Putin wants to occupy Ukraine with the hands of Trump

From the Obozrevatel:

"This week, a decision is being made: is the world heading toward global war or will it finally find the will to stop it? Interview with Bessmertny 

Roman Pryadun, December 18, 2025

The Berlin talks revealed the central dilemma of the moment: the West wants a quick result, Ukraine wants a high-quality and irreversible one, and Russia wants further war. Ukrainian diplomat and politician Roman Bessmertny shared his thoughts on these and other issues in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA.

– Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted: "We have not agreed to any territorial concessions." Meanwhile, the Americans are officially demanding the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops in exchange for security guarantees. American media, citing the White House, report that the Ukrainians have been given time to go home to "discuss proposals," and are expected in Miami at the end of the week. Another meeting is possible.

To begin with, I'd like to ask everyone to pay attention to the remark by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, who said that the Americans allegedly promised to return "Russian lands." What does this indicate? No such decisions were ever made, of course, and no one made any promises. But the topic itself was raised. And it was clearly raised both in Anchorage and during conversations with Whitkoff. This is already obvious, as it was once mentioned in an interview with Tucker Carlson, when he spoke with Whitkoff. In other words, the essence of the problem wasn't simply some abstract territories, say, the Donetsk region, part of which is now controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the legitimate Ukrainian government. It was about "Novorossiya." And rest assured: this is only an interim stage.

 

Now, talk is one thing, and facts and events are quite another. Given that I haven't seen and don't see peace as Moscow's option for resolving the situation, I understand perfectly well that Putin, in the current situation, is motivated by Donald Trump's efforts to take another step forward in the occupation of Ukraine. And this is only an interim stage.

 

Now let's temporarily put ourselves in the shoes of President Zelenskyy, who has enough facts not only to confirm what we've discussed repeatedly but also to look ahead. Clearly, intelligence has operational data on the Russian General Staff's developments, understands what operations will be planned next, and so on. In the current situation, Zelenskyy faces a choice: buy a ticket on an installment plan for two or three months, or not worry about it at all and simply accept that peace is fundamentally not on the horizon.

 

– But Ukraine and Europe aren't rejecting Trump's plan, continuing "peace talks." Is this to avoid irritating Trump, hoping for another epiphany?

 

This means that in fact a choice is made between tactical tools. The main thing is that this is a maneuver aimed at eliciting Moscow's response. After all, they are interested in capitulation, not any compromises, even those that would be painful for Ukraine. This has been obvious for a long time.

 

– Is there a chance of making Donald Trump even a formal mediator? 

 

No. He's effectively in the Kremlin's hands, and the Kremlin is manipulating him. I've always supported the position we discussed back in the summer: the time had come to thank Trump for his participation and say: if you can help or sell, then do so. If not, please keep your advice to yourself. Because the maneuvers we're seeing now in Washington and Europe, if you read the primary sources and documents, aren't conducive to peace. They're encouraging the aggressor. He sees that he's succeeding in pressuring the situation through Trump and even some Europeans. 

 

Please note: just a week ago, Europe, through Czech President Petr Pavel, declared that there would be no border changes because this is a war in Europe. But in the statement signed on the evening of December 15th by the leaders of individual European states and the EU, two positions emerged. The first was no border changes by force. The second was that the decision on the territories rests with President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine. 

 

And Washington continues to pressure Ukraine. This means that all the illusions about "something human" that Chancellor Merz spoke of are groundless. There was, is, and will be nothing human there. Hoping for a compromise with Putin or his clique is pointless. In this situation, only force works. 

 

"Peace through strength" has been the obvious answer from the very beginning. But if Trump interprets this as pressure on Ukraine, he's only accelerating the path to continental, and then global, war. 

 

Today, we find ourselves at a point where, within a week, a decision is effectively being made: is the world heading toward global war or will it finally find the will to stop it? This is precisely what we're talking about. 

 

– You said back in the summer that we should have thanked Donald Trump for all the good things and minimized his involvement in this process as much as possible. Why wasn't this done, and why does the Berlin talks once again give the impression that the most important thing is to keep Trump from getting irritated? 

 

Some European leaders simply lack the political will to make such a decision. And, excuse me, but those familiar with the eve of the First and Second World Wars know very well: this isn't the first time Europe and the world have experienced such a moment. However, the solutions are readily available. The question isn't about preparing for war in 2030. The question is that we need to be prepared now. 

 

Pay attention to the words of the new head of British intelligence. Taking office precisely at the time when meetings between Americans, Europeans, and Ukrainians were taking place in Europe, she stated absolutely clearly: this is Moscow's pressure to seize Ukraine now and then continue the war against Europe. 

 

Is this accepted in Washington? Are European capitals accepted? No. The logic here is: if you haven't had your fill, you can't have your fill. The illusion is that this means a few more days of peace, a few more days without war. But in reality, this is not a reprieve. It is an invitation to the aggressor. 

 

– Don't you think that's exactly what Trump is aiming for? For Putin to invade some European country. Then Europe would be colossally frightened, and Europe's dependence on the United States would become even greater.

 

For Donald Trump, a war in Europe is, if you will, a dream. He knows very well what the United States once relied on. It's no coincidence that the situation has escalated precisely when Trump began complaining that Europe has begun buying fewer American weapons. We've discussed this: modernizing the European defense industry and increasing domestic production will lead to Europeans stopping buying from the United States. And for him, whether the conflict is large or small doesn't matter. What matters to him is the dollar...

 

The "national security strategy" story has already triggered serious developments. Now Europe will have to make another choice. Either thank Trump for his efforts and say: keep your recommendations to yourself.

 

– But this decision must be pan-European. Will it be finalized?

 

That will depend on the decisions made in Brussels on December 18-19. We'll have some possible answers around Christmas, but not a final one. Because Trump continues to maneuver: he introduces tariffs, then delays them, then talks about sanctions against Lukoil, then delays them. The license to purchase Lukoil's foreign assets has already been delayed twice. But this only reveals Trump. It reveals the shadowy part of his dialogue with Moscow, which he doesn't want to discuss, but which is in fact key. And sooner or later, this information will surface. And then it will become the final argument for the rift between Europe and the United States on the issue of countering Russian aggression.

 

– The Ukrainian President noted that the United States wants to end the war quickly. They claim that 90% of the issues have already been agreed upon, leaving territories and security guarantees. According to Western media, the Americans have given Ukraine an ultimatum: here are your security guarantees, they're excellent, everyone's happy. If not, things will only get worse. Why is the United States in such a rush? 

This is pure blackmail. All this rhetoric about "guarantees on the table"—take them or they'll disappear—is really just a smokescreen. The Ukrainian side, having announced about elections and NATO, proposed moving on to a substantive discussion of security guarantees. The Americans, however, are talking not about guarantees, but about assurances. And the entire discussion mentally harks back to 1994, to the configuration of the Budapest Memorandum. There's no talk of any real guarantees. That's precisely why the president is asking: if Russia attacks, which units and what exactly will you do?

 

– And in response, zero specifics...

 

Exactly. So please take your 'platinum new guarantees' back where you got them. Because no guarantees exist today. Now imagine: they tell you to withdraw your troops from a fortified region that has a strategic advantage. Reduce your army. And we'll still have to think about what assurances to give you. That's precisely why Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian negotiating team are acting the way they are. They're demonstrating to Trump a constructive spirit and a willingness to engage in dialogue. This is an absolutely correct tactical move, so that both Whitkoff and Trump hear Russia's 'no.' But it won't be voiced publicly. Because then the whole theater will fall apart.

 

– So you believe there won't be any real security guarantees that could stop Russia's next invasion. Because if you look at it logically, the Americans are loudly saying, 'No NATO, we won't fight Russia, a nuclear power.' And then suddenly they're offering us guarantees that envision war with Russia, a nuclear power. Well, that seems strange, to put it mildly.

 

The Europeans themselves have already suggested everything. Their statements clearly state: the United States will monitor, manage the process, and provide information. You won't find the word "force" anywhere in them. No units. Not even a mention of air control. The entire force component is coming from Europe. So, it's clear to me: all these "platinum," "gold," and any other guarantees are just talk. It's just empty talk. And it's no coincidence that I'm recalling 1994. I remember that story very well...

 

– So all these positive statements – like, we’ve worked on something, there are security guarantees, Congress is ready to support it, to legally enshrine it – this, in essence, means nothing?

 

Absolutely. If they really wanted to provide guarantees, they would have taken the law on relations with Taiwan or Israel, put it on the table, changed the country's name, and that would be it. But that's not even being discussed. Somewhere they write about Senate ratification, somewhere else – Congress. This is all aimed at people who don't distinguish between assurances and guarantees. It's a play on words. There have been no guarantees from Trump, and there are none. He kept silent for a long time, and now he supposedly "put" something on the table. But there's nothing behind it.  

 

A telling moment: did the Europeans present their guarantee mechanisms? They didn't present anything, and rightly so. Because they weren't just talking to representatives of the US president, but to actual Russian intelligence. That's why neither the British nor the French General Staff announced anything. And rightly so. Because the last thing they needed was for Europe to lay out its work, which had been in the works since March, to the people who will pass it on. 

 

Europe has its own problems. But they have nothing in common with the blatant lies we are currently facing from Donald Trump and his administration..."

Zelensky about the security guarantees for Ukraine

From the Obozrevatel:

""Let this be private": Zelenskyy said what response he expects from the US regarding security guarantees for Ukraine

Daria Durova, December 18, 2025 

Post-war security guarantees must be reliable and strong, and Ukraine expects to receive them from both the United States and European countries. These promises must be enshrined in documents to ensure they are legally binding.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke about these future agreements during a press conference in Brussels, Belgium, on December 18. A video of the event was published on the Presidential Administration's YouTube channel.

The president was asked several questions related to ensuring the country's security after a potential peace agreement.

Zelenskyy emphasized that without strong security guarantees, there will be no end to the war, only a pause.   

"When you don't have NATO, but security guarantees 'like NATO,' some say that maybe that's even better. I don't know, I'm not qualified to judge. I can only judge one thing: the answer to the question of what the United States of America will do if Russia comes back with aggression. What will these security guarantees do? How will it work? How will all the partners act? How, with what force, will they stop Moscow, specifically?" the president outlined the main questions. 

"I think we need an answer to this. It might not be public, but it should be enshrined in some documents," the head of state added."

Eye-witness narrates and analyzes US hatred to United Europe

From Kate McKenna's Substack:

"American Hate for Europe is Nothing New To understand today, we must first understand yesterday

Kate McKenna, Dec 13, 2025

 

In the late 90’s, I worked for AIG Trading, Hank Greenberg, and Kissinger’s secret weapon to support (and ensure) American interests in global capital markets. Working on the 13th floor of a 12-floor building, with biometric scans required to enter the trading floor, was unique back then. Having everything I did and everything I said recorded and monitored was not. I was part of a covert operation to derail the euro before it was even launched.

My partner in crime, and dear friend, was Bernard Connolly - the conduit for American interests - we travelled the globe making sure key partners knew that the euro was a disaster waiting to happen and that Brussels was the lair of the devil. We were the shadowy arm of US power. I was a kid with way too much power playing a game I did not truly understand but absolutely loved. Wisdom comes with age and battle scars.

“My central thesis is that the ERM and the EMU are not only inefficient but also undemocratic: a danger not only to our wealth but to our freedom and ultimately, our peace.” Bernard Connolly’s opening salvo in his book, The Rotten Heart of Europe, positions the euro’s precursor (ERM) and the union itself as existential risks, predicting that rigid currencies would ignite conflicts—foreshadowing the Greek crisis’s social unrest and Brexit’s sovereignty battles.

Enter the “Euro Basket,” a derivative that I created and sold in vast amounts. Not just a tool but a market-manipulating weapon that used options hedging to force spot prices and erode confidence in this bright new European world. A world that we were on a mission to upend, disrupt, and attempt to destroy.

“Like Hitler, like Stalin, the énarque believes that power will always prevail over economics.” In The Rotten Heart of Europe, Bernard lambasts French technocrats (énarques from the elite École Nationale d’Administration) driving EMU, equating their ideological zeal for monetary union with dictators’ disregard for economic reality. This comparison got him branded a heretic in Brussels. Back then, we knew there was a list of people who were enemies to the state, and Bernard was on the Top 10.

This wasn’t rogue trading. It wasn’t rogue behaviour. This was and, I believe, still is America’s playbook - throwing shade on Europe’s “castles in the air” [the euro, according to 1990s US commentary] to protect the dollar’s dominance. I watched with delight as my market machinations worked perfectly - it delighted me to watch the dominoes hit, one by one, exactly as I had planned. Sometimes these schemes of mine worked a little too well - a story for another time.

In case you wondered what side we were on: “For quite a few centuries... it’s been the British nation-state (together with its admirers in France, America, Austria) that has been teaching the world what it means for peoples to live in freedom and decency, while the idea of ‘Europe’ has spawned a succession of tyrannies.” Citing philosopher Yoram Hazony in his book, Bernard indicts pan-Europeanism as a historical incubator of despotism (e.g., the Napoleonic Wars, fascism), contrasting it with Anglo-Saxon liberty—a politically explosive claim that ties the EMU to centuries of conflict. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

The Confrontation – Skeptics’ Prophecies and Hidden Agendas

In the feverish countdown to the euro’s 1999 debut, a relentless barrage of American economists unleashed intellectual artillery that scorched the entire project as a reckless, politically intoxicated fantasy. This wasn’t polite academic quibbling—it was a coordinated demolition job, fired from the ivory towers of Chicago, Harvard, and MIT, armed with the smoking wreckage of the 1992-1993 Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) meltdown. Remember Black Wednesday? On September 16, 1992, George Soros and a swarm of speculators hammered the British pound so brutally that the UK was humiliatingly ejected from the ERM, hemorrhaging billions overnight while Italy soon followed suit. Those crises laid bare the suicidal folly of shackling wildly divergent economies to rigid exchange pegs—precisely the straitjacket the euro was about to impose permanently.

