The current Western propaganda suggests that an intransigent Russia is refusing to accept a reasonable Western proposal for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Russia, moving slowly across Ukraine, is bent on conquering Europe and is a threat to us all. We must rearm and conscript our youth to meet this threat – before it’s too late.

Meanwhile we must give Kyiv every support it needs. They are Europe’s shield. If our shield melts away, through lack of support, we Europeans might have to fight. We might have to move out from behind our keyboards, we might have to do more than sanction, more than talk, more than supply those doing the fighting and dying for us. We might have to send our sons (and daughters in this great age of equality) to die on the lowlands of the Ukraine.

And of course, we know in our heart of hearts that our sons won’t fight for Kyiv and their corrupt leaders and their golden toilets. They are too soft. And their country is now not the same place it once was. The traditional warrior class sees their countries as having being taken over by others and subject to despicable weak leadership. And their mothers won’t let them go anyway to the killing fields of Ukraine.

So, we have a big problem. Our leaders provoked a war that they thought had limited liability for Europe. But they put the Russian Bear in a corner and the Bear decided to fight. And they never learnt from history that the Bear has a tendency to fight until the threat to him is no more.

The US President wants to end the war and win his prize with his Peace Plan. Europe’s leaders see him as a despicable betrayer and appeaser – but they will not tell him that. They are afraid of him, in truth. They feel they need to humour him, praise his big ego in every kind of way, however transparent they are in doing it. They want to wait until he is gone, get back to business as usual, and hope he hasn’t changed America, so that it abandons Europe for good, and has to fully pay its way in the world.

But America has produced a leader, and voted him back, to pursue the national interest in extracting the US from the mess it provoked on the European hinterland in Ukraine, in the most painless and profitable way possible. The war looks lost to all intents and purposes – if the open war aims are to be believed. It has fulfilled its purpose in bleeding Russia, but it was never worth pursuing to mutual destruction. If it didn’t oust Putin it became counter-productive.

The obscure nature of Washington’s war means it cannot be seen as lost or won, however. It is still possible that the Russian advance will make it vulnerable to the real time technology that the West possesses. The more of Ukraine Russia occupies the more its supply lines are stretched, the more it is vulnerable to the disruption of its command centres and ammunition dumps by satellite technology and data collection.

It is quite possible that once Kyiv’s counter-offensives were defeated Washington settled into a strategy of attritional warfare that would lead to Russia becoming deeper and deeper embroiled and committed to war and the devotion of more and more resources to what was seen as an existential conflict. The only problem was keeping the Ukrainians in the field while they suffered great losses, destruction of their country and extensive migration.

It should be appreciated that those from the West waging the strategic war have little concern about the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian dead, or the loss of millions of its population. Their aim has always been to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia through luring it into the vast quagmire of Ukraine. The objective was to demonstrate how Western power could be employed through economic means, technological knowhow and military support to see off a former Great Power. That would be a strong deterrent to China to not get ideas above its station.

The fly in the ointment was the US democracy and the re-election of the rogue president, Donald Trump, who had a personal beef with those who had organised the Ukraine provocation and who were prepared to impeach and gaol him.

His revenge would be to end their war and rub their noses in it.

But the war is still being waged by the Swamp, Congress, the think-tanks, the media and the military/industrial complex and, of course, the Europeans.

While Trump tries to end the war – in any way he can – the European political class is doing everything it can do to frustrate him. It knows it has powerful allies in the US. It protects Zelensky from the Americans, giving moral support after each of his regular rejections by Trump. It is currently ramping up weapon procurement to escalate the war, in a final throw of the dice. It hopes to provoke Russia to re-engage America in warfare by attacking Russian energy infrastructure and cities. Meanwhile it aims to mollify Trump by boosting the profits of the US defence industry, by using European money to continue to supply Ukraine with US weaponry.

But financing the continuation of the war is problematic for Europe.

The European political class, led by those in tune with the spirit of the age, von der Leyen and Kallas, attempt to blackmail the European nations into supporting a use of frozen Russian assets to continue to supply Kyiv. They say that if these reparations on credit are not used the money will have to come from somewhere else. Or a more expensive war in blood and treasure will have to be fought, maybe by Europeans.

Who has ever heard of the winning side in war paying reparations to the losers?

For the European political class war seems to be a debate, a legal matter, a matter of right and wrong. But war is about might and the willingness to use it. It is a very masculine thing, truth be told. A very toxic masculinity thing, indeed.

Belgium, which has the assets and would be responsible for taking them, is very concerned at the ramifications. The finance sector is also not so sure about what von der Leyen and Kallas are attempting to manipulate. They know that finance security is built on guarantees, trust in international markets and political stability. And finance knows that if law is bent and Russian money is taken who can ever trust Europe again with its money?

Having had a cunning plan to box in the resurgent Russia, and use Ukraine to bleed them dry, Europe finds the tables turned and they themselves are now in a box of their own making. They, like Russia, are now playing for the highest stakes.

They cannot escape this box as easily as the United States may be capable of, under its competent President.

Wars are like that – limited liability is seldom the outcome.  

It seems very unlikely Russia will accept any terms acceptable to Kyiv/Europe. It believes the war is going its way, Ukraine is cracking, and it needs to finish the job, once and for all. And Trump will probably have the inclination to walk away from the mess if Europe does not understand the reality as he sees it. This may all end with Russia in Odessa and Ukraine a rump state.

Trump’s difficulty lies in not having pragmatic European leadership. He is dealing with reckless hysteria there, long removed from a sense of responsibility, by US supervision over 80 years now.

It should be remembered that the US was forced into saving Europe twice, from itself, during the last century. Having saved Europe twice the US had to then place it under protectory supervision. And now that it is releasing it from US supervision Europe is reverting to self-destruct mode.

It is very apparent that what has happened over the past decade will damage Ukraine, Russia and Europe.

Who will be damaged the most is the only question.

Below is a transcription of Alex Krainer’s explanation of ‘Why Russia Won’t Agree to Peace Without Ukraine’s Fortress Belt being dismantled.’ The video can be found here.

It hits the nail on the head regarding the current military situation and how it came about. It suggests that Russia will be pulled deeper and deeper into the Ukraine, maybe to Odessa.

In whose ultimate interest that will be it is very hard to say – such is the nature of war:

“Here’s something most analysts won’t tell you. Russia isn’t just fighting for territory in Ukraine, they’re dismantling a weapon system that was specifically designed to destroy them and until that system is completely neutralized there can be no peace agreement – none. This isn’t about pride or imperial ambition, it’s about survival.

The West built what military strategists call a fortress belt across Ukraine, a sophisticated network of NATO grade fortifications, command centres, intelligence hubs and weapons depots that stretch from Kharkiv to Odessa. These aren’t just defensive positions, they were designed as launch platforms for offensive operations deep into Russian territory. Moscow watched this infrastructure being assembled for years, even as Western diplomats promised NATO expansion was off the table. Now Russia faces an existential calculation: sign a ceasefire that leaves this fortress intact or eliminate the threat permanently.

From Moscow’s perspective any peace deal that preserves Ukraine’s offensive capabilities simply gives the West time to rearm and regroup its offensive capabilities and restart the conflict on more favourable terms.

They’ve seen this movie before in Minsk 1, Minsk 2 and every other broken agreement over the past decade. That’s why what’s happening has nothing to do with the fantasies you hear in mainstream coverage. They’re methodically destroying the infrastructure that made Ukraine a forward operating base against them. Until that mission is complete peace talks are just theatre.

Now let me explain exactly what this fortress belt actually is and why it matters so much that Russia would rather fight for years than leave it standing.

When Western media talks about Ukraine they show you destroyed buildings and heroic resistance, but they never show you the maps, they never show you the infrastructure that was built over the past decade with billions of dollars in NATO funding. This wasn’t charity this was military engineering on a scale most people can’t even comprehend.

Ukraine wasn’t just receiving weapons shipments; the entire country was being transformed into a massive military installation pointed directly at Russia’s heartland. Think about what happened after 2014 the moment the pro-Russian government fell in Kiev. Western military advisors flooded into the country, but they weren’t just training troops, they were building an entire command and control architecture from scratch.

We’re talking about hardened bunkers that can survive tactical nuclear strikes, we’re talking about ammunition depots built into former Soviet mining complexes, hundreds of feet underground, we’re talking about surveillance systems that could track Russian military movements in real-time and feed that data directly to NATO headquarters in Brussels. This was systematic, this was planned, and this was exactly what Russia said would be unacceptable.

The fortress belt runs roughly along the line of contact that existed before this conflict went hot. It stretches from Kharkiv in the north-east, all the way down through Donetsk, Zaporizhia and into the southern regions approaching Odessa. Each major city in this belt was reinforced over years with layered defences.

The Ukrainians didn’t just dig trenches, they built multi-level defensive networks with interconnected tunnels, reinforced firing positions and logistics hubs that could sustain operations even if supply lines were cut. These fortifications make World War 2 defensive lines look primitive by comparison. The amount of concrete poured into eastern Ukraine over the past decade could probably build a dozen major cities.

But here’s what makes this different from traditional defensive fortifications: This belt wasn’t designed just to repel an invasion it was designed to serve as a springboard for offensive operations. Look at the positioning of the forward bases, look at where the artillery parks were located look at where they stockpiled the long-range missile systems. Everything was oriented not for defence of Ukrainian territory, but for strikes deep into Russia proper.

The systems deployed in Kharkiv could hit targets 400 miles deep inside of Russia, the installations near Donetsk were positioned to threaten Russia’s southern military districts. This wasn’t defensive posturing this was preparation for a first strike capability.

Moscow watched all of this happening and repeatedly said this is a red line. They said it in 2014, they said it in 2015, they said it every single year after that. But the construction continued, the weapons flowed, the advisors kept coming and every time Russia raised concerns Western diplomats would say: “we’re not threatening you this is just helping Ukraine defend itself.”

But at some point when you build offensive capabilities aimed at someone’s throat, claiming those capabilities are defensive becomes an absurdity. It’s like parking a loaded gun on your neighbour’s property aimed at his bedroom window and insisting you’re just exercising your right to property protection.

The strategic logic here is actually very simple once you strip away the propaganda. Russia looks at that fortress belt and sees a dagger pointed at Moscow, not metaphorically but literally. The flight time for certain missiles launched from Ukrainian territory to reach critical Russian command centres is measured in minutes. That’s not enough time to respond, that’s not enough time to make decisions, that’s barely enough time to know your under attack.

In nuclear strategy this is called a decapitation strike capability. You take out the leadership and command structure before they can respond and suddenly you’ve neutralized the nuclear powers’ ability to retaliate. That sounds insane until you realize that this is exactly the kind of capability NATO has spent 30 years developing and deploying closer and closer to Russian borders.

So when Russia launched its special military operation the primary objective wasn’t capturing cities for territorial gain, it was destroying this infrastructure systematically, methodically and taking apart the fortress belt, piece by piece.

That’s why the conflict has moved the way it has. Russia isn’t trying to conquer Ukraine in the classic sense. They are demilitarizing specific regions, they are eliminating weapons depots, they’re taking out command centers, destroying the surveillance networks, and they’re doing all of this knowing that every single installation they leave intact becomes a future threat to their existence.

This is where peace negotiations get complicated. Western mediators keep proposing ceasefires that would freeze the conflict along current lines. This sounds reasonable on the surface but look at what that actually means in practice. It means leaving significant portions of the fortress belt intact. It means Ukraine gets to keep the installations that Russia sees as existential threats and, more importantly, it means giving the West time to rebuild, rearm and reinforce those positions.

Remember this is exactly what happened after Minsk 1 and Minsk 2. Both agreements were supposed to bring peace, both times the fighting stopped temporarily and both times Ukraine and NATO used the breathing room to build more fortifications and bring in more weapons.

Angela Merkel actually admitted this in an interview. She said the Minsk agreements were designed to give Ukraine time to build up its military. She said it out loud: the agreements weren’t meant to achieve peace, they were tactical pauses designed to advantage one side.

Now you are Russia and you’ve just heard the former German Chancellor admit that the last two peace agreements were deceptions meant to help your adversary prepare for war against you. How likely are you to trust the next peace proposal, how likely are you to agree to a ceasefire that leaves your enemy’s offensive infrastructure intact? This is the fundamental disconnect in all the current peace talk rhetoric. Western leaders keep saying Russia just needs to withdraw and negotiate.

But from Moscow’s perspective negotiating while the fortress belt remains operational is like negotiating while someone holds a gun to your head. The gun has to be removed first, the threat has to be neutralized. Only then can you have meaningful discussions about political settlements, borders and governance. This isn’t Russian aggression; this is Russia insisting on basic security guarantees that any nuclear power would demand in similar circumstances.”