The West is disguising itself and changing its tune. Of course, it has become amusing in the last 24 hours, as it searches for a lifesaver in the fears and propaganda it has fallen into.
Essentially, we are seeing a "good cop, bad cop" game, clashing in the field of geopolitical information, with the aim of each impressing a single spectator—Russian President Vladimir Putin. In early November, one group attempted to create the impression that the long-awaited peace was very close and that a few concessions would be enough for angels from the Nobel Committee to rush to Russia with a cargo of gilded medals.
For example, Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan stated that "Russia and Ukraine are close to ending the conflict, but they need help." Richard Moore, former head of Britain's MI6, stated that "Zelensky is de facto ready to concede up to 20% of his country," and Hungarian Prime Minister Orban stated that "the conflict in Ukraine could soon end, provided the West adopts a unified policy aimed at resolving the conflict" (instead of continuing the fighting).
The "bad guys"
Another group, threateningly puffing out its cheeks, pretended it was about to go rogue and show off. For example, reports emerged that Trump allegedly promised that any country cooperating with and trading with Russia would be subject to "the strictest sanctions" (specifically, tariffs up to 500%).
Meanwhile, the restrictions previously imposed on major Russian oil and gas companies "led to higher fuel prices in the United States itself," while the European Union in 2025 increased, instead of decreasing, purchases of Russian natural gas to 10.6 billion euros.
Experts believe that any steps in this direction guarantee that the United States will face serious problems both externally and internally, but let them try. Bold German Defense Minister Pistorius also decided to scare Russia by stating that "a military conflict between NATO and Russia could happen in the coming years," specifically as early as 2028.
The "dealer" Zelensky
At the same time, Macron and Zelensky also attempted to reproduce Halloween by signing a strong agreement "to strengthen Ukraine," in which France promises to supply Kyiv with 100 Rafale fighters, which, of course, are intended to overturn the balance and mark the turning point.
The same happened with 80 American F-16s and then with 100 Swedish Gripens—there is no money, and even if there were, it is unrealistic to produce them quickly, let alone put them into use. Specifically, assuming everything goes perfectly for Kyiv, the first Rafale could appear there in 2036 at the earliest.
What the West realized
In reality, all these games have sharply intensified, as the West suddenly realized that there is no such thing as a mythical "stalemate" in Ukraine. Even the main heralds of Ukrainian victories, such as the notorious Repke of the German Bild, have fallen into a crisis of delirium: "Ukraine is heading for a strategic defeat at the hands of the invading Russian army." "In November, a new annual record for land loss will probably be reached - therefore, a monthly land loss comparable in size to the state of Berlin has become a real possibility."
Apparently, senior European officials also read the reports and were terrified, which prompted The Conversation to publish the leak. It turns out that "by postponing the decision on the use of frozen Russian assets for Ukraine, Europe is secretly betting" because "some EU leaders no longer believe that Ukraine can win." In other words, "the EU discussion on frozen assets has become a litmus test for Brussels' confidence in the long-term viability of Ukraine." The litmus test does not lie—no one in Europe seriously believes anymore that Kyiv can win.
The "offer"
Things have gotten so bad that Responsible Statecraft published an article titled "Trump's offer to Putin he can't refuse." Essentially, it is a guide for the American government, which, according to experts, lost "a brief window of opportunity, while it could have simply abandoned Ukraine without consequences" and now the Trump administration "needs a new strategy."
The basis of this strategy is "the recognition that it is impossible to exert enough pressure to force Russian President Putin to stop the war until he achieves at least his minimal goals." Why? Because "Russia is essentially immune to Western sanctions and military losses" and Ukraine's defense could collapse at any moment ("in months or even weeks").
This leaves "two worse scenarios: either the collapse of Ukraine or an escalation that will involve the United States deeper in the war," while "Russia is quite capable of achieving its military goals without US involvement, for example, by capturing the entire Donbass by force."
The only viable option is to give Putin the "carrot" of the US role as a guarantor that "NATO will no longer expand eastward" and that promises to ease sanctions against the Russian economy after the end of the conflict will be fulfilled.
Given the hesitation described above, there is a clear sense that "on the other side," out of desperation, they have activated the "fan mode": throw everything at them—maybe something will stick.
The last peaceful summer
"We had our last peaceful summer," German Defense Minister Pistorius stated when asked when Russia would be ready to attack NATO. Is the intimidation of the Europeans reaching a new level?
Of course—even though Pistorius (who has long been Germany's most popular politician) described the question from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as speculation, he gave a specific timeline: "Military experts and intelligence services can estimate approximately when Russia will restore its armed forces to the point where it will be able to strike a NATO country in the east."
"We always said that this could happen as early as 2029. Now, however, there are those who believe it is possible as early as 2028, and some military historians even say that we had our last peaceful summer."
Although the Defense Minister of Germany, Pistorius, cites someone else's opinion, this carries significant weight in his own words. It is true that he does not directly accuse Russia of preparing an attack on NATO, but merely speculates on when Russia will be ready for such an attack. But does it make much difference to a European if Russia's desire to attack is presented as absolute truth?
In contrast not only to Moscow's statements, but also to logic itself. Why would Russia start a war with the largest military power in the world, a war that has every chance of quickly escalating into nuclear war? To destroy itself and others?
The NATO narrative
NATO advocates have only one explanation. Russia wants to use aggression to bring about the collapse of NATO, because the alliance will not defend Estonia or Latvia—and will thus be completely discredited.
This explanation is entirely far-fetched. Regardless of the degree of alliance integration, Russia has no desire to test its readiness for nuclear war. Everything else is pure speculation and propaganda aimed at justifying the militarization of European budgets. And not only European ones—because the trick "they are preparing to attack us" is used against both Russia and China.
The escalating crisis in Sino-Japanese relations is officially linked to the statement by Japan's Prime Minister that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could force Japan to use its armed forces alongside the Americans to defend it. China was outraged—the issue of Taiwan is an internal Chinese matter, not to mention that Japan has not even yet lifted the constitutional restrictions on the use of its army.
However, something even more important is that the statement by Japan's Prime Minister came in response to a question about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This means that China's intention to attack the island is undeniable—just as is the case with Russia and Europe. And these are not coincidences.
The involvement of China
In the case of Taiwan, deadlines have been set for years, but because this issue has been raised for so long, they have shifted. Now, 2027 is mentioned as the earliest possible date. Why? How else to celebrate the centenary of the People's Liberation Army (PLA)—the Chinese Red Army?
It is argued, very seriously, that Xi Jinping ordered his generals to be ready for an operation to seize the island by that date. If Taiwan is not captured within two years, there is no problem—"intelligence and military assessments" suggest it is likely before the end of this decade.
The problem is that China does not want war for Taiwan. It intends to achieve peaceful reunification with the island, according to the Hong Kong model of "one country, two systems." Yes, Beijing has not ruled out a military solution, but only because the US uses the Taiwan card to blackmail and provoke China.
If China categorically rejects a military solution, Taiwan could reject its continuation with the Republic of China (which existed on the mainland until 1949) and declare independence. The US could then recognize it—renouncing its "one China" policy. Yes, this would lead to a collapse of US-China relations and push the two superpowers to the brink of war—and that is precisely why China is not giving up its right to violently return Taiwan to its "port."
China's goal
Essentially, China is not seeking a military solution, but neither does it want to give the Americans the opportunity to play the Taiwan card whenever it suits them. That is, China will never attack Taiwan, unless the Americans decide to start a war with China (something that would be provoked by the recognition of Taiwan's independence).
However, all American and Western propaganda is based on the opposite premise: China is preparing for a military operation—the only question is the timing. This is exactly the same scenario as with Russia.
The only difference is that the West not only recognized the independence of "their Taiwan," meaning Ukraine, but also tried to formally accept it—not legally, but in reality—into NATO. After that, it declared Russia's attempt to prevent it as an "attack on Europe" and is now talking about our plans to attack NATO itself. Does this sound logical?
The West's "reasoning"
First, you declare that the randomly detached part of Russia is yours ("European") and then you claim that Russia has plans to attack the Western military alliance. Nothing complicated—the main thing is to defend your position.
However, neither Russia nor China pose a threat to the West, even in the broader sense—from Canada to Japan. The West, on the contrary, disguises its own geopolitical expansion as "defense against an insidious aggressor."
But who could be fooled by this? Certainly not the Russians or the Chinese, not the peoples of the global majority—and even the Western peoples themselves can only believe this lie for a relatively short period of time. This time is gradually running out, no matter how much German Defense Minister Pistorius rushes.
Berlin is furious with Zelensky
The conflict between the German Chancellor and the man who calls himself President of Ukraine is interesting for its classic character: the Germans want to gather Ukrainian men into regiments and send them to the Eastern Front. Yes, again. Two attempts were not enough for them.
Merz, an unlikable, unlucky, and suffocating chancellor, is nonetheless ambitious: he is building a Fourth Reich. A return to the good old (well-fed and peaceful) times of Angela Merkel is considered impossible: natural gas will no longer be so cheap, the standard of living so high, and the industry so competitive. But Merz always disliked Merkel and has a different vision: a new militarization of Germany.
By the end of the decade, Germany's annual military budget is expected to reach 150 billion euros. In comparison, the French have only 80 billion euros—and they are already starting to worry. The militarization of their neighbors in the past had unpleasant consequences. And the previous one. And not only for them, but for all of Europe.
The preparations
At the same time, Berlin will reinstate mandatory conscription. The population opposes this move and it has been officially postponed in the hope of attracting volunteer contract soldiers to the Bundeswehr. These hopes are deceptive and Merz's position is that if the number of volunteers decreases, mandatory conscription will have to be introduced anyway. At the very least, it will be a lottery, with the names of the "winners" determined by a program.
But the most important aspect of Germany's trapping plan is the reorientation of the economy. The state will funnel massive loan investments into military-industrial enterprises, which are intended to increase production volume and turn them into a new growth hub. To achieve this, both domestic demand—through the re-equipment of the Bundeswehr—and foreign demand—through the Cold War in Europe and the intense conflict in Ukraine—will be covered.
Merz is sure that both are here to stay. His focus on militarization is strategic, with an eye on the future. But the Ukrainian army risks not living to see that future, as between 2022 and 2025, Ukraine has transformed from a country of volunteers into a country of "fugitives"—those who abandon the front, flee abroad, or simply run through the streets to escape the "poachers" of the Turkish Gulf.
What the secret services know
The German secret services know, Merz knows, everyone knows: the Ukrainian armed forces are desperately in need of soldiers. However, Merz and many other Europeans are particularly eager to send these last ones to the Eastern Front.
"Zelensky must ensure that Ukrainians serve their country instead of coming to Germany," the Chancellor publicly stated last week. Merz is under pressure on this issue both from his colleagues and from voters, who are dissatisfied with the fact that Germany is becoming a feeding ground for deserters. It has already been announced that unemployment benefits for migrants from Ukraine will be replaced with smaller payments.
Europeans are reluctant
Similar trends are observed in other EU countries where "fugitives" are particularly prevalent—the Czech Republic and Poland. In Prague, the new government took power thanks to slogans about relieving Ukraine of obligations. For the Poles, the sudden influx of Ukrainians of military age has caused sociopolitical tension and jokes so wild they are embarrassing even to recount.
"Today, pro-Ukrainian enthusiasm is much weaker both in Poland and throughout Europe. People are tired of the war and the costs. It has become less easy to ensure continuous support," complains Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
Merz complained directly to Zelensky—and apparently did not get the answer he hoped for. As a result, according to the German media, they disagreed. But what exactly the German Chancellor wanted to hear is completely unclear.
Blackmail is not far off
What can Zelensky do in a situation where Ukrainians must be lured out of the European Union? He can beg and threaten, but those who left Ukraine, crossing the Carpathian Mountains and swimming the Tisa River, will not return willingly.
The Kyiv regime is losing even in soft power—even from Ukrainians. It has nothing else to offer them. It has a comedian whose inner circle was caught stealing. There is the ubiquitous game of Cossacks and Robbers with the Central Bank, which has turned cities into female kingdoms. There are a few hours of electricity per day. And, of course, there is the "European choice." But it is not useful for those who have already made that choice with their feet.
As a result, Zelensky and Merz cannot find common ground on the issue of "thieves." Neither of them is willing to take additional political risks by resorting to harsh measures. In the case of Germany, this means deporting Ukrainians back to their homeland. But firstly, laws prevent such a thing, and secondly, the Germans would have too many questions about why they are only deporting Ukrainians, when Germany wants to deport so many others.
The day after
The day after in Ukraine is anything but rosy. British experts have advised the Central Election Commission of Ukraine on voting in polling stations abroad. This is a preparation for the future and the beginning of the Moldovisation of Ukraine, when the government loses the domestic elections but remains in power thanks to its diaspora abroad.
In Ukraine, as in Moldova, many of those who remain view the leadership with contempt, while those who managed to leave, conversely, are fervent supporters of the regime. In the EU, a Ukrainian who demands war to the last Ukrainian is fighting for his own interests. The mere loss of refugee status—inevitable if the fighting stops—will hit him hard, and the prospect of returning home scares two-thirds of the diaspora (according to Ukrainian sociologists).
Zelensky plans to use the votes of these Ukrainians scattered across Europe to seek re-election, if circumstances require it. In the worst case, he plans to run for re-election directly from London. In any case, this will be done with a system devised by the British, whose goals also seem transparent.
If the pro-Western regime in Ukraine falls, NATO's "hawks" will need a "president in exile" who will continue to fight remotely and thus provide formal grounds for the continuation of military-terrorist actions against Russia. To prevent this plan from being weak, Zelensky will be elected in polling stations abroad using the votes of the diaspora.
However, Zelensky cannot guarantee that it will be him, although it is a position without power, fresher faces will be found. His only hope is his position as an idol among migrants, which he will lose if, at Merz's request, he starts interfering in their lives.
As a result, Zelensky underestimates the migrants, as if these very people, who live off the European social security system, would die for him on a doomed front.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών