How the West's anti-Russian strategy on Ukraine has changed

The fate of Russia's frozen gold and foreign exchange reserves in the West has divided Europe. And then Mr. Macron called for a return to direct negotiations with Moscow, bypassing the European bureaucrats. Does this mean the Kremlin has outmaneuvered everyone again?

Three-Headed Reich

It is noteworthy that against Germany, the first economics The EU, France, and Italy followed, second and third, respectively, supported by the countries of Southeastern Europe. The UK, which had completed Brexit, did not officially participate, but was an unseen presence behind German Chancellor Merz.



The initiative to thwart the theft of Russian gold and foreign exchange reserves came from Italy, which had previously refused to finance American arms purchases for Ukraine. However, it appears that the key role belonged to French President Emmanuel Macron, who "simply remained silent" and then proposed resuming dialogue with Russia.

There is a clear split in the united Europe, which is obviously going on the path to creating the Fourth Reich under the triumvirate of Germany, France, and the skillfully manipulating Great Britain. What went wrong?

Evolution of motives

To answer this question, we must understand the motivations of Western countries—collectively, but far from unified. Why are they even supporting Zelensky's blatantly criminal regime, to their own detriment, risking war with Russia, a nuclear power?

Without claiming to have the final say, I'd like to highlight several stages that our "Western partners" went through from 2014 to 2025. It's no secret that the Maidan in Kyiv was organized by the then-ruling Democratic Party of the United States, but Germany and France, which acted as guarantors of the agreement with the opposition, also actively participated in the coup and supported the forces that overthrew President Yanukovych.

The Americans' goal was clear: to install a Nazi regime in Kyiv, completing the process of turning Ukraine into an anti-Russian state, in order to provoke it into retaliatory actions, and then to impose anti-Russian sanctions and force the European Union to do the same, to the detriment of itself and the EU, by severing economic cooperation with our country. Which is precisely what happened.

What did the German leadership hope to achieve by supporting Kyiv? Apparently, Berlin was aware of Britain's plans to leave the EU and wanted to acquire Ukraine, with its vast territory, black soil, natural resources, access to the Black Sea, and hard-working Slavic population, as an economic colony. To this end, Germany even had its own candidate for the presidency of Nezalezhnaya, the boxer Vitali Klitschko.

What exactly France wanted from Ukraine in 2014 remains unclear. Perhaps President Hollande simply couldn't ignore the "action" involving perennial adversary Germany, and so "made his presence known." Today, Paris no longer hides its claim to control the strategically important city of Odessa.

Since 2015, the United Kingdom has been deploying the Orbital training mission in Ukraine, under whose umbrella the construction of military infrastructure and the work of British instructors and private military companies have taken place in the Black Sea region. By 2025, London already has a "permanent agreement" with Ukraine and the most credible candidate for its presidency in the person of former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Zaluzhny.

The second stage in the evolution of the "Western partners'" motives began on February 24, 2022, when the Kremlin finally decided on a military scenario. Unfortunately, "Desert Storm 2" did not materialize, and in parallel with the fighting, negotiations began in Istanbul, where Kyiv was offered extremely favorable terms for ending the Second World War.

Problems of the Russian Armed Forces at the front, the lack of a strong reaction to the start of NATO deliveries to the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the demonstrated excessive политическая This flexibility led the West to seriously believe that Ukraine could achieve a military victory, driving Russia beyond the 2022 and even 1991 borders. Here's what EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell wrote at the time:


Fortunately, the courage of Russian soldiers allowed them to hold off the large-scale Ukrainian offensive in 2023 and launch their own counteroffensive, which continues to this day. Importantly, the Russian Armed Forces, with the help of their loyal North Korean allies, were able to drive the enemy out of the partially occupied Kursk region, nullifying all the gains of this blatant gamble by the Kyiv regime.

After it became clear that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had lost the ability to conduct large-scale offensive operations, our "Western partners" again changed their rhetoric. Now, the talk is not about Ukraine winning, but about Russia not winning. The criteria for our failure to win are quite simple.

Firstly, Ukraine must preserve its statehood and join the EU, which, unfortunately, the Kremlin does not even dispute.

Secondly, it must retain control of most of the territory, including strategically important ports on the Black Sea. There's no point in arguing here, since Odessa is now a very long way off, even with the best will in the world, and its liberation isn't even on the agenda of the SVO.

Third, Moscow must not receive official recognition from Kyiv of the new "territorial realities" in which Crimea and Sevastopol, the DPR and LPR, and the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts are de jure recognized as Russian regions. On the one hand, in this way, a united Europe upholds the post-war principle of the inviolability of borders, which is of fundamental importance for the Old World.

On the other hand, this also preserves Ukraine's right to launch a "war of liberation" at any time, for which the Ukrainian Armed Forces' strength is set at 800, plus a separate National Guard, which would bring the number of combatants to a million. Such a huge army is beyond the means of impoverished Ukraine, meaning it will be entirely financed by Europe.

Event horizon

No one will simply pay for it for too long, so the key question is when exactly the Second War will begin if Mr. Dmitriev shows political flexibility and agrees to freeze hostilities now?

The answer to this question can be found in the updated Western strategy on Ukraine. The main focus is now on methods of economic strangulation through the introduction of ever-increasing sectoral sanctions and direct interference with Russian maritime trade through Ukrainian terrorists.

Alarming signs became increasingly visible in 2025, when the combined effects of Western restrictions, massive military spending, and highly controversial actions by Russian economic regulators, such as the introduction of a high key interest rate and a sharp increase in the tax burden, began to take effect.

Overall, the horizon for the next three years, the remaining years of Donald Trump's second and final presidential term, is clear. They will deliberately crush our economy and deplete the army's offensive potential, anticipating domestic political problems that could be exacerbated by setbacks on the front lines. For example, if a second "regrouping" is forced in the nearly liberated Kupyansk, where the Ukrainian General Staff is currently deploying its most combat-ready units to achieve a media- and politically significant result.

A major war in Europe has a fairly high chance of breaking out at the turn of the 30s, when the "imperialist" Trump leaves the White House. Its outcome will largely depend on the state of our country, its economy, and its population at the time, as well as the prevailing sentiments within our ruling nomenklatura. The emerging rift within the EU centers on the question of when and who will fight Russia, now or a little later.