The onslaught drew its lethal precision from Robert Mundell’s Optimal Currency Area theory: for a single currency to survive without imploding, you need lightning-fast labor mobility, flexible wages, and a muscular fiscal federation to cushion regional shocks—Europe failed every test. Workers barely trickled across borders (annual intra-EU migration languished at a pathetic 0.1-0.2%, versus 2-3% in the nimble United States), linguistic and cultural walls turned relocation into exile, and the EU’s puny budget—scraping by at just 1% of GDP—offered no meaningful transfers, unlike America’s federal firepower at 20% of GDP.

Milton Friedman, the free-market titan, lobbed the first grenade in 1997: the euro would be “a big source of problems, not a source of help,” he thundered, warning it would “exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues.” Boom—straight to the heart of sovereignty.

Harvard’s Martin Feldstein went nuclear. In his blistering 1997 Foreign Affairs broadside “EMU and International Conflict,” he prophesied outright catastrophe: a malfunctioning currency union could ignite “war between France and Germany,” turning economic pain into raw interstate hatred. He invoked the American Civil War as a grim precedent—proof that even deep political bonds shatter without fiscal shock absorbers.

Paul Krugman, the sharp-tongued MIT prodigy, fired a chilling caution in his 1998 Fortune essay “The Euro: Beware of What You Wish For.” Without America’s effortless labor flows, he warned, the euro would cruelly “exacerbate inequalities,” trapping regions in endless slumps—like Massachusetts bleeding jobs while the Sun Belt boomed—dooming the periphery to permanent disadvantage.

Rudiger Dornbusch, Krugman’s MIT colleague, delivered the coup de grâce with savage disdain, branding the whole endeavor “Euro fantasies” in his 1996 Foreign Affairs takedown. It was a delusional “panacea,” he sneered, blind to inflation gaps and wage rigidities that would gut southern competitiveness, spawn housing bubbles, and demand either crushing austerity or explosive breakups.

This wasn’t random sniping. It was a synchronized intellectual blitz that I was at the centre of coordinating, feeding, amplifying, and leveraging. Each salvo reinforcing the last, all rooted in the ERM’s humiliating collapse and the glaring OCA failures Europe stubbornly ignored. Their warnings weren’t just prescient—they were prophetic thunder that echoed through the 2010 debt inferno, Greece’s near-expulsion, and the north-south chasm that still festers today. The American economists didn’t just doubt the euro. They damned it as a dangerous delusion—and history has been proving them brutally right ever since.

This was a coordinated attack to protect American interests against the growing European threat.

While the economists rained fire from academia, U.S. government heavyweights delivered the real gut punches—cold, calculated strikes from the corridors of power that exposed America’s raw contempt for Europe’s pretensions to independence.

Madeleine Albright, architect of NATO’s post-Cold War order, drew a brutal red line in 1998: any European defense push must obey her infamous “three Ds”—no de-linking from NATO, no duplication of U.S. capabilities, no discrimination against non-EU allies. Translation? Brussels could dream of autonomy all it wanted, but Washington would tolerate nothing that threatened American command. She dismissed European objections as “hogwash,” making clear: NATO stays America’s instrument, or it stays irrelevant.

Defense Secretary William Cohen piled on with venomous jabs at Europe’s freeloading. In 1997, he publicly humiliated allies for failing pledges made in 1991, snarling that they weren’t “moving ahead quite fast enough” on reforms while slashing budgets to fund Maastricht’s fiscal gymnastics. The message was savage: Europe was gorging on U.S. protection while starving its own defenses—classic parasite behavior.

Treasury Undersecretary Lawrence Summers, the Clinton administration’s economic enforcer, delivered the quiet killer in 1997: “profound skepticism” about the euro’s viability, warning investors would demand a “proven track record” before touching the new currency. It was diplomatic code for: this experiment is built on sand, and we’re not betting America’s financial supremacy on it.

All of this echoed Henry Kissinger’s devastating diagnosis of Europe’s self-inflicted wound—the “hiatus.” As he warned in the late 1990s, handing sovereignty to Brussels had gutted the national resolve that once fueled European power, without creating anything capable of replacing it. The result? A continent that could no longer project global force yet refused to fully submit to U.S. leadership—trapped in limbo, eroding its own relevance while chaining America to its defense.

Europe wasn’t just integrating. In Washington’s eyes, it was committing slow-motion suicide—and expecting the United States to foot the bill while it bled out.

Anybody who thinks Trump’s NSS is shocking and new hasn’t been concentrating for the last few decades, or if you are a newbie to life, hasn’t read enough. American hate for the creation and existence of Europe is nothing new.

On December 4, 2025: Donald Trump’s second-term National Security Strategy dropped like a thermonuclear indictment, demanding Europe cough up 5% of GDP for defense or face U.S. abandonment, declaring neutrality on Russia to “stabilize Eurasia,” and branding the EU a sinking ship of “decline”—regulatory strangulation, migrant floods, and identity erosion dooming NATO’s heartland to become “majority non-European” in decades.

Madeleine Albright’s 1997: “I will insist that our old allies share this burden fairly. That is what NATO is all about.” That is Trump’s “Hague Commitment” verbatim, a fair-share shakedown upgraded from Clinton’s polite prod to existential threat. William Cohen’s 1997 gut-punch—” They weren’t moving ahead quite fast enough”—morphs into the NSS’s savage ledger of “enormous imbalances,” where Europe’s post-Cold War budget slashes (Germany at 1.7% GDP in 1999) now justify troop pullouts. Lawrence Summers’ 1997 whisper of “profound skepticism” about the euro’s “unproven track record” echoes the NSS’s trade-war broadsides against Brussels’ “malign activities,” from carbon tariffs to digital sovereignty—barriers to U.S. dominance, plain and predatory.

Europe’s integration as a self-sabotaging fever dream, hollowing national spines without forging a global fist, leaving the U.S. to babysit a continent too proud to pay its tab. What if, without this relentless U.S. barrage, the euro had welded Europe into a unified colossus— a dollar-killer rivaling America’s orbit? Instead, it birthed a half-baked behemoth, its real convergence a cruel joke. Sadly, and very likely because of people like me who never gave it a chance. We created invisible vulnerabilities that we knew would undermine it precisely as it played out.

Need proof that Trump’s Euro-Hate is nothing new for America? Here:

1990s U.S. Skepticism vs. 2025 NSS: The Unbroken Thread

• Burden-Sharing Demands
  1990s Echo: Madeleine Albright (1997) – “I will insist that our old allies share this burden fairly.”
  2025 NSS Parallel: The “Hague Commitment” – 5% GDP defense spending or face isolation.
  Real-World Vindication: Europe’s average defence spend lingers around 1.7% (2024), handing America massive leverage amid the Ukraine war.

