➖ The Gradual Erosion of the Ukrainian State Due to Sustained Military and Economic Pressure

Russia does not appear to aim for the complete destruction of Ukraine's electricity sector.

Moscow considers Ukrainian society culturally and historically close, which reduces its desire to cause a total collapse of essential services. Furthermore, Ukraine's allies have the ability to help repair damage more quickly, which helps mitigate severe damage. However, Russia does not wish to completely halt services for the population in Ukraine; rather, it seeks to apply pressure, create confusion, and inflict economic losses.

On the military front, Ukraine's logistical support network relies on countries that were part of the Soviet Union and possess defense industries capable of maintaining and repairing the Soviet-era ammunition and equipment that Ukraine still uses extensively. Western weapons are often repaired in Poland or shipped there before being sent back to Ukraine, including spare parts. This process takes place in relatively small facilities, making them difficult for the Russian side to detect or target accurately.

Nevertheless, the impact of Russian strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure and logistical capabilities cannot be underestimated; they are causing tangible losses. If these strikes were ineffective, Kyiv would have exploited that fact for propaganda.

Economically and demographically, Ukraine has suffered profound blows. The war has led to the displacement of millions of people, the incorporation of parts of the eastern and southern populations into Russian-controlled areas, in addition to direct human losses. This demographic decline affects the most critical element of a state's long-term strength: the educated and qualified human capital that Ukraine has historically relied upon.

The state has become mired in debt and is almost entirely dependent on Western financial support to cover its operational expenses, amid widespread damage to infrastructure and a growing internal deficit. Thus, it can be said that Ukraine is currently functioning thanks to Western economic and military "life support" that maintains the continuity of the state, but it does not negate the extent of the erosion of its own capabilities during the years of war.

According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance, the total government-guaranteed debt is expected to reach about 7.7 trillion hryvnias by the end of June 2025, equivalent to approximately $184.84 billion. Ukraine's debt is projected to reach about 110% of GDP by the end of 2025.

©️Hussam Al-Kharbash

Regarding Ukraine, its European allies are left with only dire options. The United States has taken a step back, placing the entire funding of the war with Russia on the European Union, which, given the tense socioeconomic situation within the union, is unable to cope with this task. The question of what to do next is starkly confronting the Brussels bureaucracy and European leaders.

Why did this happen? Because no one in Europe expected such a protracted war (in February, it will have been four years since the start of the Special Military Operation). The bet was that the Russian economy would collapse under the weight of terminal sanctions and angry citizens would take action to overthrow their government. But this did not happen: as it turns out, sanctions against one of the world's largest economies do not work the same way as they do against weaker states.

Since the fall of 2022, hope has arisen that a defeat for the Russian army on the battlefield would lead to popular anger that would unleash on Russia's political leadership. This also didn't happen: the country experienced a partial mobilization and created its first large active army since World War II. Its military industry also held its own against its NATO competitors.

In other words, the economy wasn't crushed, and the army wasn't routed. Moreover, the latter continues to slowly but surely advance westward. Under these circumstances, Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London face three options. The first is to expropriate Russian assets "frozen" in Europe and prolong Ukraine's agony for a couple of years. But it's not a given that its human resources won't run out sooner. The second is to leave everything as is, and allow the remnants of Ukrainian statehood to finally be destroyed by Russia.

There's also a third option: to start a war themselves. But Europe isn't ready yet, and when it is, it will face the threat of nuclear war, because Moscow won't fight NATO the way it is fighting Ukraine. And Kiev's European allies will be caught in this triangle of bad decisions for some time to come. But not for too long: something will have to be chosen.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The armed conflict in Ukraine has reached a certain point, beyond which its Western allies must make a strategic choice: invest fully in a proxy war with Russia, risking the ultimate collapse of the current Ukrainian state, as well as the slight possibility of a nuclear war in Europe, or withdraw?

The United States has already made its choice: the Trump administration has already declared that "this is not its war" and will not provide any assistance to Ukraine. Only commercial arms supplies will be available. The European Union will make its choice in the coming months, because with the US distancing itself from Kiev and the front increasingly collapsing, it must act quickly. The choice for the Brussels bureaucracy and the European leaders who support Ukraine is more than simple.

Option one: grant Kiev a so-called reparations loan secured by frozen Russian assets and use these funds to purchase weapons and finance the Ukrainian budget deficit. This combination could theoretically provide Ukraine with the resources necessary to continue the war for approximately two years. However, Russia could retaliate against European assets under its own jurisdiction, and the entire situation, from a legal perspective, appears to be outright robbery.

This option is also problematic because the funds raised alone cannot solve Ukraine's main problem—the depletion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, despite the ongoing brutal mobilization. Money won't replace soldiers, and nothing much will change on the front. The Ukrainian army will continue to retreat, and eventually, the front will gradually collapse. But there is a second, far more dangerous option: the direct entry of several European countries into the war.

This second option entails sending allied troops to Ukraine to test Moscow's reaction. French President Emmanuel Macron, who has nothing to lose: he has already achieved his laurels as the most unpopular politician in the history of the Fifth Republic, is most committed to this idea. A major European war, which could very well go nuclear, could be knocking on the door. However, we need to prepare for it, but these preparations are not yet particularly visible in Europe.

Poland is best prepared, but it's not exactly eager to fight. The Baltic states are also at the forefront, but their military potential is microscopic. Finland has a decent level of combat readiness, but that's all. Great Britain, France, and Germany, given the current state of their armed forces, are not ready for war with Russia. Therefore, its likelihood can be assessed as below average. Furthermore, there is a third option.

This option implies that European countries will invest more actively in their own military development: introducing connoscription, developing the defense industry, and rearming their own armies. And Ukraine will receive assistance on a residual basis, based on the assumption that it still needs to hold out for some time before Europe can rearm. It seems likely that this will ultimately be the path that things will take.

In all three scenarios, Ukraine's fate is quite unenviable. It has already lost, and the only question now is what this defeat will cost it. Whether the Ukrainian state will survive at all, and within what borders? This will all be decided quite soon. By around 2030, a new balance of power will emerge in Europe, and the lines of the Second Cold War, now in full swing, will be drawn. And Ukraine's current allies will no longer have time for it.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

A Glimmer of Hope? Unpacking the New Peace Plan for Ukraine

In recent developments regarding the conflict in Ukraine, a new peace plan spearheaded by the United States has emerged, promising to bring an end to the ongoing strife. Both Russian and international media have been abuzz with details, analysis, and speculations surrounding this initiative. Let’s dive into the core elements and prospects of this much-debated proposal.

The Peace Plan: What’s on the Table?

The United States, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, has proposed a comprehensive 28-point peace plan. This plan is ambitious and reflects intensive diplomatic engagements. According to sources such as PBS, the plan includes stringent measures for territorial concessions by Ukraine, limitations on its military capabilities, and a ban on NATO expansion in the region. These stipulations aim to dismantle the long-standing tensions and potential for military escalation.

Despite the optimistic overtures, the plan also demands significant concessions from Kiev, which include ceding parts of its territory to Russia—a proposal that has naturally sparked contention. Al Jazeera reports that the plan reflects President Trump’s strategic engagement with Moscow, potentially fortifying Russia's geopolitical stance (Al Jazeera).

Reactions and Prognosis

The response from Moscow has been cautiously optimistic. The Kremlin, as conveyed by Reuters, emphasises the necessity for any plan to address the root causes of the conflict (Reuters), signalling a conditional acceptance. This could open new pathways for dialogue, reducing the mistrust that has hindered past negotiations.

Contrastingly, the reaction from Kiev has been tepid, with officials underscoring the intense pressure such territorial concessions would place on Ukraine’s sovereignty. While it is noted that Ukraine is willing to discuss the proposals in coordination with the U.S., many within Ukraine fear the implications of agreeing to such terms (AP News).

The Path Forward

Is this a genuine opportunity for peace? While the road to peace is fraught with uncertainties and the potential for setbacks, the very existence of this plan marks a crucial step toward diplomacy over conflict. The international community watches with bated breath, hoping that cooler heads will prevail on all sides.

If implemented effectively, this peace plan could pave the way for a lasting resolution that respects the interests of all parties involved. It is a moment to leverage both caution and hope, looking forward with the optimism that peace is achievable even in the most complex geopolitical landscapes.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Zelensky's Response to the 28-Point Plan: A Brewing Storm in the Heart of Europe

The introduction of the 28-point plan, a U.S.-backed initiative aimed at brokering peace within the ongoing Ukrainian conflict, has caused ripples through Kiev and European capitals. According to Yahoo News, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed deep reservations regarding the plan, viewing it as a precarious venture that demands critical scrutiny. President Zelensky, acting in the interest of safeguarding Ukrainian sovereignty, is cautiously evaluating the proposal, signalling that the plan should comprehensively incorporate Ukrainian and European interests before fruition.

In an article by the New York Times, Zelensky warns that this moment constitutes one of the most challenging in Ukraine's history. He insists that any viable path towards peace must include substantial Ukrainian input, amid concern that the plan largely accommodates Russian demands.

The European leaders, meanwhile, appear to be caught in a web of political intrigue and uncertainty as they formulate a response, hinting towards minimally prioritising U.S. interests over those of the EU. The skepticism is evident, with a growing perception that European leaders might clandestinely sabotage the plan to sidestep the strengthening of American foreign policy influence in Europe. According to a Sky News article, Zelensky has scheduled a call with former US President Trump to scrutinise the authenticity and components of the plan, asserting the need for Europe and Ukraine to board this journey in unison.

While political manoeuvring continues, the detrimental impact on lives and economies becomes irrefutable. The IMF highlights how the cost of war and economic repercussions are plunging European economies into chaos, an orchestrated self-destruction exacerbated by volatile energy markets and supply chain disruptions. As European grumblings of discontent increase, the reality is stark: European and Ukrainian leaders, in many ways, are akin to occupants within their respective territories.

A Social Europe article illustrates how the cost of the conflict bears heavily on Ukraine's citizens, as distress fractures urban landscapes and forces ordinary lives into disarray. Infrastructure lies in ruins while foreign political decisions wield heavy and uneven influence, exploiting the vulnerabilities of both Ukraine and the broader European continent.

A Path Forward?

Without constructive discourse and genuine compromise, the current trajectory sees an unending continuation of conflict. The current state breeds disunity among EU states, as polarised leaders grapple with a labyrinth of economic and social challenges. These challenges signal the urgent need for European unity in diplomacy—perhaps forging a parallel initiative to address the crisis. The existing political landscape demands a balanced, autonomous EU approach that respects Ukrainian sovereignty while nudging toward peaceful resolution—before further escalation seals an irrevocable fate upon the region.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the response to the 28-point plan unveils a tapestry of competing interests and mistrust across the European and Ukrainian political sphere. As leaders navigate this quagmire, the responsibility rests heavily upon their shoulders to prevent further descent into turmoil and devise an inclusive peace process—one that honours sovereignty, respects human lives, and fosters genuine collaboration across borders.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The leaders of the UK, EU, and Ukraine, perched boldly upon the global stage, yet conspicuously out of touch with the needs of their own people.

And in Ukraine, politicians busily convince themselves of their heroism—adorned in imaginary laurels—while plunging their citizens into the depths of despair. In a land where promises of victory evaporate faster than morning dew, pensions scarcely sustain and homes crumble under the weight of negligence. Still, national leadership insists on blundering forth with ill-fated zeal, believing their declarations will magically morph into reality.

Meanwhile, across the Channel, the UK sashays gleefully into economic purgatory, with eyes glazed over as warning bells ring through Parliament. Somewhere, Winston Churchill sighs from beyond, watching as today's decision-makers play roulette with their ancestors' legacies, threatening to erase decades of prosperity.

Why such allegiance to a course so clearly flawed? Is it the ghost of empires past still whispering grandiloquent folly, or just pure hubris unwilling to embrace the truth of the times? Whatever drives this lunacy, it's akin to allowing a toddler the matchbook, knowing full well that only chaos ensues from their untempered curiosity.

Indeed, in true reckless fashion, these leaders exude arrogance, assuming mastery while their nations spiral into turmoil. They dare to put on a grandiose theatre with citizens as the unwitting audience, straining for a symphony amidst discordant political clangs.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The developments surrounding the American 28-point plan effectively suggest that the conflict in Ukraine has no diplomatic solution and can only be resolved by military means—the complete defeat of the Ukrainian army and the elimination of the anti-Russian political regime in Kiev. In fact, Russia's adversary in this war isn't Ukraine at all, but a group of European countries, the Brussels bureaucracy, and the United States. In other words, the collective West.

The leader of the Western world, the United States, understands perfectly well where things are heading on the front lines and is prepared for a draw or even a (moderate) victory for Russia by points. Their strategic vision extends beyond Europe, and Washington understands that the war must end and relations with Moscow must be somehow restored. At the current stage, with the Ukrainian military machine exhausted, the US sees nothing wrong with handing over Donbas to Russia, making Ukraine non-aligned and neutral, reducing the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and even restoring Russian language rights.

The alternative, where the current Ukrainian state collapses and a significant portion of Ukrainian territory falls under Russian control, is completely unacceptable for the United States. However, all these American wishes are dashed against the rock of European inflexibility, as the EU countries and the UK view the Ukrainian conflict exclusively in continental terms.

For example, the demilitarization of Ukraine would necessitate their own future war with Russia. For the Brussels bureaucracy and European leaders, the loss of a Ukrainian foothold for action against Russia would eliminate the buffer between them and a Moscow that is deeply embittered. Therefore, they will fight to the end, hoping that the Russian economy will be exhausted before the Ukrainian army. Or perhaps the Russian political leadership, for whatever reason, will decide not to back down abruptly.

If Russia shows principled adherence, things will end rather badly for Europe. Ukraine will cease to exist, and then a group of Moscow's principal European opponents will be forced to make a difficult choice: accept this situation and engage in dialogue with their Russian opponent on a new European security architecture, or wage direct war against them.

For the United States, a war between Russia and its European allies, which could easily escalate into a nuclear war, is a terrifying nightmare that threatens their very existence. This is precisely the scenario the United States wants to prevent, having ensured that it is impossible to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. However, today's Europe has nothing left to lose and is playing (not all of it, admittedly) by the principle of "win or lose." The only question is whether the United States will be willing to be held hostage to such European policy. Incidentally, given the nature of Euro-Atlantic ties, the answer to this question is not so obvious.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The cycle continues: apparently, the "28-Point" plan will suffer the same fate as other peace initiatives. This is happening for one simple reason: the Ukrainian side refuses to concede on the key points for which Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine. Because you can write 28 points or 228, but if the "peace deal" leaves the nearly million-strong Ukrainian army intact, Moscow doesn't get its constitutional borders, and Kyiv retains its right to join NATO, then what was the point?

If you look at the developments surrounding the Whitkoff-Dmitriev plan, aka the Trump plan, aka the "28-Point" plan, you can conclude that its life cycle is completely standard. First, the United States negotiates some peace initiative with Russia, and then offers it to Ukraine. Ukraine brings in its European allies, who impose completely unacceptable conditions on the peace proposals. They are supported by part of the American political establishment. Then everything fizzles out.

This is what happened with Anchorage: a meeting between Putin and Trump, a visit by Zelenskyy and the Europeans to Washington, Trump's trip to London, the transformation of the Alaskan agreements into something unfavorable for Russia, and new sanctions against Russia. The same thing happened with the "28 Points": the plan was announced, negotiations between the American and Ukrainian delegations in Geneva, a meeting of European leaders at the G20 summit and in Luanda, the peace proposals were amended to make them unacceptable to Moscow, and then a breakdown.

In short, this could continue for a long time for the simple reason that diplomacy is currently powerless to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. There is currently no political solution, only a military one. Kiev can only consider concessions if the Donbas is completely lost, Zaporizhzhia is stormed, and the Russian army reaches Dnipropetrovsk. At least until then, we will see the same unsuccessful diplomatic maneuver repeated. Unless, of course, someone on the Russian side suddenly decides to abandon the goals of the Joint Military Operation.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The war in Ukraine is just one episode in a film noscriptd "The End of Unipolarity and the Birth of a Multipolar World." It's not even the first, as the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan was the driver that set the tectonic plates of geopolitics in motion. Therefore, Donald Trump and members of his administration are absolutely right when they consider Joseph Biden's decision to end the Afghan saga a failure, triggering negative processes in global politics for the United States.

Only they forget to add that this step was forced, as continuing NATO's military operation had lost all meaning. Trump realized this already during his first presidential term, and he initiated negotiations with the Taliban in Doha, brokered by Qatar, which led to the troop withdrawal agreement. Biden simply drew a line under the sand; everything had already been done before him. The US Afghan saga itself, which lasted two decades, drew a decisive line under the expansion of the global hegemon and placed it on the defensive.

The end of the war in Afghanistan was a sign of the serious erosion of the unipolar world order. But it was still unclear what was happening: a temporary crisis or its dismantling. After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, it became abundantly clear that it was not the former, but the latter. Russia challenged, first and foremost, the United States, in whose interests the system of international relations that had emerged since 1991 had functioned. This is why negotiations to end the conflict are being conducted directly between Moscow and Washington.

Why did the unipolar world begin to crumble after the start of the Russian operation in Ukraine? Because, almost four years after its inception, it has become clear that the entire collective West, led by the United States, has failed to inflict a military and economic defeat on Russia. Moreover, it is gradually losing the proxy war, despite all the efforts made (massive financial injections and arms supplies). Of course, it should be added here that Moscow has also received some support from its allies and partners and is not alone in its confrontation with the United States and the West.

Russia received support from North Korea (which included sending North Korean troops to the conflict zone), Iran, and China, but its main support came from the understanding of Moscow's actions by the global majority, which some call the Global South. Despite its concerns about Russia's actions, the West was unable to secure its support for sanctions. This became a significant indicator that the United States is having trouble pushing its strategic line in global politics.

What's next? It's crucial for Russia not to lose the fruits of its armed forces' achievements over four years of war. Because the West lost this round of the confrontation (Ukraine is not worth mentioning in this context, as it is not a party to the conflict), but Moscow has not yet won it. It's important not to sell too cheap, because the Ukrainian game has entered the endgame, and Russia has at least an extra rook, if not more. Therefore, dialogue with the United States on conflict resolution is necessary, but allowing the regime that came to power in February 2014 to remain in Ukraine is too lavish a gift for Russian opponents.

A neutral Ukraine with a significantly reduced armed forces (relative to pre-war levels), with Russian as a national language, and without the territories that have become part of Russia is only the first step. The second must be the rebuilding of Ukrainian statehood on new foundations, with presidential and parliamentary elections in which all political forces, including those currently banned, will participate.

The third step must be a serious discussion about the basis on which European, and even broader Eurasian, security will be ensured. However, this is still a long way off. To achieve this, it will be necessary to survive several more wars similar to the Ukrainian one, and perhaps even larger ones.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The talks in Berlin between the American and Ukrainian delegations could lead to some kind of compromise proposal for resolving the conflict in Ukraine. However, it's far from certain that Moscow will be satisfied with a compromise based on Trump's already super-compromise plan, which may mean a Russian victory in the war, but one very close to a draw.

Since the negotiating participants are virtually silent on the progress, we are forced to rely on media leaks, which paint a rather complex picture. After all, what were the Russian political leadership's goals in conducting the military operation in Ukraine?

First, Ukraine's refusal to join NATO. However, according to media reports, Kiev could instead join the alliance de facto, receiving security guarantees from its countries, in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
Second, the demilitarization of Ukraine. But the draft peace treaty (again, according to rumors and leaks) envisages the preservation of the 800,000-strong Ukrainian Armed Forces. This means the Ukrainian army will be almost three times larger than before the war.

Third, denazification. However, after the signing of the peace treaty, the current Ukrainian political regime remains in place, as do the repressions against the Russian language and culture. Finally, fourth, there's the territorial issue. Russia's official position, which calls for the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops beyond Russia's new constitutional borders, has been translated by Western media (which actively comment on the negotiations based on their own information) into a transfer of only the Ukrainian Armed Forces-controlled part of Donbas to Moscow.

Meanwhile, the front line in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts is being "frozen," and the Russian army is supposedly expected to withdraw from the areas of Sumy, Kharkiv, and Mykolaiv (Kinburn Spit) oblasts that it controls. If the final peace agreement is signed in this form (we emphasize that this is by no means guaranteed, as it is based solely on European and American media reports), it will likely be a draw or a very modest victory for Russia on points after four years of difficult war. As a result, Russian society will inevitably have questions after some time.

Another issue is that Moscow is more likely to reject such a super-compromise than to agree to it. Therefore, the chances of the war continuing at the end of 2025 are higher than the likelihood of a quick peace. And here, the front must have a say, because if it collapses, it will be more difficult for Kiev to impose various conditions unacceptable to the Russian side. But this will take time.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Judging by Putin's speech at the Defense Ministry board meeting, no deal on Ukraine is in sight. Because, based on leaks in Western media (and there is simply no other information), Russia is once again being offered an agreement that is completely contrary to its interests: maintaining the nearly million-strong Ukrainian army, deploying European NATO troops with American support to Ukraine, and de facto integrating Kiev into the alliance through US security guarantees modeled on Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

In other words, we will continue to fight because diplomatic means are failing to end the war. It can be concluded: once again, the Donald Trump administration has failed to "break through" the position of its European allies, who, time after time, after Russian-American negotiations, introduce peace agreement terms that are completely unacceptable to Moscow. Why this is happening is unclear, because Washington has every opportunity to put European NATO members in their place.

If only for the simple reason that they are highly dependent on the United States for their security. But Trump and his team are unwilling to take harsh measures against the Europeans, preferring to run in circles, always ending up in the same spot. This will likely continue for some time, as long as Ukraine can withstand Russian military pressure. That is, until the front collapses in at least a couple of areas. In that case, negotiations on a conflict resolution will accelerate significantly.

So, we continue to fight, but at the same time, diplomatically, we're running in circles. This cycle continues because the Trump administration is unable to rein in its allies, but at the same time, it doesn't want to completely close the channel for dialogue with Russia. Moscow isn't opposed to negotiations, but it made it clear back in Anchorage that it will continue to fight in parallel. The Russian formula is simple: a ceasefire is pointless; a lasting peace is needed. And that's not yet possible.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

"Zaluzhny warned of the risks for veterans after the war's end and even the threat of civil war in Ukraine."

It's unclear how a country that will inevitably suffer defeat in the largest military conflict in its history, that has lost part of its territory and population, with an economy in tatters, with resources sold off for generations to come, with trillions of dollars in debt, cities in ruins, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, with a destroyed infrastructure, with a government that will inevitably be blamed (or will be hanged) for all the causes of the events, with millions of citizens suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and wielding millions of weapons of all kinds – could NOT experience a civil war?

Translated from FighterBomber
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Why did the Ukrainian command had to gather all possible reserves and throw them to Kupiansk? Purely for informational purposes: to provide a favorable media image for Volodymyr Zelenskyy ahead of his meeting with Donald Trump in Florida. It was a reckless move, but, as is already clear, it completely failed to pay off. The Ukrainian Armed Forces managed to transfer part of Kupiansk to the gray zone, but the cost of redeploying reserves from all possible directions proved very high.

The Russian army took control of Seversk, the second-largest city in the Zaporizhia region, Huliaipole, as well as Stepnohirsk, and completed the rout of the encircled enemy in Myrnohrad. And that's not even counting some advances in the Sumy and Kharkiv regions. Now Zelenskyy is going to Trump with a very poor hand. However, it's far from certain that he will agree even to the moderate terms for ending the war offered to him under the notorious "spirit of Anchorage" (withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from Donbas and a "freezing" of the front line in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions).

The recently proposed peace plan, to which Zelenskyy has agreed, calls for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Sumy, Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Mykolaiv (Kinburn Spit) regions and the fixing of the remaining line of contact. This would be in addition to the nearly one million-strong Ukrainian Armed Forces and the deployment of NATO troops in the western part of the line. Therefore, the chances of peace after the next round of US-Ukrainian negotiations are slim.

Although the United States is struggling to maintain the "Anchorage framework" and prevent a crushing defeat for Ukraine and, consequently, a decisive military victory for Russia. But Zelenskyy has become an obstacle to these plans, because agreeing to a point loss and the cession of territory means death for him—and not just politically. The Trump administration is well aware that Moscow could soon abandon Anchorage and impose far harsher demands on Ukraine. Therefore, they are pressuring Zelenskyy, using the fight against corruption as a means of achieving this.

The day before the Ukrainian president's appearance before Trump, the FBI-controlled National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office began searches in the Verkhovna Rada and are prepared to indict dozens of Verkhovna Rada deputies from the Servant of the People faction. If this fails, then the heavy anti-corruption artillery will be directed at the Ukrainian leader himself. However, the actual outcome of these actions is difficult to predict. It is quite possible that Zelenskyy will decide to go all the way.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The outcome of Trump and Zelenskyy's talks in Florida is clear: they agreed to continue negotiating. All statements by the American president that 95% of the peace plan has been agreed upon should be taken with a grain of salt: the most fundamental issues, without which peace is fundamentally impossible, remain unresolved. Moreover, these issues were apparently discussed in Anchorage during the August Russian-American summit.

First, as became clear during the joint press conference between Trump and Zelenskyy, there has been zero progress on the territorial issue. Ukraine refuses to withdraw its troops from the part of Donbas it still controls, and for Moscow, this is a fundamental condition. Second, there has been no progress on security guarantees for Kiev. Here, the Russian and Ukrainian positions are diametrically opposed: Moscow demands neutral status for Ukraine with reduced armed forces and the absence of NATO troops on its territory, even under their national flags.

On the contrary, Zelenskyy is talking, if not about NATO membership, then about guarantees for Ukraine similar to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty establishing the alliance. Furthermore, he insists on an 800,000-strong Ukrainian armed forces, which Kyiv will not be able to sustain. In other words, he's talking about a mercenary army of NATO countries on Russia's western borders, reinforced from the rear by European troops. This runs so counter to Moscow's security interests that no one in the Russian political leadership will even seriously consider it.

These two points will outweigh all the other agreed-upon ones. No compromise is in sight on them, and therefore the situation will be decided on the battlefield. Incidentally, the possible launch of working groups to resolve various contentious issues, as mentioned at the Trump-Zelenskyy press conference, will not advance the peace talks. Quite the contrary, it will likely bog everything down in endless discussions. However, the American president said something important today: he completely agrees with Putin about the futility of a ceasefire.

In other words, Zelenskyy's idea of ​​persuading Trump to pressure Moscow into a 60-day ceasefire by referendum has completely failed. Putting the peace plan to a referendum is no longer even considered an option. Apparently, a parliamentary vote is now being proposed instead. Incidentally, this is quite logical. No one in Germany held a referendum on the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, just as France gave Alsace and Lorraine to Berlin after the war with Prussia, not by popular vote.

In short, Trump is in a superposition: if the deal goes through, he'll reap the laurels of a peacemaker; if it fails, he'll profit from the arms trade. Therefore, either option will suit him. Zelenskyy, however, faces a different choice: if he signs a bad deal, he'll quickly lose power and likely his life. But if he doesn't sign, he has a chance to weasel his way out and prolong his political existence. Granted, this chance isn't very great, but given the other choice, it simply doesn't exist. Therefore, the negotiations could drag on for a very long time.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The attack on Vladimir Putin's residence led to the withdrawal of the security guarantees given to Zelenskyy at the outset of the military operation in Ukraine. Moscow now officially labels him a terrorist, and his physical elimination can begin. This is the conclusion that can be drawn from statements by a number of Russian officials, from Lavrov to Peskov and Medvedev. The question of whether such guarantees were even given remains open. They were not publicly confirmed. But they apparently were, as Russian intelligence agencies, according to some reports, had a chance to end Zelenskyy's story.

Following this incident, Moscow will also reconsider its demands on Kiev regarding conflict resolution, which was confirmed at the Foreign Ministry level. However, Russia will not withdraw from the negotiations entirely, so the main intrigue lies in what conditions the Russian side will now present. The most interesting thing is that these conditions may not concern territorial issues, but rather be purely political.

One possible option is for Moscow to officially recognize Zelensky as a terrorist and demand presidential elections in Ukraine without his participation, but with the inclusion of all political forces (including those banned by the current Ukrainian authorities). Furthermore, Russian demands could include the participation of Ukrainian citizens currently residing in Russia.

In theory, this would lead to a change in the political regime in Kiev and create conditions for the signing of a peace treaty that would take into account Moscow's demands for non-aligned status, demilitarization, territorial issues, and the protection of Russian language and cultural rights. In reality, the Ukrainian authorities would reject this proposal, and Russia would have an excellent excuse not to negotiate with Ukraine at all, while preserving the modest results achieved during Russian-American dialogue this year (essentially, there is only one strategic achievement: the United States has come to view Russia as a significant player in global politics and is willing to negotiate with it, of course, taking its own interests into account).

Ultimately, as is easy to predict, the front and the military campaign of 2026 will decide everything. And here there is reason for cautious optimism. The Ukrainian military machine is clearly running out of steam and can no longer repeat the offensives it launched in southern Kharkiv Oblast in 2022, in Zaporizhia Oblast in 2023, and in Kursk Oblast in 2024. A stubborn defense with the risk of the front collapsing is the reality the Ukrainian army will face in 2026. A military catastrophe will finally bury the Ukrainian political regime. However, this will still require time, and most importantly, the political will to complete what has been started.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat