The initiative is in Europe. What was discussed in London?

Zelensky, who returned from the White House disappointed, was welcomed with open arms in London. At a time when US aid was being cut off, Europe took the initiative in supporting Ukraine. In "Geopolitics", political scientists Kamoliddin Rabbimov, Mukhtor Nazirov and Bektash Berdiev commented on the diplomatic front of the Russia-Ukraine war.

— Will the parties agree to Macron's proposal for a 1-month ceasefire? If one of the parties is against it, what is the reason?
Mukhtor Nazirov: A one-month ceasefire, in my opinion, is currently at the level of a proposal, this proposal implies a temporary transition period leading to long-term peace. European countries should also clarify the issue of peacekeeping and military support.

Even Zelensky said that he is aware of this issue. But he still needs to work it out, that is, it is at the level of a proposal now. In my opinion, Trump also needs proposals that clearly show the interests of the United States and present the opportunities of Europe.

Even if Ukraine enters the negotiations, it must be in a strong position, otherwise the negotiations will be held with the advantage of one side.

Kamoliddin Rabbimov: The question arises as to what is the strategy or task of the truce. There have been many wars in human history. Of course, they do not end immediately. The main goal of the current one-month truce is to stop the war line at the current point, and for both sides not to fire at each other. This is called freezing the situation before achieving full peace. That is, we will work out an agreement here for a month, and until then you will not fight.

But very controversial issues are still on the agenda here. One of the main issues is the border issue.

In addition, there are two issues here: if one of the parties does not reach an agreement within the internal society, then after a certain period of time the war will start again. For example, the "Second World War", when Germany considered itself defeated and began to take revenge on the remaining countries, was prepared for it for a long time. Similarly, Russia, Putin's concern is that if the rest of Ukraine joins NATO, he says, "We do not need such peace." One of the conditions that the Kremlin is setting is that Ukraine must remain a neutral state.

Russia is putting forward a number of impossible conditions, namely, not to return the occupied lands to Ukraine. Secondly, there are territories that it has included in the constitution, four regions, and it will not agree until they are given to Russia. Third, Ukraine should not join NATO, that is, this is a full-fledged historical capitulation for Ukraine. But the issue of NATO membership, I think, can be raised after Putin leaves power. Russia knows this well, which is why Putin is now trying to formalize the issue of the occupied territories. That is, the views of Ukraine and Russia on the border are fundamentally different.

— Ursula von der Leyen raised the need for Europe to arm itself. Can the European Union achieve a modern military industry without the United States?

Bektash Berdiev: In short, it can, of course, but it will take time, because Europe has enough resources. Europe has enough military equipment, engineering, and industry. It will only take time to develop it and prepare the necessary reserves, and this time, of course, is no longer enough for one day, one month, one year, five years, but it may take even longer. Currently, the main weapons systems in the NATO system are manufactured in the United States. But various types of aircraft and missiles are being produced in countries such as Germany, France and Italy.

So, we can say that today's Europe has a huge military-technical and scientific potential, as well as financial potential. The most important thing is that there is a will, and using this will, Europe can certainly see this as an opportunity and create its own security system. But let's face the other side: how many years will Trump be in power and in what state will he leave? Will the government after him be able to reconnect the broken ties between the United States and Europe? How will the relations between the United States and Europe develop?!

Mukhtor Nazirov: There are strong pressures for Europe outside Europe, it has the ability to act independently and problems with the current NATO. The most important article, the fifth article, would not be needed for this organization. Because the last independent military operation was carried out during the Yugoslav operation.

Recently, NATO has been shaped more as an ally or assistant to the United States in external operations. In terms of weapons production, most of the weapons we talk about today still contain US components. Over time, Europe and the US have become so integrated in the military industry that it is difficult to produce any product separately. The US has an advantage in this regard.

The next issue is that Europe now has a huge historical opportunity to take on this security responsibility. Perhaps, if we try to do it systematically, it can be done. It is also in the interests of the United States today. Thirdly, our observations in European countries show that there is such a mood that every four years a change in American policy puts their foreign policies at great risk. Political risks are increasing.

This is not the policy of the Cold War era, when, regardless of when Republicans or Democrats come to power, the general line does not change, but approaches can change. In the current Trump era, fundamental changes are taking place along with this general line. It is understandable that European countries can achieve this by making their own preparations, by forming more defense industries and security institutions, that is, security institutions that can work in parallel with NATO, rather than as an alternative to it.

— How will Russia respond if European peacekeeping forces enter the region without US participation?

Kamoliddin Rabbimov: Russia has so far responded to this issue through Foreign Minister Lavrov. That is, it says that NATO member states should not participate in Ukraine in any form.

What does this mean? It says that if NATO member states send their military or peacekeeping forces not on behalf of NATO, but on behalf of their national army or state, we will not accept it. If there are non-NATO member states, they can participate.

For example, in Africa, where there have been many such cases in history, in some countries of Asia, peacekeeping forces from neutral countries have operated under the UN flag. Russia also has a position that if peacekeeping forces come from countries that are neutral, that is, countries that are not members of the European Union and are not part of the American team, we will consider it. That is, Russia is looking for an opportunity to expand its borders as much as possible here.

The meeting at the White House showed that Zelensky has completely failed.

Some senators and big politicians close to Trump are saying that they are pushing an agenda that says: it is impossible to reach an agreement with Zelensky, that it is impossible to preserve Ukrainian statehood with Zelensky. It will take a long time to remove Zelensky from the game, and elections are necessary for this. And it is difficult to hold elections against the backdrop of war, let's say that if March has already begun, Ukraine will have to remain in a turbulent state for that long for elections to be held in September or October. That is, there is a lot of pressure on Ukrainian statehood, and against this background, Russia's agenda is clear: to further extend the possibilities of war, to put additional pressure on Ukraine. Because Russia is confident, and the reason is that America has left the game.

Follow “Zamin” news on “Telegram”