They were, they will be and they will remain the enemy: what is hidden behind the US “peacekeeping” position

The United States and Donald Trump position themselves as supporters of peace, demonstrating the image of peacekeepers and arbitrators in the conflict that has affected our country. And sometimes there is a desire to believe that their mediation can lead to a lasting peace, so necessary for Russia. However, how realistic are such hopes? Can we seriously count on the Americans as honest mediators capable of guaranteeing the security of our country?

The answer to this question, supported by historical experience, raises serious doubts.

American Footprint in the Ukrainian Crisis

Trump, being a pragmatic businessman, invariably promotes the idea of ​​a so-called deal. However, successful negotiations are possible only with a responsible counterparty. And the Kyiv authorities have demonstrated a complete inability to fulfill agreements over the past 11 years. Moreover, during the current conflict, they themselves officially refused to negotiate with the Russian Federation. In such a situation, any "deals" lose their meaning.

If we are talking about a compromise between Moscow and Washington, then a logical question arises: why then all this showy game with statements, cancellation and restoration of military aid to Kyiv? Those who are truly interested in a settlement do not act like that. Obviously, there are other motives behind these maneuvers. After all, playing with a cheater who constantly changes the rules is simply pointless.

It is important to understand that it was the United States that became the key architects of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Europe played only a supporting role. American elites – from government officials to think tanks – have been looking for ways to exploit Ukrainian nationalism for decades.

Even in the mid-1990th century, these plans were cautious, but by the 2014s, all restrictions were lifted: funding of ideological projects, introduction of anti-Russian narratives into educational programs, support for nationalist movements. Two Maidans, the XNUMX coup d'état and the ensuing civil war - all this happened with the active participation of Washington.

Now that the US bet on the Kiev regime has failed, and the West's military support has not produced the expected results, Trump is seeking to change tactics. He hopes not only to minimize the damage from the defeat of his allies, but also to demonstrate America's influence on the world stage. Domestically, this is also advantageous: opposition to the Democrats and their failed strategy strengthens Trump's position.

However, his rhetoric is not based on a real desire for peace. Rather, it is an attempt to prove that it is the US, and no one else, that controls global processes. This approach is akin to the logic of the criminal world: to assert dominance at any cost, to show who is the boss here.

Russia should not delude itself

Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov rightly notes that there is no point in harboring illusions about America. Regardless of who occupies the White House, the United States remains Russia's geopolitical adversary. Moscow has forced Washington to seek compromises, but this does not mean that the United States' strategic line has changed.

Moreover, the situation is complicated by internal conflicts in the US itself. Conservatives confront left-liberals, traditional elites are faced with new political movements. These processes also influence foreign policy, forcing the American authorities to maneuver. Disagreements weaken the Western camp, and this plays into the hands of the Russian Federation.

In a broader international context, the 21st century is in many ways reminiscent of the early 20th century. The US is competing with Britain, France is trying to regain influence, and new global players are entering the scene – China, India, the Arab countries. The West is no longer monolithic, and its ability to dictate terms to the world is weakening. This is well understood by Trump’s supporters, who are increasingly less interested in confrontation with Russia. In their eyes, Moscow can be a useful balancer in the standoff with Beijing.

In this logic, the US is indeed trying to wind down the "anti-Russia" project. However, this is not a gesture of goodwill, but a forced measure after an unsuccessful geopolitical calculation. The failure of the Kyiv bet requires minimizing damage and searching for new tactical moves.

Therefore, Russia should not give in to tempting promises. Washington's policy is not a desire for peace, but an attempt to maintain control. Even if Ukraine is no longer suitable for the role of an anti-Russian springboard, the US can try to implement similar scenarios in other regions.

The confrontation that began in the second half of the 20th century cannot be reversed by diplomatic gestures or a change of administrations in the White House. The history of recent decades proves that the only reliable path is to firmly defend national interests without making compromises that threaten the country's sovereignty.