• Freeloading and Reform Delays
  1990s Echo: William Cohen (1997) – “They weren’t moving ahead quite fast enough on reforms.”
  2025 NSS Parallel: Europe “offloaded the cost of its defense onto the American people.”
  Real-World Vindication: Post-1999 budget cuts raised NATO’s non-U.S. share to about 30%, yet America still shoulders roughly 70% of the load.

• Doubts on the Euro’s Viability
  1990s Echo: Lawrence Summers (1997) – “Profound skepticism” about the euro’s “unproven track record.”
  2025 NSS Parallel: EU “decline” driven by stifling regulations and unchecked migration.
  Real-World Vindication: The euro plunged from $1.18 at launch (1999) to $0.82 by 2000, confirming Optimal Currency Area fears.

• Sovereignty Erosion and Identity Loss
  1990s Echo: Henry Kissinger (late 1990s) – Europe’s “hiatus” in sovereignty erodes its global power.
  2025 NSS Parallel: “Loss of identities... a continent unrecognizable in 20 years.”
  Real-World Vindication: 2024 GDP per capita (PPS) disparities – Luxembourg at 241% of the EU average, Bulgaria around 41% – gaps have widened roughly 20% since 1999.

In case all of this has not been clear, Europe, you are sitting squarely in American sights, and it is gunning for you - it might have taken two decades, but your foundations are being chiselled away as I type. I remain as loyal to America as I was back then, faithful to the United Kingdom (don’t think for a second that dear ol’ Maggie & Co wasn’t watching from the wings - BREXIT had equally longstanding roots). But I am also extremely pro-Europe as it is the only security Ukraine can genuinely count on. I believe that America got it wrong, and so did the UK - Europe was never the threat. China was and is. A story for another time, as yes, I was also part of that Kissinger-and-Hank dance.

A Chronological Scan

Cold War Era (1950s-1970s): Prioritizing Division Over Unity

• Henry Kissinger (1973, addressing European complaints):

“There have been complaints in Europe that America is out to divide Europe economically, or to desert Europe militarily, or to bypass Europe.”
Acknowledges U.S. accusations of deliberate economic fragmentation to maintain dominance, revealing early intent to prevent a cohesive bloc rivaling American influence. Notice he never denied it - lol.

Post-Cold War 1990s: Predicting Conflict to Undermine Integration
• Martin Feldstein (1997): “A malfunctioning currency union could lead to civil war.”
Frames EMU as a catalyst for violent interstate war, implying U.S. endorsement of critiques that could sow seeds of division within Europe.
• Henry Kissinger (late 1990s): “The unification of Germany is more important than the development of the European Union, that the fall of the Soviet Union is more important than any European integration.”
Explicitly prioritizes German unity and Soviet collapse over EU progress, signaling U.S. preference for a fragmented Europe over a unified powerhouse.
• Madeleine Albright (1998, “three Ds”): No de-linking from NATO, no duplication of efforts, no discrimination against non-EU allies—dismissing EU autonomy as “hogwash.”
Enforces U.S. veto on independent European defense, ensuring NATO (U.S.-led) keeps the bloc divided and dependent.

2010s: Open Calls for Reversal
• Ted Malloch (2017, Trump nominee for EU ambassador): “The US should... make firm its opposition to a federal Europe by saying a definite No to a single Euro government... European integration is not at all in America’s interest.”
Advocates actively opposing and reversing EU federalism, treating integration as contrary to U.S. goals—explicit intent to encourage disintegration via bilateral deals.

2025 Era: Explicit Threats of Erasure and Exit
• U.S. National Security Strategy (2025): “Europe is on a path to becoming ‘unrecognizable’ because of migration policies that are undermining the national identities of European [nations]... The nations of Europe cannot look to the US for their own security at the same time they affirmatively undermine the security of the US itself.”
Warns of “civilizational erasure” and pressures allies to abandon EU unity, framing integration as self-destructive and hostile to America.
• Leaked U.S. files (2025): Reports of a strategy to persuade Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Poland to leave the EU, following Brexit’s model.
Reveals alleged active U.S. efforts to engineer exits, aiming to splinter the bloc into weaker, U.S.-aligned fragments.

So what now?

If you accept that this latest anti-European American aggression is nothing new, then the decision is relatively straightforward. Time for Europeans to take responsibility for their future if they want it to be big and beautiful. America is wrong. Russia is the threat. China is the threat. Europe has never been the Boogie Man that Kissinger and others have taught you to believe it is. The world is better when the West is united, and that means a strong united front." 

Rubio's insight: Putin doesn't want peace, wants all of Ukraine

From the Hill / Yahoo!News:

"Putin says Russia will take Ukraine by ‘military means’ if talks fail

Sarah Fortinsky, December 17, 2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that the Kremlin is prepared to use “military means” to achieve its goals in Ukraine if diplomatic efforts with the West fail to satisfy Moscow’s demands.

In a speech at an annual meeting of the Defense Ministry Board, Putin said he would prefer to pursue diplomacy but made clear he would not back down from Russia’s initial goal of “liberation of its historical lands,” a phrase used to justify the invasion of Ukraine.

“The goals of the special military operation will certainly be achieved,” Putin said in his speech, according to state media outlet TASS.

“We would prefer to do this and address the root causes of the conflict through diplomacy, but if the opposing country and its foreign patrons refuse to engage in substantive discussions, Russia will achieve the liberation of its historical lands through military means,” he continued.

Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov laid out plans at the meeting for expanding military advances into Ukrainian-controlled territory, The Associated Press reported.

The remarks come as the Trump administration has redoubled its efforts to strike a peace deal in recent weeks. While President Trump insists that Putin wants a peace deal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised doubts about that in an interview with Vanity Fair published this week.

“There are offers on the table right now to basically stop this war at its current lines of contact, OK? Which include substantial parts of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, which they’ve controlled since 2014. And the Russians continue to turn it down,” Rubio told the magazine.

“And so … you do start to wonder, well, maybe what this guy wants is the entire country,” he added...

Asked about Putin’s latest comments, White House spokesperson Anny Kelly said Trump believes the two sides are getting closer to a peace deal.

“Over the past few weeks, the President’s team has made tremendous progress with respect to ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, and as the President stated, he believes we are closer now than we have ever been,” she said in an emailed statement."

Politico: In reality, Russia could not sue Belgium for the assets

From UNIAN, December 17, 2025:

"Russia has backed itself into a legal trap due to Putin's fatal error – media reports

Russia has effectively backed itself into a legal dead end by breaking away from the international legal system. Now, Moscow's chances of suing Europe for the Central Bank's frozen assets are close to zero.

The likelihood of Russia successfully challenging the freezing and potential transfer of Russian Central Bank assets to Ukraine in court is negligible. This is the conclusion reached by lawyers in two independent legal opinions cited by Politico.  

At issue are approximately €210 billion frozen in Europe, primarily in the Belgian financial infrastructure company Euroclear. Russia now has virtually no legal recourse to prevent this. 

Russia has made a fatal mistake

The key reason for the current situation is Russia's deliberate withdrawal from the international legal system. Even before the outbreak of full-scale war, Moscow declared the primacy of national legislation. After the invasion of Ukraine, this process accelerated.  

In March 2022, Russia left the Council of Europe, and in September, it finally withdrew from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. In total, approximately 20 international treaties were terminated. Legal experts emphasize that the risks to Europe from Moscow are now minimal. 

International Courts Are Not an Option

Attempts to appeal to international courts also appear futile. The main reason: Russia itself does not recognize their jurisdiction. 

"A claim filed in the EU Court, the International Court of Justice, or a similar body is doomed from the start, as Russia refuses to recognize these bodies," Covington & Burling concluded. Thus, Moscow simply has no legal leverage. 

Russia's lawsuits are doomed

Legal opinions were prepared by the international firm Covington & Burling and a group of experts affiliated with Stanford University, the Kyiv School of Economics, and the German law firm Bender Harrer Krevet.  

Their conclusion is unequivocal: Russia will be unable to find a court willing to hear a lawsuit against Belgium or Euroclear, much less rule in Moscow's favor."

***

Unfortunately, Belgium insisted on not touching the Russian assets, and several other countries, including my Bulgaria, supported it. This is what fear and greed do. 

Western security guarantees for Ukraine are a deception

From UNIAN:

""We'll be deceived": MP explains what's wrong with the new "security guarantees" for Ukraine 

Yuriy Kobzar, 12/17/25 

When the time comes to put the guarantees into practice, the signatories will disappear again. 

Following the war, Ukraine will not receive better security guarantees than it had under the infamous Budapest Memorandum. In reality, no one will come to Ukraine's defense if Russia violates the agreement again. Roman Kostenko, MP, Secretary of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on National Security and Defense, and ATO/JFO veteran, stated this in an interview with Ukrayinska Pravda. 

He specifically criticized the American proposal to create a demilitarized buffer zone in Donbas. 

"This is complete nonsense. This is a surrender of territory, and the Russians will march there tomorrow. Any agreement with the Russians is an opportunity for them to take back the country without a fight. Tomorrow, those forces that were supposed to die in battle on our soil will march south, to Kyiv, Chernihiv Oblast, and Zaporizhzhia. We are simply giving them the opportunity to seize part of our territory without losses," he stated.

According to Kostenko, the fate of a peace agreement with a "demilitarized" Donbas will be the same as the Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons, receiving security and non-aggression guarantees from all nuclear-armed states, including Russia. 

"These are the highest-level guarantees from nuclear-armed states. No one will give us any higher ones; we'll be deceived. And then, when Russia moves again, we won't even be able to find the person who signed those guarantees. They'll all change now. Others will come, like those in Hungary and the Czech Republic, and say, 'We didn't promise you anything.' There are no guarantees that Russia won't go further," the MP believes.  

Kostanko admits that Ukraine could lose Donbas directly as a result of the fighting, but the problem is that there are no other options. 

"Having given up land once, we'll then give up the south the same way. You'll see. The Kherson region, Mykolaiv, Odesa, and they'll demand Zaporizhia from us. That's a fact. And what are the pretexts? A million. Russia is a country that blew up its own citizens to launch an operation in Chechnya," the politician notes.

Kostenko notes that Russia still has to work hard to take back Donbas by force. In his opinion, if Europe continues to help, the situation for Ukraine won't get any worse. 

"Whether we sign a peace treaty or not, 2026 is a year of war. I'm a man who has lived through dozens of ceasefires on the front lines. The ceasefire begins at 12:00, and at 12:01, the first burst of Russian machine gun fire is already fired in our direction. Here in Kyiv, all the politicians talk about a ceasefire for another week, while we're already fighting on the front lines," the MP recalls his battlefield experience."

Putin calls European leaders "pigs" for no longer licking his boots

From EuroNews:

"‘European swine wanted to feast on Russia's collapse', Putin says bashing Europe

By Sasha Vakulina, 17/12/2025 

  

Russia’s president disparaged European leaders on Wednesday, calling Ukraine’s allies “swine” who wanted “to feast on the collapse of Russia” as he blamed the West for Moscow’s war against Ukraine and threatened to continue waging his full-scale invasion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened on Wednesday that Moscow will seek to extend its “gains” in Ukraine if Kyiv and its Western allies reject the Kremlin's demands. 

Speaking at an annual meeting with top Russian military officers, Putin rejected any possibility of the Kremlin accepting the amended US-led peace plan to put an end to its war against Ukraine.

He said that Moscow “would prefer” to achieve its goals and “eliminate the root causes” by diplomatic means, but “if the opposing side and its foreign patrons refuse to engage in substantive dialogue, Russia will achieve the liberation of its historical lands by military means.”

According to Moscow, the “root causes” include Ukraine's aspirations to join both the EU and NATO as well as NATO's alleged violation of commitments not to expand eastwards, Kyiv's alleged discrimination against ethnic Russians and what Putin calls the "denazification" of Ukraine.

Putin and other Russian officials have used these arguments to justify the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, but failed to provide evidence for any of these allegations.

With Putin still insisting on achieving these false goals, the Kremlin is likely to continue its war against Ukraine.

'European swine wanted to feast on Russia's collapse'

Meanwhile, Putin once again blamed the West for Moscow’s war against Ukraine, saying that it started the war.

Russia started its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and has refused to put an end to it or agree to a ceasefire.

The Russian president specifically blamed the previous US administration of President Joe Biden for “initiating” Russia’s all-out war, adding that Washington’s allies in Europe “joined the actions of the then-US administration” in what Putin described as hoping to profit from the possible collapse of Russia. 

“European swine wanted to feast on the collapse of Russia,” he said, using the uncommon term "podsvinki," a word former President and Putin's Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev previously used as a slur against Western democracies.

"Immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it seemed to us that we would quickly become members of the so-called civilised family of European nations. Today it turns out there is no civilisation there, only complete degradation."

He went on slamming Europe, saying that although he “hopes” that Europe will return to dialogue with Moscow, this scenario is unlikely with “the current European elites".

Putin said this in reference to the unlikely possibility of European leaders restoring dialogue with Russia on Moscow’s terms and siding with Russian demands.

"It is unlikely that this is possible with the current political elites. But in any case, it will be inevitable as we continue to strengthen our position. If not with the current politicians, then when the political elites in Europe change."

Putin also said that the US administration is “demonstrating such readiness”. 

“We are engaged in dialogue with them. I hope the same will happen with Europe.”

Putin threatens Europe and Ukraine, flexing nuclear muscles

Addressing Russia’s top military officers, Putin also praised the Russian military and particularly noted the modernisation of its nuclear arsenal, claiming no other country can compete.

“Ninety-two per cent of our nuclear forces are modernised. No other country, no other nuclear power in the world has this," he said.

"We are developing new weapons and new means of destruction. No one else in the world has them, and they will not appear anytime soon.”

Putin specifically spoke about Russia’s new nuclear-capable intermediate-range Oreshnik ballistic missile that he said will officially enter combat duty this month.

Russia first tested a conventionally armed version of the Oreshnik to strike a Ukrainian factory in Dnipro in November 2024, and Putin has boasted that it is impossible to intercept.

Putin praised Moscow's all-out war against Ukraine, saying thanks to the full-scale invasion, Russia “has regained its full sovereignty and become a sovereign country in every sense of the word.”

“We have regained this status," Putin said. Russia has been a sovereign state since declaring so in June 1990, in the lead-up to the Soviet Union's dissolution in December 1991."

***

More from the Telegraph / Yahoo!News: 

"Putin: European leaders are ‘pigs’ who will be replaced

Joe Barnes, December 17, 2025

Vladimir Putin said European “pigs” supporting Ukraine would lose power as he vowed to continue waging war in spite of Donald Trump’s peace efforts.

The Russian president said his armed forces would “liberate its historical lands by military means” at a meeting of defence officials on Wednesday.

He showed no sign of being willing to compromise on his maximalist goals for the invasion of Ukraine, which sought to end the neighbouring country’s status as an independent state.

Despite this, Putin claimed he was prepared to negotiate a diplomatic end to the war with Mr Trump, but only if it satisfied his core demands to resolve the “root causes of the conflict”...

“Everyone thought they would quickly destroy Russia,” Putin said in his vitriolic speech, accusing Mr Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, of starting the war.

“And the European swine immediately jumped into this effort…in the hope of profiting from the collapse of our country.”

Putin added that “promises made to us” that the Nato military alliance would not expand eastwards had been ignored.

The Russian president also claimed that he would be prepared to enter negotiations with Europe “if not with the current politicians, then when the political elites in Europe are replaced”.

He has repeatedly made demands for the “root causes” of the full-scale invasion to be addressed, which effectively end Kyiv statehood and see Nato roll back its eastwards expansion.

If these demands aren’t met, Putin warned: “The goals of the special military operation will be achieved unconditionally.

“If the adversary and its foreign patrons don’t want to have a substantive discussion, then Russia will liberate its historic lands on the battlefield,” the Russian added, referring to the four Ukrainian states on the frontline he illegally annexed in 2022...

Responding to Putin’s comments, Mr Zelensky wrote on social media: “Today, we again heard signals from Moscow that they are preparing to make next year a year of war. These signals are not only for us. It is crucial that our partners see them, and not only see them but also respond – especially partners in the United States, who often say that Russia wants to end the war.”

American officials continue to insist that Kyiv agrees to withdraw from the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk..."

Lavrov: The US supported Russia's territorial demands

From DonPress, Dec 16, 2025:

"Lavrov stated that the United States agrees to support Russia's territorial claims

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that recent contacts with the United States regarding Ukraine "inspire hope" that the Americans have begun to better understand Russia's position. He made this statement in an interview with Iran's State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, according to Newsweek. 

 

Lavrov said that the United States allegedly agreed that Ukraine would not be a NATO member and also promised to facilitate the transfer of the occupied territories to Russia. 

 

"Now we need to address these root causes, and it's good that the Americans have understood this. They clearly stated that there can be no NATO. And they clearly stated that the lands where Russians have lived for centuries must become Russian again," the Russian Foreign Minister stated.

Among the Kremlin's other demands, he named the "restoration of rights" for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Russian language in Ukraine.

 

Lavrov also stated that Russia "has nothing to discuss" with the current European leadership and that European countries "have ignored all opportunities to participate in resolving" the war in Ukraine."

 

*** 

 

Update: The Telegraph / Yahoo!News also reports this story:

 

"Russia: US has promised us Ukrainian territory

Kieran Kelly, December 16, 2025 

The United States has promised Russia that Ukraine will give up territory as part of a peace settlement, Moscow’s foreign minister has said.

Sergei Lavrov said the Trump administration understood that “territories where Russians have lived for centuries should once again become part of Russia”.

Mr Lavrov was referring to Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Crimea – five Ukrainian territories that were illegally annexed by Vladimir Putin in 2022.

His comments came after US officials held talks with Ukrainian and European leaders in Berlin about a potential peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

The US told Kyiv and its European allies to accept its “platinum” offer of security guarantees in exchange for ceding some territory to Russia.

 

Putin has demanded that Ukraine withdraw from the remainder of the Donbas region, made up of Donetsk and Luhansk, which is not currently under Russian military control.

Moscow has also insisted that Ukraine be barred from joining Nato, a request Mr Lavrov said the US also understood.

“Our position is clear. The root causes of the conflict must be eliminated,” he said on Tuesday. “These include the threats to Russia created by Nato’s eastward expansion toward our borders and by efforts to draw Ukraine into the alliance.”

Mr Lavrov added: “It is good that the US has understood this. They have clearly stated that Nato membership for Ukraine is unacceptable.”

Prior to peace talks in Berlin, Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, said he was ready to give up Ukraine’s ambition to join Nato in exchange for security guarantees from the US and Europe.

The details of Washington’s “platinum” security guarantees offer are not clear, but are thought to resemble Nato’s Article 5 commitment.

This could mean that the US and Europe would provide direct military support to Ukraine in the event of a future Russian invasion.

But US officials also warned that such guarantees would “not be on the table forever”, in an apparent ultimatum to Mr Zelensky to agree to the terms."

Russia agrees to end the war only on its terms

From UNIAN:

"Russia wants to end the war through two means, none of which is peaceful, says diplomat 

Karina Bovsunovskaya, 12/16/25 

The United States must understand that Russia is not prepared for constructive negotiations, as the Kremlin continues to aim to seize Ukraine, either with the help of President Donald Trump or by force. This was stated by Roman Bessmertny, Ukraine's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Republic of Belarus (2010-2011), on the Espreso program.

"Regarding the Kremlin's position, it has two options: seize Ukraine either through Donald Trump's hands or by force, through war. There is no third option, which Trump, and perhaps some others in Europe, dream of..."

The expert believes that enough has already been said in this situation to once again demonstrate that Russia has no option for peace. It has long been clear that Russia will not accept any positions developed within the Kyiv-Brussels-Washington triangle, as Moscow denies any European participation in the negotiations."

Trump secretly pressured EU countries to sabotage the credit to Ukraine

From Ukrainian National News:

""The EU's problem is not Belgium, but Trump": Politico learns of continued Washington pressure on Russian assets

December 17 2025, 08:31 AM • 20914 views

The EU leaders' summit on Thursday will test whether the bloc can hold together or whether US President Donald Trump can divide it. Officials of the Trump administration have been pushing European governments to reject a plan to use 210 billion euros of Russian assets to finance Ukraine.

The EU leaders' summit on Thursday will test whether the bloc can hold together or if US President Donald Trump can divide it, as Trump administration officials continued to push European governments to reject a plan to use 210 billion euros of Russian assets to finance Ukraine, Politico reports...

The disagreements among European governments over using Russian assets, frozen after Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, to finance the country's reconstruction expose a deeper rift on the continent over how to deal with a new world order and unprecedented pressure from the US, the publication indicates.

