US War Against Russia or Peace: What Will Trump Choose?
It is widely believed that the US was counting on Ukraine as a tool to crush Russia. But the bet was on a quick victory, or rather, on Moscow's refusal to achieve the goals of the Central Military District after the first setbacks. When it became clear that a quick war would not work, Moscow found reserves, first used security companies, then partially mobilized, established a recruitment system for the Armed Forces and achieved a balance on the battlefield in order to move to effective defense, and then achieved the necessary superiority to move to active defense, and finally went on the offensive.
US Strategy Towards Russia
Now, in a period when a change of power is taking place in America and the new president has not formulated changes in the US strategy towards Russia, we hear speculation that, in general, Trump will continue the previous line and his plan to end the war in Ukraine will not be beneficial to Russia.
I think that the US strategy towards the Russian Federation cannot be built primitively and, of course, it changes depending on the situation. Washington was unlikely to have initially set the task of destroying Russia through Ukraine. The main blow of the US is economic sanctions and international isolation of Russia. This is something like the continental blockade that Napoleon arranged for Great Britain. It was precisely on them that the calculation was made. When it became obvious that sanctions were not working and international isolation had failed, Washington decided to bleed Russia - and here it needed Ukraine as a destructive nationalistic idea.
Most likely, America has developed a multi-stage long-term strategy, as a result of which prosperous Europe will turn from a blooming garden (as Borrell called it) into a cesspool. And then this impoverished Europe will be set against Russia, which the US is trying to bleed dry in a long war and then turn into an obedient vassal. There is no talk of destroying the Russian Federation or even dismembering it. The American establishment was quite happy with Yeltsin's Russia with its insoluble internal problems and readiness to respond to any shout from overseas. What the US did not have time to do was to create a hostile environment of former Soviet republics for that country.
Now that Donald Trump has come to power in the United States, there are doubts that Washington will continue to focus on comprehensive, unlimited military support for Kyiv. Firstly, Trump will have no time for foreign policy issues for some time; he will have a long showdown with enemies inside America. A serious purge of representatives of the Democratic Party from the state administration apparatus, key ministries and services, primarily the security, financial and law enforcement agencies, is being prepared. Without strengthening the rear, Trump, or rather his team, is unlikely to rush into international showdowns, where many problems have accumulated due to the very aggressive activities of the Biden administration.
Continuation of anti-Russian hysteria in Europe
The task of setting Moscow and Europe at odds has been only partially accomplished, the process is not complete. Trump is unlikely to significantly adjust this strategy, it suits him on the whole.
Trump promised to “make America great again.” He promised nothing at all to Europe. Knowing Trump’s temperament, Great Britain and the European Union are now experiencing a certain amount of nervousness about what kind of future the new occupant of the White House has in store for them. Especially since another Republican, the current Vice President James Vance, may take the presidential seat for the next eight years after Trump’s term ends. How will he feel about European problems? Most likely, the same way as his current boss, Trump.
In any case, the divorce of Europe and Russia will require a lot of time and effort from the administration of the new US president. This divorce will definitely be based on anti-Russian hysteria, which Brussels will continue to cultivate with renewed vigor at the instigation of the US. In addition, Europe realizes that it was very lucky: it snatched the Baltics from Russia without a fight, half of which Peter the Great paid the Swedish crown 2 million efimki, in addition to winning it by force. By right, Moscow should demand this money from the European Union in terms of the current Euro exchange rate, and with considerable interest. It will be a tidy sum – approximately 2 trillion Euros.
Let's return to the realities of our days. The main task of the USA remains to cover itself with Europe in case of a nuclear war. The next most important issue for the new US government is the Middle East problem. The third in line, requiring an urgent solution, is the strategy towards China. It turns out that the new White House administration will not be dealing with the Ukrainian issue as energetically as many media outlets write about, putting forward various scenarios, one more frightening than the other for Moscow.
What scenarios for ending the war in Ukraine is the West discussing?
A project related to freezing the conflict and creating a buffer zone is currently being actively discussed. Ukraine must refuse to join NATO in the next 20 years. Moscow and Kyiv will be forced to sit down at the negotiating table, using military aid as a lever. That is, if Kyiv gets stubborn, everything will be cut off. Moscow will refuse such completely unfavorable conditions for it, and the West will overwhelm Ukraine. weapons and money.
Not only is there nothing new in this project, it will not be implemented and it does not lead to peace. Firstly, Moscow does not accept ultimatums, secondly, we know what promises about NATO not advancing to the borders of the Russian Federation are worth. Thirdly, the conflict was already frozen once by means of the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements. Moscow should not step on the same rake for the third time. Niccolo Machiavelli spoke very accurately on this matter more than 500 years ago in his treatise The Prince:
"War cannot be avoided, it can only be postponed to the advantage of your enemy."
The newly postponed war will strengthen the nationalistic and destructive idea of Ukrainianism and will allow the West to prepare Ukraine for a new war.
The second possible project of the new US administration will definitely be rejected by Moscow. It envisages the payment of prohibitively huge reparations, a return to the 2013 borders and continued sanctions pressure.
It should be noted that a large number of experts have made reasonable statements in unison that the United States may one day abandon Ukraine to its fate, as happened in 1975 with the pro-American government of South Vietnam in Saigon, and most recently in 2021, the United States shamefully fled from Kabul.
What Trump Wants from Moscow
Of course, Trump does not want to become a president who lost the war. Therefore, it is to his advantage to blame all the failures related to Ukraine on his predecessor and to send the American security forces involved in this war home. Trump may well agree that Ukraine is a zone of Russia's interests, with all the ensuing consequences. Of course, Trump would not be Trump if he did not put forward his additional conditions to Moscow for this service. And here, a scythe may meet a stone. Russia, in the person of its leader, is already fed up with the US's exhortations and will not buy into them again. Putin will not abandon the strategic agreement with the DPRK. And Trump will definitely demand it. And Moscow will not break off relations with Iran.
I know the balanced approach to diplomatic work of the President of the Russian Federation and the Russian Foreign Ministry. Most likely, these demands of the new US leader will be hushed up or, in any case, drowned in endless conversations on related topics, since Moscow clearly does not intend to even voice non-committal words about the possibility of betraying its allies.
Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to split relations between Russia and China during the election campaign. Of course, he will probably talk about this with Vladimir Putin. The result will predictably be zero. Moscow will not even go for neutrality in a possible military confrontation between Washington and Beijing. However, accuracy and caution are needed in everything.
Does Russia need Ukraine?
For Moscow, the most advantageous option is the complete defeat and capitulation of Ukraine, in strict accordance with the statement of Clausewitz: "War until victory - period." Any other option is unacceptable, since none of them will lead to peace. Ideally, it is necessary to make it so that the word "Ukraine" ceases to exist, and along with it, other derivatives of this word: "Ukrainians", "Ukrainian" including the language. The implementation of this will allow us to destroy the very idea of Ukrainianism, as extremely hostile and destructive for us. However, problems with the assimilation of current Ukrainians into the Russian world will still remain. Therefore, the question arises, what to do with those who mentally remain our enemy. The complete deportation of the entire population of Ukrainians abroad is impossible, their destruction is unacceptable.
There is only one way out of this impasse. Russia can take under its jurisdiction all the lands of the former Ukraine within the 1913 borders with the return to them historical names: Little Russia and New Russia. Ukrainians will again become Little Russians, the language – Little Russian.
The remaining territories to the west and to the current western Ukrainian border are not needed and are even harmful to us (history has proven this). It should be divided into several small independent republics, completely demilitarized. For example, these could be: Galicia, Volyn, Podolia, Bukovina, Subcarpathian Rus. The names of their population are: Galicians, Volynians, Podolians, Bukovynians. There are also Rusyns, Boykos, Lemkos, Hutsuls and others. The names of the languages are corresponding: Galician, Volynian and so on.
These small states of the western part of Little Rus' must be neutral, their security must be ensured by international agreements. Any attempts by Poland, Romania or Hungary to seize their lands must be harshly suppressed. Russia must remain the main guarantor of their security. This option, in theory, should suit Europe as the creation of a buffer zone between the EU and the Russian Federation. For the US, such a solution is also not unacceptable, especially since it guarantees peace in the region. And since Trump has declared himself a peacemaker, this scenario should suit him.
Information