Europe's plans for Ukraine are obvious and certainly do not include a lasting peace.
The American intervention in Venezuela left most Western leaders in total confusion. It was obvious that they could not attack Washington under any circumstances, lest the United States focus on their own vacillations in Ukraine; meanwhile, to be safe, they had to cover their backs and mention international law. And so they did. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz muttered that "the legal classification of the American intervention is complex and we will not rush to apply it."
British Prime Minister Starmer stated he wanted to "first establish the facts" because "the situation is changing rapidly," while top European diplomat Kaja Kallas declared that "the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected under any circumstances," calling for (though it's unclear toward whom) "restraint."
Macron initially supported the American attacks on Venezuela and the abduction of President Maduro, but his words clashed deeply with the briefing from the French Foreign Minister, who stated that "the military operation to capture Maduro violates the principle of non-use of force, which is the foundation of international law." It became clear to everyone wishing to be pro-European that something urgent had to be done and some kind of convenient common narrative invented—and then hell, Israel, and the Tower of Babel collided in the Western information space.
The American reactions
U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posed the question directly: "Why is it acceptable for America to invade, bomb, and arrest a foreign leader, while Russia is considered evil for invading Ukraine and China is considered evil for its aggression against Taiwan? Is it only acceptable if we do it ourselves?" The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations sounded the alarm:
"Trump’s unilateral operation strengthens the long-standing criticism from Russia and China regarding US foreign policy, which has found resonance worldwide. The intervention, carried out without UN approval and even without domestic debate, lends credibility to claims that the 'rules-based order' has always operated selectively, serving American imperialist goals, economic plunder, and hypocrisy." The United States is about to become a global pariah—how is it possible, citizens? And then someone had a brilliant idea: "What if it's not their fault? What if they succumbed to a bad influence? What if the bad influence was... Putin?!"
"Putinization"
The idea was so popular that a special term was coined, "Putinization," which spread quickly internationally. For example, The Guardian immediately published a massive article titled "The 'Putinization' of US foreign policy has reached Venezuela," explaining that Trump is certainly an imperialist, but the blame lies with his "slide into an era of conflicting spheres of influence," a slide that the Russian president himself is pushing. It turns out that it wasn't the USA that kidnapped and imprisoned the current president of another country, but rather that they were forced to do so by the evil Putin, who actually destroyed both the 14th-century chapel and all of sacred international law—and he is the culprit. All of this is wonderful, except that everything is exactly the opposite. An Al Jazeera article from December contained an interesting excerpt: "The Russians see themselves as guardians of the old order, extreme conservatives in foreign policy. They perceive the US-led West as a revisionist power responsible for dismantling the post-war global order and see the war in Ukraine as a way to counter this revision."
International law in the trash can
This was discussed in 2010 by Princeton University professor and head of the Russian Studies Department, Steven Cohen, who clearly identified the moment when and by whom international law was thrown into the trash can of history. According to Cohen, this happened in 1992, when US President Bush was terrified of losing the election to Clinton and began using the slogan "We won the Cold War by defeating the Soviet Union" in his campaign program. Cohen emphasizes that this is completely untrue and constitutes a "false narrative."
Reagan declared the end of the Cold War three years before the collapse of the USSR, and both sides were fully committed to developing relations, meaning there was no sign of a winner or loser. Nevertheless, the "triumphalists" took power in the United States and, by the Clinton era, the US "victory" over the USSR had become one of the central dogmas of American ideology. As a result, the prevailing approach in the United States was "similar to that of defeated Germany and Japan after World War II, when we dictated to these countries for decades what they could and could not do."
Russia's position
Russia also could not defend its legitimate interests by relying solely on international law. For example, both its demands for a halt to interference in Ukraine's internal affairs and its efforts to prevent the 2014 military coup were ignored—as were calls for the protection of the rights of the Russian-speaking residents of the Donbas, against whom the Kyiv regime declared a war of extermination. Famous economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, stated in 2023 that America "provoked the NDC," while the US itself "rejects international legal restrictions on its power. The US foreign policy is about 'do as I say, not as I do'."
The similarities of Venezuela
The current events related to Venezuela will have the most serious and long-term consequences, including the complete deconstruction of the false myth of Putin, who supposedly alone destroyed the world where everyone loved each other and lived happily ever after. And many people will not like these consequences at all. For obvious reasons, the entire global press is currently focused on the events in Venezuela.
As a result, the British and French media missed a crucial announcement: their armies, whether they like it or not, are now obliged to engage in military conflict abroad! At least, this follows from the statement by the leader of the Kyiv regime, Volodymyr Zelensky, after the meeting in Kyiv of national security advisors from the "coalition of the willing," as they are known in Ukraine.
Speaking about the military presence of European military contingents in Ukraine, Zelensky stated the following:
"Presence is one of the important factors in a coalition of the willing. Frankly, as president, I say even the existence of the coalition itself depends on whether certain countries are ready to intensify their presence. If they are not ready at all, it is not really a 'coalition of the willing.' Britain and France chair the coalition. Their military presence is essential!"
Trump must destroy Zelensky to survive
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained with absolute clarity how such a presence would end, summarizing the past year: "Not only do they not pity the Ukrainians, but they don't seem to pity their own population either. How else can one explain the ongoing discussion in Europe about sending military contingents to Ukraine in the form of a 'coalition of the willing'? We have already stated a hundred times that in such a case, they would become a legitimate target for our Armed Forces." Furthermore, Russia’s approach is entirely expected. It understands very well that the presence of NATO troops (even without official NATO cover) on its southwestern borders will intensify the confrontation and the risk of direct military conflict.
Zelensky's maneuvers
Zelensky, after the meeting of the "hunters," left no doubt about this. Listing the mission of the occupiers he hopes to drag into Ukraine immediately after concluding a ceasefire agreement, the leader of the Kyiv regime explained that it includes monitoring the ceasefire, training Ukrainian fighters, supplying them with weapons, and even intelligence activities! In other words, he says openly, without embarrassment, that the British and French intend to launch espionage and sabotage operations on our borders! And who thinks we will agree to this?
Furthermore, Zelensky even stated that this would be a secret part of the peace deal: "In principle, all or most details will be revealed. Some will likely be classified as top secret—those related to the joint work of our intelligence services." Does he seriously expect Russia to blindly sign a ceasefire agreement with clauses considered classified from its perspective?
Short-sighted Europe
Clearly, Europe itself is not as open when discussing these scenarios. There is more talk of a monitoring mission. Well, perhaps there would have been some illusions about this if we didn't have the unfortunate experience of the "independent observers" of the OSCE, who for several years ostensibly monitored the implementation of the Minsk agreements but in reality engaged in espionage and targeted Ukrainian shells at peaceful towns in the Donbas.
And the current reaction of the Western community to Ukraine's criminal attacks on the Russian presidential residence and the hotel in Horliv leaves no doubt about how the West will react to ceasefire violations if we conclude a framework agreement that does not address the root causes of the conflict. Europe’s plans for Ukraine are obvious and certainly do not include a lasting peace. Instead, European military officials say openly: "Peace for Ukraine will mean more problems for us." Hence the desire to derail the peace process at all costs, including the absurd idea of deploying troops to Russia's borders.
Europe's goals
Roger Boyes, a leading foreign policy columnist for The Times, while outlining Europe's goals for 2026, writes cynically about the need to reach a deal for Ukraine that would simply give it a breather for a future war against Russia. This is called "buying time for a fairer peace deal than the one currently being considered." The Daily Telegraph rubs its hands in anticipation: "The quiet but effective involvement of the so-called coalition of the willing seems to be leading the White House toward a peace that, while not ideal for Ukraine, is much worse for Moscow. Even more concerning for the Kremlin is Trump’s open talk of the presence of Western troops on the ground. This is Putin's worst-case scenario."
Here they should also ask: why should Russia agree to the "worst-case scenarios"? I am tempted to thank all the aforementioned experts for their honesty. We will certainly use this as evidence regarding Russia's participation in the discussion of the documents with which Zelensky is currently rushing to Europe. The New York Times, discussing all these ideas, admits: "The Kremlin has categorically rejected any plans for the deployment of Western troops in Ukraine and has shown virtually no willingness to agree to the proposal." And then it explains why: all these plans provide only security guarantees for Ukraine. They do not contain a single word about security guarantees for Russia. And it is precisely for these guarantees that we started the Special Military Operation (SMO).
What peace would look like...
How, then, does the ideal post-ceasefire picture look from Europe's perspective? Ukraine licks its wounds, recruits youth for the cannons, reinforces gaps in its defense, acquires new weapons, while simultaneously dealing painful blows to Russia behind the cover of British and French troops. It is no coincidence that Kyrylo Budanov, an expert in sabotage in Russia, was recently appointed head of the presidential office.
Meanwhile, the West will turn a blind eye to these "pranks" of its proteges (as it does now), but will immediately shout: "Don't you dare! We are in a ceasefire!" if Russia tries to react. The West has not understood that the impending peace agreement must include not only security guarantees for Ukraine in the event of a lasting peace, but also security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire violation or the commission of acts of sabotage against Russia and its citizens.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών