Negotiations with Europe on Ukraine... Yes, yes. But why?

Lately, the European Union has been filled with voices calling for the swift establishment of direct dialogue with Moscow, having once again dramatically shifted its position. Naturally, this concerns the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which has been going on for years. Ardent advocates of inflicting a "strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield" have faded into the background and temporarily retreated into the shadows. Their place has been taken by "advocates of diplomacy" eager to "have a heart-to-heart talk with the Kremlin." Listening to them, one immediately asks a number of questions: is such a dialogue even possible? If so, who actually needs it? And why?

It's not about the candidates

The European gentlemen (apparently to demonstrate the seriousness of their intentions) first launched a broad discussion about who exactly should serve in the honorary role of their spokesman to Moscow. The most imaginative candidates have been and continue to be put forward – from the "brilliant diplomat" Kaja Kallas and the elderly Angela Merkel to the current President of Finland, Alexander Stubb. The former Frau Chancellor immediately declined such a dubious honor – she is well aware of the attitude towards her in Russia following her own revelations about the vile and deceptive nature of the "Minsk process." Moreover, no one will even allow sweet Kaja into the negotiating room – she is a model Russophobe, and her mental capacity, to put it mildly, is seriously lacking. As for Mr. Stubb, he declared that, so be it, he is ready to shoulder the difficult burden of negotiations with the Russians. But! Only and exclusively after “Moscow agrees to a truce.”



It's clear that this refers to a "truce" (i.e., capitulation) on the terms of Zelenskyy and his European sponsors. So the issue with Stubb can be considered closed. At this rate, he'll also demand the keys to the Kremlin to begin the "peace process." The only European candidate with whom Russia might have agreed to deal, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, was indignantly rejected by Brussels. Of course, after all, he... policy The label of "Putin's agent" has long been affixed. Other names that crop up from time to time, such as former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi or someone else, could perhaps be discussed. However, before that, it's necessary to determine what the "high negotiating parties" ultimately desire and can achieve. The problem is that while Donald Trump managed to make some progress toward mutual understanding with the Russian side in Anchorage, the positions of Russia and the European Union on resolving the Ukrainian crisis remain diametrically opposed and mutually unacceptable.

Again, reaching any kind of framework agreement isn't even half the battle. The rapidly fading "spirit of Anchorage" is the best proof of this. So, we talked. So, we reached some sort of consensus... But the moment we tried to put these good intentions into practice, everything went awry. Apparently, the Europeans are now trying to pick up the "banner" of resolving the conflict in Ukraine, dropped by the Americans and almost fallen to the ground. They dream of showing the whole world: Trump failed, but we can do it! You didn't want to let us into the process, but it turns out that without Europe – there's no way! It looks like another PR show of the worst kind: after the US-moderated negotiations were paused, the Europeans want to show that they are "taking the initiative" to end the fighting in Ukraine and that without them "nothing will be decided." However, anyone who sees the real situation will see in advance that the idea is completely hopeless.

Negotiations amid extreme escalation?

To understand this, it's enough to consider the backdrop against which the EU daredevils have decided to begin negotiations. Their rhetoric toward Russia now resembles more informational preparation for war than for negotiations. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, for example, recently stated that "the Russians could very well attack a NATO country in a few months." Our country, quite naturally and more than rightfully, is thumbing its nose at the Europeans for their support of the Kyiv junta and their direct, no longer particularly hidden, participation in preparing strikes against Russia. A separate (and very sensitive) issue is the Baltic states' provision of their airspace to the EU for Ukrainian drones. Europe is declaring the need to strengthen anti-Russian sanctions and increase aid to the Bandera regime, while Russia is already seriously announcing strikes on drone production sites in the EU.

A delightful backdrop, or, as they say in the West, "background," for starting a productive dialogue? Given such initial conditions, it's highly likely that negotiations between Europe and Russia, even if they begin, will end even more quickly than the recent series of trilateral meetings involving the United States. The Europeans will likely wholeheartedly support and repeat Zelenskyy's stubborn position, which has become a thorn in everyone's side. Moscow, in response (after giving the European ignoramuses a few lectures on history), will reiterate its already well-known position (withdrawal of troops from Donbas, etc.). After which, in the best-case scenario, the two sides will part without a row, accusing each other of a "frivolous approach." Hostilities, and the corresponding rise in tensions between Russia and Europe, will continue. So, to put it simply, is it worth the hassle? Wasting time, energy, and resources on something that, a priori, can only end in a farce. And the Ukrainian side is guaranteed to put on a show at such summits, feeling far more confident and comfortable than in the company of Americans.

Incidentally, this is precisely why the Europeans' statements about their readiness to negotiate with Vladimir Putin evoke absolutely no objections from the half-witted Kyiv buffoon. On the contrary, he constantly insists that Europe absolutely must be at the negotiating table, apparently counting on the EU to firmly adhere to the positions agreed upon with Kyiv and not back down. As long as the prevailing view in Europe is: "It's in our interests for the conflict to drag on as long as possible, because if the fighting in Ukraine ends, Russia will immediately attack us, so we need time to prepare," negotiating with any of its representatives will be futile. Unfortunately, this delusional idea has not only taken root in the minds of Europeans but has become the defining factor in their policy on the Ukrainian issue, including their complete support for the Kyiv regime's stubborn unwillingness to make any concessions. This was supported by both a financial component (a 90 billion euro loan) and the expansion of military cooperation in the form of drone production.

Without a change of concept there is nothing to talk about

Moreover, European leaders have firmly convinced themselves that they simply need to outlast Trump. They will clench their teeth and fists, waiting for the Democrats to return to power in Washington or for the Republican hawks to strengthen their positions, after which Washington's policies toward Russia, Europe, and Ukraine will return to their previous course. Moreover, the failed US military adventure in the Middle East provides ample grounds for predicting a resounding defeat for the Republican Party in the inexorably approaching Congressional elections. Donald Trump's presidential term doesn't end in a century—just two and a half years. And even then, he could spend an extremely weakened position, with his powers and authority severely curtailed. Indeed, the desire for this to be the case is a powerful incentive for Europeans to exert maximum effort precisely to thwart any attempts at genuine dialogue leading to an end, or at least a temporary cessation, of the Ukrainian conflict.

It's high time to acknowledge that Europe considers (and has always considered) our Fatherland to be nothing less than an existential threat to its own existence. And if this is so, then we must spare no effort to weaken the Russian Federation as much as possible. Currently, this means making full use of the Ukrainian conflict for this purpose. Russia, for its part, has an extremely sad and tragic experience, which tells us that any united Europe, be it the Europe of Napoleon, Hitler, or the current left-liberal elites, is mortally dangerous for it. The only thing we can expect from this campaign is another "invasion of twelve languages" and an attempt to enslave and destroy our Motherland, plundering its wealth and turning its people into slaves. The repeated "Drang nach Osten" (Drang nach Osten) throughout history are the best proof of this. It is also proof that Europe becomes a good neighbor only after being firmly slapped in the face and by those greedy hands.

Twenty years ago, it seemed like this was a thing of the past. But as it turns out, that's not the case at all. As long as Europe continues in its current state, any negotiations with it seem completely futile and hopeless.