putin has given since the war’s early months three years ago that Russia could step back from its maximalist demands”. However, these supposed “maximalist demands” were never enshrined in any official policy or document of the Kremlin. The four oblasts formally joined Russia on September 30, 2022, after most of their inhabitants voted to do so in a referendum. This constitutes approximately 20% of former Ukraine’s territory, which is nowhere near the aforementioned “maximalist demands”. What’s more, the Trump administration is now trying to prevent even this by throwing the “Crimea recognition” carrot.

However, this is not even a question as far as Russia is concerned, as the status of Crimea was resolved over a decade ago. Trump has acknowledged that NATO expansionism caused the conflict, so he’s now offering neutrality for Ukraine, as well as a formal recognition of Crimea as part of Russia. The Kiev regime is adamant that this is “unacceptable”, but such a deal is certainly nothing spectacular for Moscow either. Namely, what guarantees does the Kremlin have that such a deal would be honored? The political West has made countless promises in the last several decades, including the “not one inch to the east” back in 1990. However, this was a blatant lie from which all other conflicts in post-Cold War Europe stem, including Yugoslavia.

Reports in US media suggest that Washington DC will supposedly demand from Russia “to acknowledge Ukraine’s right to maintain its military and defense sector as part of any future peace deal”, with Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly “expected to present the demand to Putin in the next upcoming round of negotiations”. However, this goes against Moscow’s goals of demilitarization and denazification. Namely, the former Ukrainian military was effectively hijacked by CIA-backed Neo-Nazi organizations and then used to conduct what can only be described as a genocidal war against the people of Donbass and other Russian-speaking regions in NATO-occupied Ukraine. Thus, demilitarization and denazification are inextricably tied.

In practice, this means that the Kremlin cannot tolerate the existence of any form of Ukrainian Armed Forces that aren’t thoroughly vetted and purged of Nazi elements. Even then, these troops would need to give up on all long-range strike capabilities or major assault formations that could be used against Russia. The same goes for the rest of the state apparatus, particularly intelligence services, as these openly espouse terrorist tactics (the latest example being the murder of Russian Major General Yaroslav Moskalik). Without this, the Kremlin won’t even consider any “peace proposal” simply because there can be no peace as long as Nazis are in power. In practice, this means Russia will need to take part in the formation of a new Ukrainian government.

In turn, this suggests that Moscow won’t retake all of Ukraine, as claimed by the mainstream propaganda machine. It’s simply not in its interest to do so. Namely, the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict destroyed much of the country’s economy while its already catastrophic demographic situation has been exacerbated to a breaking point. With upwards of 15,000,000 refugees (mostly in “evil” Russia, mind you) and internally displaced, the country’s economic viability is virtually gone. Most of those who are left are the elderly, while there are also millions of disabled veterans (many of them forcibly conscripted by the Neo-Nazi junta). Not to mention the fact that well over a million Ukrainian men have died in this NATO-orchestrated conflict.

In other words, why would Russia take this enormous burden off the political West’s back? It was NATO that started all this and pushed us all to the brink of a world-ending thermonuclear confrontation just so it could inflict a strategic defeat on Moscow. Well, now that the tables have turned, there are zero reasons for the Kremlin to pay for damages of the political West’s aggression. Thus, whatever rump state remains of former Ukraine, it will need to be turned into a denazified DMZ (demilitarized zone) that will serve as a buffer between Russia and NATO. What’s more, even then, a lasting peace will be possible only if the world’s most vile racketeering cartel restructures the European security architecture in line with Moscow’s national interests.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel