Fighting for Peace and Fighting for War in Ukraine

More importantly, Kiev also rejected Russia’s key demand, thus maintaining the root, main cause of the war: NATO’s and Kiev’s attempts to have Ukraine become a NATO member

Russian and Eurasian Politics, by Gordonhahn, November 26, 2025, https://gordonhahn.com/2025/11/26/fighting-for-peace-and-fighting-for-war-in-ukraine/

We are witnessing another failed effort by U.S. President Donald Trump to make peace in Ukraine. Europe, perhaps along with the Deep State, has helped Kiev reject yet another Trump diplomatic effort. This leaves in place the threat of a Europe-wide war with Russia. Europe very possibly will spark a larger war with Russia.

The effort for peace spawned by the 28-point plan drafted by Steve Witkoff in consultation with Moscow has failed because Kiev again has refused to accept Russia’s key demands: Ukrainian neutrality, territorial concessions, and demilitarization. Denazification appears to a less key demand for Moscow or at least Kiev is willing to make concessions on this point.

Rather than accepting its imminent defeat the Ukrainians joined with their European allies in once again drafting an alternative, completely countervaling and counter-productive peace proposal, which Moscow immediately rejected, having already accepted the Trump document, as „a basis for a future agreement,“ as Russian President Vladimir Putin put it.

This could have led to the beginning of a three-way give and take, but Kiev rejected abandoning the 20 percent of Donetsk Oblast territory its forces still hold and demands an 800,000-man army. More importantly, it also rejected Russia’s key demand, thus maintaining the root, main cause of the war: NATO’s and Kiev’s attempts to have Ukraine become a NATO member, despite the objective threat this poses to Russian national security and Moscow’s opposition to NATO expansion spanning three decades.

Europe immediately declared its opposition to the plan and raced to draft the alternative, Kievan plan to undercut the Trump plan, repeating an exercise they undertook in summer when another Trump diplomatic effort seemed might make some headway. Furthermore, it appears that the Deep State and/or MI6 have helped to spearhead the Eurpean effort to derail the Trump peace train.

The bugging and leak to Bloomberg of a less than compromising conversation between Steven Witkoff and Russian President’s chief foreign policy advisor Yurii Ushakov has been used as was intended: to discredit the peace plan, which neocon propagandists like Michael Weiss have claimed was a purely Russian creation that Trump and other ‚Putin agents‘ dutifully pushed on tot he agenda, doing the Kremlin’s bidding.

Trump’s only hope of acheiving an agreement is to force one by pulling out all the stops in order to pressure Kiev to accede to Moscow’s demands, which are backed up strongly by Russia’s mounting advance across eastern Ukraine towards the Dnieper River.

Only depriving Kiev of all US assistance has a chance of forcing Ukrainian leader Volodomyr Zelenskiy to agree to a neutrality, a small army, and territorial losses. But Trump does not want to be blamed for helping Russia to achieve its war goals and to be able to claim a military victory over both Ukraine and NATO. Trump cannot abode a semi-credible propaganda campaign tot he effect that it was he is a loser, that he lost the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War, imagined by most in the West as ‚Putin’s full-scale, unprovoked war against Ukraine.‘ This is the stalement – one between Trump’s political needs and personal weaknesses, European and Kievan elites political-survival needs requiring Russia’s defeat, and Russia’s realistic perceptions of its national security’s min imal requirements – there is no stalement on the battlefield.

Only two outcomes are possible immediately – that is, during Trump’s presidency: (1) Russia takes all of Ukraine east of the Dniester or (2) a European-wide war begins when some Europeans deploy forces to western Ukraine and they are attacked by Russia and/or when Ukraine or its Western partners orchestrate some false flag operation to justify an escalation. These two outcomes both can occur sequentially.

The first outcome is already underway prompting panic and desparate steps in global neocon circles from Washington to Stanford to London and Paris. Russian forces are taking Kupyansk in the north on their way to Kharkov. After Kharkov, the road is open to western Kiev. Russian troops are finishing the capture of the important conglomeration and hub of Pokrovsk and Myrnograd, which opens the way to the last significant Ukrainian strong point of Pavlograd, located a mere 15 miles from the major industrial city of Dnipro on the Dnieper.

Further to the south, Russian forces have already entered Guliapole after having finished up sweeping through several small towns in the wake of capturing Vugledar 13 months ago. The southern city of Zaporozhia on the Dnieper also is now in site. Gulaipole is halfway from Vugledar to Zaporozhia, with Russian forces moving twice as fast as they were moving immediately after taking Vugledar. In addition to these forces marching west, other Russian forces are fighting towards the city from the south. That is the Russia will be at the Dnieper in force along a broad front in a matter of months, with Dnipro and Zaporozhia likely to fall in 1-3 months. There is no stopping the Russian army now. Its manpower, weapons superiority, and morale are increasing, while those of Kiev are in persistent decline.

The second outcome, which becomes more possible, as European and Kievan elites scramble to avoid political, professional and even personal disaster for themselves, is a European provocation of a larger European war. The French are making more and more insistent noises about sending troops to Odessa and elsewhere in Ukraine. And the voices calling for the deployment of European troops to Ukraine are becoming increasingly shrill.

Most recently, Gen. Fabien Mandon, French army’s new chief-of-staff, told a congress of mayors that France’s must muster will to fight:

“We have the know-how, and we have the economic and demographic strength to dissuade the regime in Moscow.”

“What we are lacking – and this is where you [the mayors] have a role to play – is the spirit. The spirit which accepts that we will have to suffer if we are to protect what we are.

“If our country wavers because it is not ready to lose its children … or to suffer economically because the priority has to be military production, then we are indeed at risk.

“You must speak of this in your towns and villages” (www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/world/europe/france-voluntary-military-service.html). 

Simultaneously, former NATO Secreytary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared: „Europe must stop waiting for signals from Washington and take the initiative in Ukraine. Paper guarantees mean nothing to Putin. Only concrete commitments matter. That’s why I now call for Europe to deploy up to 20,000 troops behind Ukraine’s front lines, establish an air shield with around 150 combat aircraft, and unlock frozen Russian assets. Europe earns its seat at the table by bringing real capability, not by asking for permission“ (https://x.com/AndersFoghR/status/1993221555166310410?s=20).

Europe’s ruling neocon-neoliberal elite are ‚simulacrats‘; they believe they can create reality on the basis of an the old world long dead and a new world it imagines, attempts to construct, make real by way of propaganda and the fear and hate it can induce. The old war of different glorious national pasts is mixed with the fictional new world of a Europe with perfect, pure democracies, histories, cultures, motives, and policies facing a putrid, barbarian Russia driven by an inexhaustible thirst for domination, power, and violence. Reality can be instantly reconfigured. First, Russia is a weak authoritarian regime with clay feet of oil and terror and an army that captures an uninhabited Ukrainian village or two per month. Then it is capable of conquering Europe, being at your front door virtually any day now.

The choice between war and peace should be an easy one. To be sure, Mr. Putin seems to have chosen war back in February 2022. However, there was good cause, and he softened the blow by conducting not the full-fledged massive invasion of Western mythology but a limited invasion force of some 100,000 troops and using little of Russia’s monumental air power. Moreover, he immediately contacted Kiev for peace talks, seeking an end to NATO expansion in Ukraine and the massive military buildup there equipped and trained by NATO. Mr. Zelenskiy immediately agreed to talk, and the ensuing Istanbul process yielded a treaty initialed by both sides in late March.

But the West chose a more serious war. The Bucha false flag ‘Russian massacre‘ was organized and Washington sent its British minion, then PM Boris Johnson to inform Kiev that the West would not provide the security guarantees, upon which much of Kiev’s agreement to the treaty rested and promised military and other assistance ‘for as long as it takes.‘ Putin’s short war for Russian nationals security became Ukraine’s long war for NATO. Now it is one for the survival of the Maidan regime and perhaps of NATO and the EU.

Some in the West have changed the nature of its assistance, struggling to build an offramp from destruction for Kiev, but others appear ready to offer in full the Ukrainian sacrificial lamb on the altar of NATO expansion ‘for as long as it takes‘ for Trump to leave the Oval Office and a new proponent of war for dying, democratic Ukraine‘ takes his place.

November 29, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment