“This intellectual decline has reached its lowest level in the persons of the political leaders in Europe. They have led this once mighty continent straight into a morass of economic, cultural and military decline, reducing it to a state of complete impotence.
“Having sacrificed everything for the benefit of US imperialism for decades, and having accustomed themselves to the humiliating role of servile minions of Washington, they now find themselves abandoned by their erstwhile allies and left to fend for themselves.
“Their stupidity has now been completely exposed by the defeat in Ukraine and the collapse of their absurd dreams about defeating Russia and destroying it as a power. Instead, they now find themselves with a powerful and resurgent Russia, equipped with a huge army, armed with the most modern weapons, and hardened by years of battle experience.
“At this critical juncture, they find themselves abandoned suddenly by the power that was supposed to come to their defence. Now they are running around like headless chickens, falling over themselves in their haste to express their undying and unshakeable support for Volodymyr Zelensky.
“They rant and rage against the man in the White House, who they see as solely responsible for the disaster that has suddenly befallen them.
“But all this hysterical chorus is merely an expression of panic, which, in turn, is merely an expression of fear – sheer, blind, undiluted fear. Behind the fake façade of defiance, these leaders are paralysed with terror, like a rabbit blinded by the headlamps of an approaching car.”
I wrote those lines in an article entitled, The meaning of Donald Trump: a Marxist analysis, which we published on 21 March 2025. They accurately describe the situation that exists at the present time. I do not have to change a single word or comma.
The reason for the present article was the publication of the US National Security document and Pete Hegseth’s speech, which is basically the same thing.
This has confirmed everything we’ve been saying, even before Trump came to power, concerning his fundamental strategy. We wrote about this extensively twelve months ago, and I refer you to this material. The situation has moved on since then, and has now reached a decisive turning point. But the basic strategy has not changed.
Trump describes the document as a “roadmap” to ensure the US remains “the greatest and most successful nation in human history”. So far, so alarming. But this was just the preliminary appetiser. The main dish was yet to be served. It was the cause of a very serious outbreak of acid indigestion among a certain class of politicians.
The attack on Europe
The new document contains the kind of criticism of western Europe – and its approach to migration, and clean energy and many other things – that goes far beyond the acceptable boundaries of both diplomacy and elementary good manners.
The document calls for the restoration of “western identity”, combatting foreign influence, ending mass migration, and focusing more on US priorities such as “stopping drug cartels”.
The man in the White House sees himself as the foremost expert in such activities, his subtle methods including the sinking of small boats in the Caribbean, the killing of unfortunate fishermen who happen to be on the aforesaid vessels, and last but not least, acts of piracy on the high seas, involving the seizure of large oil tankers and the theft of their cargoes for the greater enrichment of the Land of the Free.
The document confidently predicts that if current trends continue, degenerate and decaying Europe, would be “unrecognisable in 20 years or less” and its economic issues are “eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilisational erasure”.
That being the case:
“It is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies”.
The document said it was “more than plausible” that, within a few decades, some NATO members would become “majority non-European” and it was “an open question” whether they would see the alliance in the same way.
The threat to democracy
The document hails the growing influence of “patriotic European parties” and says “America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit”.
Worse still, the document accuses the EU and “other transnational bodies” of carrying out activities that “undermine political liberty and sovereignty”.
It says that migration policies are “creating strife” and that other issues included “censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence”.
This is a slap in the face for every government in Europe, especially Germany, where the Trump administration has fostered links with the AfD, which has been characterised as ‘ultra-right’ by German intelligence. The German establishment has done everything in its power to demonise, isolate, and if possible, make the AfD illegal.
In fact, the accusation that Europe is moving rapidly in the direction of anti-democratic and authoritarian rule is well-founded. With increasing frequency, one sees a tendency to blatantly discriminate and demonise those parties which do not fit in with the ideas and interests of the ‘liberal’ establishment.
The case of Romania is instructive in this sense. In that country – which allegedly is democratic – the most popular candidate according to the polls was prevented from standing in an election, and arrested on trumped-up charges which nobody has ever succeeded in proving.
The Romanian authorities went so far as to cancel an election, simply because they did not approve of the result. This clear violation of the most elementary rules of democracy was not condemned by the European Union. On the contrary, they justified it and praised it as a necessary “defence of democracy”.
Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul commented acidly that his country did not need “outside advice”.
For Germany, he hastened to add, the “United States is and will remain our most important ally in the [NATO] alliance”, but said “this alliance, however, is focused on addressing security policy issues”.
“I believe questions of freedom of expression or the organisation of our free societies do not belong [in the strategy], in any case at least when it comes to Germany”.
It is very clear that the German authorities would very much like to follow the Romanian example and ban the AfD. Now, whatever one might think of parties like the AfD, it is surely the right of the German people – and they alone – to decide which party they wish to vote for in an election.
That is an elementary democratic right, that was hitherto regarded as sacrosanct by the European democracies. But that is no longer the case. Evidently, the commitment of the liberal elite to democracy has definite limits.
They are in favour of elections – but only if the party that is elected is one that represents their own ideology and interests. If that is not the case, they see no reason why such parties should be allowed even to exist.
For all these reasons – and many more – what the document says about anti-democratic measures in Europe is true. But what the document does not say – and it has to be said – is that exactly the same position exists in the United States also. Donald Trump, better than most people, ought to realise this.
But we will return to this question later.
Panic in Europe
This document represents a fundamental break in the whole foreign policy of the United States. And it left the US’ allies in Europe in a state of deep shock.
When this text landed on the desks of their foreign offices, it had the explosive effect of a nuclear bomb. Alarm bells began ringing furiously in every European chancellery.
Europe is depicted as a continent in decline, a civilisation in decline. Worse still, the European Union is seen as antithetical to growth, development and creativity.
The resulting tremors continue to shake the foundation of the Western Alliance. Once again, the politicians began running around like chickens who have just discovered that the fox has suddenly appeared in the farmyard.
And like those same terrified chickens, staring into the face of the fox, their initial reaction was one of paralysis. For a while, they remained in a stunned silence, choking back the anger for fear of provoking the homicidal maniac in the White House into even more extreme actions.
When finally their inner feelings of rage and frustration could no longer be restrained, the leaders of Europe began to protest loudly against this unprovoked act of aggression against their dignity and honour.
A top European Union official warned the United States against interfering in Europe’s affairs and said, “only European citizens can decide which parties should govern them.”
Donald Tusk, the hawkish prime minister of Poland, keeps on repeating with an obsession bordering on hysteria that there is such a thing as a Collective West, even when one of its main component parts, the United States has just publicly proclaimed its demise.
He insists that this non-existent Collective West is at its strongest when it is united, and when it is united against enemies and adversaries (he means the Russians, but is afraid even to mention their name in polite company).
Other European leaders have been repeating exactly the same words, like well-trained pet parrots. This leaves one to suspect that it is a carefully prearranged script, which all these ladies and gentlemen are duty-bound to repeat, on the grounds that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it.
The trouble is that nobody seems to be listening to them. And the ill-fated ‘Collective West’ remains as dead as a door nail, just as it was before they started their noisy squawking.
Nevertheless, they are spurred on to frenetic activity (mainly endless secret conferences and empty rhetoric), encouraged by the belief that ‘something has to be done!’ Unfortunately, this ‘something’ turns out to be – nothing at all.
The problem is that these leaders have suddenly woken up to the fact that their influence on affairs in Washington is not as great as they had imagined. In fact, it is non-existent.
They scan every sentence, every line, every dot and comma of the accursed document, desperately seeking some crumbs of comfort. In return, they only get one kick in the teeth after another.
One European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “The tone on Europe is not promising. Even worse than Vance’s speech in Munich in February.”
European politicians and officials have bristled at the tone from Washington, but as they hurry to rebuild their neglected militaries to meet a perceived threat from Russia, they still rely heavily on US military support. Therefore, they must be very careful in their public utterances, for fear of causing annoyance to the man in the White House, who is known to have very thin skin, and does not tolerate criticism lightly.
For all those reasons, in the corridors of power of almost every country in Europe, a mood of deep depression has descended like a thick black cloud. And following close behind the cloud, another, even more alarming mood is beginning to take hold. The name of that mood is panic – sheer, blind, uncontrollable panic, which leads eventually to a paralysis of the will.
But in the end, the Europeans will have to pull themselves together and work out a strategy to defeat Trump’s peace plan in Ukraine. That is the only way, as they see it, to prevent the USA from breaking its links with Europe, and leaving them to pay for the war in Ukraine.
Why this outburst?
The first question that arises is: how does one explain this sudden explosion of shock, anger and disbelief? After all, the publication of such documents is not new. Far from it, in fact.
A formal National Security Strategy is typically released by presidents once per term. It can form a framework for future policies and budgets, as well as signalling to the world where the president’s priorities lie.
Every new US administration therefore publishes a review of security. It is as normal as coffee and the morning newspaper at the breakfast table.
On the face of it, therefore, the receipt of such a document ought to have provoked little more than a yawn and an expression of sheer boredom. The reason is not hard to find.
Until now, every such document, with this or that minor adjustment, followed exactly the same line, the traditional lines of American imperialism: in essence world domination, disguised under the flag of the so-called ‘rules-based international order’. The reason is that it would have been drafted only to a very insignificant extent by the incoming administration.
The real authors would be members of the actual government of the United States, which is elected by nobody and responsible only to itself. Alongside the formal trappings of democracy, there has always existed a shadowy entity, which some have described as the ‘deep state’. But however it is called, it represents the genuine and permanent government of the USA.
The men and women who make up this secretive permanent government are, in part, the generals and admirals who run the Pentagon and the security services – the CIA, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and other such bureaucratic entities.
On the other hand, it has close links to big business, the banks, Wall Street, and all the other wealthy magnates who constitute what is known as the Military-Industrial Complex.
Last, but by no means least, we have what might be loosely termed as the intellectual wing of this powerful gang. The myriads of government and semi-government think tanks, who swarm around Washington like wasps.
They, in turn, are closely linked to the hired media that is comically named the ‘free press’.
The university professors from Yale and Harvard complete the picture. And it must be stressed that for these individuals, what is least important is academic objectivity.
Every single one of this ultra-right-wing cabal is the product of decades of reactionary propaganda, which has been directly passed on from the years of the Cold War.
Thoroughly impregnated with a spirit of undying hatred towards Russia and China, they have always upheld the notion of American world supremacy.
They still see America as the most powerful nation in the world, to which all other nations must bend the knee, or suffer dire consequences.
They see their ‘allies’ in the same way that the Romans saw theirs – as mere pawns in the game of great power diplomacy, to be used and then discarded as so much useless rubbish.
For some decades, the USA saw NATO as a staunch defender of ‘democracy’. But long experience has taught us to understand that for US imperialism, the flag of ‘democracy’ is merely a thinly disguised effort to conceal its constant acts of aggression against other countries.
In recent years, they have begun to justify these aggressive acts by the defence of what they call ‘the rules-based international order’. By this, they mean any rules that the US seeks to impose on the rest of the world.
The leaders of Europe, for their part, were pleased to accept the leadership of the USA, believing (foolishly) that the Americans would always uphold their interests and come to their defence in case of need.
For a long time, this comforting myth continued to hold good. Therefore, the leaders of Europe could confidently expect that the latest US National Security Strategy would be merely a repetition of the selfsame doctrine.
But they were mistaken. Times had changed. And so had Washington’s concept of its own national security.
Mistaken assumptions
This new document, reflecting the official position of an American president and his administration, was something that, until very recently, none of them ever expected to see.
They realise that beneath the surface a profound change is taking place in the United States. More and more people are becoming increasingly sceptical of American foreign policy as it has been conducted over the last 80 years.
Resentment is growing about the extent of American resources that are being wasted in endless wars and foreign adventures. And the news of corruption in Ukraine, which is beginning to filter into the American media, only increases the suspicions and anger.
All this is fuelling a demand for change in US foreign policy. This has profound implications for Europe. For at least the last 30 years, since the end of the Cold War, the main European governments based their policy on two assumptions. Firstly, the existence of a ‘Collective West’ – a joint enterprise in which the United States is the senior partner, but in which all European governments and the European elites have a shared interest.
The second assumption was that there are no limits to American power, that the United States could achieve any objective that it chose. Now, at the stroke of a pen, all these sacred illusions have been thrown unceremoniously into the dustbin of history.
Suddenly, the United States, far from feeling favourable to the governments and leaders of Europe, is increasingly seeing them, not as allies and friends, but as adversaries, or even as enemies.
A shocking state of affairs, indeed! But now even more threatening and frightening developments are looming on the horizon.
America’s world role
All this must be seen as the background to the document that has caused such a tremendous stir, the reasons for which have now become clear.
The present document is not similar to any previous document that has come out of Washington since the end of the Second World War. What it amounts to is a complete reassessment of America’s role in the world.
Donald Trump has understood that American power is not unlimited. The recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan were a clear proof of this. Now the same point is being made even more clearly on the battlefields of Ukraine.
Finally, he has been compelled to face reality. And the reality is very clear. Ukraine has lost the war. And there’s nothing whatsoever that America, or anybody else, can do about it.
He now calls for America to abandon its claim to establish world domination. The core national security interest of the United States is no longer to dominate the whole world, but first to tighten its grip on the entire Western Hemisphere, from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego.
This is the ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine. Its main aim is to remove foreign elements from the continent – to keep the Western Hemisphere free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets. That means, above all, China.
In the last analysis, it boils down to a show of naked force, aimed at compelling every government south of the Rio Grande to submit to US domination. The recent aggressive actions taken against Venezuela are a concrete manifestation of the real meaning of this doctrine.
In order to secure this end, it is first necessary to strengthen the United States from a military, technological, industrial and economic point of view. And the prior condition for this is to free the USA from unnecessary foreign entanglements, particularly the war in Ukraine. But that is easier said than done, as he has discovered.
Trump gets out of line
Trump’s impotence was revealed by his constant vacillations, veering first from one position, then to another, like a drunken man staggering from one lamppost to another, without ever regaining his balance.
After almost a year in government, the workers see no improvement in their living standards. There is no sign of an economic recovery. On the contrary, there is every indication that the US is moving towards a recession – if that has not already begun.
Already, his base in the MAGA movement is becoming impatient with his lack of progress on several different fronts. His foreign policy is littered with one failure after another.
And the sense of failure is only aggravated by the absurd rhetoric and senseless bragging on the president’s part, creating big illusions, which end in even bigger disappointment.
Trump may be criticised for many things. In particular, his grasp of diplomacy is extremely poor. The skills he learnt from his experience in the New York property market were evidently not at all sufficient to guide him through the treacherous swamp of world relations.
His reliance on his own instincts in place of cold, rational calculation, has paved the way for one blunder after another. Rather than a bull in a china shop, he appears in the realm of diplomacy to be like some kind of inebriated rhinoceros, charging this way and that, without ever engaging in any of its objectives.
His extravagant boasts about making peace are being exposed as empty rhetoric. He claims to have put an end to the Gaza war and now there’s going to be an investment boom, which will create prosperity for all, in a world of peace and bliss.
But events prove that the so-called deal in Gaza is hanging by a thread. Netanyahu does not want peace and refuses to withdraw his forces from the devastated ruins of that unhappy land. On the other hand, Hamas is refusing to disarm, since they have no desire to voluntarily commit suicide.
In other parts of the world also, Trump’s peace initiatives have had no greater success. After a brief interval, hostilities between Cambodia and Thailand have renewed, with both sides attacking with missiles and artillery strikes.
And despite the recent fanfare in the media, the truth is that his plans for peace in Ukraine have so far amounted to precisely nothing.
This was inevitable from the start, since his negotiation was based on a false premise – namely, that it was possible to arrive at a compromise between the demands of Russia and those of the regime in Kyiv.
America has spent vast amounts of money to prop up the Zelensky regime in Kyiv. They have seriously depleted their armoury by pouring in huge quantities of weapons and ammunition, in order to continue a war that is now clearly being lost. Therefore, Trump needs to put an end to the war in Ukraine, and he needs to do so immediately, if not sooner.
Crisis in Ukraine
After considering all the options, Donald Trump has concluded that the main obstacle in the way of peace in Ukraine is precisely the systematic campaign of sabotage against his peace plan being orchestrated by Zelensky and the Europeans.
This assumption is perfectly correct. Zelensky does not want peace. On the contrary, he needs the war to continue, even though he must now be aware that it is lost. The continuation of a senseless conflict will mean the deaths of thousands, probably tens of thousands, of lives. But this is of no concern to him.
Far more important for Zelensky than the deaths and suffering of his people is the fact that the end of the war would mean elections, which he would undoubtedly lose. That would mean the end of his political career, and quite possibly an indictment for corruption.
The corruption scandal in Ukraine has reached epidemic proportions. It involves huge sums of money donated, allegedly for the war effort, but that ended up in the bank accounts of wealthy oligarchs and officials in the Caribbean islands.
This is a further clear signal of disintegration and impending collapse. Zelensky’s closest collaborators are implicated and are fleeing the country to escape arrest.
The latest casualty is his second-in-command, Andriy Borysovych Yermak. But the tide of scandal shows no sign of abating, and its waters are beginning to splash the President himself. No wonder he spends most of his time visiting his friends in Europe, who can offer him some degree of consolation for his many problems.
In the midst of this colossal corruption scandal, Starmer, Macron, Merz, Ursula von der Leyen, and other members of the same gang continue to demand huge sums of money in order to prolong a criminal and bloody war.
Poor bleeding, battered Ukraine is on its knees, its army is systematically being destroyed, countless lives are being lost senselessly in an attempt to prevent the fall of Donbas, which is now only a matter of time.
Ukrainian soldiers increasingly refuse to obey orders that send them to the slaughter. Many desert or surrender. A hundred thousand young people have fled the country in order to escape conscription.
Every night, Ukrainian cities are battered by attacks of over 500 Russian drones and missiles, against which there is little or no defence. The energy system has been pulverised, as a result of which many Ukrainian families spend sixteen hours every day in darkness with no heating or cooking facilities.
No matter! Who cares if people die and cities are destroyed? Who cares if the people suffer in freezing conditions? Who cares if the Ukrainian army is being systematically decimated? The main thing is to keep on fighting! Just keep the war going for a little longer, and Ukraine, in the end, is bound to win!
The United States and Russia
The Security Review represents a fundamental change in America’s attitude to Russia. It does not speak of Russia as an adversary or as a rival, but as a country with which the United States must achieve a restoration of stability in relations and a country with which the United States must work to stabilise the situation in Europe.
But why are the Europeans so determined to sabotage the efforts of Trump to negotiate with the Russians? How does one explain the peculiar obsession (I can find no other word for it) of the European leaders with Russia? Why do they show such intense hatred towards it?
At first sight, it seems quite irrational. For, whatever you might think about the rights and wrongs of the war in Ukraine, it is absolutely clear to all but the blindest of the blind that the Russians are winning, and the Ukrainians are losing.
That being the case, the logical thing to do is to attempt to reach some kind of negotiated solution, and that means inevitably to enter into negotiations with the Russians, who are really the decisive element in the equation.
Without such negotiations, without recognising Russia’s legitimate concerns and accepting that any peace now will have to be, to a great extent, on Russia’s terms, no peace will be possible.
Therefore, to oppose negotiations between the Americans and Russians seems, to put it mildly, irrational. European leaders have demonised Russia, which they proclaim to be a country which, for reasons that have never been adequately explained, is inherently aggressive and expansionist. Evidently, they see this as something that is deeply embedded in the DNA of the Russian people!
That being the case, if the Russians succeed in occupying Ukraine, they will inevitably move westward, until their armies appear outside the Palace of Westminster and they park their tanks on the banks of the Seine.
The aim of the men in the Kremlin is obviously to conquer and occupy the whole of Europe. And appetite, as we know, comes with eating. This childish fairy story is constantly repeated even in newspapers that claim to be serious. The fact that it has absolutely no base in fact is quite incidental. After all, why let the facts spoil a good story?
To what extent does this Russophobia have a real basis? That is an interesting question, which it would require a qualified psychiatrist to express an opinion upon. Of course, there is a huge dose of cynicism and self-interested calculation in all this propaganda.
However, in the case of people like Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen, it would appear that the level of blind fanaticism in their approach to Russia and all things Russian has, at least to some extent, a pathological basis.
However, there is a quite rational reason for their apparently irrational conduct. In the words of Shakespeare: “though this be madness, yet there is method in it.”
The United States informs the Europeans that victory over Russia in Ukraine is no longer possible and that the right thing to do is to seek with Russia a stable relationship with Europe.
It follows from this, that the aim of the administration is to bring about a situation where the United States can gradually draw down its presence in Europe as it concentrates on other, more pressing and important issues, particularly the conflict with China.
It means not only that the United States no longer has any appetite to continue the war in Ukraine. Following its own perceived national interests, the United States will therefore have to seek some rapprochement, or at least some kind of stabilisation of relations, with Russia.
This is the worst, and most feared nightmare for the leaders of Europe. And they will do everything in their power to prevent this plan from being realised. That explains their feverish efforts to sabotage all Trump’s initiatives to bring about an end to the war in Ukraine.
Here he always finds himself confronted with the same insoluble problem.
Zelensky and the Europeans
The negotiations between the Americans and Russians are taking place, but it is very clear that Zelensky and the Europeans are against this. Trump has clearly been infuriated by the constant sabotage by the Ukrainians and their European allies, and is stepping up the pressure on Zelensky, who he is now attacking publicly.
The position of Zelensky is obviously becoming weaker and more untenable by the day. The huge Ukrainian budget deficit means that the country is bankrupt. And the money for next year, which can only be supplied by the European Union, depends exclusively on the seizure of the frozen Russian assets, which Belgium is opposing.
If they don’t find this money in the next couple of weeks, then Ukraine has no budget for next year – no money to pay for the war, or even to keep its head above water.
Things are coming to a head. And to make matters worse, the corruption scandal is reaching a crescendo, in which many of Zelensky’s key supporters and colleagues are implicated. It is only a matter of time before the scandal touches the figure of the president himself.
Trump has dropped a not too subtle hint, saying that he thought it would be “a good idea” for Ukraine to have elections. Zelensky, who fears the prospect of elections as the devil fears holy water, was in no hurry to take the hint.
But now, with his back against the wall, he is suddenly saying is not opposed to holding elections, as long as the Americans can “guarantee the conditions.” Whatever that might mean!
In reality, no elections will be held. Zelensky sees that the ground is now shifting under his feet. An increasing number of people are suddenly creeping out of the woodwork to oppose him – even some from his own faction.
Clearly, the knives are out in Kyiv. In the obscure corners of power, they are discussing in hushed terms how their leader has now outlived his usefulness, and it is time to find someone who could replace him.
But that also is easier said than done. The time to have removed him was probably twelve months ago. But in the last period, he has taken steps to increase his grip on state power. At least for the moment, he seems to have firm control of the army and intelligence services. However, to the degree that he loses the support of Washington and the supply of money begins to dry up, that may change. A series of serious setbacks at the front can easily spark off a government crisis, leading to the collapse of Mr Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky.
Delusions over Ukraine
“Managing European relations with Russia will require significant US involvement”, the document says, adding that it is a core US interest for hostilities in Ukraine to end. The tone is supremely confident. But the substance is entirely empty.
The document says Europe has a lack of “self-confidence” in its relationship with Russia. That is an absurd understatement. It is not that the European leaders lack confidence in their dealings with Russia.
The fact is that they have no dealings with Russia at all. They do not want any relations with Russia, a country which they regard with undisguised hatred, fear and suspicion. Above all, they do not want the United States to have any relationship with Russia.
That is the main driving force behind all their thinking at the present time. And that represents the fatal Achilles’ Heel of all present negotiations between Russia and the West.
What are the facts?
The Trump administration has proposed a plan to end the war, the original version of which called for Ukraine to hand over some territory to the de facto control of Russia.
However, Moscow has stated repeatedly that Ukrainian troops must withdraw from Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region or Russia will gain all its objectives by force.
And the plain fact is that the Russians now hold all the cards in any negotiations, for the simple reason that they’re winning the war. Consequently, they see no reason for making any concessions whatsoever. No amount of threats, bullying or bribery will make them change their mind.
Zelensky, for his part, stubbornly rejects any suggestion of making compromises of any sort. He stands for Ukrainian victory on the battlefield, and is enthusiastically supported in his madness by the lunatics, clowns and halfwits who at the present time hold the destinies of Europe in their hands.
For many months now, the pages of western newspapers have been full of reports about the to-ing and fro-ing of diplomacy concerning Ukraine. A plethora of unattributed documents are reported and analysed in great detail, although no one can actually say who wrote them and what they represent.
Every comment by Donald Trump, every chance meeting with this or that European leader, and the constant, tedious and entirely futile meeting of the comically named ‘coalition of the willing’ is analysed in the greatest detail.
And all this endless stream of empty chatter is presented as the highest manifestation of present-day diplomacy to a public that has long since ceased to pay the slightest attention to it.
By contrast, hardly a word is ever provided about the actual events on the battlefield, which is far removed from the meaningless antics of a fictional diplomacy. The destiny of all wars is not decided by words, but by bombs, bullets, tanks and artillery shells. And the viability or not of any diplomatic solutions is ultimately determined by events on the battlefield, nowhere else.
The decisive question, which is conditioning everything else, is the situation on the front, which, from the Ukrainian point of view, is going from bad to worse. The New York Times recently published an article, which pointed to sections of the front collapsing. Obviously, the situation is deteriorating fast.
From any rational point of view, Zelensky should now be urgently contacting the Russians to try to negotiate the most favourable (or least unfavourable) terms he can get under the circumstances.
But Zelensky is not guided by any rational considerations. He still demands that the Russians – who are winning the war – should immediately surrender and give up all the occupied territories (including Crimea!) to the Ukrainians, who are losing it.
This would be the first and only time in history that an army that loses a war dictates terms to the victors! It is as if a man who is up against a wall with the pistol to his head, when asked to hand over his wallet, answers: ‘No! Why don’t you hand me your wallet!’
Evidently, such a person would either be someone who has recently escaped from a mental hospital, or else a man who was very tired of life and wishes to commit a speedy suicide.
Zelensky and his clique seem to have lost all contact with reality. The president, who is now displaying all the signs of extreme mental instability, seems to live in a world of dreams.
Faced with a growing spectre of defeat on all sides, he and his military chief, Oleksandr Stanislavovych Syrskyi, continually issue criminal orders to the embattled troops who are being surrounded by superior Russian forces, not to retreat or surrender a single millimetre of territory.
They have ordered repeated counteroffensives aimed at preventing the fall of Pokrovsk, leading to the senseless sacrifice of thousands of lives of brave men in order to save the city, the fall of which was absolutely inevitable.
Such situations are not unknown in history. When a regime is doomed, its principal adherents take refuge in all kinds of insane delusions. They close their eyes to reality and shut themselves off in a closed bubble, surrounded by servile lackeys and yes-men.
That was the fate of Adolf Hitler. By 1943, it was clear that Germany had lost the war and that the Soviet Red Army was on the point of launching an offensive that would be impossible to halt.
Instead of seeking some kind of diplomatic deal with the Americans (as some of the leading Nazis wished to), Hitler set himself up in his Berlin bunker, from whence he moved phantom, non-existent divisions and issued impossible orders for offensives that could never take place.
The result was a devastating defeat and the devastation of German cities. Hitler took the only path that was open to him and committed suicide.
It is often said that one can learn lessons from history. But Hegel pointed out that anyone who had studied history could only come to one conclusion: that no one had ever learnt any lesson from history.
We see the truth of that statement now in Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are paying a terrible price for the insane conduct of the leaders and even more appalling, immoral, cruel and inhuman behaviour of the so-called civilised leaders of Europe.
The fall of Pokrovsk
In the meantime, the war goes on. The western media is full of the most appalling distortions concerning the war in Ukraine. Faced with an unstoppable Russian advance, and the inevitability of Ukrainian defeat, the newspapers take refuge behind a barrage of propaganda but seeks to minimise Russian advances and to exaggerate the alleged (and frequently fictitious) stories of heroic Ukrainian counteroffensives.
The latest narrative being spun alleges that the Russians continue to make only incremental progress. They’re only advancing step by step, while suffering horrendous numbers of casualties. On that basis, they say, it will take them years to take possession of the rest of Donbas. But none of this is true.
As a matter of fact, the Russian advance, which has been steadily accelerating for some time, will proceed even more rapidly following the fall of Pokrovsk – which the western media tried to ignore, but was an event of great significance.
The fall of Pokrovsk signifies an important change in the situation. It represents a catastrophic defeat for the Ukrainian forces, and it opens up a major breach in the Ukrainian line of defence.
After this, one by one, all the main cities of Donbass will fall to the Russians in quite a rapid succession. The road will then be open to a more rapid advance in Zaporizhzhia, which has already begun.
The next objective will be the key cities of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, after which, the road will be open to the river Dnieper.
The Ukrainian army has suffered such terrible losses that they are now experiencing a severe manpower crisis. They do not have enough troops to cover the very long frontline, whereas the Russians have more than enough soldiers to attack at any point they choose.
This compels the Ukrainians to move their forces constantly from one area to another, keeping them in a constant state of alarm and increasing exhaustion.
The number of desertions continues to grow, as do the numbers of Ukrainian soldiers who surrender to the Russians. Reports appear regularly, even in the Ukrainian press, reflecting the low state of morale among the troops at the front.
The regime resorts to brutal strong-arm tactics to compel men to join the army. They are sent to the front, poorly armed and with very little training. Constantly, having no wish to be sent to a pointless death in Donbas, they desert at the earliest opportunity.
All the symptoms of an impending collapse of Ukrainian defences are now present. It is only a matter of time before such a collapse takes place. The initial signs only appear gradually, but they eventually accelerate until the critical point where quantity becomes transformed into quality.
The final collapse can therefore occur at any time, and will be sudden and unexpected, provoking a catastrophic crisis of the regime. All the signs are that Zelensky is very unpopular. His fall can also occur suddenly at any time.
All this is well-known to serious observers of the Ukraine war. It is also known to the US administration, and is the main reason for the sudden change in Trump’s policy.
Only the Europeans stubbornly remain in a state of denial. Blinded by their obsessive identification with the so-called Project Ukraine, like the captain of the ill-fated Titanic, they seem unable to contemplate a change of course.
They have invested so much in this disastrous policy, and they have tied their destiny so closely to that of Zelensky, that they are unable to face facts or to look the real situation in the face and draw the necessary conclusions.
Can negotiations succeed?
The single, overriding, all-important goal of the leaders of Europe is to defeat Trump’s plans by doing everything in their power to prolong and extend the war.
The Europeans are urging the Ukrainians not to make any compromises and to carry on fighting to the end. Oh yes! They are prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian. So, there we have it!
These politicians (most of them at least) must now realise that the war is hopelessly lost, and if the Ukrainians continue to fight, that it will end inevitably in the complete destruction of Ukraine as a sovereign nation state.
The fact that they claim to support Ukraine’s right to exist as a sovereign country is thus in blatant contradiction with these actions. But they are not only unconcerned with that fact. In fact, they would even welcome such an outcome.
It would give them the perfect excuse to say to the Americans: ‘look! We are now in serious danger. The Russian army is advancing westward, and will not stop at the borders of Poland. And it’s all your fault for not helping us defeat the Russians!’
‘Now you must come and help us by supporting your allies in NATO and enter into a direct conflict with Russia’. The fact that such a thing would amount to a Third World War, involving the two biggest nuclear powers on earth, does not seem to bother them in the slightest. They do not even think about such things. But then, these people ceased to think about anything some time ago.
The Russian assets
An indication of the level of their lunacy is their behaviour in relation to the frozen Russian assets. The initial decision to freeze billions of Russian assets in western banks even at the outset was extremely dubious from a legal point of view.
But Starmer, Macron, Merz, Ursula von der Leyen are now demanding a measure that is most definitely illegal. It amounts to the seizure of the frozen assets, which will then be used as ‘collateral’ for a €140 billion interest-free loan to Ukraine.
This would be the biggest act of theft in the whole of history. That it is nothing more than theft is publicly admitted by many people, including the Belgian government, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the City of London and the Bank of England.
All these authorities have warned against taking such an action, which they say correctly is illegal. But it seemed clear that Ursula von der Leyen and her partners in crime are not listening.
Incredibly, despite all the warnings, they are putting heavy pressure on Belgium to withdraw its objections, and they intend to invoke special emergency powers to compel all the states of Europe to participate in this theft and act as guarantors for the stolen money, which the Russians will undoubtedly take steps to recover through legal action in the future.
This amounts to a forced loan, which even those countries which disagree with the entire proceeding, will be obliged to accept. It would represent an entirely new departure, a dictatorial measure, disregarding all existing legality and the most elementary rules of democracy.
If this goes ahead, it will be pregnant with the most disastrous consequences for the European Union itself. Moreover, it is a powerful justification for the accusation made by the Americans that Europe is moving in the direction of increased authoritarian and antidemocratic rule.
What is particularly hard to understand is the rationale behind such frightfully surreal behaviour. What is the sense in handing over billions of euros to a regime that is already sinking under a mountain of unpaid debt, and is rapidly drowning in a morass of corruption, which is reaching right up to the tops of the state and government?
Where has all the money gone?
The question is never asked: who controls the vast sums of money given annually to the regime in Kyiv? Where has all this money gone? How is it that, having received countless billions of dollars and euros in recent years, Ukraine is now in a state of complete bankruptcy, unable, not just to finance the war, but even to pay for the normal upkeep of government?
Normally, no responsible bank would ever lend any money to an individual or company with such a record. But when it comes to handing over large sums of money to Zelensky, all caution seems to fly through the window.
It is perfectly obvious that even if the €140 billion are finally handed over (an outcome that appeared to be improbable that is nevertheless increasingly looking like a certainty), it will not last more than six months – if that.
A large part of it will have to go to repay his outstanding debts. A further huge amount will end up in bank accounts in the Caribbean, as the corrupt gang in Kyiv frantically fill their pockets, before fleeing the country.
What is left will be appropriated by American arms manufacturers, who now expect to be paid for every bullet and shell they send to Ukraine.
In any case, no amount of money or imported weapons can alter the final outcome of the war in Ukraine. If the Russians can obtain a deal that satisfies their core demands, the war could end very quickly. That possibility, however, can be safely discounted.
All the efforts of Donald Trump to square the circle will inevitably end in failure. Every step he takes to arrive at a deal with the Russians will be sabotaged by opposition, not just from Ukrainians and Europeans, but also by the entrenched reactionary establishment that behind-the-scenes holds all the strings behind the power setup in Washington.
What we described earlier as the ‘deep state’ is alive and well in America. It is a matter of indifference to them which individual or party is elected. Behind the scenes, the faceless mandarins will continue to exercise control.
And these people have absolutely no interest either in obtaining a peaceful solution in Ukraine, or in better relations between the USA and Russia. Donald Trump has thrown down a challenge to them. But they will merely pick it up, and throw it back in his face.
They can use all the power and influence they have to win a majority in Congress that can block and sabotage all Trump’s plans. They can mobilise the media to organise a noisy campaign, accusing him of betraying Ukraine and opposing America’s traditional values.
Will he be able to resist those pressures? It seems to me to be highly unlikely. In the end, the negotiations will achieve precisely nothing.
In any case, the Russians have already discounted all these possibilities. They remain supremely confident that they will win the war, whether America decides to halt its support for Ukraine or not.
The only difference will be to prolong the war by a few months, but not change the outcome. The human consequences for the people of Ukraine from a prolongation of the war will, of course, be terrible.
Many more lives will be lost. Cities will suffer further destruction. And all this for what?
But all this is a matter of complete indifference to Starmer and Macron, Merz and their other partners in crime. They meet together in the cosy surroundings of Number Ten Downing Street, thousands of miles distant from the slaughterhouse in Donbas and inform us, with the most extraordinary degree of assurance, defeat in war is preferable to a ‘bad peace’.
But the unfortunate Ukrainian soldiers, surrounded, outnumbered and outgunned in Donbas, will not share this view. Nor will thousands of Ukrainian families, shivering in the dark in freezing temperatures.
Hard experience tells them that there never was a good war or a bad peace. But their voice is drowned out by the sound of explosives. It is the voice of the liars and hypocrites that reaches the masses through the columns of our wonderful ‘free press’.
The cynicism of the European leaders on the Ukrainian question is absolutely revolting. And so is the cowardly complicit silence on the part of the so-called left. Yet all these hypocrites dared to describe themselves as ‘friends of Ukraine’!
