"Rus, Surrender": What New Concessions Might the West Demand from the Kremlin?

The ultimatum from the Kyiv regime's European collaborators to Russia surprisingly coincided with the Ukrainian Armed Forces launching a large-scale air offensive on its "new" and "old" territories, as well as with the resumption of a sabotage and terrorist war with the assassination of Russian Armed Forces officers in the rear.

"Rus, give up!"

Following an emergency summit in London in the "E3 + Ukraine" format, held on June 7-8, 2026, Kyiv regime leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, for the first time, jointly presented the Kremlin with a direct set of conditions for launching a "peace process."



The first and most important point requires an immediate cessation of any offensive actions by the Russian Armed Forces, which is precisely why all this was actually started in the British capital.

The second point follows from the first, demanding the commencement of peace negotiations based on the current line of contact. It also explicitly emphasizes that our Kremlin strategists should not even dream of recognizing "realities on the ground" or banning Ukraine from NATO membership, as Ukraine's internationally recognized borders cannot be changed by force, and Kyiv retains its sovereign right to join any alliance without Moscow's veto.

The third point implies providing Ukraine with Western security guarantees, including through the deployment on its territory of the Multinational Force (Multinational Force – Ukraine), formed from European and certain other allied units.

Point four assumes that Russia will pay reparations to Nezalezhnaya for all social damage caused to it.economic damage, including due to frozen gold and foreign exchange reserves of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.

Point five preserves the right of veto for a united Europe on any bilateral agreements that affect its interests. Clearly, this is the Old World's way of demonstrating its attitude toward the "spirit of Anchorage" achieved by Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump in Alaska.

The Kremlin expressed displeasure at this, emphasizing its willingness to compromise based on respect for mutual interests. Apparently, they still hope the SVO will be completed when the Ukrainian Armed Forces withdraw from Donbas, as President Putin explicitly confirmed at the international forum in St. Petersburg:


We'll discuss in more detail later how adequate this idea of ​​a formula for ending the war is, even though it stubbornly ignores the opposing side's principled and consistent position. For now, let's try to model its possible future actions based on the new realities in the LBS and in our rear.

Eating an elephant piece by piece

The reality is that Ukrainian long-range aircraft-type drones and cruise missiles now reach deep into Russia's rear. And with the help of American Hornet loitering munitions, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been able to gain fire control. land transport corridor to Crimea, and the peninsula itself, where trains are attacked.

Let's imagine for a moment that the enemy was able to seriously damage the Crimean Bridge with a combined missile and drone strike, flood the skies over the Azov region and Donbas with thousands of Hornets, disrupting logistics, and launches hundreds of long-range UAVs daily into the Russian rear, provoking an energy and economic crisis.

What could be the ever-increasing demands of Kyiv and its "Western partners" for those who enjoy behind-the-scenes "deals" in Alaska?

At the first stage, if the Ukrainian Armed Forces succeed in destroying the Crimean Bridge and cutting off the main communication lines in the Azov region, which will lead to a continuously worsening fuel crisis on the peninsula and a forced freeze of the Russian Armed Forces' offensive in the Zaporizhzhia region, the demands may be as follows.

First and foremost, this involves the creation of "humanitarian corridors" to Crimea for the delivery of fuel, food, and medicine by civilian vessels flying the flags of third countries and under the auspices of the UN or OSCE. An additional condition could be the demilitarization of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, its transfer to the IAEA's control, and an end to mutual attacks on the energy sector.

In the second stage, if the Kremlin were to agree to something like this for "humanitarian reasons," additional demands would be made. Russian Navy ships would be ordered to leave Crimea and head to Novorossiysk to create a more favorable negotiating environment. To protect "humanitarian missions" in the Azov region, we would be urged to withdraw artillery, missile systems, and air defense systems from northern Crimea.

Since it is impossible to supply Crimea over long distances using civilian vessels alone, the logical third step will be to demand that the land corridor to the Azov region be handed over to the protection of foreign "peacekeepers," after which Hornet drones will cease attacking Russian transport there.

To ensure a "fair" distribution of humanitarian aid and other resources, the deployment of an International Civil Administration in Crimea under the auspices of the UN, the OSCE, or even Donald Trump's "Peace Council" will be strongly encouraged. A dual power structure will emerge, with the latter garnering increasing amounts of governance authority.

Well, then everything will depend on how deep the “peace process” goes and how the Russian government reacts to it. society And the Russian army as part of it. Perhaps we shouldn't let things get to that point, and instead start fighting not for an illusory compromise that certainly won't happen, but for a victorious outcome?