Russia uses influencers to spread lies about Mariupol

From the Telegraph / Yahoo!News:

"Putin’s army of influencers selling pipe dreams of a Russian Mariupol

Iona Cleave, December 20, 2025

Elizaveta Chervyakova poses in front of a high-rise building in occupied Mariupol that is being rebuilt into a block of luxury apartments.

She ignores the fact that the building was once home to hundreds of Ukrainians before it was obliterated by Russian bombs during Moscow’s three-month siege in 2022.

In videos that garner thousands of views, the 21-year-old blogger paints a rosy picture of the coastal city returning to life as part of a Putin-era mega project of “magical” new apartment complexes, shopping centres and neighbourhoods.

In an interview, Ms Chervyakova insists that the Russian-occupied city is not a “ghost town” and that she wants to “dispel any myths” that it is not a good place to live.

But a Telegraph investigation has found she is one of a growing number of social media influencers who are becoming increasingly key to a co-ordinated Kremlin-led propaganda campaign to promote the Russification of the city and of life flourishing under Russian rule.

Elizaveta Chervyakova says she wants to ‘dispel any myths’ that Mariupol is not a good place to live - Instagram

Moscow’s 85-day offensive against the city on the Sea of Azov killed between 20,000 and 88,000 civilians and damaged or destroyed 90 per cent of the city’s residential buildings. Hundreds of thousands of people fled, leaving just 100,000 of its original residents.

Since then, Moscow has poured billions of roubles into remaking the city in a Russian mould by 2025, a plan significantly behind schedule as a result of the scale of devastation its military inflicted. The local influencers are key to pumping out positive updates and pro-Kremlin narratives.

Four influencers living in Mariupol explained how their aim was to show Vladimir Putin’s “amazing” development of the city and dismissed accusations of them being propagandists, instead presenting themselves as truth tellers.

It is unclear if all the influencers receive direct funding or guidance from Russian authorities. None of those interviewed would discuss such a link.

One blogger, Kirill Sazonov, is accused of selling properties that belong to Ukrainians who fled the war, a claim that he strongly denies. The houses he tries to sell are often older and found in poorer, run-down districts, clearly distinct from the new developments.

Mr Sazonov, 37, originally from Donetsk, said the real estate business was “good, growing gradually”. Shrugging off the criticism he receives online, he said: “If I’m making videos, if I’m popular, of course there’s hate.”

The influencers fail to mention why the city needs to be rebuilt or the dire conditions the residents living under Russian occupation face. The remaining Ukrainians suffer from a chronic housing shortage, a collapsed medical system, a persistent water crisis and the absence of critical workers.

In her videos, Ms Chervyakova is determinedly upbeat and admiring of the changes the new city administration is making.

“The city is developing,” she said. “It has its challenges, but so does every city…Yes, there are still some buildings that are still destroyed that spoil the view.”

As part of his mega project in Mariupol, Putin signed a decree in late November instructing officials to use “media and internet resources, including social networks, video hosting sites, instant messengers and blogs” to disseminate content aimed at “strengthening civil unity” in the occupied territories.

The new “blogging schools”, opening across occupied territories that have the clear patronage of Russian-installed administrations, appear to be a result of this.

The Donbass Media Center (DMC) opened a blogging school in Mariupol in September 2024, following similar schemes in the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk and later Melitopol. It offers free two-week courses for those aged 16-25 on how to build an audience on Russian platforms. Ms Chervyakova is a graduate.

One of its instructors is Pavel Karbovsky, 24, who is known as “Donbas Cosmonaut” online. He has racked up millions of views online encouraging people to visit the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, portraying Mariupol as a beach, food and clubbing destination.

Pavel Karbovsky encourages people to visit the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic

Mr Karbovsky, who grew up in Donetsk region, said his aim was to show the city’s “amazing” development. He unequivocally states in his videos that Mariupol and Donetsk are part of Russia.

Through his work at the DMC, “a lot of talented kids have emerged thanks to us… we taught them how to film, how to create great content”, he told The Telegraph.

Mr Karbovsky said he did not know whether it was funded by the Russian government – but it would be “cool” if it was. His name appears on Ukraine’s unofficial database of “enemies” of the state accused of colluding with Moscow.

The organisation that runs the DMC is partnered with “Russia – Land of Opportunities”, a Kremlin-funded presidential programme that invests in bloggers throughout Russia and the “new regions”.

Its 2025 winner was Irina Mishina, a pro-Russia blogger from occupied Luhansk, who said her goal was to “show real life of our republic: not through politics or conflicts, but through people’s stories, through the revival of our cities, and through the eyes of our youth”.

Mr Sazonov, who also has ties to the DMC, has tens of thousands of followers and posts about reconstruction efforts in Mariupol and encourages Russians to invest in real estate.

He posted videos from inside and outside a property believed to have belonged to Ukrainians who fled during their siege. Their belongings, including paintings on the walls and furniture, remain.

The United Nations estimates that out of 38,000 homes identified as abandoned in the occupied territories, nearly 12,800 are in Mariupol. Experts argue that the overall goal is to seize the homes in order to facilitate the transfer of Russian citizens to the captured cities and towns.

But behind the Potemkin facade, exiled city officials and human rights groups argue that just like the fake villages once built to impress Catherine the Great, it is little more than a propaganda exercise.

Elina Beketova, a fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), whose research focuses on occupied territories, said: “All the bloggers appear to have been given the same task – to emphasise the redevelopment work Russia is doing.

“The same information circulates on social media channels and it looks like the same co-ordinated effort to show how much better it is to live under Russian control than Ukrainian.”

Petro Andriushchenko, a former adviser to the Ukrainian mayor of Mariupol and the head of the Centre for the Study of the Occupation, said the overwhelming “culture of surveillance” in the occupied territories meant “it is impossible to tell the truth in public”.

“People think they are seeing independent opinions from bloggers on social media channels, but it’s impossible to be independent,” he told The Telegraph.

“Every single person making content, blogs, vlogs, from the occupied territories is somebody under Russian control,” he added, arguing that if they were not, they would be quickly detained or brought to heel.

According to Yulia Gorbunova, a senior Ukraine researcher at Human Rights Watch, the social media campaign “is part-and-parcel of Russian propaganda efforts to erase Ukraine’s history, replace its art, language and historical landmarks, and influence the young”.

Streets have been renamed, monuments removed, the tricolour flag drapes from buildings, only Russian-speaking television is shown, number plates have been changed and the Russian curriculum imposed on schools.

On top of that, there is a “whole range of occupation-related abuses”, Ms Gorbunova said, including illegal home seizures, unlawful conscription of civilians into the Russian military, coercing remaining residents to obtain a Russian passport and the indoctrination, militarisation and deportation of children.

Several months after capturing the city, Moscow produced a “master plan” for the city, which was widely discovered to be plagiarised from an outdated Ukrainian plan for 2016 and ignored the city-wide destruction caused by the Russian bombardment.