"They want to make us weak," said a senior EU official familiar with transatlantic relations and preparations for the summit...

The EU "will suffer serious damage for years" if it cannot reach an agreement on financing Ukraine, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in an interview with German television, adding: "And we will show the world that at such a crucial moment in our history, we are unable to unite and act to protect our own political order on this European continent."

Trump administration officials have been pushing European governments – at least those they consider most friendly – to reject a plan to use 210 billion euros of Russian assets to finance Ukraine, four EU officials involved in the discussions reported.

When EU leaders met in Brussels in October, they failed to reach an agreement on the immobilized funds because Belgium opposed it.

"Two months later, it became clear that the EU's problem was not really Belgium, but Trump," the publication states.

The European Commission and the most influential capitals have been negotiating with each other during this period, trying to secure the support of Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, whose support is crucial as his country holds most of the Russian assets frozen in Europe. Discussions intensified over the past week as the EU sought to provide guarantees to Belgium.

But the chances of reaching a deal worsened, not improved, even during Tuesday, a senior official said. "I wanted to cry," they said of the mood at a meeting of EU affairs ministers preparing for the summit in Brussels.

The Belgian government states that its opposition to using Russian assets to finance the loan is due to the need to protect its own taxpayers from liability in case the money ever has to be returned.

For other European countries, it concerns broader geopolitics.

"The American influence campaign, in which Trump administration officials bypassed Brussels and held informal talks with capitals, led to Italy, Bulgaria, Malta, and the Czech Republic joining the group of dissenting countries," the publication writes.

"Failure would be a disaster for the EU's position in the world," European officials said, given the message it would send. Not only to the quarrelsome Trump administration, which in its National Security Strategy published earlier this month stated that it would support Eurosceptic forces, but also to the Kremlin head Vladimir Putin, who openly questions the sovereignty of former Soviet states, the publication writes.

Manfred Weber, the leader of the center-right European People's Party, the largest political family in the EU, gave a striking assessment of the deteriorating state of relations on Tuesday.

"The US is clearly no longer the leader of the free world," he told reporters...

According to a leaked draft peace plan agreed upon by the White House and the Kremlin, Washington wants to use part of Russia's frozen assets to finance US-led reconstruction efforts. Returning frozen assets to Ukraine as part of a reparations loan would allow Ukraine to decide where to direct the money...

Trump is also pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to cede to Russia sections of heavily fortified and strategically important territory in Donbas – territory that the Kremlin does not currently control.

The White House rejected Brussels' accusations of interference.

"Assumptions from anonymous sources who were not present at these discussions should not be taken seriously," said White House Deputy Press Secretary Hannah Kelly. "The sole goal of the United States is to bring peace to this conflict… Both Ukrainians and Russians have clearly expressed their positions on frozen assets, and our only task is to facilitate negotiations that can ultimately lead to an agreement."...

"It is important that Belgium participates" in the agreement, "but we'll see," said Latvian Prime Minister Evika Siliņa on Tuesday, adding: ..."Regarding Belgium, I think I don't want them to become a second Hungary.""

The USA demands from Ukraine to trade land for illusion of peace

From the Obozrevatel:

"Donbas in exchange for the illusion of peace or capitulation: what is actually being demanded of Ukraine and will the "Trump plan" survive a clash with the Kremlin? Interview with Ohryzko 

Roman Pryadun, December 16, 2025 

Exclusive interview for OBOZ.UA with Volodymir Ohryzko, former Ukrainian Foreign Minister. 

– It seems the peace talks have devolved into a kind of tug-of-war between the Americans and Ukrainians, without Russia's participation. This was confirmed by the two-day meeting in Berlin that concluded yesterday. As a result, there was no progress on the most problematic issues: territories and security guarantees. The Americans have made no concessions on their proposals. In your opinion, are the United States simply trying to continue to push through the plan initially proposed to Ukraine, or is there some search for compromise?

In reality, Russian-Ukrainian negotiations are currently taking place through Trump, where he's speaking from Putin's perspective and is essentially trying to achieve the goals the dictator outlined in his plan, which the US president then presented as supposedly American. Therefore, in my opinion, we shouldn't look at all this back-and-forth. We need to look at the essence of the matter. Which is that Trump continues to side with the Kremlin. He refuses to see the essence of this war, which is aggression.  

Frankly, I don't see any deadlines right now, not even before the end of the year or before Christmas. It's all, you know, diplomatic... I don't want to use the word "chatter," but that's the gist of it. This whole story reminds me of a way for the Americans to close the issue as quickly as possible, satisfy Putin, and call it a day. So I don't see any prospects. And when they tell us the war is about to end, just a little bit more, just ten more meters, and that's it—it's all a grandstanding game. That's not what's really happening. Because it's obvious we can't agree to the demands Moscow is putting forward through Trump, who, as you can see, has once again started accusing Zelensky of not being a democrat, of clinging to power, of needing elections. Please tell me why Trump doesn't care that Belarus hasn't had elections for a quarter of a century? And yet sanctions are being lifted, particularly against Belaruskali.

And then suddenly we've had a year without elections because there's a war going on and martial law is in effect. And this, you see, has become Trump's number one topic. He can't live without it. He wakes up in the morning and thinks: how can it be that Ukraine hasn't had an election for a whole year? This isn't Trump's topic. This is Putin's topic, which he planted in Trump's head, and now Trump is simply doing what Putin wants. Let's finally look at this with a completely sober mind.

 

– Is a compromise possible between Donald Trump's plan and Ukraine's position? Is this compromise truly being sought, or is pressure simply continuing on Volodymyr Zelenskyy? 

 

This is pressure. It's perfectly obvious here, in my opinion. All these "until tomorrow," "until the day after tomorrow," all these deadlines—all these classic psychological pressure. But right now, I think we're pursuing a fairly reasonable approach. You want elections? No problem. We want elections too; we're a democratic country. But how are we going to hold elections, and how are the service members on the front lines supposed to participate? How are they supposed to vote? Send ballots to territorial election commissions via drones? That's insane. And how are we going to hold elections for those who were forced to flee Russian aggression and are now in Europe? We don't have the physical capacity to organize that...

 

– The same applies to the security guarantees that we are promised, but the American formula looks like this: you first agree to the concessions that we offer, and only then will we consider security guarantees.

 

It's a good story, but certainly not for us. We've agreed to similar things before. Under American pressure, when the issue was depriving Ukraine of nuclear weapons. We didn't give them up voluntarily. We need to understand this clearly and distinctly. We were forced. And now we bear the consequences. This bitter experience has cost us millions of victims, thousands upon thousands of deaths. So we have experience with coercion. And I think we no longer have the moral, political, or any other right to repeat such things.  

What is security? It's when the US pushes a law through Congress that clearly states: if Russia attacks again, the US military will enter the war. Period. That's when we can talk about something. Everything else is just talk, and talk about talk.

– Regarding Donbas, the Americans proposed what they see as a compromise: a buffer zone, an economic zone. The Ukrainian army withdraws from the territories it currently controls, and the Russian army does not enter these territories. How do you assess this option? Is it acceptable and is it even feasible? Because, beyond the names, no one understands what tools could be used to achieve this.

That's exactly what we're talking about. The Americans are throwing around slogans right now. "Buffer zone, Russians don't invade." But the Russians will find three and a half thousand excuses to invade on the second day. We must be realistic and understand that all of this is utter nonsense. Our negotiators are right: if we retreat forty kilometers, then Russia must retreat at least forty, and preferably one hundred and forty, because it is the aggressor. But the Americans don't even think about that. Therefore, I repeat once again: the current American position is actually the Russian position, which they are trying to implement. We must speak about this clearly and distinctly. Although, of course, such things cannot be said officially.  

We will thank the Americans for their "leadership" in the peace settlement, but at the same time, we soberly understand that we absolutely do not need a Trojan horse of Russia. And we must stand our ground, alongside the Europeans, proving to Trump personally that he is, in fact, openly and blatantly playing into Russia's hands. 

– Do Americans even understand Putin's vision for Ukraine, that is, his actual goals? Because, for example, German Chancellor Merz clearly drew a historical parallel: the Sudetenland was once given to Hitler, and he didn't stop there. Today, if Putin were given Donbas, it would be exactly the same story.

I think the current American administration simply isn't thinking that far. They don't even ask themselves such questions. Because for them, the main issue is how to quickly restore business opportunities in Russia. And, crucially, not just American business, but specific businesses that are close to the Trump family or directly related. 

And this, in my opinion, is the key to understanding this entire policy. Information is already emerging that people in Trump's inner circle are lobbying for the fastest possible conclusion of all these processes, because at the same time, agreements are being made with the Russians regarding future billions in profits. This is the answer to the question of why Trump's policy is as it is...

This policy is destroying unity within the United States, and we're already seeing it. On the other hand, it's making America look ridiculous on the international stage. Just look at the new national security concept. Republicans are clutching their heads, unable to comprehend where Trump is heading with all this. And all this is for the sake of rebuilding his own business as quickly as possible. For Trump, business is the meaning of life, it's the main focus. He essentially doesn't care about anything else. Hence his approach.

– Regarding the concessions that are being much discussed now and that Ukraine supposedly might accept, one of them is abandoning NATO. The Ukrainian President says: give us real security guarantees, not declarative ones, but real ones, and then perhaps we'll be ready to talk about abandoning NATO.

The situation here is quite clear. Because of America's position, Hungary's, and perhaps one or two other countries', Ukraine's accession to NATO is not realistic today. We've seen how long it took for Sweden and Finland to join, even though they, unlike Ukraine, weren't at war. How long Turkey and Hungary blocked this process, concocting various pretexts. Now imagine what will happen to Ukraine if it follows the same "classic" path.  

Secondly, all countries joining NATO are actually counting on guarantees from the United States of America. Let's be honest. No one is counting on guarantees from, say, Luxembourg or Belgium. No offense, but most Alliance countries don't have the military capabilities to actually deter an aggressor. The United States, Great Britain, and France, as nuclear powers, have such capabilities. The rest have certain conventional forces, but we see that for now they are more theoretical than practical. Therefore, in fact, we are talking specifically about guarantees from the United States. But let's imagine that Congress passed a law, Trump signed it, and we supposedly received these guarantees. I want to recall another law that Trump personally signed in 2017. It clearly stated that the United States would never recognize the occupation of Crimea and part of Donbas. Less than ten years have passed, and Trump simply "ignores" this law, lobbying for the de facto recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. Where's the guarantee that tomorrow he won't say, "I signed the law, but right now we don't have the capacity. The Pentagon says we have no weapons, no forces, no resources. We've already helped you." We don't need that kind of guarantee. We need a guarantee of immediate entry into the war in the event of further Russian aggression.

If there's no such guarantee, all the others are just words. Then our main guarantee is the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Defense Forces, and real, practical assistance from Europeans. And, thank God, today there are at least a dozen countries in Europe that openly say, "We will fight if necessary." It's precisely with such countries that agreements must be concluded. Not formal "security papers," but real agreements that can form the basis of a new format for European security. 

 

Because NATO, as we see, is currently limping along. The US, represented by Trump, is effectively saying that it doesn't really need NATO. Therefore, the issue of guarantees is increasingly shifting, in my opinion, to the European sphere...

– It's not at all a given that this plan will work, and then we'll have to take a different path to achieve peace in Ukraine and end Russian aggression. First, what path do you think is possible in this case? And second, Trump is very fond of shifting responsibility for his mistakes onto others. If this plan fails, who will he shift the blame to? Will it be Ukraine? Because it seems he's not prepared to do that with Putin. What could be the consequences?

The path is actually very simple and very tough. It's our new drones, our long-range missiles, our ballistic missiles. It's the destruction of oil and gas infrastructure inside Russia. It's the destruction of military facilities on Russian territory to a depth of up to a thousand kilometers, maybe even more. And it's strengthening European sanctions against Russia. These are the paths we have left. We simply have no other. Because Trump-style diplomacy is unacceptable to us. This is diplomacy that is truly entirely in line with Putin's wishes. And, in fact, this, I believe, will be the key point. 

And who will Trump shift the blame to? It's clear who. Ukraine and Europe. Look at what Russian propaganda is broadcasting today. Europe is to blame for everything. And Trump is a good guy. He sees everything correctly, he strives for cooperation between the US and Russia, he wants to invite Russia either to some "Group of Five" or to replace the "Group of Seven" with it.

So, everything's great. And who's the bad guys? The Europeans are bad, especially the British, French, and Germans. And there's no need to even mention the Ukrainians. That's the logic both Trump and Putin adhere to. And in this, I think, they're absolutely united.

– The majority of Americans continue to support military support for Ukraine despite the actions of the Donald Trump administration... Why did Trump ignore American opinion?   

...The fact that most Americans support Ukraine speaks to a simple fact: they understand who the aggressor is and who the victim is. But when Trump sees the prospect of yet more billions of dollars in profit, the opinions of ordinary Americans regarding Ukraine become secondary to him. When he smells big money, that's his primary policy vector. He won't deviate from it. He won't be able to run again, so this is his last chance to "think about his great-grandchildren," if that's what he's thinking about, and make as much money as possible. Everything else is secondary... 

— In your opinion, how will the situation with the peace talks and this Trump plan develop? Will it be that same "football" where the Americans throw out more offers to Ukraine, we rebuff them, and Russia watches as the US essentially destroys its relations with Ukraine and Europe? 

I think this ping-pong, as you aptly put it, will continue. So far, to no avail. From this, we must draw a simple conclusion: our real guarantee of security is the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Defense Forces, and the strategic alliance with Europe. As one highly respected Ukrainian military officer said, if we reduce the number of Russian invaders by a thousand or more every day, then at some point this bloody bandit will simply have no one left to cover the holes. Therefore, don't believe the fantastical stories about the war ending tomorrow or the day after. Unfortunately, that won't happen."