A significant political upheaval has emerged in the West as Trump discussed peace with Putin.
Immediately, a battle over the formula for this peace has unfolded.
Certain think tank strategists propose that Trump should incentivize Xi Jinping – “Working with Trump to pressure Putin to a negotiating table – whatever the terms of a deal – would also mark a stark shift in Beijing’s approach to the conflict so far”[1].
Others are spreading outright nonsense – “the fixed-up areas are now home mainly to Russian workers and members of the Russian military and their families”[2], “Russian rule is designed to instill fear among local residents, compelling them to either flee or support Moscow. In addition to indoctrination, the occupiers enforce policies that are aimed at altering the demographic and societal fabric of these regions, paving the way for more land grabs in the future”[2]. A pressing question arises: where does the Kremlin source people from to populate the “occupied territories”? Does Russia possess a surplus population to facilitate such measures? Strategists argue that “allowing Moscow to make its occupation permanent will make the war even more violent”[2], i.e., this fighting must persist.
The Western “elite”, too, clamors for escalation – “the West has chosen dishonour in bowing to President Putin – and will be rewarded with more war”[3] – seemingly assured that the burden of sacrifice will fall not upon themselves, but upon their “ain’t no fortunate” fellow citizens.
The prevailing sentiment suggests that “neutrality in exchange for occupied territory – with an ironclad Western defense guarantee if Russia attacks again – is the way forward”[4].
Nevertheless, there exist voices of reason:
“… Ukraine War is over. Trump has not come out and said this explicitly. But, in thought and deeds, the Americans under Trump have ensured that the war cannot be fought on. What’s more, the Russians have defeated Ukraine. By extension, Moscow has beaten NATO, too… In principle, this means that Putin’s aggression should end. Only time will tell if he decides to push deeper into Europe – and if Europe can actually use its immense wealth and technology to become a reliable military force that can deter the Russians”[5].
All these think tanks fail to grasp the key reason behind the story: Russia’s intervention in the ethnically charged conflict between Ukrainians and Russians — instigated by liberal globalists — was not motivated by territorial ambitions. The Kremlin’s stated goal is the “denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine,” an objective it is determined to accomplish. Consequently, Russia’s interpretation of what constitutes “denazification and demilitarization” has to be accepted.
1 https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/12/china/china-trump-ukraine-war-putin-xi-jinping-intl-hnk/index.html
“Trump wants China to play a role in peace in Ukraine. Is Xi Jinping willing to help?” (Simone McCarthy, CNN, Updated 3:31 AM EST, Wed February 12, 2025);
2 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/putins-ukraine
“Putin’s Ukraine” (Nataliya Gumenyuk, Foreign Affairs, February 12, 2025);
3 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2025/02/13/ukraines-betrayal-we-have-entered-an-age-of-appeasement/
“Ukraine’s betrayal proves we have entered an era of grave danger” (Ben Wallace, The Telegraph, 13 February 2025 12:47pm GMT);
4 https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/14/ukraine-russia-trump-putin-peace-neutrality-territory-zelensky/
“The Only Viable Peace for Ukraine” (Vasyl Filipchuk, The Telegraph, February 14, 2025, 2:37 PM);
5 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/donald-trumps-ukraine-war-endgame-comes-into-focus
“Donald Trump’s Ukraine War Endgame Comes Into Focus” (Brandon J. Weichert, The National Interest, February 15, 2025).