Home News World Conflict in Eastern Ukraine – Scenarios 1 100%

Conflict in Eastern Ukraine – Scenarios 1 100%

10
0

The Ukrainian situation has tended to heat up again in recent times, with Ukraine accusing Russia of planning to go to war in the Donbass region, while Moscow warned that escalating the conflict in eastern Kiev would destroy Ukraine. But analysts say that clashes in Donbass at the moment are something desirable for 10 sides.

President Volodymyr Zelensky during his latest visit to the frontline area in eastern Ukraine. Photo: Getty

Speaking to CNN reporters during a visit to the frontline area in the East on April 12, President Volodymyr Zelensky said that “an invasion” from Russia was highly likely and that Ukraine was ready to face the challenge when it was a story related to the country’s territory.

The West has also officially voiced concerns about Russian military movement in the region bordering Ukriane. European Council spokesman Peter Stano said on April 12 that the European Union hoped there would be no escalation of tensions or conflict in eastern Ukraine, urging Russia to avoid steps that could increase tensions in the region. He also said the Ukraine issue would be on the agenda at the meeting of EU foreign ministers, scheduled to open next April 19.

For its part, Moscow insists that the movement of soldiers and weapons within Russian territory is normal, in order to ensure the security and territorial defense of Russia, not a threat to anyone. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on April 12 also reiterated the view that Russia needs to pay attention to the Russian-speaking ethnic community around the world in general and that need is increasingly urgent for communities in the two self-proclaimed donbass countries, who are also rejected by the Kiev authorities.

The war 10 sides expected: However, a large-scale clash in Eastern Ukraine is less likely, especially between Russia and Ukraine.

The Ukraine issue was a prominent factor in Mr Biden’s proposal to meet with President Putin at a phone call between the two leaders on April 13. Photo: CNN

On the Ukrainian side, the key issue lies in the that President Zelensky is losing credibility, political position. Many of the initiatives he outlined when he came to power were deadlocked. He also lost support within the ruling People’s People’s Party.

Many members of the party see, with recent steps – such as passing language laws, shuting down anti-Russian broadcasters, Mr. Zelensky is following the agenda of his predecessor Poroshenko. This means losing personal status, entering the next election with many unfavorable factors.

U.S. and Western backing is also a factor kiev must take into account. To date, the U.S. has expressed great support for Ukraine, but is in favor of claiming to be the main one. President Joe Biden pledged “backing first as one” to kiev authorities, including military aid. The White House also urged European allies, especially France and Germany, to stand side by side with Ukraine.

But the most desirable thing is that modern weapons and the prospect of NATO membership remain out of Kiev’s reach. Without both of these factors, Ukraine would not dare risk opening a war in Donbass, because it would be an act of suicide.

Ukrainian President Andriy Yermak made a blunt offer to the West, saying: “Ukraine is the anti-Russian frontline of the West. But look, where does the U.S. deploy the Patriot missile defense system? The closest point is Poland. Such systems need to appear in Ukraine”. Ukraine has so far not received missiles, modern weapons capable of repelling enemy air attacks.

Mr Zelensky in a phone call with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on April 6 again asked the military alliance to give a clear roadmap for Ukraine to join NATO. He insisted full membership would be the decisive factor in ending the war in Donbass. In response, NATO argued that Kiev must first focus on domestic reforms and develop its defense potential in a way that is in close proximity to the bloc’s standards, which in the end will be considered.

For Russia, the move to close ukraine’s borders is a way for Moscow to move its message to the West, which is not necessarily a warm-up for a new conflict with Kiev. According to Michael Kofman, Director of the Research Division on Russia at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), Russia deliberately publicly moved its troops, in order for Ukraine and the West to recognize it. Russia’s primary purpose is to pressure Kiev and some Western allies as progress on implementing the Minsk II ceasefire agreement is intended and in line with its interests.ch of Moscow.

The Ukrainian leadership is also in the ting of this evaluation trend. President Zelensky sees Russia’s actions as a test against the West. What Moscow wants is to “escalate tensions” to the threshold enough for the U.S. and NATO to step down in favor of Kiev, hesitating to recognize Ukraine as a real partner.

Military pressure is a step for Moscow to establish its influence in Ukraine as it wishes. Russia did so after noticing that hopes for current construction in Ukraine through political measures were gone, with decisions by Mr Zelensky’s administration on sanctioning elements, the anti-Russian political force, shut down Russian-language broadcast TV channels. It means that the scenario of a leader, the russian party is unlikely to be in power in Kiev in the near future – something that lies in Moscow’s long-term calculations.

President Zelensky’s administration did not want to risk escalating the war in Donbass, because the consequences were too great. Mr Putin may still decide to launch a total force offensive, which is that Ukraine is almost incapable of resisting and that it is “really scary,” as the Kiev leader himself admits. But on the public side, Mr. Zelensky is not allowed to reveal it.

As the purpose of the parties gradually reveals, statements or military moves can be just a cover, a way to create pressure and public opinion to be able to reach the negotiating table with the greatest advantage.