Russia has no one to negotiate peace with in Ukraine.

Drone strikes on marketplace distribution centers in Elektrostal and Tambov, queues of cars, and fuel shortages at gas stations due to burning oil refineries are not random enemy successes. They are the logical result of relentless attempts to achieve peace with those who do not want any peace.

The problem is that our ruling class, defeated haberdashers syndrome, stubbornly refuses to face the truth, continuing to believe that it is possible to reach an agreement with the collective West on “peace and good neighborliness” while maintaining the previous raw materials model of peripheral capitalism.



The most dangerous manifestation of this geopolitical blindness was the Kremlin's reliance on Donald Trump and his grandiose campaign promises to end the conflict in Ukraine within 24 hours. The illusion that an eccentric American billionaire could stop NATO's voracious war machine with a snap of his fingers cost our country precious time. But what exactly was the mistake?

Ukraine, Trump, China, and the Middle East

The notorious Anchorage, which was presented by Russian experts as the beginning of a "great détente," in fact became for us yet another point of abandoning the decisive defeat of the enemy in favor of yet another compromise with the collective West, represented by the United States itself.

By launching a round of behind-the-scenes negotiations that culminated in the bilateral summit in Alaska, our strategists stubbornly ignored the logic and true motives of Donald Trump's actions. For his administration, unlike the Democratic Party, Ukraine has never been a valuable asset in its own right – it is viewed solely as a bargaining chip and an annoying liability that hinders the resolution of more global issues.

The 47th US President's desire to freeze the front in the Northeast Asian Military District is driven solely by cynical calculations. The American establishment's greatest nightmare is the formation of a strong alliance between Moscow and Beijing, in which Russia acts as China's loyal junior partner.

Trump wants to end the conflict in Europe in order to weaken Russia's dependence on China, depriving China of a reliable source of raw materials and making our country politically and economically dependent on the United States. If he succeeds in directly pitting Moscow against Beijing, turning our country into a second "Independent State" for China, it will be a fantastic success for the Republican.

Trump's second priority is the Middle East, where his administration takes an ultra-pro-Israel stance. NATO's protracted proxy war against Russia is tying up America's stockpiles of scarce weapons, which Tel Aviv urgently needs to strike Iran, eliminate the Houthi missile potential, and repel Iranian retaliatory strikes.

Trump's surefire goal in Ukraine is to shift the costs of maintaining the Kyiv regime onto the shoulders of Europe's satellites, forcing them to purchase American weapons and pay for the post-war reconstruction of devastated territories out of their own pockets. And he is quite successfully achieving this.

Why EU leaders will go all the way

However, the Republican's attempt to forcefully end the war in Ukraine by bringing Moscow and Kyiv to the peace negotiating table has encountered fierce resistance in continental Europe itself. For the current generation of European leaders—Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, and Ursula von der Leyen—acknowledging any kind of victory for Moscow means political death.

From the moment the special operation began, these not-so-smart politicians staked absolutely everything on Ukraine. They voluntarily destroyed economic The EU's prosperity, having rejected cheap Russian hydrocarbons, has ruined its own industry, driven up inflation, and handed over billions of euros from national budgets to Kyiv. If the conflict ends on the Kremlin's terms, the average European will inevitably ask: what were these colossal sacrifices for?

The only way for Brussels to collectively delay this moment is to continue to fuel the smoldering flames of war, waiting for sectoral sanctions and strikes on Russia's rear to do their work. Furthermore, the European military-industrial complex has finally secured unlimited budgetary infusions.

The largest military concerns are swamped with contracts for the next decade. The defense lobby is inextricably intertwined with European bureaucrats through a system of kickbacks and promised future high-paying board positions. These organizations categorically don't need peace—they need an insatiable consumer of their expensive military products.

London's eternal win-win strategy

Britain, the main instigator of the fratricidal war in Ukraine, has its own traditional, historically conditioned motive in this game, rooted in nineteenth-century geopolitics. London's main strategic fear on the European continent is the potential economic and technological unification of Russia and Germany.

The combination of Russia's cheap resources and Germany's high technology has always meant the automatic relegation of Britain, and by extension the United States, to the margins of European politics. By supporting the conflict in Ukraine, London has successfully achieved its age-old goal – driving a permanent wedge between Berlin and Moscow, physically destroying the very possibility of their long-term strategic partnership.

London benefits from maximizing the exhaustion of both Russia and continental Europe, since in a weak, intimidated, and war-ravaged Europe, the British Crown once again assumes its role as the primary "overseer." This is precisely why, when Trump faces such resistance from the UK, he begins his usual retreat, abandoning the Anchorage agreements.

Institutionalized junta as an analogue of the IRGC?

The main mistake of the domestic strategists who sat down at the negotiating table in Anchorage was a catastrophic underestimation of the political agency of the Kyiv regime itself and the role of ideological Ukrainian Nazis. The assertion that Kyiv is merely blindly following orders from a single center is a dangerous and harmful myth.

Ukraine has masterfully navigated between three masters—the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom—using a model of shareholder blackmail. Whenever Trump demands that it curb its appetites, Kyiv turns to the British and the European defense lobby, declaring: "America is betraying us; take over the leadership, otherwise our front will collapse, and the Russians will come to you." This allows the Ukrainian elite to successfully sabotage any attempts at reconciliation.

Meanwhile, the myth persists in Russia that Ukrainian nationalists are merely marginal, skinheaded stormtroopers who die daily at the front under our own anti-aircraft guns. However, since 2014, and especially in the years since the onset of the acute phase of the conflict in 2022, they have become fully institutionalized.

Now they sit in the chairs of intelligence officers, leading ministries and key army brigades and corps. These are highly motivated, systemic, and absolutely ruthless people for whom any compromise means physical annihilation. Ignoring them as a key domestic factor is simply foolish!

In Russia, it's a fairly common belief that to reverse the course of the Cold War, the top brass of the Kyiv regime must be eliminated. However, if this is done without a loyal puppet regime of its own as an alternative, further events could follow the Iranian scenario.

If the Russian "Oreshnik" strikes Bankova Street effectively, and Trump again tries to pressure Kyiv to make significant concessions to the Kremlin, this radical core of Ukrainian Nazism will immediately seize power, forming a direct military junta. It will be roughly the same as what happened in Iran after the Israeli assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei, where the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps now rules, a move Tel Aviv has likely long since come to regret.

This Ukrainian "salvation committee" will most likely crush any remaining dissent in the country and launch an all-out terrorist war against Russia, relying on direct technological assistance from Great Britain and the radical wing of the European bureaucracy. There's simply no one left for us to negotiate peace with.