Critics argued that it focused on just regeneration in the historic city centre and the Azovstal steelworks, instead of the levelled residential districts, where most lost their homes.

“Literally everything in the city is being updated – from the master plan to the dog shelter, from transportation to bus stops, from the theatre to city parks and beaches,” the statement said.

“Literally everything in the city is being updated – from the master plan to the dog shelter, from transportation to bus stops, from the theatre to city parks and beaches,” the statement said.

Analysts have argued that this is not a long-term development plan but something more sinister: an attempt to pave over essential evidence of alleged war crimes.

In 2024, a Human Rights Watch report said Russia’s refusal to allow independent investigators into the city before demolishing large swaths of it “effectively erased the physical evidence at hundreds of potential crime scenes across the city”.

‘Dancing on the bones of murdered people’

But there are other long-term goals at play, indicated by the endless billboards advertising the city as a relocation destination and the incentives of cheap mortgage rates and higher salaries for Russian citizens.

So far, analysts believe more than 50,000 Russians have relocated there, with the aim of pushing out Ukrainian residents.

As Christmas approaches, many of the social media influencers have been showing redeveloped parts of the city lit up by festive displays. A 14-metre tree, drenched in lights, stands outside the new Mariupol Drama Theatre.

They do not mention that it was rebuilt after being destroyed by two Russian bombs in 2022, killing an estimated 600 sheltering civilians. It remains one of – if not the worst – single atrocity of the entire war.

Mariupol’s exiled city council said Russia was trying to “restore the imaginary ‘normality’ of life through attention to the holidays”.

It accused the occupying authorities of “dancing and singing on the bones of the murdered people of Mariupol” in a statement on Telegram.

“However, local Mariupol residents remember the truth,” it added.

Additional reporting by Lily Shanagher"

 

 

EU credit to Ukraine enraged Putin

From the Dialog, Dec 21, 2025:

"A loan that enraged the Kremlin: why the EU decision was a bigger blow than sanctions

By allocating $90 billion to Ukraine, the European Union eliminated Kyiv's key financial risk and bet on a war of attrition that Russia will find increasingly difficult to sustain. 

Anders Nielsen, a military analyst at the Royal Danish Defence College, shared his opinion on the EU's $90 billion loan to Ukraine.  

Yigal Levin has compiled a summary of the expert's key points.  

European media have greatly underestimated the significance of this step. For some reason, it's portrayed as a sign of weakness, as if European countries couldn't agree on the seizure of frozen Russian assets. In practice, there's little difference: the loan implies that it will be repaid by the Russians through post-war reparations, not by the Ukrainians. 

The allocation of funds was critical for Ukraine: Kyiv was facing enormous problems balancing its budget for the following year. It's quite likely that Ukraine would have lost within six months. However, Ukraine now has the financial reserves to continue the war of attrition. 

The Russian leadership's rhetoric clearly reveals their disappointment with the decision. Putin's talk of "European piglets" is a direct result of the loan to Ukraine. Of course, the Kremlin's plans haven't changed, and won't change anytime soon—the Russian leadership still believes it can win the war, despite the enormous problems in its own economy. However, it at least recognizes that it will now have to invest even more in the current war, and that it will drag on even longer.  

 

What's also important is that the decision to provide the loan has marked Europe as a strategic player on the global stage. Previously, Europe was portrayed as a collection of countries that would follow in the wake of American policy. This is precisely what allowed the Americans and Russians to meet without the Europeans and decide on the future of European security.

It's worth noting that the American leadership was also upset by this decision. They, too, have started talking again about European warmongers who are hindering peace. However, this means that Europe is acting in its own interests, and no matter how upsetting this may be to other "great powers," it forces them to consider it as an equal."

Even if Ukraine could liberate all its territory, this would not end the war

From the Dialog, Dec 19, 2025:

"Portnikov explained why the Ukrainian Armed Forces' advance to the 1991 borders will not end the war

Journalist Vitaly Portnikov rejected the possibility of a ceasefire in the foreseeable future and provided arguments to support his belief. 

"I don't think there would have been any peaceful dialogue even in the first year of the war. This is another illusion. I don't think there will be any peaceful dialogue if Ukrainian troops succeed in counterattacking on Russian positions," Vitaly Portnikov confidently stated.  

The political analyst voiced his position on the NTA television channel's YouTube channel.  

"I keep explaining: even if Ukrainian troops theoretically managed to reach the 1991 state border, that wouldn't be the end of the war. It would mean moving the front line to the Russian-Ukrainian border, with continued Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and the transformation of Ukraine itself into uninhabitable territory," the publicist warned Ukrainians. 

Portnikov also emphasized an important nuance: "In this situation, the front line doesn't matter if we know the Russians' desire to render the entire territory of Ukraine unviable. Therefore, the only real condition that would force Putin, historically speaking, to abandon the continuation of the war with Ukraine is the exhaustion of Russia's financial and demographic resources, creating threats to the very existence of its repressive regime itself." 

"If such exhaustion doesn't occur and there are no threats, the war will continue for as many years as Putin needs, especially since the majority of Russians fully support the war's central idea, so to speak, 'returning historical lands to Moscow's control.' I have no doubt that Russians would like the war to end, but they understand the idea of ​​this war perfectly well," the journalist concluded." 

In another interview - for the CEO Club Ukraine YouTube channel, Portnikov stated: "I hope that Ukraine will survive as an independent sovereign state. I don't know with what territory or population, but I believe that Russia still lacks the strength to conquer all of Ukraine, and the West has no desire to hand over all of Ukraine to Putin, because that would be a defeat for the West. The main thing is to wait until Russia no longer has the ability to continue destroying this country and its people... I never thought it would be easy. If you think I'm deeply disappointed, no, I'm not. I knew perfectly well how difficult it would be, because I've always understood the Russians' intentions perfectly. I worked in Russia for twenty years, and there were no secrets to me about what would happen. I knew that as soon as Ukraine separated itself from Moscow, what happened would happen, and there was one day in my life in 2014 when I realized it had begun. When I realized the annexation of Crimea was beginning, that Russian troops were entering, I realized a global conflict had begun. It was a difficult day for me, because I saw everything that would happen." 

Ukrainian elections during war: just another trap set by Putin for Trump

From the To Be Or blog, Dec 19, 2025:

""Between 5 and 10 million Ukrainian citizens with the right to vote live in Russia, and if elections are held, we have the right to demand that they be granted the right to vote in the Russian Federation," Putin said. 

Firstly, you have no right to demand anything.  

Secondly, naturally, there are no 5-10 million Ukrainian citizens in Russia.  

According to the 2021 census, 884,000 Ukrainians lived in Russia.  

Also, after the Russian invasion, 1.97 million Ukrainians (including 19,500 deported children) left or were deported from Russia, but calculating the actual number is very difficult because many left through Russia in transit, and many were forcibly Russified. 

Putin is also obviously referring to Ukrainians living in the occupied territories, who by hook or by crook hold on to their Ukrainian passports, and who were forced at gunpoint to vote in the "referendums" of the fall of 2022.  

Therefore, if they want to fabricate 5-10 million ballots, it won't be difficult for them.  

Naturally, voting on enemy territory is as legally nonsensical as "referendums" in territories Putin hasn't yet seized.  

But the question here is how good Trump will think this is. Ukraine and Europe will have the added headache of explaining to the American president why this is impossible. 

This is simply another manipulation to complicate the elections and thereby pit Trump against Zelensky again or create preconditions for their own non-recognition. 

A manipulation that would not have been possible in principle if the White House hadn't fallen for it.  

P.S. Putin also added that he is ready to cease long-range strikes on election day, but this will absolutely not allow the elections to be held, since troops on the front lines won't be able to vote. Only a complete ceasefire for the ENTIRE election campaign."

Kuleba: Germany and France helped Russia grab Ukrainian land in 2015

From the Washington Post:

"What’s really behind Zelensky’s caution

Ukraine has learned that frozen lines mean little without enforcement.

December 19, 2025

 

By Dmytro Kuleba

Dmytro Kuleba was Ukraine’s foreign minister from 2020 to 2024.

The recent summitry between Ukraine, the United States and Europe, kicked off by President Donald Trump’s initial peace proposal, produced something rare in this war: a negotiating track that looks serious enough to matter... Clarity is finally emerging, but it’s not yet time to be euphoric. Though news coverage indicates that only questions of territory remain unresolved, Ukraine’s red lines cannot be found on maps. Bitter recent history has taught that what matters is not where the ceasefire lines are drawn, but what happens afterward.

 

It has been reported that the United States is prepared to offer Ukraine legally binding security guarantees. If so, President Volodymyr Zelensky has scored a significant victory. This is something Kyiv has sought since 1991 when it gained independence from Moscow, and something its Western partners have consistently refused to provide. Ukraine long ago lost faith in the various political security assurances it has been offered, most of which the West has not honored. Now, it seems, Kyiv may finally have a chance to see whether legally binding guarantees will be upheld any more reliably... 

There is a temptation in every ceasefire negotiation to treat geography as the main variable. Diplomats sweat over where the front line freezes, which towns change hands and which lands are labeled “temporarily occupied.” Yet the central question in these talks is not simply whether Ukraine might give up a portion of Donbas, the ravaged region on the nation’s eastern border with Russia, under a negotiated formula. It is what comes next. What prevents Russia from turning a “ceasefire” into a means of finishing the job?

This is not merely a theoretical question. Ukraine learned some hard lessons in 2015 that have left it understandably cautious.

That year, the second Minsk agreement was signed to stop the war in eastern Ukraine. The ceasefire was set to begin on Feb. 15. As the diplomatic ink dried, officials spoke hopefully of de-escalation. But on the ground, the fighting did not stop. Russian forces and their proxies continued their assault on Debaltseve, a key rail and road junction. Only after the city fell and Ukrainian troops were forced to withdraw on Feb. 18 did the ceasefire truly take hold. In practice, the ceasefire served as diplomatic cover for Russia to seize what it wanted before the line froze.

Worse, despite the fact that Russian forces continued to violate the ceasefire, Germany and France insisted on talking about compliance. Rather than declaring the effort dead, they leaned hard on Ukraine, which was largely reacting to Russia’s provocations, to keep up its side of the deal. This was not due to naiveté. It was due to the gravitational pull of process when enforcement is weak. The side that violates the terms creates new facts on the ground; the side that complies is pressed to keep complying — to “save the deal” and to avoid being blamed for collapse.

Ukraine rightly fears a repeat of this dynamic. If Ukrainian forces withdraw from certain areas, what physically prevents Russia from moving into the newly vacated territory under whatever pretense they come up with? Even if the United States and Europe threaten consequences for such breaches, everyone understands the grim asymmetry: Sanctions can be reimposed, weapons deliveries can be accelerated, diplomatic isolation can deepen, and statements of condemnation can be issued. But no Western army is going to storm a town in eastern Ukraine to evict Russian troops after the fact.

A durable ceasefire now hangs on two questions.

First, will Russia accept an agreement in which many of its demands are satisfied only nominally — on paper, partially or conditionally? It might, if cornered. President Vladimir Putin’s speech on Wednesday suggests his full goals remain unchanged. But Moscow has long treated incremental concessions at negotiations as partial wins to pocket. A ceasefire that reduces Russia’s immediate costs while preserving the option to escalate later is not a concession for Putin; it is his strategy.

Second, how will compliance be enforced in a way that actively blocks opportunistic advances rather than merely punishes them after the fact? If the answer is only “we will respond,” then Ukraine is being asked to trade territory for promises — and to trust that Russia will not test those promises. Ukraine has no trust left to give.

This is precisely what worries Zelensky and holds him back — and why his caution is not stubbornness but responsibility. A ceasefire that simply shifts the battlefield into a slower, dirtier gear — with ongoing Russian provocations, creeping annexation, acts of sabotage and attempts at political destabilization — is not a meaningful ceasefire at all...

In negotiations like these, you can traverse nearly the entire distance and still be forced to stop at the final step. Because it’s at the final step that risk concentrates and illusions collapse."

Russia is abusing inadequate maritime laws

From the Telegraph:

"Russia is spying on Nato. We can’t do anything to stop it

Putin exploits weak maritime laws as West threatened by surveillance and sabotage 

Adrian Blomfield,  19 December 2025

At one level, European defence officials insist, the case against the crew of the Eagle S was unimpeachable.

For more than six hours on Christmas Day last year, the ramshackle oil tanker deviated from established sea lanes and dragged its anchor along the seabed for more than 50 miles, severely damaging five cables carrying power and data across the Gulf of Finland.

When Finnish special forces boarded and seized the vessel, believed to be part of Russia’s shadow fleet, the crew responded with wide-eyed innocence.

It was mere coincidence, they swore, that the ship had altered course to pass over a narrow corridor of critical undersea infrastructure clearly marked on nautical charts.

And it was simply a misunderstanding that, when challenged, they claimed their anchor was secured and they had failed to notice the drag that slowed the vessel to a crawl.

Personnel aboard the Eagle S have form when it comes to wounded bewilderment. During earlier inspections in Danish waters, crew members were reportedly at a loss to explain the presence of suitcases containing specialised equipment capable of monitoring Nato ships and warplanes – or the identity of a mysterious, unlisted passenger with no apparent knowledge of seafaring.

It remains unclear whether suspicions that the vessel had also been deploying seabed sensors in the English Channel – to spy on British submarines and map the UK’s critical undersea infrastructure – were ever put to the crew. It is, however, a safe bet that they would have denied it.

In October, however, the Helsinki District Court dismissed criminal charges against the crew – two Georgians and an Indian – in a ruling that has unsettled European governments, who fear it amounts to an open invitation for Russia to unleash anarchy at sea.

The judges ruled less on the merits of the case than on jurisdiction. The suspected sabotage had taken place not in Finland’s territorial waters but in its exclusive economic zone.

Under international maritime law, they held, the crew should therefore be tried not in Finland but by the state under whose flag the Eagle S sailed: the Cook Islands.

A sparsely inhabited archipelago in the South Pacific, the Cook Islands are better known for coconut palms and turquoise lagoons than for waging hybrid warfare against Nato.

The Polynesian state had merely – if controversially – lent its flag to a vessel suspected of being part of Russia’s sanctions-busting shadow fleet, used to transport energy exports and wage a “grey-zone war” of espionage, sabotage and intimidation against the West.

Russia, Western officials argue, has been able to exploit weak and outdated maritime laws to threaten and undermine Europe. Moscow could now escalate its campaign following the collapse of the Eagle S case, emboldening shadow fleet vessels to ignore orders to enter territorial waters for inspection.

“It sends a rather chilling effect to coastal state authorities,” said Alexander Lott, a specialist in the law of the sea at the Arctic University of Norway.

“Next time we have an anchor-dragging ship making its way through a maritime area which is full of critical underwater infrastructure, it may simply refuse to comply and continue in its way and continue dragging its anchor.”

Law is ‘really, really weak’

For decades, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has underpinned international maritime order, protecting freedom of navigation on the high seas and guaranteeing transit through choke points and territorial waters.

Russia is now accused of turning those protections into a shield. When vessels operate outside territorial waters, UNCLOS – which is notoriously difficult to amend – gives Nato limited power to intervene, even if ships are spying on undersea infrastructure, sabotaging cables or launching drones at the behest of a hostile state.

“The legal frameworks we have to be able to board ships on the high seas are really, really weak,” Adml Sir Keith Blount, the alliance’s deputy supreme commander Europe, told the IISS Manama Dialogue security conference last month. “In ports it’s easy. In territorial waters it’s easier. But on the high seas it becomes very, very difficult … as the Finns found out.”..."

***

Apparently the correct move is not to arrest but to submerge these vessels - and I would not mind if no efforts are wasted in rescuing their super innocent crews.

Ukrainian historian: There cannot be peace because Putin is obsessed with the destruction of Ukraine

Two articles in the Obozrevatel cite Ukrainian historian Yaroslav Hrytsak:

"Trump's naivety and Putin's obsession with Ukraine are hindering the search for peace, says historian 

Anastasia Ryabokon, December 18, 2025

The ongoing peace talks are a diplomatic game. Yaroslav Hrytsak, a historian and professor at the Ukrainian Catholic University, explained its purpose in an interview with Telegraf. 

"The conditions at the beginning of this year and at the end are different. In words, the parties agree to certain concessions. This, of course, doesn't mean there will be a ceasefire, because the distance between the two sides is too great. As diplomats say, this is the so-called corridor strategy, in which Trump wants to force Ukraine and Russia into a narrow corridor where they will converge," he said. 

However, Gritsak emphasized, for this to happen, Trump must be more demanding of Russia. This isn't happening yet. He explains that the Trump administration wants to separate Russia from China. This is precisely why Trump's stance toward Russia is "much softer than toward Ukraine." Furthermore, Trump, who respects only force, believes that "Russia has force, and Ukraine hasn't." 

"Peace is impossible as long as Putin exists. I often use the analogy of the Korean War: negotiations began in 1949 and ended only after Stalin's death. That is, the condition [for the completion of negotiations] was the death of Stalin himself," he recalled.

He also analyzed China's actions, which, in his view, is interested in continuing the war, which weakens the West. Trump, however, isn't "hindering, but rather helping." 

"Trump's calculations are naive. And Russia has its own interests, even more pressing than China's: to weaken the West as much as possible," the historian said.  

He added that the West's weakening could be predicated on Ukraine's defeat and NATO's disunity. Moreover, judging by the new US national security strategy, Russia has "almost succeeded" in the latter. 

"But where Putin is struggling is in Ukraine. It is Ukraine that is preventing the implementation of Putin's plan, nor the Chinese, nor the American ones," Gritsak emphasized. 

He explained that Putin, for several reasons, refuses to accept Trump's terms for Russia's withdrawal from the war. First, he is "not a rational politician": 

"His position on Ukraine is particularly irrational. It can be described in one word: obsession. He simply cannot tolerate the existence of a separate Ukrainian state, a separate nation. He wants to do everything to ensure that it either ceases to exist or is weakened to such an extent that it becomes of no use to anyone, not even Ukrainians."

The second reason Putin refuses Trump's terms is that he will wage war throughout his life in power. He noted that peace with Putin is impossible. "A truce with Putin would be possible if he felt his position was weakening. Does he feel weak now? Unlikely. He thinks it's not he who's weak, but the West, and that he'll push them to the limit," he said.

As the interviewers recalled, Hrytsak had long stated that Ukraine's partners would pressure it to conclude a ceasefire with Russia. He also warned of the "risk of civil war" that proponents of such a plan could provoke. He added that he hoped for common sense in Ukrainian society..."   

***

"A historian identified the main problem facing Ukraine and Europe in their confrontation with Russia

Irina Nesterova, December 18, 2025  

Ukraine is currently effectively defending Europe from Russia, but neither Kyiv nor Brussels has a clear strategy for victory, which is effectively a long and slow path to defeat. This opinion was expressed by historian and professor at the Ukrainian Catholic University Yaroslav Hrytsak in an interview with Telegraf. 

He disagreed with the widespread thesis that Europe currently benefits from a protracted war in Ukraine. He argued that "Europe is rather helpless," having become "scared" of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, albeit briefly. 

"There was an initial shock, but European governments survived it. Moreover, the resistance of Ukrainian society helped. Many people in Europe said, 'Well, okay, the Ukrainians are holding out, there's no threat,'" the historian explained.

According to him, US President Donald Trump "really scared" Europe by saying that he was no longer interested in it.  

"This means that Europe is deprived of protection, and in this situation, oddly enough, Ukraine is Europe's greatest defense right now because it holds the eastern front. Ukraine is buying time for Europe. The only question is whether this time will be enough for Europe to restructure itself and make some radical changes," the professor asserts.

At the same time, he says, this doesn't mean Europe will stop helping us. He says, "The problem is rather that neither Europe nor Ukraine has a strategy for victory": "And the absence of such a strategy, as the textbooks tell us, is a long and slow path to defeat.""  

Zelensky: If Americans don't want Ukraine in NATO, let them take the responsibility for it, and not force Ukraine change its Constitution

From UNIAN:

"Zelenskyy explained why Ukraine doesn't need to change the Constitution regarding NATO

Vitaliy Saenko, 12/18/25 

The President believes that Ukraine deserves security guarantees such as membership in the Alliance.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy believes that the Ukrainian people should decide what changes to make to the Constitution. However, regarding the issue of seeking NATO membership, the Constitution should not be amended simply because Russia opposes Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration. According to a UNIAN correspondent, Zelenskyy stated this at a press conference in Brussels, where a summit of EU leaders is taking place today. 

Specifically, the president was asked whether it was correct to understand that Ukraine was abandoning its aspirations for NATO membership, and whether the corresponding amendments would be made to the Ukrainian Constitution. 

"I don't know how my words were interpreted," Zelenskyy said. 

He recalled that, from the very first days of his interaction with former US President Joe Biden, he asked whether Ukraine could gain membership in the Alliance. Because Ukraine aspired to it and understood that it would provide real security guarantees. 

"This was before the [full-scale] war. President Biden told me, 'No, you won't be in NATO.' I approached this issue every time, and it's already elicited smiles from someone in the White House, along with all sorts of reactions. They always said I was tough. I don't know why. And frankly, I don't understand it when a country says, 'We're not against it, but you won't be there.' I believe you won't be there because someone is against it. And we need to be frank about who's against it, and then resolve these issues, or not resolve them," Zelenskyy noted. 

"Frankly, I don't think we need to change our country's Constitution. First of all, it's the Constitution of Ukraine, and let the Ukrainian people decide what to do with our Constitution, not someone else. Certainly not because of calls from the Russian Federation or anyone else. This is our Constitution. And this is our course. We wanted these security guarantees. We believe we deserve them," the Ukrainian leader emphasized.

At the same time, he said, US policy is consistent and unchanged regarding Ukraine's prospects for NATO membership. The president added: 

"They don't see us there. For now. Look, it's all part of our lives for now. Maybe in the future, the position will change. Maybe someone will realize that a strong Ukrainian army strengthens NATO, and not vice versa. It's a matter of politics. The world changes. Some live, some die. That's life. And we are fighting for security guarantees. Today, they are the ones we are discussing."  

He believes his words cannot be interpreted any other way. 

The President reiterated that he is not the one deciding the NATO membership issue, and that this matter is solely within the purview of the Alliance's member countries. 

"Their desire to see us there, or their reluctance. Their agreements with Russia—or rather, not agreements—are a little different. Our position remains unchanged—we deserve it. We would like to have such security guarantees. And the position of our partners, for now, remains unchanged. And let them be responsible for these changes, or lack thereof. In my view, this is fair," Zelenskyy asserted. 

As UNIAN reported, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that Hungary, the United States, Slovakia, and possibly several other countries do not support Ukraine's membership in the Alliance. 

The first draft of the "peace plan," which the United States handed over to Ukraine in November, included a clause requiring Ukraine to enshrine its refusal to join NATO in its Constitution." 

Putin wants to occupy Ukraine with the hands of Trump

From the Obozrevatel:

"This week, a decision is being made: is the world heading toward global war or will it finally find the will to stop it? Interview with Bessmertny 

Roman Pryadun, December 18, 2025

The Berlin talks revealed the central dilemma of the moment: the West wants a quick result, Ukraine wants a high-quality and irreversible one, and Russia wants further war. Ukrainian diplomat and politician Roman Bessmertny shared his thoughts on these and other issues in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA.

– Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted: "We have not agreed to any territorial concessions." Meanwhile, the Americans are officially demanding the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops in exchange for security guarantees. American media, citing the White House, report that the Ukrainians have been given time to go home to "discuss proposals," and are expected in Miami at the end of the week. Another meeting is possible.

To begin with, I'd like to ask everyone to pay attention to the remark by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, who said that the Americans allegedly promised to return "Russian lands." What does this indicate? No such decisions were ever made, of course, and no one made any promises. But the topic itself was raised. And it was clearly raised both in Anchorage and during conversations with Whitkoff. This is already obvious, as it was once mentioned in an interview with Tucker Carlson, when he spoke with Whitkoff. In other words, the essence of the problem wasn't simply some abstract territories, say, the Donetsk region, part of which is now controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the legitimate Ukrainian government. It was about "Novorossiya." And rest assured: this is only an interim stage.

 

Now, talk is one thing, and facts and events are quite another. Given that I haven't seen and don't see peace as Moscow's option for resolving the situation, I understand perfectly well that Putin, in the current situation, is motivated by Donald Trump's efforts to take another step forward in the occupation of Ukraine. And this is only an interim stage.

 

Now let's temporarily put ourselves in the shoes of President Zelenskyy, who has enough facts not only to confirm what we've discussed repeatedly but also to look ahead. Clearly, intelligence has operational data on the Russian General Staff's developments, understands what operations will be planned next, and so on. In the current situation, Zelenskyy faces a choice: buy a ticket on an installment plan for two or three months, or not worry about it at all and simply accept that peace is fundamentally not on the horizon.

 

– But Ukraine and Europe aren't rejecting Trump's plan, continuing "peace talks." Is this to avoid irritating Trump, hoping for another epiphany?

 

This means that in fact a choice is made between tactical tools. The main thing is that this is a maneuver aimed at eliciting Moscow's response. After all, they are interested in capitulation, not any compromises, even those that would be painful for Ukraine. This has been obvious for a long time.

 

– Is there a chance of making Donald Trump even a formal mediator? 

 

No. He's effectively in the Kremlin's hands, and the Kremlin is manipulating him. I've always supported the position we discussed back in the summer: the time had come to thank Trump for his participation and say: if you can help or sell, then do so. If not, please keep your advice to yourself. Because the maneuvers we're seeing now in Washington and Europe, if you read the primary sources and documents, aren't conducive to peace. They're encouraging the aggressor. He sees that he's succeeding in pressuring the situation through Trump and even some Europeans. 

 

Please note: just a week ago, Europe, through Czech President Petr Pavel, declared that there would be no border changes because this is a war in Europe. But in the statement signed on the evening of December 15th by the leaders of individual European states and the EU, two positions emerged. The first was no border changes by force. The second was that the decision on the territories rests with President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine. 

 

And Washington continues to pressure Ukraine. This means that all the illusions about "something human" that Chancellor Merz spoke of are groundless. There was, is, and will be nothing human there. Hoping for a compromise with Putin or his clique is pointless. In this situation, only force works. 

 

"Peace through strength" has been the obvious answer from the very beginning. But if Trump interprets this as pressure on Ukraine, he's only accelerating the path to continental, and then global, war. 

 

Today, we find ourselves at a point where, within a week, a decision is effectively being made: is the world heading toward global war or will it finally find the will to stop it? This is precisely what we're talking about. 

 

– You said back in the summer that we should have thanked Donald Trump for all the good things and minimized his involvement in this process as much as possible. Why wasn't this done, and why does the Berlin talks once again give the impression that the most important thing is to keep Trump from getting irritated? 

 

Some European leaders simply lack the political will to make such a decision. And, excuse me, but those familiar with the eve of the First and Second World Wars know very well: this isn't the first time Europe and the world have experienced such a moment. However, the solutions are readily available. The question isn't about preparing for war in 2030. The question is that we need to be prepared now. 

 

Pay attention to the words of the new head of British intelligence. Taking office precisely at the time when meetings between Americans, Europeans, and Ukrainians were taking place in Europe, she stated absolutely clearly: this is Moscow's pressure to seize Ukraine now and then continue the war against Europe. 

 

Is this accepted in Washington? Are European capitals accepted? No. The logic here is: if you haven't had your fill, you can't have your fill. The illusion is that this means a few more days of peace, a few more days without war. But in reality, this is not a reprieve. It is an invitation to the aggressor. 

 

– Don't you think that's exactly what Trump is aiming for? For Putin to invade some European country. Then Europe would be colossally frightened, and Europe's dependence on the United States would become even greater.

 

For Donald Trump, a war in Europe is, if you will, a dream. He knows very well what the United States once relied on. It's no coincidence that the situation has escalated precisely when Trump began complaining that Europe has begun buying fewer American weapons. We've discussed this: modernizing the European defense industry and increasing domestic production will lead to Europeans stopping buying from the United States. And for him, whether the conflict is large or small doesn't matter. What matters to him is the dollar...

 

The "national security strategy" story has already triggered serious developments. Now Europe will have to make another choice. Either thank Trump for his efforts and say: keep your recommendations to yourself.

 

– But this decision must be pan-European. Will it be finalized?

 

That will depend on the decisions made in Brussels on December 18-19. We'll have some possible answers around Christmas, but not a final one. Because Trump continues to maneuver: he introduces tariffs, then delays them, then talks about sanctions against Lukoil, then delays them. The license to purchase Lukoil's foreign assets has already been delayed twice. But this only reveals Trump. It reveals the shadowy part of his dialogue with Moscow, which he doesn't want to discuss, but which is in fact key. And sooner or later, this information will surface. And then it will become the final argument for the rift between Europe and the United States on the issue of countering Russian aggression.

 

– The Ukrainian President noted that the United States wants to end the war quickly. They claim that 90% of the issues have already been agreed upon, leaving territories and security guarantees. According to Western media, the Americans have given Ukraine an ultimatum: here are your security guarantees, they're excellent, everyone's happy. If not, things will only get worse. Why is the United States in such a rush? 

This is pure blackmail. All this rhetoric about "guarantees on the table"—take them or they'll disappear—is really just a smokescreen. The Ukrainian side, having announced about elections and NATO, proposed moving on to a substantive discussion of security guarantees. The Americans, however, are talking not about guarantees, but about assurances. And the entire discussion mentally harks back to 1994, to the configuration of the Budapest Memorandum. There's no talk of any real guarantees. That's precisely why the president is asking: if Russia attacks, which units and what exactly will you do?

 

– And in response, zero specifics...

 

Exactly. So please take your 'platinum new guarantees' back where you got them. Because no guarantees exist today. Now imagine: they tell you to withdraw your troops from a fortified region that has a strategic advantage. Reduce your army. And we'll still have to think about what assurances to give you. That's precisely why Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian negotiating team are acting the way they are. They're demonstrating to Trump a constructive spirit and a willingness to engage in dialogue. This is an absolutely correct tactical move, so that both Whitkoff and Trump hear Russia's 'no.' But it won't be voiced publicly. Because then the whole theater will fall apart.

 

– So you believe there won't be any real security guarantees that could stop Russia's next invasion. Because if you look at it logically, the Americans are loudly saying, 'No NATO, we won't fight Russia, a nuclear power.' And then suddenly they're offering us guarantees that envision war with Russia, a nuclear power. Well, that seems strange, to put it mildly.

 

The Europeans themselves have already suggested everything. Their statements clearly state: the United States will monitor, manage the process, and provide information. You won't find the word "force" anywhere in them. No units. Not even a mention of air control. The entire force component is coming from Europe. So, it's clear to me: all these "platinum," "gold," and any other guarantees are just talk. It's just empty talk. And it's no coincidence that I'm recalling 1994. I remember that story very well...

 

– So all these positive statements – like, we’ve worked on something, there are security guarantees, Congress is ready to support it, to legally enshrine it – this, in essence, means nothing?

 

Absolutely. If they really wanted to provide guarantees, they would have taken the law on relations with Taiwan or Israel, put it on the table, changed the country's name, and that would be it. But that's not even being discussed. Somewhere they write about Senate ratification, somewhere else – Congress. This is all aimed at people who don't distinguish between assurances and guarantees. It's a play on words. There have been no guarantees from Trump, and there are none. He kept silent for a long time, and now he supposedly "put" something on the table. But there's nothing behind it.  

 

A telling moment: did the Europeans present their guarantee mechanisms? They didn't present anything, and rightly so. Because they weren't just talking to representatives of the US president, but to actual Russian intelligence. That's why neither the British nor the French General Staff announced anything. And rightly so. Because the last thing they needed was for Europe to lay out its work, which had been in the works since March, to the people who will pass it on. 

 

Europe has its own problems. But they have nothing in common with the blatant lies we are currently facing from Donald Trump and his administration..."

Zelensky about the security guarantees for Ukraine

From the Obozrevatel:

""Let this be private": Zelenskyy said what response he expects from the US regarding security guarantees for Ukraine

Daria Durova, December 18, 2025 

Post-war security guarantees must be reliable and strong, and Ukraine expects to receive them from both the United States and European countries. These promises must be enshrined in documents to ensure they are legally binding.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke about these future agreements during a press conference in Brussels, Belgium, on December 18. A video of the event was published on the Presidential Administration's YouTube channel.

The president was asked several questions related to ensuring the country's security after a potential peace agreement.

Zelenskyy emphasized that without strong security guarantees, there will be no end to the war, only a pause.   

"When you don't have NATO, but security guarantees 'like NATO,' some say that maybe that's even better. I don't know, I'm not qualified to judge. I can only judge one thing: the answer to the question of what the United States of America will do if Russia comes back with aggression. What will these security guarantees do? How will it work? How will all the partners act? How, with what force, will they stop Moscow, specifically?" the president outlined the main questions. 

"I think we need an answer to this. It might not be public, but it should be enshrined in some documents," the head of state added."

Eye-witness narrates and analyzes US hatred to United Europe

From Kate McKenna's Substack:

"American Hate for Europe is Nothing New To understand today, we must first understand yesterday

Kate McKenna, Dec 13, 2025

 

In the late 90’s, I worked for AIG Trading, Hank Greenberg, and Kissinger’s secret weapon to support (and ensure) American interests in global capital markets. Working on the 13th floor of a 12-floor building, with biometric scans required to enter the trading floor, was unique back then. Having everything I did and everything I said recorded and monitored was not. I was part of a covert operation to derail the euro before it was even launched.

My partner in crime, and dear friend, was Bernard Connolly - the conduit for American interests - we travelled the globe making sure key partners knew that the euro was a disaster waiting to happen and that Brussels was the lair of the devil. We were the shadowy arm of US power. I was a kid with way too much power playing a game I did not truly understand but absolutely loved. Wisdom comes with age and battle scars.

“My central thesis is that the ERM and the EMU are not only inefficient but also undemocratic: a danger not only to our wealth but to our freedom and ultimately, our peace.” Bernard Connolly’s opening salvo in his book, The Rotten Heart of Europe, positions the euro’s precursor (ERM) and the union itself as existential risks, predicting that rigid currencies would ignite conflicts—foreshadowing the Greek crisis’s social unrest and Brexit’s sovereignty battles.

Enter the “Euro Basket,” a derivative that I created and sold in vast amounts. Not just a tool but a market-manipulating weapon that used options hedging to force spot prices and erode confidence in this bright new European world. A world that we were on a mission to upend, disrupt, and attempt to destroy.

“Like Hitler, like Stalin, the énarque believes that power will always prevail over economics.” In The Rotten Heart of Europe, Bernard lambasts French technocrats (énarques from the elite École Nationale d’Administration) driving EMU, equating their ideological zeal for monetary union with dictators’ disregard for economic reality. This comparison got him branded a heretic in Brussels. Back then, we knew there was a list of people who were enemies to the state, and Bernard was on the Top 10.

This wasn’t rogue trading. It wasn’t rogue behaviour. This was and, I believe, still is America’s playbook - throwing shade on Europe’s “castles in the air” [the euro, according to 1990s US commentary] to protect the dollar’s dominance. I watched with delight as my market machinations worked perfectly - it delighted me to watch the dominoes hit, one by one, exactly as I had planned. Sometimes these schemes of mine worked a little too well - a story for another time.

In case you wondered what side we were on: “For quite a few centuries... it’s been the British nation-state (together with its admirers in France, America, Austria) that has been teaching the world what it means for peoples to live in freedom and decency, while the idea of ‘Europe’ has spawned a succession of tyrannies.” Citing philosopher Yoram Hazony in his book, Bernard indicts pan-Europeanism as a historical incubator of despotism (e.g., the Napoleonic Wars, fascism), contrasting it with Anglo-Saxon liberty—a politically explosive claim that ties the EMU to centuries of conflict. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

The Confrontation – Skeptics’ Prophecies and Hidden Agendas

In the feverish countdown to the euro’s 1999 debut, a relentless barrage of American economists unleashed intellectual artillery that scorched the entire project as a reckless, politically intoxicated fantasy. This wasn’t polite academic quibbling—it was a coordinated demolition job, fired from the ivory towers of Chicago, Harvard, and MIT, armed with the smoking wreckage of the 1992-1993 Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) meltdown. Remember Black Wednesday? On September 16, 1992, George Soros and a swarm of speculators hammered the British pound so brutally that the UK was humiliatingly ejected from the ERM, hemorrhaging billions overnight while Italy soon followed suit. Those crises laid bare the suicidal folly of shackling wildly divergent economies to rigid exchange pegs—precisely the straitjacket the euro was about to impose permanently.

The onslaught drew its lethal precision from Robert Mundell’s Optimal Currency Area theory: for a single currency to survive without imploding, you need lightning-fast labor mobility, flexible wages, and a muscular fiscal federation to cushion regional shocks—Europe failed every test. Workers barely trickled across borders (annual intra-EU migration languished at a pathetic 0.1-0.2%, versus 2-3% in the nimble United States), linguistic and cultural walls turned relocation into exile, and the EU’s puny budget—scraping by at just 1% of GDP—offered no meaningful transfers, unlike America’s federal firepower at 20% of GDP.

Milton Friedman, the free-market titan, lobbed the first grenade in 1997: the euro would be “a big source of problems, not a source of help,” he thundered, warning it would “exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues.” Boom—straight to the heart of sovereignty.

Harvard’s Martin Feldstein went nuclear. In his blistering 1997 Foreign Affairs broadside “EMU and International Conflict,” he prophesied outright catastrophe: a malfunctioning currency union could ignite “war between France and Germany,” turning economic pain into raw interstate hatred. He invoked the American Civil War as a grim precedent—proof that even deep political bonds shatter without fiscal shock absorbers.

Paul Krugman, the sharp-tongued MIT prodigy, fired a chilling caution in his 1998 Fortune essay “The Euro: Beware of What You Wish For.” Without America’s effortless labor flows, he warned, the euro would cruelly “exacerbate inequalities,” trapping regions in endless slumps—like Massachusetts bleeding jobs while the Sun Belt boomed—dooming the periphery to permanent disadvantage.

Rudiger Dornbusch, Krugman’s MIT colleague, delivered the coup de grâce with savage disdain, branding the whole endeavor “Euro fantasies” in his 1996 Foreign Affairs takedown. It was a delusional “panacea,” he sneered, blind to inflation gaps and wage rigidities that would gut southern competitiveness, spawn housing bubbles, and demand either crushing austerity or explosive breakups.

This wasn’t random sniping. It was a synchronized intellectual blitz that I was at the centre of coordinating, feeding, amplifying, and leveraging. Each salvo reinforcing the last, all rooted in the ERM’s humiliating collapse and the glaring OCA failures Europe stubbornly ignored. Their warnings weren’t just prescient—they were prophetic thunder that echoed through the 2010 debt inferno, Greece’s near-expulsion, and the north-south chasm that still festers today. The American economists didn’t just doubt the euro. They damned it as a dangerous delusion—and history has been proving them brutally right ever since.

This was a coordinated attack to protect American interests against the growing European threat.

While the economists rained fire from academia, U.S. government heavyweights delivered the real gut punches—cold, calculated strikes from the corridors of power that exposed America’s raw contempt for Europe’s pretensions to independence.

Madeleine Albright, architect of NATO’s post-Cold War order, drew a brutal red line in 1998: any European defense push must obey her infamous “three Ds”—no de-linking from NATO, no duplication of U.S. capabilities, no discrimination against non-EU allies. Translation? Brussels could dream of autonomy all it wanted, but Washington would tolerate nothing that threatened American command. She dismissed European objections as “hogwash,” making clear: NATO stays America’s instrument, or it stays irrelevant.

Defense Secretary William Cohen piled on with venomous jabs at Europe’s freeloading. In 1997, he publicly humiliated allies for failing pledges made in 1991, snarling that they weren’t “moving ahead quite fast enough” on reforms while slashing budgets to fund Maastricht’s fiscal gymnastics. The message was savage: Europe was gorging on U.S. protection while starving its own defenses—classic parasite behavior.

Treasury Undersecretary Lawrence Summers, the Clinton administration’s economic enforcer, delivered the quiet killer in 1997: “profound skepticism” about the euro’s viability, warning investors would demand a “proven track record” before touching the new currency. It was diplomatic code for: this experiment is built on sand, and we’re not betting America’s financial supremacy on it.

All of this echoed Henry Kissinger’s devastating diagnosis of Europe’s self-inflicted wound—the “hiatus.” As he warned in the late 1990s, handing sovereignty to Brussels had gutted the national resolve that once fueled European power, without creating anything capable of replacing it. The result? A continent that could no longer project global force yet refused to fully submit to U.S. leadership—trapped in limbo, eroding its own relevance while chaining America to its defense.

