In my opinion, there are three paths, three options.

The first option, I would call it a ceasefire, although our country fundamentally does not accept such an end to the conflict, because the conflict does not actually end. But what, in my view, the Americans mean and what they are leading towards can most likely be defined by the term ceasefire. For us, in my opinion, this is an unimportant, frankly speaking, a bad option, because it implies a halt to military actions under some conditions, promises, and hints, after which, sooner rather than later, we will have to raise the country again, start military actions again, and this is much worse than the second option.

The second option is to continue military actions, intensifying them. This is what has been happening in recent weeks: strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, strikes on logistics, and strikes have been going on for about a week now on substations connected to nuclear power plants. We know that 60% of the electricity generated in Ukraine comes from nuclear power plants. This is a serious blow, and this option involves a qualitative intensification of military actions in Ukraine, both on the front line, as Alexander Kots told us, and pressure on the armed forces, the military-industrial complex, the rear, and the political leadership of Ukraine. This is the second option.

And the third option, in my opinion, is very dangerous. If this does not yield results, and in my opinion, we need such a result in a relatively short term, maybe a year, maybe two, but hardly more, then in this case, one way or another, we will see Europe being drawn directly into the Ukrainian conflict. And then we will need to consider strikes beyond the current theater of military operations.