In a struggle for survival, NATO against Russia or Russia against NATO, in the end NATO has been defeated, which is showing visible signs of paralysis, and Russia is not responsible for this paralysis.
Meanwhile, Russia carried out an incredible feint by agreeing to Ukraine’s accession to the EU not in 2030 as the Europeans say, but in 2027.
The European Union has been transformed into a fortress of fear, showing intense signs of decay and disintegration.
Putin has won, claims Foreign Policy
The American magazine Foreign Policy, in a major analysis, emphasized that “Putin has already won.”
And indeed, he has achieved a global victory:
“In recent months, it has become clear that not only is there no unified Western position and opinion on Ukraine, but nothing remains of the united West itself.”
Indeed, the West has used Ukraine as a tool against Russia for so long that it has failed to notice how this tool has turned against it.
One scandal follows another
Ukraine divides the allies.
American President Trump is doing everything he can to end the conflict.
The “coalition of the willing” is doing everything to keep the war going.
Meanwhile, a huge number of Europeans are praying for Trump’s success.
The German leadership plans to introduce compulsory conscription, strengthens its military industrial complex, and threatens Russia with war, while the American administration declares that it is focused on maintaining strategic stability with Russia.
Hungary supports the conduct of peace talks on the Ukrainian issue, while France wants to send troops to Odessa.
The United States threatens Europe with support for right-wing political parties and local dissidents.
And the Brussels establishment, through von der Leyen, responds by declaring that it will fight this.
Brussels demands that the Americans fight for Ukraine.
The Americans refuse and submit a bill for the withdrawal of the United States from NATO.
The United States as a potential threat to Denmark’s security
Denmark appears dressed in the white of peace and declares the United States a “potential threat to the country’s security.”
It is particularly important that NATO member states are fiercely quarrelling among themselves, an alliance whose formidable military power depended on its own cohesion.
That cohesion was absolutely evident during the Cold War.
Now it has faded.
The alliance has shattered.
Who is to blame for this rupture.
Putin, of course, from the very beginning. “That was his motive for the NBC war, he calculated that NATO would not be able to withstand it,” believes Foreign Policy.
And things are getting worse.
Biden has been labeled as another culprit for what is happening.
It was under his term that Sweden and Finland were admitted to NATO, which, as it turned out, became another factor in the alliance’s internal discord.
The third “bad guy”
The third bad guy is Trump, who constantly sympathizes with Putin, despises Europe, and hates Zelensky.
Well, everything about him has been clear for a long time.
Western experts change tone and positions so dramatically fast.
At first, they were obsessively screaming about “NATO unity.”
And now, suddenly, this argument has disappeared, because the most powerful alliance of our time is simply losing on the battlefield.
But no, it is not that they are so stupid, it is Putin who is so cunning.
But it was the Russian president who repeatedly, and long before the Special Operation in Ukraine, warned that the aggressive expansion of NATO and the alliance’s attempts to wage a proxy hybrid war against Russia would boomerang back against the West.
In any case, Putin had foreseen everything, we must acknowledge that.
And there was so much joy about Sweden’s and Finland’s entry into NATO.
This was a victory. Thus the Russian barbarians were punished.
And now it turns out that this has become a factor in the split within NATO.
Of course, the decaying and poor countries of Europe do not have money for rearmament.
They demand subsidies, and Europe does not have enough money for everything.
The naive argument
Blaming Trump for everything and hoping that a Democrat will succeed him in the United States is also extremely naive.
First, the Republicans have a larger number of representatives than the Democrats.
Second, even a change in the ruling party is no guarantee that Washington will change its foreign policy.
The futility and harm of global aggressiveness, especially for the United States itself, is obvious to many there, not only to Republicans but also to Democrats.
For Americans, isolationism is objectively their last chance for salvation, and it seems that this trend will continue for a long time.
NATO is paralyzed due to the Europeans’ suicidal policies
The paralysis of NATO was a beneficial side effect of the New World Order, but it was certainly not the machinations of Russia that caused it, but the irrational, suicidal policies of European leaders.
They did everything themselves, and they are the ones to blame for the fact that in the postwar world, the Old Continent will not sit at the negotiating table.
The EU has fallen into a trap
In early November 2025, the European Commission published a report assessing candidate countries for EU membership, including Ukraine, Moldova, Montenegro, and Albania.
The report found that Ukraine had demonstrated “exceptional progress” on all 33 negotiation points, and the EU Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos, stated that Ukraine’s accelerated accession to the EU is a “very realistic prospect” and could occur “even before 2030.”
Even the wild corruption scandal involving Yermak and Timur Mindich failed to significantly slow the speed of Kyiv’s locomotive toward the “Magic Garden” station.
The main goal is to give Putin the opportunity to enter the EU, and to achieve this, even ISIS can be admitted to the EU.
The Journal of Democracy carved this European position in stone in its article titled “Is Ukraine too corrupt to be admitted to the EU”: “It is time to stop exaggerating Ukraine’s corruption problem and using it as an excuse to slow its accession to the EU.
Objections to its accession have little to do with corruption and much more to do with fear of Putin’s Russia.
Whatever the concerns, corruption should not be the main issue.”
This is what Zelensky demands
Zelensky, boldly, began demanding that Ukraine join the EU no later than 2030 and would not accept any “limited” or “trial” accession without veto rights and full funding, give it to us immediately, all at once.
Kyiv, Brussels, and those who “want it” stood in battle formation, expecting fierce resistance from the United States and Russia.
And then, the next day, a very strange and somewhat frightening article appeared in the Financial Times, claiming that Trump’s peace plan, based on the Anchorage agreements with Putin, includes accelerated Ukraine accession to the EU with a fixed deadline, 1 January 2027, three years earlier than Kyiv’s wildest ambitions.
Then everything becomes incredibly interesting: it turns out that “the inclusion of this term in the text of the agreement essentially turns Ukraine’s accession into a political obligation for the European Union, despite the fact that Kyiv has not completed any of the required 36 negotiation stages,” and that “setting the accession deadline should become a tool for exerting pressure on Kyiv during the negotiations.”
The chorus of the European media
Not knowing what was happening, the Europeans began moving in the opposite direction, just in case.
For example, according to Reuters, a European diplomat said that Ukraine’s accession to the EU by 2027 would be “extremely difficult” and it was not clear whether the EU leadership supported it, while other officials said the target date was “completely unrealistic.”
The British newspaper The Guardian, which had previously been obsessively fixated on Ukraine’s accession to the EU like a fool, suddenly began anxiously listing why it would be extremely difficult: “The complex EU accession process usually takes years and requires a unanimous vote by all 27 member states,” and then there is Hungary, so.
The report even quoted a Brussels official who said: “As if the Americans were deciding for us. It is nonsense, there needs to be a desire for enlargement, which does not exist now.”
Wait a minute, who has been shouting since 2014 that Ukraine is part of Europe and should be in the EU tomorrow, or even better, yesterday.
It is not difficult to recall Putin’s words in China at the summit of the Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD), where he noted that “Russia has never opposed Ukraine’s accession to the European Union” and that, in general, it is Ukraine’s issue.
If they want it, let them proceed, we are all in favor.
Russophobic obsession
The fact is that, according to Western analysts, the European Union has made Russophobia its official platform.
The inclusion of Ukraine would simply destroy the EU from within, and Putin would not even need to wash his hands of it.
Some commentators have pointed out a subtle Machiavellianism: if Ukraine had been admitted to the EU in the early 1990s, this would have given the Union a colossal boost.
Now, the situation is exactly the opposite: Europe is on the brink of collapse and Ukraine will have to share the dregs.
Ricardo Martins, author of the book Modern Diplomacy, described the situation with great precision: “The trajectory of the tragic collapse of the EU seems clear: a union that once promised prosperity and peace is turning into a fortress of fear and social insecurity, defined by military spending, deficits, and subjugation.
Its citizens were promised a common future. Instead, they receive a militarized present and an uncertain tomorrow.”
In other words, forget even the Polish strawberry fields, even that will not happen.
The British newspaper The Telegraph once published an article titled “Why Russia wants Ukraine to join the EU.”
According to the authors, Putin views Ukraine as a “destructive force” that will “add fuel to internal tensions within the EU, potentially leading to the fragmentation of the union and internal conflicts.”
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών