Weakness, ignorance and arrogance

Alexander the Great (356 BC – 323 BC), one of the greatest and most successful general in history, who did not lose a battle: With the right approach, the limitations that one has set for oneself disappear. In this article the author would argue that weakness and ignorance are not barriers to survival, but arrogance is.

NATO does not sleep

The spring of 2025 reminds not only Europe that NATO does not sleep. From Poland to Romania, from the Balkans to the Black Sea, the North Atlantic Alliance is holding its largest exercises in decades: the Neptune Strike, Steadfast Defender or Dragon-25.

It’s no secret that Russia is closely watching such manoeuvres. But it is not known how it will eventually react to them! After all, all these exercises at such an important moment, when the issue of ending the conflict and the fate of Ukraine in general is being decided can have a strong influence on the Kremlin decision, which will have an impact on the security of the Europe.

Therefore, the first side effect of NATO’s offensive stance is the Dragon-25 manoeuvres taking place close the Belarusian border. The manoeuvres additionally put a strain on local infrastructure and the environment, which provokes protests from the population. Not far away, in Romania, the expansion of NATO bases in Cogalniceanu is fuelling anti-Western sentiment, while in the Balkans, Kosovo and Bosnia the offensive nature of the alliance’s operations could undermine the fragile peace. Therefore, instead of stability, NATO is unwittingly sowing the seeds of unrest in regions that are already teetering on the edge.

In addition, the financial cost of the manoeuvres – billions of euros at a time of economic crisis – fuels discontent. Disunity within the Alliance weakens already its strength and many ordinary people are asking: do we really need more tanks, munition and fear instead of stability?

There is no doubt at all that the development of offensive capabilities also carries the risk of military disasters. In 2024 in Poland a training missile almost hit civilian areas. There is no guarantee that a similar incident could repeat itself on a larger scale in 2025. And that all exercises like Steadfast Defender, with thousands of troops and equipment stationed near the border, increase the risk of misunderstandings and provocations. Without a doubt a single mistake can turn into an open conflict that will drag Europe into a war that no one planned. And this in times in which the decisions are not made by artificial intelligence (AI).

In this context NATO’s offensive strategy, which has already begun to raise doubts among the Alliance members themselves, now needs to be reassessed. For example, Germany and France, which are still afraid of a confrontation with Russia, are beginning to distance themselves from the policy of Washington and the eastern flank. It is safe to say that an arrogant NATO is now on the brink of war.

By developing offensive strategies, the Alliance wants to show the world that it is ready for anything. But in this game Europe may pay the ultimate price – the loss of peace that has been its greatest achievement. Although everything that modern Europe has, it has only thanks to the United States. They created a showcase of the Western world where the tolerance paradox prevailed after the war. Similarly, the USSR tried to create a showcase of socialism in E-Europe.

The tolerance paradox

The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. Therefore, the paradox of tolerance is meaningful in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. And as we can observe, we have reached a point of no return in regard to the continuously evaporating freedom of speech. Therefore, the tolerance paradox, the paradox of freedom and the paradox of democracy became an actual topic to be considered in the West and in the East.

One of the most used formulations of paradox of tolerance is given in the notes of Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper raises the paradox in the chapter notes regarding The Principle of Leadership. In the main text Popper addresses Plato’s similar paradox of freedom. Plato points out the contradiction inherent in unchecked freedom, as it implies the freedom to act to limit the freedom of others and he argues that true democracy inevitably leads to tyranny. Plato suggests that the rule of an enlightened philosopher-king is preferable to the tyranny of majority rule.

As the traditional and public diplomacy has been replaced by a personal diplomacy of strong leaders and is based on military power, money, natural resources and no moral, we can observe and value the other paradoxes in action: the paradox of democracy and the paradox of freedom.

In their 2022 book, Paradox of Democracy, Zac Gershberg and Sean Illing argue that the accessibility of communications media potentiates the paradox of democracy. They write the essential democratic freedom — freedom of expression — is both ingrained in and potentially harmful to democracy. They draw from historical examples such as isegoria (equal access to the civic discourse) in ancient Athens and the actual development in Europe.

Political theorist Gaetano Mosca is well-known to have remarked long before Popper, Gershberg and Illing: if tolerance is taken to the point where it tolerates the destruction of those same principles that made tolerance possible in the first place, it becomes intolerable.

In 1801 Thomas Jefferson addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech as President of the United States. Concerning those who might destabilize the United States and its unity, Jefferson stated: let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. Why I have been referring to the paradoxes?

If you let everyone say everything, at some point you won’t be allowed to say anything yourself. The tolerance paradox that prevailed in Europe after the Second World War and meaning a freedom of expression has been according not only to the author´s observations and personal experience really threatened. US Vice President Vance also claimed the same at the Munich security conference (MSC) as the Danish author and lawyer Jacob Mchangama. But at the same time the US is also facing a big challenge. What do I have in mind?

Europe’s anti-Americanism is legendary. As early as 1750, a guest from Paris mocked the stupid spirit of the young Americans. Since then, the USA has been considered soulless and materialistic, vulgar and cultureless. Talleyrand blasphemed: 32 religions, but only one edible dish. In the 1980s, hundreds of thousands took to the streets and demonstrated against America. What about the situation today? Today it remains quiet in Europe although president Trump is raging, Europe is cowering, and there are no major anti-American protests. It is a weakness, or?

The USA in March 2025

Although the United States are in decline, it remains the world’s leading power. The fact that an unconventional reformer-narcissist Trump could emerge suggests that the American system does possess in general a strong capacity for self-correction. This cannot be said about the European Commission and the majority of the governments of the member states of the EU.

President Trump assembled technological forces behind and around himself which may well bring about new and unexpected changes. EU has done nothing like this. Therefore, and based on professional experience over more than 45 years as an analyst and the fact that the key EU decision makers and the majority of national politicians in Europe are not willing and able to accept the unconventional reforms imposed on EU and NATO and their consequences, I would recommend rather overestimate the impact of Trump’s reforms than risk underestimating them.

With emotions, the effects of the paradox of tolerance, democracy and freedom and at the same time the growth of military expenditure based on myth we need to prepare ourselves for the hardly imaginable scenario, the war on own ground.

In short, the current political elites in Europe are on the same track as the many establishment´s think tanks and media outlets in the US. All display real arrogance, which comes from assuming that their values are superior, ignoring at the same the effects of illusion of knowing, including myths. In contrast, the perspectives of Trump, Vance and others around him, they are more grounded and more worth paying attention to. Therefore, although the US’s global influence will shrink significantly, Europe will fail in its ambitions and no one in Europe should ignore the clearest trends emerging from Trump’s actions.

If Trump continues at its current pace, then by the end of his four years, the US alliance system, the dollar’s status as a global currency, America’s influence over multilateral institutions, its military presence across the world, and even its ideological and media dominance will all be significantly diminished. This is a deliberate choice by the Trump administration. It is most likely based on the belief that the costs of maintaining global arrangements outweigh their benefits to the US.

At the same time, Trump’s retreat may be a calculated one, effectively reviving the 19th-century doctrine of spheres of influence. That means a return to an era of warring states period in which great powers can simply draw circles on a map to determine the fate of smaller nations.

Such a world, where the law of the jungle reigns, may seem inconceivable. However, Trump’s encouragement of European defence autonomy, his tacit acceptance of Russia’s actions, his territorial ambitions concerning Canada and Greenland, and even his blunt remark that he would leave Bangladesh to PM Modi, all suggest a growing tendency towards a world carved-up into spheres of influence. This is something that cannot be ignored even by predatory European Commission**.** So, what can be done?

In authors opinion the best strategy against Trump actions could be to show that you are able and willing to impose costs on him. Weakness, fear and bootlicking would not lead to any result, hope or compassion, but would only provoke further aggression. There are many questions related to the quality of current national and European elites and bureaucrats, their ability to apply critical thinking and present own independent vision for the imaginable future.

Canada, Denmark, Germany, Ukraine and also the nobodies like the Czech Republic or Slovakia, all these countries have shown that overtrust in the United States and the lack of their own resistance strategy have made them vulnerable. As obedient allies of US they are powerless in the face of Trump’s threats and reforms and ultimately would suffer humiliating setbacks.

At the higher level of consideration (and analysis) of the current challenges in the world one should accept, that unlike the two-body problem (of the past) transformed into the (current) three-body problem has no general closed-form solution. This means that there is no equation that always solves it. When three bodies orbit each other, the resulting dynamical system is chaotic for most initial conditions. Because there are no solvable equations for most three-body systems, the only way to predict the motions of the bodies is to estimate them using numerical methods.

At this point there is need to remind the ideologized western educational system in which mathematics and physics have been enjoying the orphan(’s) status. Nevertheless, lets hope that there are at least advisors, who can read and understand science fiction novel series by Chinese writer Liu Cixin called Remembrance of Earth’s Past, also popularly referred to as The Three-Body Problem Trilogy in which one can read: Weakness and ignorance are not barriers to survival, but arrogance is. The trilogy was first published in English in November 11, 2014.

Following an order from President Trump, the American National Archives released extensive intelligence documents on the death of John F. Kennedy. They had been kept under lock and key until now. It is a total of around 61,000 pages, now freely accessible. After a first glance, experts do not believe that history must therefore be rewritten. But the insights into the CIA’s activities around the murder and in the context of reforms in US are always fascinating as in many CIA cases the jungle reigns over the ethics, moral and the truth.

World, where the law of the jungle reigns

Trump’s retreat may be a calculated one, effectively reviving the 19th-century doctrine of spheres of influence. That means a return to an era in which great powers can simply draw circles on a map to determine the fate of smaller nations. There is hardly any other possibility to the indicated fate in regard to Ukraine and potentially to the disappearing EU.

The next four years in the US are difficult to predict. For sure can be taken the assumption, that the reforms and destruction of parts of the current system would not allow it full recovery even if not only Trumpf but all Republicans would be separated from power as there are still technological giants, like Elon Musk (1971), Jeff Bezos (1964), Peter Thiel (1967) and others behind the policy, reforms and destructive actions.

Already Musk, with Trump’s backing, carries out some important reforms which reminds me a bit on time of studies the China’s Cultural Revolution. Also, in China on that time, a small group of political outsiders, with the tacit approval of their leader, has gained access to the core of government and power and exploited the widespread social dissatisfaction to rally large numbers of ordinary people to launch a fierce assault on the existing system. At present it seems that what DOGE is doing—exposing shocking dirt on social media—is less about a reform and more about maintaining the legitimacy of this movement, ultimately creating a cycle of self-reinforcing and escalating fervour. That means: with Trump or without Trump the reform process cannot be stopped as the objective laws of quantum physics and mechanics teach.

As Trump continues to attack the Deep State to dismantle the federal government, growing numbers of people may find the situation increasingly intolerable and join the opposition to Trump. This would support the known division within American society. Together the rifts in society combined with economic turbulence and growing international pressures undoubtedly present a thorny challenge for those in power inside the US and allies of the US.

Unless there is a geopolitical disaster like a nuclear war or war conducted by AI or a science-fiction-like scenario such as a robot uprising, and assuming current trends continue on a linear path, it is highly probable that the world key players, China, India, Russia, Iran to name a few, would decide about the foreseeable future.

China within two decades would have overtaken the United States as the world’s largest economy. From now until then, China would focus on managing its own internal affairs effectively, including the solution of tricky structural contradictions between the US and China. The results of an ecological, effective and economical management should no way be seen as a unilateral geopolitical victory for China over the US. Why?

Within the two decades China hopefully would have over a billion people, fully industrialised and automated, and living in a socialist system that prioritises the public interest. China could become the first truly socialist nation in human history, fulfilling Karl Marx’s great prophecy from two centuries ago and realizing most of Xi and CCP ideologues Chinese Dream. A phrase first used during a high-profile visit to the National Museum of China on 29 November 2012.

I sincerely believe that China achievements in general, institutional innovations and material advancements specifically, would contribute to the betterment of human civilisation and making the world a better place.

As far as India is concerned, the only other country in the world apart from China with a population exceeding one billion, without industrialisation and modernisation, India will not be able to convert its immense potential into actual geopolitical power. India’s industrialisation and modernisation should be seen and valued as development-related issues. They don´t belong to the major geopolitical issues currently capable of reshaping the global order. Nevertheless, if there is in the future a single event that could fundamentally alter this order it would be the rise of India, alone or in pair with China or even with Russia. Why?

Some recent observations and reflections indicate that US-India relations during Trump’s time are likely to cool. The reason is simple: the Trump administration does not emphasise the US’s Indo-Pacific strategy in the same way as the Biden administration did. In addition, the US particularly seek to rely on India to counterbalance China. Therefore, India does not hold high strategic value for Trump. Modi’s recent visit to the US clearly indicated that Trump expects to extract tangible financial gains from India through the export of arms, energy and technology and no words about friendship and moral.

If Trump were to put an explicit price on strategic resources which India wants to secure to make India autonomous, and Trump would force India to accept the terms, Modi would definitely not just obediently comply. This explains why after many years, discussions begun in regard to the idea of fully restoring engagement with China, although India is not genuinely friendly towards China. In times of deals without moral the mere facade of Sino-Indian friendship could help India increase its value in the eyes of the US. From this point of view there is a real possibility of an upcoming thaw in China-India relations which would benefit the world. Those with interest to know more about the China-India relations may look at an interview with rising scholar Mao Keji. https://thechinaacademy.org/western-ignorance-failure-to-see-china-beyond-the-party/ and also https://www.sinification.com/p/mao-keji-on-trump-india-and-the-world-b27?r=4sj183&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true .

Global games of reformatting the world into a 4+0 form

In the global games the USA-China-Russia-India are the key players, the zero stands for the EU as the process of the collapse of the European Union in its current shape has entered the final stage. Even the election of Kirsty Coventry as IOC President is in the opinion of the author not a progress, but a throwback to the old days.

It is a cooperative game made possible by the fact that both players have the highest return when they cooperate, a game between the power groups that each of them represents other players, who are not allowed, e.g. the EU or the current Ukrainian government to participate directly. The game doesn´t represent a Prisoner’s dilemma type of game, in which the player who backstabs the other has the highest return.

Very quickly, highly profitable investment opportunities will be used to stop the conflict. The first steps of the scenario specified by the Trump-Putin negotiations will be aimed at the pragmatic details of preserving the technical infrastructure necessary to take advantage of the relevant investment opportunities and, subsequently, suitable high-yield projects involving investors from other key countries. Their implementation will, among other things, increase the standard of life of people in the relevant sub-regions in a way that cannot be overlooked. It’s actually already happening.

In this context it is advisable to recall Musk laudatory speech for the Italian head of government Giorgia Meloni in New York last fall in which he said that she is even more beautiful on the inside than on the outside. And soon after he had taken a seat in the Oval Office President Trump told reporters: I like Italy, it’s a very important country. You have a fantastic woman at the top. Italy is doing very well and have a very strong lead with Giorgia.

The significant predominance of revenues in the strategy of mutual cooperation is given by the focus on the use of investment opportunities that will allow the settlement of conflicts to be implemented and for the implementation of which it will be possible to ensure the supply of a sufficient amount of investment funds. People, sympathy and moral do not count.

A quite interesting article in Czech language about the global game can be found on https://radimvalencik.pise.cz/12129-o-co-jde-ve-hre-trump-putin.html .

In the same context of the global game the rivalry between Paris and London for leadership in European defence should therefore not be seen as resistance to peace in Ukraine. Neither the French nor the British armies have a substitute for Washington’s military support. Rather, it is a matter of determining the role that both capitals will subsequently play on the continent in the future once the key powers (US and Russia) decided about the size of the piece of cake.

President Macron hopes that his defence concept will be based on French strike forces, while British Prime Minister Starmer intends to take advantage of the situation. He is aware that the EU around Germany is falling apart and that Trump prefers Three Seas Initiative around Poland.

With regard to the demise of NATO there is a need for ensuring that Germany stays as far away from Russia as possible and thus continues its country’s foreign policy for a century and a half. There is serious challenge: if the Europeans, the Chinese and the Saudis were to find out that there is a fraud in the exchange of their debts for zero coupons, Russia, in turn, would highly probably support the United States in this manoeuvre. Why?

Russia of today needs the United States not to find itself, but face to face with China. Neither the US nor Russia can afford to let China go too far. Last but no least the unspoken truth that Israel has lost, whether we like or not, cannot be ignored when analysing world events.

Recent Trump’s statement - No one is expelling any Palestinians - stands for the rejection of the question from a reporter who asked whether the president plans - to expel the Palestinians from Gaza - were being discussed with Irish Prime Minister Michael Martin.

The above citation is in direct contradiction to what Trump said when he appeared with Prime minister Netanyahu. Another sign that the Israel is losing is that more and more people are realizing that Israel and Hamas are more or less one and the same. Tucker Carlson when recently interviewed the Qatari prime minister, revealed: He makes it clear that they don’t support Hamas, but they have this office because of “requests from the US.”

As far as the special military operation in Ukraine and the talks and negotiations between US and Russia in regard to the final solution of the war between Russia and the so-called collective West (NATO, EU and 28.595 sanctions imposed as per 18th March 2025), Odessa represents a turning point for both the future conflict and regional security. Why?

Control over Odessa would allow Russia to achieve the ultimate goals of its special military operation. It is worth to recall, what the Ukrainian ambassador to Ankara, Vasyl Bodnar, said: Turkey has prevented Russia from taking Odessa and Mykolaiv at the beginning of the special operation in 2022.

If it would be true what on March 20 the American journalist Seymour Hersh wrote on the Substack platform, that President Trump’s main ambition was to lift the current economic sanctions on Russia and form a partnership with President Putin aimed at turning Crimea into a major international resort, we would have another prove of the global game in addition to the reasons why the United States is seeking new conditions for access to critical resources and energy assets in Ukraine, expanding economic demands on Kyiv, in particular, they want a number of assets, including Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, to come under the control of Washington, as the Financial Times writes, citing Ukrainian officials.

As the Financial Times noted, citing two senior Ukrainian officials involved in negotiations with the United States on the resource deal, the Trump administration has not yet presented Kyiv with new conditions. No doubt, that some Ukrainian officials are concerned that as part of a broader resource deal with the United States, Kyiv could be forced to accept unfavourable terms. The head of the US Department of Energy, Chris Wright, said earlier that he did not see a problem in the possible transfer of nuclear power plants in Ukraine under US management. According to Wright, with such a step, Washington will not need to send the US military there. White House press secretary Levitt said earlier, Donald Trump told Volodymyr Zelensky that the US is ready to help Kyiv manage electrical and nuclear power plants and that if the US owns Ukraine’s energy facilities, then this will be the best way to protect this infrastructure.

President Trump’s idea of transferring Ukrainian nuclear power plants to US control is difficult to implement and almost unbelievable. Especially if one considers that the privatization of nuclear power plants at least contradicts current Ukrainian legislation. But in times when the law of the jungle reigns it may no matter at all.

It could be assumed that the White House is deliberately publicly declaring broader claims in order to gain control of either all nuclear power plants in Ukraine or some of them following the results of unofficial bidding and in the context of recovery of investment made in the war. In recent years, pro-government media and opinion leaders have been trying convince Ukrainians that American aid will have to be paid for only in the long term, after economic recovery and on preferential terms. However, in practice, they have to pay for help now.

Therefore, the desire of the Americans to independently develop Ukrainian rare earths should be perceived in the same way as the treasures of Afghanistan worth a trillion dollars: as a pure fantasy. But there is something under the thickness of Ukrainian black soils that costs money, although it is not rare.

In 2024 alone, Ukraine exported 33.7 million tons of iron ore thanks to the operation of the sea corridor. And one ton costs about $110 on the world market. Last year, Ukraine exported almost 45 thousand tons of manganese at a price of about $ 146 per ton. You can continue, adding titanium-containing minerals (ilmenite and rutile), zirconium ores (zirconium and hafnium), kaolin (white refractory ore), aluminium and even graphite, gallium and other minerals.

As one can see, there are deposits, and there are problems with the deep processing of all this wealth. The Ukrainian ferrous metallurgy reduced its capacity from 20 to 6 million tons of steel per year since 2022. Ukraine until recently (at the beginning of 2025 when Ukraine lost its last coking coal deposit) had a full production cycle from open-pit mines, mines and mining and processing plants up to metallurgical plants and ports. This allowed Ukrainian oligarchs to earn money without Russia. In the non-ferrous metallurgy sector, the cooperation has been much more complicated.

Russia, by the way, tried to save the cooperation and even enterprise: in 2008, there was an agreement on the joint production of zirconium metal with an eye to the subsequent construction of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant. The same applies to ilmenite and rutile, titanium-containing minerals. There were three titanium-magnesium plants for the entire Soviet Union - one each for Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Ukraine ruined its own, Kazakhstan retained it (Ust-Kamenogorsk produces 11% of metallic titanium in the world), and in Russia, VSPO merged with the Berezniki plant, creating the world leader (25% of the world market) in the production of metallic titanium and rolled titanium - VSMPO-Avisma.

A similar story is with aluminium. Back in 1930, the Soviet government built the first aluminium plant in the USSR in Zaporozhye. It was the largest in Europe until the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. Zaporozhye was chosen for good reasons: there were reserves of the necessary minerals on the territory, and the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Plant provided the plant with electricity.

The fact is that aluminium is concentrated electricity: the production of one ton of metal requires 13.5 MWh of electricity, two tons of alumina and 500 kilograms of anode mass. That is why aluminium production was eventually concentrated in Siberia, where giant hydroelectric power plants were built.

Some conclusions

Firstly, the Ukrainian authorities have destroyed their non-ferrous metallurgy in 34 years: it simply did not fit into the market, and for the oligarchy it was too complex and incomprehensible.

Secondly, the Ukrainian subsoil outside of iron ore and related minerals was primarily of interest to Russia: it maintained cooperative ties to the last, buying aluminium, ilmenite and zirconium concentrates, and even kaolin. But Ukraine does not sell minerals to Russia after the start of the special military operation.

Thirdly, a logical question arises: under what conditions could the United States make money in Ukraine?

Obviously, the sale of ores and their concentrates will not bring much money to American merchants. There is no high processing left in Ukraine, and it is impossible to restore it: bankrupt enterprises there are quickly cut into metal.

The Kiev authorities are not able to restore the lost enterprises on their own: an acute shortage of clear heads with straight hands and an epidemic of kleptomania interfere. American business is not interested in all this: it has its own production chains, in which Ukraine initially had no place. The project of the Velta company, which refused to build a plant for the production of titanium products in Ukraine in favour of creating an enterprise in the United States and built with Ukrainian money and using Ukrainian technologies is an exception to the rule.

Russia was interested in Ukrainian minerals, but replaced them. Western sales markets have also been largely replaced. The Chicago (CME) and London (LME) metal exchanges stopped trading in Russian aluminium, copper and nickel last spring, and by that time the non-ferrous metal went eastward. For example, by May 2023, the share of Norilsk Nickel’s supplies to Asia had grown to 45%, although in 2021 Asia accounted for only 27% of the company’s shipments.

