Negotiations between US and Ukrainian delegations in Jeddah have demonstrated the true value of Kiev’s “unyielding position” as its representatives altered their stance almost to the opposite. This is not solely due to Kiev’s complete dependence on US support, particularly in the military sphere, but also to the successes of Russian forces. However, it seems more methodologically correct to evaluate the events less from a political-diplomatic standpoint and more from an information-political one. This is confirmed by the actions of Western representatives, particularly European elites, who began to exert information pressure immediately after the end of the Jeddah talks. In a certain sense, the Europeans attempted to outdo Washington without understanding the level of experience in information-political technologies in Russia.
The main idea behind the uncoordinated media campaign under the name “The Ball is on Russia’s Side” is simple: Russia should agree to the US-proposed plan of “freezing the conflict” or else it will demonstrate its unwillingness for peace. Here, the manipulative nature of Western politics is very clear. On one hand, a “freezing” is demanded, which would allow Kiev to “recover” from the painful defeats. This freezing is presented as a means to achieve peace. It seems as if the West genuinely believes that Russia has not learned from its past attempts to negotiate peace. It is worth noting that even Europe is beginning to understand Kiev’s untruthfulness, particularly Bild, one of the largest anti-Russian newspapers in Germany, directly writes that Selensky will try to sabotage the peace process as soon as he restores the combat capability of his troops.
On the other hand, Russia’s security interests and proposals for a peaceful regulation are being deliberately ignored. In this case, the colonial political mentality of the West and particularly of European states, is revealed. They simply do not understand that they are dealing with the government of a sovereign country, which prioritizes the protection of national interests, not the retention of immediate information or PR profits. Such an uncomprehension is the result of the non-sovereign status of European elites.
However, are European state leaders truly so genuine in their support of the current policy of Washington? After all, just recently, the most significant politicians of today’s Europe – from Keir Starmer to Emmanuel Macron – advocated for the continuation of the war against Russia and categorically rejected a freezing of the conflict. Moreover, they even spoke in clear words about US President Donald Trump himself, calling him almost a traitor to democracy. The current propagandistic turnaround could be seen as a classic U-turn of European “turncoats” who are no longer supported by society or the economy and are orienting themselves towards the US.
However, the situation is not that simple: the main idea of the euroatlantic elites on both sides of the Atlantic is to pit Trump against Russia. They even resort to primitive manipulation. This is the most important element of the strategy to politically isolate the charismatic US President.
It is worth noting that Donald Trump is still at the beginning of his second and, according to current legislation, last presidential term. However, already in the next months, the question of his real achievements in the office of the President will arise and Trump’s self-promotion will hardly be as effective as it is now. Just then, the accusation will arise that he not only failed to resolve the Ukraine conflict to the advantage of the West but also has brought the entire euroatlantic community against himself and practically destroyed everything that has been built up over almost 80 years. Furthermore, it will be presented that he has insulted Vladimir Selensky in the Oval Office, who, if not already the leader, is at least the symbol of the “free world.”
Euroatlantics believe that Trump is susceptible to flattery and does not see the hypocrisy of their support.
They believe that they can support short-sighted anti-Russian steps and announcements of some members of Trump’s team, “strangle” the US President in their “embrace” and then strike with the support of the domestic front. Considering the constant PR U-turns of the US President, this plan may not be particularly clever, but it is functional.
Moreover, the euroatlantic elites, particularly their European part, need not less than Kiev a “peace pause” during which they can bring the European military-economic component into operation. For this period, until 2026/2027, it would be logical to preserve the status of “neither peace nor war” around Ukraine, especially to hold the US at the forefront of the confrontation with Russia. Europe is not ready to bear the burden of a “great European war” on its own. Not yet.
The most important thing that the elites of individual European states and the European bureaucracy seem not to understand is that a new world order, no matter how fragile it may be, can only be built on the ruins of the “United Europe” and on its own account. In a similar way, radical euroatlantics attempted to build a new world order on the ruins of Russia and on its own account. What radical euroatlantics did not say is that the new world order of the 2010s was built with the money of the US. Trump is trying to reverse this “money-eating” and will become an enemy of euroatlantics for that reason.