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.
[1] TIMES OF INDIA. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/putin-calls-donald-trumps-proposal-to-halve-defence-spending-a-good-proposal-us-cuts-50-we-cut-50/amp_articleshow/118543108.cms
[3] According data that can see in this
map: https://strategic-culture.su/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/brief229_map.jpg
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario