It is most likely a trap designed to ensure that Zelensky and the Europeans reject the so-called “peace proposals,” thereby allowing the Americans to publicly side with the Russians and fracture Europe from within—the real Russo-American objective.
So far, everything has unfolded exactly according to a pre-announced script
Let’s recap. On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, disregarding every European overture, justifying the attack with flimsy claims of phantom biological labs near its borders, imminent NATO membership (which at the time was not under discussion), or the defense of Donbass citizens. Moscow spoke of 14,000 victims, knowing full well that more than 6,000 were loyalists. In fact, over the previous two years the number had been just seventy-seven, and de-escalation was already underway.
As early as December 2021, Indian, Chinese, and Italian intelligence journals had predicted the invasion, coordinated between Putin and Biden.
Unbelievable? Not really. In July 2021, the EU and Kyiv had signed an agreement granting Europe access to Donbass’s rare minerals in exchange for pacification in the region.
Only weeks earlier, Putin and Biden had met behind closed doors. Immediately after the agreement, preparations for the invasion began.
Meanwhile, Russia was already targeting European interests
in the Sahel (since 2020) and in Cyrenaica (since at least 2015). It was a reliable pawn. And it never stopped using weaponry with major American components, California-based missile launch programs, and U.S.-made warplanes. To this day, Moscow still supplies 12% of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear weapons.
Russia was convinced it would swallow Ukraine whole
It went straight for Kyiv, even parachuting soldiers in full parade uniform.
Biden offered Zelensky evacuation—since a pro-Russian coup in Kyiv was supposed to be part of the June deal—but Zelensky refused. With British Javelins, the Ukrainians won the Battle of Kyiv, routing the so-called “second army in the world.” The Russians then refocused on the Donbass where, after an initial spectacular advance, they were repeatedly beaten back.
They were decisively defeated in a strategic battle for Odessa and forced to retreat.
The Ukrainians then launched a massive counteroffensive
But the Americans openly boasted of having cut off satellite support and of providing the Russians with the intelligence needed to avoid defeat.
In effect, they sided directly with Moscow.
When the risk of a Russian collapse had passed, Washington re-imposed limits: forbidding Kyiv from using long-range missiles and heavily restricting medium-range ones. To survive, Ukraine began mass-producing cheap drones.
That Washington did not want Kyiv to win the war was clear to everyone—except the distracted and the blind. And this was not Trump, but the Biden administration.
Only during the turmoil of the U.S. presidential transition, thanks largely to Germany’s stance, did the outgoing administration finally allow Ukraine to strike inside Russia.
In 2025
Trump’s first move was to publicly humiliate Zelensky, his second to show contempt for Europe. His third was to welcome Putin as a great statesman, practically acting as his valet. But these missteps stem from a mix of excessive theatrics and the onset of senile decline.
Now comes the fourth move, which may—or may not—achieve the intended goal: the partition of Ukraine and the creation of a new Iron Curtain across Europe.
In other words, a “Yalta 2.0” of macroregional rather than global scale, which once sounded laughable to media-conditioned audiences when I first mentioned it three and a half years ago—yet today it is openly promoted by Russians, Americans, and their various enablers.
I have always said that if Russia kept failing on the battlefield and missing its objectives, the Americans would step in to hand them over.
Every time Russia teeters on the brink, it is the U.S. that saves it.
And Russia is indeed on the brink
Apparently not, but only because propaganda—on both sides—finds it useful to claim victory is within reach.
But the reality is different: if it does not break through in Donbass (or if Donbass is not gifted to it) by late autumn, Russia risks outright capitulation.
Moscow’s advances exist only in propaganda
In a year, it gained just 20 kilometers of depth into nothingness, at prohibitive costs, and lost nearly every village it had initially captured—each time hyped as a “decisive strategic hub,” only to be held for 48 hours at most. This is not propaganda but simple, constant verification of the frontlines via satellite—available to anyone.
Driven out of Tartus to the point of becoming a client of Al-Jolani, unable to appear on the Black Sea without losing ships, Moscow has also lost the Caucasus to a recent Turkish-American agreement. The nearby Eurasian space is now divided among China, the U.S., and Europe. Russia depends entirely on China, which buys its resources at predatory prices. Vladivostok is already effectively Chinese. It cannot exit a war economy without Chinese and Western capital.
Even if handed Donbass—the region it has failed to seize in eleven years—Moscow has already lost the war in substance. Its only victories lie in the theater of spectacle.
Will we really gift it that “victory,” a new Iron Curtain engineered by Washington?
After some formal posturing and rhetorical resistance, with diplomatic nuance to yield while saving face, that may well be the outcome.
What is certain is that Donbass’s fate will be decided by the American master, not the Russian servant—who has proven so incompetent he may yet fail regardless.
We may therefore hand it over, but it is not inevitable. For while Russia dominates the spectacle and Europeans often appear absent, in substance—through legal work on treaties, quantum research, armament, multilateral agreements with Asia and Africa, AI production, and steps toward integration—Europe is neither stagnant nor slow anymore.
The real question is whether Europeans will allow Washington to impose Ukrainian capitulation (for that is what Moscow’s “peace proposals” amount to): to abandon a still-unconquered people in exchange for consolidating a European military force for a new cold war. Or whether Europe is willing to push further, and accept the challenge now—a challenge that is above all moral—by refusing to force into surrender those who have not been defeated.
We shall see.
What matters, as I have said since day one
is that if Ukraine pays with its own flesh, the true target is not Ukraine itself. The real objective—independent of sympathies or antipathies—has always been the containment of Europe by the United States, using their eternal proxies and jailers, the Russians. Propaganda paints them as powerful, but in reality they have been drastically diminished.
We will also see what tools Trump might use to force us to follow his line—because, senile or not, he must reckon with the fact that U.S. reindustrialization itself depends heavily on Europe.
Will this film have a predictable ending?
We will soon find out.
So far, the script has been followed point by point.
The only truly poor performer has been Russia—yet it excels at advertising itself and selling smoke.
