THREE YEARS LATER

In the cold days of February, three years after Russia's military invasion of Ukraine, the prospect of an end to the devastating and bloody war appeared to be on the horizon. The catalyst for peace in Ukraine was the return to office of US President Donald Trump. The only question remaining was under what terms a possible peace would be established—whether it would signify merely a cessation of hostilities or a comprehensive resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

Trump Pursues a "Deal"

Donald Trump, who had long before his return to the White House assured everyone of his ability to bring about a swift conclusion to the war, initiated the 'Ukrainian dialogue' by establishing communication with Moscow. On February 12, Trump held a telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A few days later, on February 18, the first round of negotiations at the level of foreign ministers and presidential aides from the United States and Russia took place in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. The discussions focused not only on the possibility of ending the Russian-Ukrainian war but also on normalising relations between Washington and Moscow. Relations that had virtually collapsed in the three years since the war began. In this context, the resumption of direct dialogue with the United States was undoubtedly a foreign policy success for Russia, as the talks in Riyadh signified that Russia had overcome its near-total isolation from the West.

Following the meeting, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that both sides agreed to restore staffing levels at the US and Russian embassies, establish a high-level group to support peace negotiations regarding Ukraine, and explore the possibility of closer relations and economic cooperation. Thus, Washington and Moscow aimed to restore not only political dialogue but also trade and economic ties. Regarding the topic of Ukraine, Donald Trump, commenting on the outcome of the discussions, remarked that the USA and Russia were close to reaching an agreement to end the war.

Another step indicative of the new American approach to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict was the introduction of a resolution that did not link conflict resolution to the condemnation of Russia as the aggressor or even to the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The resolution, which called for an immediate end to the conflict and the establishment of lasting peace, was adopted by the UN Security Council, with an interesting voting pattern. Alongside the US, the resolution was supported by Russia and China, while the other two permanent members of the Security Council, US allies France and the UK, abstained from voting. Meanwhile, two European countries that unsuccessfully attempted to amend the resolution text to condemn Russia and support Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty did not veto the resolution submitted by the United States.

In the context of the evidently warming dialogue between Washington and Moscow, it is noteworthy that Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the document, initiated by the US side, as 'balanced,' while Russia's UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya praised the resolution. The reactions of British Permanent Representative Barbara Woodward, who stressed the need to 'punish aggression,' and French Permanent Representative Nicolas de Rivière, who criticised the resolution for encouraging the 'law of the jungle' in reference to Russia's military actions against Ukraine, were also significant.

Meanwhile, the US itself made no secret of its satisfaction. According to Dorothy Shea, Acting US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, 'this resolution sets us on the path to peace; it is a first but crucial step that we should all take pride in.' Secretary Rubio explained Washington’s position of refusing to condemn Russia’s actions since Trump’s return to the White House by stating that conflict resolution does not favour 'the adoption in the UN of anything hostile to either side.'

Finally, another important US-Russian contact was the meeting of diplomatic delegations from both countries in Istanbul on February 27. At the meeting, one of the key issues discussed was the resumption of normal operations by the US and Russian embassies in Moscow and Washington, DC, respectively.

Meanwhile, according to statements from both capitals, preparations are underway for a face-to-face meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin. This is yet another significant development, indicating that the new US administration is moving away from the stance on the Russian-Ukrainian war maintained during Joe Biden's presidency. Clearly, this shift is not to the liking of Ukraine or the leading European states, which, at least for now, find themselves on the sidelines of the negotiation process where, in fact, the future of the European continent itself is being determined.

The Decline of Europe

Winston Churchill, recalling his feelings at the Tehran Conference in 1943 when he sat alongside Soviet and US leaders Joseph Stalin and Franklin Roosevelt, wrote: "On one side of me, cross-legged, sat a huge Russian bear, on the other - a huge American buffalo. And between them sat a poor little English donkey..."

Churchill's imaginative comparison, in which Britain appears as a 'donkey,' could largely be applied to the whole of Old Europe. The end of the Second World War marked the conclusion of several centuries of European powers’ dominance on the world stage.

Today, judging by how US and Russian Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are negotiating an end to the Russian-Ukrainian war, Europe resembles not a 'donkey' or some other harmless mammal but rather a real bug. They do not even consider it necessary to consult Europe on ending the worst war on the European continent since the end of the Second World War. Not only in Russia but also in the United States, considered an ally of the EU. It will be extremely challenging to argue otherwise—that Europe still commands respect and holds value in global affairs. Just as it would be difficult to refute the fact that European policymakers bear considerable responsibility for the terrible disaster that has befallen Ukraine and its people.

After all, it was they, the leaders of Europe, who lured Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic sphere in every conceivable way, promising imminent accession to the EU and NATO. For many years, Ukraine lived with illusions of integration into Euro-Atlantic structures, instilled by the liberal-globalist West, including Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London, and other European centres. But if the West did not intend to protect Ukraine, why did it nurture these illusions so persistently? Why did it push Ukraine into an inevitable conflict with Russia? Why did the West even allow Ukraine to face military aggression? And having permitted it, why did it not stand by Ukraine on the battlefield?

If the West had been honest and principled, it would have deployed its military forces into Ukraine the very next day after Russian troops invaded, closed Ukrainian skies, and taken a range of other steps designed to protect what was essentially an allied country, its sovereignty, and territorial integrity. But the West initially had no intention of doing so. Even in the matter of supplying arms to Ukraine, the leading EU countries, along with Biden’s America, demonstrated, in effect, betrayal towards Kiev. All the weapons needed to counter the Russian invasion were provided either late, in limited quantities, or not at all.

Scared of Russia’s nuclear blackmail? Knowing full well that it was nothing but blackmail... Of course not. Western societies, accustomed to comfort and a hedonistic lifestyle, simply did not want to get involved in a foreign war and spill their blood in it. Especially because the elites of these societies are preoccupied with much more pressing issues, such as transgender rights, same-sex marriage, and other liberal trivialities, rather than the fate of Ukraine’s independence and existence.

But what now?

The difference between the policies of the current and previous White House administrations should not come as a surprise. After all, the strategic goal of the United States has not changed—to preserve and strengthen its global leadership. It is just that, unlike the liberal-globalist segment of the American elite behind the Biden administration, the national-globalist American elite, which once again elevated Trump to power in the United States, seeks to achieve it not through hypocritical references to democratic values but by advancing its great-power plans. In the spirit, so to speak, of the most basic imperialism. What happens to Ukraine, which trusts in the West, is not particularly important for Washington. Nor does it matter to Trump what Europe thinks."

Trump, a national conservative and advocate of traditional values, is ready to strike a deal on Ukraine with Russian leader Putin, who positions himself as an opponent of morally degenerated Europe, rather than aligning with the presidents and prime ministers of the latter. By the way, they have clearly become diminished over the last couple of decades. The fact that such political giants as Churchill and de Gaulle, Brandt and Thatcher, Mitterrand and Kohl have been replaced by politicians of Macron’s rank only confirms the point made by French writer Maurice Druon: “In tragic times, history raises great men to the crest; but the tragedies themselves are the work of mediocrities.”

Thus, it is not surprising that Trump does not even consider it necessary to call Europe to negotiate an end to Russia’s war with Ukraine. At the same time, he holds Europe and the EU accountable for military support to Ukraine. Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth confirmed at the Munich Security Conference that Europe should provide support for Kiev. This means that the USA is unwilling to act as a guarantor of Ukraine’s security, contrary to Ukraine’s wishes.

Meanwhile, it remains unclear what the exact terms of the peace in Ukraine being prepared by the United States and Russia will be. Will this peace be a temporary truce based solely on a ceasefire, or a comprehensive solution to the conflict? A conflict that is not only a Russian-Ukrainian bloody struggle but is, in fact, part of a deeper confrontation between Russia and the West? Finally, what is left for Ukraine itself to secure amidst this maelstrom of big geopolitics unfolding around it?

The Fate of Ukraine

It is evident that America under Trump is not going to spend any money on Ukraine, not even the military and technical aid that the Biden administration sometimes generously provided. Moreover, Trump has openly set his sights on Ukraine’s natural resources, making no secret of his intention to compensate in this manner for all US expenditures on military support for Kiev. Washington insists that Ukraine hand over half of the revenues from its rare earth metals, oil, and, in Trump’s words, “whatever we can get.” Ukraine, however, according to statements by President  Zelensky, Verkhovna Rada speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk, and other leaders, demands concrete security guarantees in exchange for US access to its resources. That is why the conclusion of the “deal” is being delayed, causing clear dissatisfaction in Washington. Trump has even expressed the opinion that Zelensky’s resignation is necessary, which coincides with Russia’s position denying the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian president and, consequently, the possibility of signing a peace deal with Moscow.

Thus, Ukraine is destined for strategic defeat through the efforts of the West and Russia. Today, at last, it is being told the truth: no NATO membership is foreseen, and it can never even dream of regaining its territories lost during the years of war. But at the same time, no one bothers to account for the suffering and human losses Ukraine was forced to endure. Why was it subjected to such a cruel blow?

Ukraine, with its abundant natural resources, substantial industrial potential that survived even after the collapse of the USSR, and, finally, its significant human resources and intellectual potential, had every chance to become one of the most powerful nation-states in Europe. But for this, it did not need to become a pawn in the hands of the West. Rejecting Russian diktat and refusing to participate in the CSTO and other interstate structures led by the Russian Federation should not have meant that Ukraine agreed to become a tool for realising the interests of Euro-Atlanticism. However, Ukraine’s political elite made precisely such a historically erroneous choice. On the one hand, by believing the worthless promises of the West, and on the other hand, by hoping that Russia would not attack.

That is why what happened occurred. The geopolitical games of the West and Russia led to a monstrous war, for which the people of Ukraine continue to pay a heavy price. Three years after the war began, Washington and Moscow are attempting to negotiate new rules of the game on the European continent, while pitiable Europe is pleading with 'Uncle Sam' to allow it to join the negotiating table. The grand bargaining for Ukraine and its wealth has begun.

Ukraine, which has endured the terrible war imposed upon it, is incapable of preventing the commencement of bargaining where its future fate is at stake. But it is capable of disrupting it if this bargaining disregards its sovereignty and territorial integrity. For no matter what the globalist and great-power centres plan, the Ukrainian people will have the final say. A nation that has been sacrificed to slaughter by both friends and foes alike but has not lost its dignity, honour, the will to national-state existence, and, ultimately, to the triumph of justice.