Europe wasn’t just integrating. In Washington’s eyes, it was committing slow-motion suicide—and expecting the United States to foot the bill while it bled out.

Anybody who thinks Trump’s NSS is shocking and new hasn’t been concentrating for the last few decades, or if you are a newbie to life, hasn’t read enough. American hate for the creation and existence of Europe is nothing new.

On December 4, 2025: Donald Trump’s second-term National Security Strategy dropped like a thermonuclear indictment, demanding Europe cough up 5% of GDP for defense or face U.S. abandonment, declaring neutrality on Russia to “stabilize Eurasia,” and branding the EU a sinking ship of “decline”—regulatory strangulation, migrant floods, and identity erosion dooming NATO’s heartland to become “majority non-European” in decades.

Madeleine Albright’s 1997: “I will insist that our old allies share this burden fairly. That is what NATO is all about.” That is Trump’s “Hague Commitment” verbatim, a fair-share shakedown upgraded from Clinton’s polite prod to existential threat. William Cohen’s 1997 gut-punch—” They weren’t moving ahead quite fast enough”—morphs into the NSS’s savage ledger of “enormous imbalances,” where Europe’s post-Cold War budget slashes (Germany at 1.7% GDP in 1999) now justify troop pullouts. Lawrence Summers’ 1997 whisper of “profound skepticism” about the euro’s “unproven track record” echoes the NSS’s trade-war broadsides against Brussels’ “malign activities,” from carbon tariffs to digital sovereignty—barriers to U.S. dominance, plain and predatory.

Europe’s integration as a self-sabotaging fever dream, hollowing national spines without forging a global fist, leaving the U.S. to babysit a continent too proud to pay its tab. What if, without this relentless U.S. barrage, the euro had welded Europe into a unified colossus— a dollar-killer rivaling America’s orbit? Instead, it birthed a half-baked behemoth, its real convergence a cruel joke. Sadly, and very likely because of people like me who never gave it a chance. We created invisible vulnerabilities that we knew would undermine it precisely as it played out.

Need proof that Trump’s Euro-Hate is nothing new for America? Here:

1990s U.S. Skepticism vs. 2025 NSS: The Unbroken Thread

• Burden-Sharing Demands
  1990s Echo: Madeleine Albright (1997) – “I will insist that our old allies share this burden fairly.”
  2025 NSS Parallel: The “Hague Commitment” – 5% GDP defense spending or face isolation.
  Real-World Vindication: Europe’s average defence spend lingers around 1.7% (2024), handing America massive leverage amid the Ukraine war.

• Freeloading and Reform Delays
  1990s Echo: William Cohen (1997) – “They weren’t moving ahead quite fast enough on reforms.”
  2025 NSS Parallel: Europe “offloaded the cost of its defense onto the American people.”
  Real-World Vindication: Post-1999 budget cuts raised NATO’s non-U.S. share to about 30%, yet America still shoulders roughly 70% of the load.

• Doubts on the Euro’s Viability
  1990s Echo: Lawrence Summers (1997) – “Profound skepticism” about the euro’s “unproven track record.”
  2025 NSS Parallel: EU “decline” driven by stifling regulations and unchecked migration.
  Real-World Vindication: The euro plunged from $1.18 at launch (1999) to $0.82 by 2000, confirming Optimal Currency Area fears.

• Sovereignty Erosion and Identity Loss
  1990s Echo: Henry Kissinger (late 1990s) – Europe’s “hiatus” in sovereignty erodes its global power.
  2025 NSS Parallel: “Loss of identities... a continent unrecognizable in 20 years.”
  Real-World Vindication: 2024 GDP per capita (PPS) disparities – Luxembourg at 241% of the EU average, Bulgaria around 41% – gaps have widened roughly 20% since 1999.

In case all of this has not been clear, Europe, you are sitting squarely in American sights, and it is gunning for you - it might have taken two decades, but your foundations are being chiselled away as I type. I remain as loyal to America as I was back then, faithful to the United Kingdom (don’t think for a second that dear ol’ Maggie & Co wasn’t watching from the wings - BREXIT had equally longstanding roots). But I am also extremely pro-Europe as it is the only security Ukraine can genuinely count on. I believe that America got it wrong, and so did the UK - Europe was never the threat. China was and is. A story for another time, as yes, I was also part of that Kissinger-and-Hank dance.

A Chronological Scan

Cold War Era (1950s-1970s): Prioritizing Division Over Unity

• Henry Kissinger (1973, addressing European complaints):

“There have been complaints in Europe that America is out to divide Europe economically, or to desert Europe militarily, or to bypass Europe.”
Acknowledges U.S. accusations of deliberate economic fragmentation to maintain dominance, revealing early intent to prevent a cohesive bloc rivaling American influence. Notice he never denied it - lol.

Post-Cold War 1990s: Predicting Conflict to Undermine Integration
• Martin Feldstein (1997): “A malfunctioning currency union could lead to civil war.”
Frames EMU as a catalyst for violent interstate war, implying U.S. endorsement of critiques that could sow seeds of division within Europe.
• Henry Kissinger (late 1990s): “The unification of Germany is more important than the development of the European Union, that the fall of the Soviet Union is more important than any European integration.”
Explicitly prioritizes German unity and Soviet collapse over EU progress, signaling U.S. preference for a fragmented Europe over a unified powerhouse.
• Madeleine Albright (1998, “three Ds”): No de-linking from NATO, no duplication of efforts, no discrimination against non-EU allies—dismissing EU autonomy as “hogwash.”
Enforces U.S. veto on independent European defense, ensuring NATO (U.S.-led) keeps the bloc divided and dependent.

2010s: Open Calls for Reversal
• Ted Malloch (2017, Trump nominee for EU ambassador): “The US should... make firm its opposition to a federal Europe by saying a definite No to a single Euro government... European integration is not at all in America’s interest.”
Advocates actively opposing and reversing EU federalism, treating integration as contrary to U.S. goals—explicit intent to encourage disintegration via bilateral deals.

2025 Era: Explicit Threats of Erasure and Exit
• U.S. National Security Strategy (2025): “Europe is on a path to becoming ‘unrecognizable’ because of migration policies that are undermining the national identities of European [nations]... The nations of Europe cannot look to the US for their own security at the same time they affirmatively undermine the security of the US itself.”
Warns of “civilizational erasure” and pressures allies to abandon EU unity, framing integration as self-destructive and hostile to America.
• Leaked U.S. files (2025): Reports of a strategy to persuade Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Poland to leave the EU, following Brexit’s model.
Reveals alleged active U.S. efforts to engineer exits, aiming to splinter the bloc into weaker, U.S.-aligned fragments.

So what now?

If you accept that this latest anti-European American aggression is nothing new, then the decision is relatively straightforward. Time for Europeans to take responsibility for their future if they want it to be big and beautiful. America is wrong. Russia is the threat. China is the threat. Europe has never been the Boogie Man that Kissinger and others have taught you to believe it is. The world is better when the West is united, and that means a strong united front."