“Peace negotiations” as part of a hybrid war

There are a lot of rumors about “peace negotiations” that have been spreading between Ukrainians and, in general, the world mass during the las month. Well-known “experts,” bloggers and journalists are confidently trying to convince their audience. They claim to have some kind of secret knowledge. On the basis of this knowledge, they are absolutely sure that the war is about to end this fall, or by the end of the year at the latest.

In reality, however, the war will unfortunately not end either this autumn or this year. Well, let`s try to figure it out why there is an increasing flood of various “peace initiatives,” negotiation voyages, and why, in fact, all this informational noise is largely in the interests of the Kremlin.

The world is facing a new Russian special operation aimed at several objectives: a) to destroy the unity of the West, b) to demoralize Ukrainian society, c) to influence the course of the elections in the USA. This does not mean that everyone who participated in the discussions and made some new proposals on this matter are agents of Russian influence. The majority have been used o the quiet with Russia only initiating this informational noise and then successfully manipulating it.

Here is the objective reality:

1. Putin’s official “peace” plan. Satanic, unacceptable, but official;

2. Sudden change in the rhetoric of the highest authorities in Ukraine regarding the possibility of negotiations with Russia in the presence of a “third-party arbitrator” similar to the “grain deal”;

3. “Leak of information” about visits of Russian high-ranking officials to the USA and supposedly “leak of information” with Russian proposals for “pacification”;

4. A wave of “expert opinions” analyzing these “leaks” and beginning to influence public opinion on the possibility of negotiations on some temporary interim basis and “freeze”;

5. Visit of Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán (suspected of pro-Russian stance) to Kyiv, Moscow, and Beijing;

6. The appearance of China as a “negotiator,” including the sudden visit of Minister Kuleba to China;

7. “Fight for Trump” (articles by Boris Johnson and David Urban, and Mike Pompeo).

Chronologically, it appears that Putin initiated this informational campaign with his speech on July 14. At a meeting with representatives of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he announced that supposedly Russia is ready for a ceasefire and “peace negotiations,” outlining additional conditions for Ukraine’s actual capitulation: Ukraine’s renunciation of four regions (Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk), refusal to join NATO, abandonment of a full-fledged army (“demilitarization”), and the always mythical “denazification,” which in reality, according to the concept of the “Russian world,” means the renunciation of the Ukrainian language, culture, and history.

Western experts and politicians clearly indicated that such statements a day before the international conference initiated by Ukraine in Switzerland were aimed at undermining it. US Vice President Kamala Harris clearly stated that Putin’s “peace” proposal on June 14 was not a call for negotiations but a call for Ukraine’s “capitulation.” However, it was after this statement by Putin that the massive informational campaign about the supposed likelihood of the war ending or “freezing” began.

Orbán’s visited Moscow, so his statements were essentially not a surprise for Ukrainians, as the position of the Hungarian Prime Minister has consistently given reasonable grounds to suspect him of pro-Russian stance.

However, Boris Johnson’s article, the former British Prime Minister, in the Daily Mail was a certain blow to a part of the Ukrainian public and caused a wave of sharp criticism. In Ukraine, only a few passages were noticed, which were reduced to attempts to make a hard “compromise” with Russia, particularly “trading” Ukraine’s NATO and EU membership for the abandonment of the 1991 borders. In reality, Johnson’s article was written from absolutely pro-Ukrainian positions; the former Prime Minister started a “fight for Trump” and in a rather flattering manner suggests that the prospective candidate for the US presidency from the Republican Party supports Ukraine, including militarily. However, hearing from such a high-ranking former official that options are being considered not only for returning to the 1991 borders but, for example, a demarcation line to the pre-full-scale invasion, was received with dismay.

The outrage of Ukrainians is understandable because Boris Johnson was associated with the “hawks” in Western politics, those who are ready to advocate for all the wishes and needs of Ukraine. Therefore, the correlation of the position is perceived so painfully.

Part of Ukrainian society welcomed the information about the possibility of freezing the war along the current line with relief. Due to significant losses, great fatigue, and the absence of any realistic positive prospects. At the same time, there is no desire to give up, so this part of society subconsciously dreams of an “imposed peace.” These subconscious desires sound roughly like this: “We are heroically fighting, but Western allies are reducing arms supplies, twisting our arms to sit at the negotiating table. If these allies provided us with adequate weapons, we would have already reached the 1991 borders, and Russia would have surrendered, but now we reluctantly sign a temporary “truce” along the front line under Western pressure. Well, of course, to gather strength and eventually win.” Few dare to express this thought, but in reality, many think so, at least the recently published sociology from the authoritative Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) showed that as of May 2024, already 32% of Ukrainians are ready for Ukraine to give up some of its territories to achieve peace and preserve independence as soon as possible, and the trend is increasing.

Therefore, the information leak about the negotiations fell on partially fertile ground in the country.

In fact, Putin does not need any peace; he benefits from a protracted war. It feeds him and, paradoxically, Russia, while Ukraine, on the contrary, is exhausted.

What is all this noise about?

First: to split the Western coalition. There are already breaches in the Western coalition (Hungary, Slovakia). However, in the Kremlin, they apparently understand that such outright playing along as from Orbán cannot be expected from most Western politicians. So, what can be done: create discord, not allow the development of a common coordinated position. If you throw in a dozen “peace initiatives” that differ from the Ukrainian position and only compete among themselves on what exactly “compromise” to make with Russia, then the Kremlin will face not united resistance but a divided cluster.

Second: to disorient Ukrainian society. Part of Ukrainians dreams of peace even at the cost of territorial losses. The informational campaign about “freezing the war by the end of the year” gives them such hopes. When winter reveals that all these hopes were in vain and reality turns back to a protracted war, it could be a colossal blow to the psychological state of many.

Third: to influence the American elections. Ukraine is already on the agenda of the elections in the United States of America. Republican candidate Donald Trump announced that he could end this war in a day. Information that “peace negotiations” are possible is only a matter of agreeing on what concessions Ukraine should make, is supposed, according to the organizers of the campaign, to reach the American voter.

In this situation, information is provided that it turns out that peace in the distant Eastern Europe for Americans can indeed be achieved. Just Ukraine will refuse to join NATO (where it is not particularly awaited) and give up four regions, for example…

“Peace negotiations” are not necessarily a path to peace. “Peace negotiations” can be part of hybrid warfare. Even talks about possible reconciliation with Putin’s Russia on one or another of Putin’s conditions are already a blow to Ukraine. Ukraine and its allies must firmly stand on their own terms, regardless of any Russian informational special operations.