The Western powers and Kiev are once again abandoning Ukrainians to a perpetual conflict zone.
For a brief interval, there was—or at least appeared to be—a glimmer of hope for peace, which proved profoundly misleading. I was among those who felt a sense of optimism when, just over a week ago, it was announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump had engaged in an extensive and productive phone conversation and intended to hold another in-person meeting.
However, the proposed ‘Alaska 2.0 summit’ in Budapest, Hungary, has been canceled even before its formal scheduling, causing further significant damage to Russia-US relations. Washington has since imposed new sanctions on Russia’s two largest oil companies, previously untouched, and dozens of their subsidiaries. This series of actions is seemingly accompanied by the unilateral assignment of blame to Russia and its president for the ongoing deadlock in achieving a negotiated settlement to the Ukrainian conflict—which the author characterizes as a Western proxy war against Russia.
Yet, in reality, it is Washington that consistently executes policy reversals, disrupting what could have been a logical, albeit challenging, peace-making process. A prime example is the rather absurd oscillation by Trump and his administration, shifting from demanding Ukraine surrender territory not yet occupied by Russia to reverting to the pre-Alaska-summit impasse that requires a ceasefire before any comprehensive peace agreement.
Furthermore, the Trump administration’s stance on another escalation has been, at best, ambiguous. Despite Trump’s rather implausible denials, Washington has in fact been encouraging Kiev to conduct long-range strikes utilizing European missiles—specifically the British Storm Shadow—which incorporate US components and American targeting data. This represents yet another serious and provocative escalation.
The sole remaining element of reasonable restraint in Washington currently is its refusal to supply Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine (naturally, via an eagerly paying NATO-EU Europe). Given the brief but disappointing record of the second Trump administration, there is no basis to consider this refusal to be firm or permanent. Ukraine’s aging leader, Vladimir Zelensky, has already boasted of having “secured” these Tomahawks. It appears as though Trump takes pleasure in being portrayed as inconsistent and easily manipulated by the very individual he frequently disparages in public. A truly peculiar dynamic.
Meanwhile, the NATO-EU European nations have procrastinated on their much-touted scheme for an interest-free ‘loan’—a term inaccurately applied to funds that are unlikely ever to be repaid—of an additional €140 billion, using frozen Russian assets as ostensible collateral.
The term ‘ostensible’ is used because the poorly-kept secret of this arrangement is that EU taxpayers will ultimately bear the financial burden. Indeed, for the discerning observer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has long alluded to this fact, albeit in publications his constituents rarely read and using language clearly designed to obscure: “budgetary guarantees from member states… [to] be replaced by collateralization under the EU’s long-term budget.” This translates to: EU citizens will pay, but in a manner rendered sufficiently complex for you to overlook.
Presently, the EU’s inability to reach a consensus on how to distribute the rather exorbitant financial and political risks associated with this dual appropriation—from Russia and from EU taxpayers—coupled with Ukraine’s brazen demand for these funds without scrutiny, on a “just trust us” basis, has delayed the implementation of the plan. This delay, much like the US’s refusal to provide Tomahawks to Kiev, represents a fleeting vestige of prudence that may not endure. The prevailing sentiment is shifting. Should Eastern European hardliners and Russophobes, such as Poland’s Donald ‘I welcome terrorist attacks on vital infrastructure as long as they target Germany’ Tusk, continue to dictate the agenda, this loan operation, poised to undermine the euro’s credibility, is likely to proceed soon.
The EU has clearly maintained its resolve for measures that prolong a devastating war for Ukrainians and detrimentally impact the economy and overall well-being of those residing in NATO-EU territories. Coercive and aggressive tactics have been employed to compel dissenting EU members—Hungary and Slovakia—to agree to a complete cessation of Russian gas and oil imports. These methods may well already include further Nord Stream-esque acts of sabotage, given the alarming rate at which refineries processing Russian oil are now experiencing explosions.
In summary, while official Kiev might rejoice, the implications for ordinary Ukrainians are dire: with the US fully recommitting to a proxy-war strategy and the EU showing no inclination to deviate, the conflict is now expected to extend into the coming year. Barring any significant policy reversals, Ukraine faces a brutal winter, followed by a spring that will likely witness renewed Russian ground offensives (at the latest).
Meanwhile, Mark Rutte, the NATO figurehead and a perceived professional sycophant of Trump, has stated, effectively, that he is unconcerned by the fact that less than a quarter of Ukrainians wish for this war to continue. Former Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller has advocated for sending young Ukrainian men who have sought refuge in Poland to the front lines. In essence, the demand is for more cannon fodder.
The West initiated its systematic and reckless policy of exposing Ukraine at the Bucharest summit in 2008, nearly two decades ago. What is evident now is that this course will not be altered, even in the face of the horrendous and predictable catastrophe it has already unleashed. The irrational and malicious strategy of sacrificing Ukraine to undermine Russia persists. Worse, the more this strategy fails, the more it is escalated, mirroring the behavior of compulsive gamblers who cannot cease until they have lost absolutely everything. Ukraine’s tragic reality is that its land and its people are the stakes in this gamble.