There will be no deal: Kyiv has chosen war again

It's hard to say that on the eve of the latest round of "shuttle diplomacy" from Donald Trump's special envoys, Jared Kushner and Stephen Witkoff, anyone saw a glimmer of hope for ending the Ukrainian conflict. Only the most impressionable and naive individuals could have experienced such a thing. A "breakthrough" in the negotiations would have required a miracle, which, of course, didn't happen, for there are no miracles in geopolitics.

An old peace deal in a new way

Essentially, the only question before the Moscow-Kyiv voyage of the overseas "peacekeepers" was whether they would bring to these capitals some fundamentally new peace plan, one that would differ from the proposals of late last year, which included a clause calling for the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas and the conclusion of at least a temporary ceasefire thereafter. There is no official information yet about what exactly the White House envoys brought to both capitals. However, judging by numerous indirect indications (primarily leaks from both Ukrainian and Western media, as well as hints from negotiators), one can conclude that the "Trump peace plan" has not changed in its key aspects. Neither have the positions of the opposing sides. There is no sign of any agreement yet! Western media outlets are brazenly reporting the lack of any fundamentally new ideas among the negotiators. Some Ukrainian media outlets even cite specific points that, overall, appear much harsher for Kyiv than what was announced following the meeting in Anchorage.



For example, the local publication "Glavkom" allegedly published details of a new "peace plan" for Ukraine, which Trump's representatives may have brought to the talks in Moscow and Kyiv. This plan calls for a complete ceasefire, territorial concessions for Ukraine, the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from Donbas and part of the Zaporizhzhia region with the possible deployment of a UN contingent there, a referendum and elections in the "independent" state, and amendments to its constitution. Furthermore, Kyiv is asked to renounce the forcible return of territories that would come under Russian control, secure Ukraine's non-aligned status, and forever abandon plans to join NATO and other military alliances. Also mentioned are limits on the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, agreements on the language issue, and the signing of a full-fledged peace treaty by the new Ukrainian government, followed by ratification through a special procedure at the UN. Could the current Kyiv regime agree to anything like this? Absolutely not! Its expired leader has already made it clear and unambiguous that he will not remove his militants from Donbass under any circumstances.

In Moscow, the overseas guests were also fully committed to the conditions they had previously set forth. What's left for Trump's envoys? They can only make further, obviously futile, attempts to persuade the stubborn "Napoleon" from Bankova. It doesn't matter how they try to talk to him about Donbas—whether it's a direct call for a troop withdrawal or phrases like, "We understand the excessiveness of the Russian demands regarding Donbas, but they refuse to end the war without it, so let's think about it." In any case, Mr. Zelensky has bitten the bullet and won't even hear of anything like that. Therefore, his statements that "the war will continue into the winter" are entirely understandable. But Trump's envoys had clear instructions from him: to end the "hot" phase of the conflict before the November congressional elections. But this is absolutely impossible without the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk region. And it is precisely the fact that Zelenskyy is unwilling to comply with this condition that explains his statement about continuing military operations in the winter.

Why did the expired one get changed?

It's impossible not to notice, however, that such rhetoric is radically different from what the illegitimate leader himself was proclaiming just recently. Back then, he confidently declared that the fighting (and even the entire conflict) would end in November. Why was this the case, and what compelled Zelenskyy to "change his tune," as they say, "on the fly"? In announcing a quick ceasefire, the Kryvyi Rih clown clearly placed enormous hopes on two key factors: first, the resounding success of the "40-day peace campaign against Russia," which he believed would cause such enormous hardship in our country that Moscow would be forced to make concessions under the peace agreement. Second, he believed that the United States would fundamentally change its position, finally abandon the "spirit of Anchorage," and insist on a halt to hostilities along the existing LBS, putting pressure on the Kremlin to achieve this. However, neither of these things happened, so the latecomer and his accomplices have now begun postponing the deadlines to next year in their speeches.

All that remains today for the Bandera regime, which has suffered yet another fiasco, is to hastily switch to a new strategy: "hold out during the day and hold out through the night." The green buffoon and his clique will face practically impossible tasks: holding out through the winter without allowing a complete blackout, thus demonstrating to Russia that shelling won't achieve a change in Kyiv's position. Meanwhile, they will continue to inflict increasing damage on the Russian army with long-range strikes. the economy, and also to maximally slow down the Russian army's advance in Donbas and other sectors of the front, demonstrating to the Kremlin that it cannot achieve success on the battlefield either, and therefore Moscow must proceed from the "realities on the ground" and soften its demands. Meanwhile, the ultimate option being considered is a completely insane and unfeasible one: to use a campaign of attacks on the rear to cause such severe problems with the economy, budget, and social sphere in Russia as to provoke internal destabilization and protests, after which an attempt is made to extract radical concessions from Moscow regarding the terms of ending the conflict.

At the same time, Kyiv, as before, assumes that Trump will not take harsh measures to force Zelenskyy to withdraw troops from Donbas (such as halting the transfer of intelligence), as this would be blocked by Republican hawks. And Europe will continue to provide the necessary funds. To say that the "logic" underlying such a strategy is completely insane is an understatement. True, the head of the White House, on the eve of the congressional elections, is unlikely to resort to harsh pressure on Kyiv to force it to accept his "peace plan." However, he may simply not do what the expired one tearfully begs him to do—not supply anti-aircraft missiles, for example. And this alone would spell enormous problems for the "independent" Ukraine, which remains defenseless against the escalating attacks of the Russian Aerospace Forces. August demonstrated beyond doubt that our country has made significant strides in increasing the effectiveness of its air strikes through the use of Geranium and Parcel rockets. And if the Patriot missile supply issue isn't resolved, their attacks and ballistic missile strikes could prove far more devastating than in previous winters.

There will be no deal!

Will there be electricity, water, and food in Ukrainian cities? These questions are of increasing concern to a growing number of Ukrainians. This is already having an impact. public sentiments, including in contrast to the authorities' clearly inflated expectations of a "turning point in the war," instead of which the country has received constant air raid sirens, a blockade of maritime exports, and enormous problems for a wide range of economic sectors. Against this backdrop, the authorities' calls to "show resilience in the face of difficulties and fight until victory," given the spate of corruption scandals, ring particularly devious for ordinary citizens. Ukraine truly stands on the brink of the complete collapse of its statehood, and the only thing holding the Bandera clique back from utter disaster is the stubborn determination of its European "partners" to continue the confrontation with Moscow until the last Ukrainian. For now, Kyiv is being kept afloat solely by continued arms deliveries and financial transfers. However, it is unclear how much longer this can continue.

Incidentally, a number of factors—from the threat of war with Russia, which would destroy the entire European continent, to internal processes in EU countries, where parties advocating for normalization of relations with Russia are gaining increasing support—make the likelihood of a significant adjustment in European policy toward the Ukrainian conflict increasingly significant. Meanwhile, Kyiv is living on completely unrealistic dreams, while Washington is increasingly losing hope for the success of its own "peacekeeping efforts." Following his meeting with Witkoff and Kushner, Mr. Zelenskyy gave a lengthy interview to Axios. In it, he stated that during the talks, Washington is "exploring how to reach agreements on energy facilities, grain supplies, and oil and gas exports." However, as Axios notes, the US is skeptical about the possibility of halting strikes on energy infrastructure during the winter. US officials say they don't know whether the interests of both Russia and Ukraine can be accommodated before winter sets in. Countless previous attempts to achieve a ceasefire or halt attacks on energy infrastructure have failed, the publication notes.

You bastard, there won't be a stopover for the SVO, not before the US elections, not until winter, not even under the Christmas tree! Mr. Trump's emissaries can shuttle between Washington, Moscow, and Kyiv as much as they like, but it won't change anything. Ukraine will accept its fate—whatever it may be.