miércoles, 21 de mayo de 2025

 

COLD PEACE

The negotiations that Trump set in motion on the war in Ukraine would not be about peace but a bailout for Kiev. If Moscow is convinced of this, what would a credible peace look like?

 

By Sidney Hey

By now there is no doubt that Trump's promise to stop the war in Ukraine in less than 24 hours has failed. But beyond considering this as yet another broken promise[1] from a liar and without considering for a moment his secret meddling in the conflict, it is a fact that informs that Washington is no longer in total control of the geopolitical strings, how is this graphed?

The emergence of a coalition of European ‘willingness’[2] to continue hostilities is one such sign. Keir Starmer and Emanuel Macron have cared little for Trump's overtures and to make this clear, they have saved their speeches and got down to work by continuing their support for the truce violations agreed between 8-10 May and which continue to this day. On top of this, we see how their budget allocations and those of all NATO members are rising to fund defence, with Poland (a major anti-Russian actor) already spending 4% of its BIP[3] in this area. Five years from now these ‘willing’ leaders intend to create a pan-European army that will be heavily financed and possibly led by Germany, how should Moscow take this?

If the West (meaning Washington and the EU) were really interested in peace, they would not have boycotted the March 2022[4] talks at an early stage, they would not have instigated Kiev to continue the war and even less, to join NATO with the undeniable intention of cornering the Russian Federation. Nor should we forget that it was Trump himself in his 45th administration who imposed sanctions on Moscow, provided military and intelligence assistance to Kiev and gave it the tools to murder the people of Donbass. With these precedents it is very clear that they never sought peace and if their protégé Fuhrer Zelensky has asked for negotiations in Istanbul with Putin it is for some desperate stratagem and nothing more.

For the time being, talks began in Istanbul on Friday 16 May, but without the presence of any of the leaders involved. Although Volodomyr Zelensky did travel with his entourage[5], Vladimir Putin did not attend for the simple reason that - among others - he considers Kiev's ‘Führer’ not to be legitimised to negotiate. That is why he sent an entourage of second-tier officials. This unleashed a fit of hysteria in the Ukrainian leader, who had no choice but to wait outside the room where the commissions met.  The only positive outcome of the meeting was the agreement to exchange a thousand prisoners on each side. If we were talking about another country that was not a power like Russia, these negotiations would not exist and the conditions would be imposed on the loser by force. The difference here is that Zelensky's neo-Nazi regime is a protégé of the West and that is the reason for all this scenography.

In fact, it is the Russian Federation that has won the victory on the battlefields, and that is non-negotiable for Moscow. If it were not for the material cooperation of the US and its Atlanticist lackeys (especially Britain and France), the UAF would no longer exist and today it would simply not even have ammunition for its rifles. In view of this, anyone should ask themselves why they should negotiate with the loser?

Likewise, although Donald Trump made peace negotiations one of the pillars of his campaign, there is no doubt that he is a continuation (in his own style) of the Atlanticist plans, since if he cannot impose his criteria on Vladimir Putin, he has threatened to increase sanctions to catastrophic levels. Under these parameters it is clear that there can be no talk of negotiation but rather of extortion, and it is clear that Moscow will not allow this. 

If international organisations such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court really worked, a multinational force with a public prosecutor would have raided the ‘Mariyinsky’ government palace in Kiev more than a month ago to arrest Zelensky and his collaborators... but this is not happening because of the well-known political interference and dirty deals that intoxicate their functions.

Peace is certainly not business. If there is anyone who is fattening the bank accounts of the arms industry in the West and the politicians who promote them, it is Volodomyr Zelensky and his cronies. You see, without the Ashkenazi ‘Fuhrer’ in Kiev, how would they place and test their products? Moreover, for Zelensky the end of the war would simply be a death sentence and a process of disintegration of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi structure. For his corrupt officials, those fat 100 million dollars cheques that Zelensky used to bring back from his visits to Washington would no longer arrive. At the same time it would mean cutting off the fabulous business deals that many European and US arms contractors, and many EU political officials are involved, have been profiting from. The latter would also expose to the light of day the huge financial dealings that have been taking place within NATO, especially those detected within the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA)[6] with the black sales of ammunition and drones for money laundering purposes.

As can be seen, the stakes are high, although the values differ depending on which side you look at it. From the West as we see it, and specifically from Washington and Brussels, the end of the war would mean (in addition to all this scandal) losing the geopolitical arm wrestling with Russia, while for Moscow it would simply be the recognition of respect for its sovereignty and strategic security in the face of the already exposed plans of the Atlantic organisation and its supporters in Washington to try to undermine the Federation regardless of the means to do so.

Donald Trump should know that his Russian counterpart will not bend to such tactics. Even in Washington, they have known this before. Seeking a direct confrontation against the Russian Federation would be suicidal and that is why they have been implementing hybrid warfare tactics such as the use of economic sanctions (that Trump threatens to aggravate), terrorism, piracy and psychological warfare through the media and despite this, they have not achieved their goals. As part of this harassment, the recurrent actions of ‘Estonian pirates’[7] - a clear euphemism - against ships bound for Russian ports in the Baltic with the support of NATO units (mainly Polish) are not exactly supportive of Trump's vaunted good auspices. While the US president is not directly responsible for these actions, no one would believe that with his inauguration he is not aware of them and apparently does nothing to prevent them. Putin might well question him: What are you playing at, Donald?

In the light of this picture, trust is nowhere to be seen and Donald Trump's blunders are helping to deepen the situation. Either NATO's support for the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev is stopped as an immovable factor in the equation, or there will be no other way than an icy peace. 

 

 



No hay comentarios.:

Publicar un comentario