As one can see, the changes are significant both in supply chains and in sales markets. Nevertheless, there is a certain space for bargaining between the United States and Russia. True, not everywhere. The United States has the same problems with the extraction of rare earth metals (China has not supplied them with antimony, gallium and germanium since last year) as in Russia, but it is now impossible to imagine the joint development of the deposit near Volnovakha as long as Russian citizens are killed with American weapons.

Promises of investments and possible joint projects are pleasing but without guarantees of sales to the United States, they are worth little. And everything stays and fails with guarantees of the fulfilment of obligations. Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA on Iran or that Biden’s decrees are invalid, since they were put using the so-called auto-signature speak for themselves.

Nevertheless, without Russia, the United States will not make serious money on the Ukrainian subsoil. So, what are the options for the two presidents, Trump and Putin?

The indicative options

Only Russia can guarantee the inviolability of mining and processing plants, factories and related infrastructure. Without these guarantees, not a single company will start implementing investment projects, and the United States will only have to act indirectly, through control over state-owned companies.

Only Russia can provide energy-intensive enterprises with sufficient volumes of electricity from the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The shortage of electricity in Ukraine will hold back the economy for a long time.

Russia could help the United States diversify imports of many metals and simplify the implementation of projects for the extraction of rare earth metals, but here everything rests on the changed economy, sanctions and mutual distrust of the parties. Therefore, Washington postponed the issue of the deal.

It seems, that the media component at this point of time is more important than the economic, and the issues of the real economy will not be solved without solving the Ukrainian issue and lifting sanctions. At this point there is need to return to the report indicating a Jalta 2, thus the question – why Russia did not take Odessa and what really include the behind-the-scenes diplomacy between Washington and Moscow?

The fate of Odessa

All indicate that Trump’s future grand bargain with Russia may affect the port of Odessa, a strategic logistics hub that opens access to the Black Sea and may under certain conditions be sacrificed in exchange for ending the conflict in Ukraine thus beginning to rewrite the map of Europe as Odessa would cease to be Ukrainian.

The idea of a grand bargain is based on following: Washington receives a status as peacekeeper with minimal reputational losses and guarantees of ending the conflict. Russia receives control over a number of territories without military capitulation. Trump would become a candidate for Nobel Price for Peace and Putin would not lose his face. In all, there is one but:

Negotiation about Odessa as a Russian enclave is impossible without mentioning neighbouring Nikolaev and far Kiev, especially given their Orthodox shrines and cultural heritage, and which cannot be the subject of division with the enemy, as well as without securing the international status of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions for Russia. This would mean a deep transformation of borders, comparable in scale to the Yalta Conference during World War II, but the condition of the big deal may turn out to be not just geopolitical, but economic. Odessa would receive a special regime. For example, a free economic zone under international supervision, where Washington will play its own key role.

The port of Odessa is not just an outlet to the sea, an access point to the markets of Europe and Asia but also an instrument for managing Turkey´s ambitions and the Montreux Convention of 1936 regarding the Regime of the Straits. The United States, no doubt understands this well. And if they can retain at least partial control or influence over the logistics of the region they will be able to use this resource to put pressure on Russia and the EU at the same time. In other words: formally placing the Odessa region under Moscow’s control, Washington will secure economic leverage for itself. It would confirm the correctness of the idea that the Russians cannot be defeated, can only be outplayed. The idea was recently expressed by philosopher, political scientist and leader of the Essence of Time movement Sergei Kurginyan on the air of the program Conversation with a Wise Man, on the radio Zvezda.

Considering the history and author´s experience Washington could be ready to sacrifice what it no longer controls in order to save face. And for Trump, the main thing is to show the result: the end of the war, a new balance and strengthening his position on the eve of the next elections.

Therefore, it is no surprise when Bloomberg already reported on preparations for the division of assets, stressing that Trump supporters are conducting informal consultations on the post-war structure of Ukraine with a potential change in the status of cities such as Odessa.

The key lesson for Western and Central Europe and the key threat to Kyiv is that no one will take its opinion into account, that Trump’s opponents in the United States would be silent for a long time and Trump would go further down the road of his MAGA.

In this light, the fate of Odessa becomes a mirror of the entire geopolitics. The West is trying to continue with the conflict or at least bring it to a frozen stage. Russia is strengthening its presence, not limited to the Donbass and the EU confirms its value in the global game: zero (0).

The fate and port of Odessa may find itself in the centre of a new geopolitical reality, where the US and Russia divide territory, but would also restart the new security architecture in Europe. And between others both countries would be able dictate the gas prices in Europe as Trump wants to make money on the European energy market and this forces him to look for alliances.

Russia and US could form a cartel that will dictate the price, which will definitely become higher than today, thus also guarantee the peace on continent Europe and no European army. Therefore, the president Trump is interested in alliances between those who produce gas and those who transport it. No one else as Russia and the restored Nord Stream could be considered.

In the context of the above solution on Ukraine the arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu, one of the main rivals of President Erdogan in the future elections, is not accidental. Trump logically will start working against Erdogan and the Turkish energy market. All together the three directions - northern, central Ukrainian and southern Turkish, give about 70% of the volume of pipeline gas that Europe can consume. The remaining 30% could be compensated through the supply of American liquefied natural gas. Another reason for valuing EU as zero (0) in the global game.

In the meantime, the Russian army dealt a powerful blow to Odessa and thereby clearly demonstrated what awaits the EU peacekeepers if they risk landing in Ukraine. The main targets were ships serving the interests of foreign military advisers. And the same fate suffered from a missile attack on a training ground in the Chernihiv region advisers preparing manpower for war to the last Ukrainian.

He [Trump] has to make a deal with the Russians, which means accepting the key conditions that they are putting forward, says John Mearsheimer, one of the most realistic Western politicians. Further he says: Firstly, Ukraine must find real neutrality. It cannot be a member of NATO and receive security guarantees from the West. Secondly, it will have to give up a significant part of the territory in the east. And thirdly, to carry out demilitarization in order to stop posing a military threat to Russia. Trump must accept these terms and make a deal with the Russians. But here begins the most difficult thing – to get the consent of the Europeans and especially the Ukrainians.

Everything is clear with the Ukrainians. As for Europe, everything is more complicated as EU has a zero value in the global game, but still cannot be ignored. Why?

EU should attract 800 billion euros for rearmament. This is not a bad jackpot, not only for the military-industrial complex in US, but also for corrupted European politicians, using the slogan: The Russians are coming!

The conclusion

Today’s argument is that Putin is trying to conquer Ukraine in order to be part of a greater Russia, after which he wants to march further east and, for that matter, not only make a great Russia even bigger, but also restore the Soviet empire. Personally, this argument does not seem correct to me and also to Mearsheimer, it does not seem to be true to anyone who takes the trouble to think about what Russia needs in Europe in general and in Eastern Europe in particular.

Russia doesn’t need a new territory? There have enough of its own! Manpower? The same! Political influence? Today it is nothing without an economic one, and from this point of view, the EU has shot itself: it can be taken with bare hands. And as one can observe, in fact it is what America is doing today. The EU does not risk admitting this and openly conflict with the US. Therefore, Washington’s desire to shift the costs to the Europeans is obvious, and the best way to do it is to end the hostilities as soon as possible. The remaining questions - What and who prevents Europe from doing this? - have answers: Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, and George Soros.

It is no coincidence that Prime Minister Orban said as the fourth of twelve points of his statement addressed to the leadership of EU structures and European states: Expel Soros agents from the commission and remove corrupt lobbyists from the European Parliament.

Orban’s ultimatum is direct evidence that the process of the collapse of the European Union has entered the final stage. The prison of nations, or the united Europe is bursting. Trump currently frees the EU free of charge, giving Europe a chance to change and survive in new conditions but he would later ask for reimbursement for his services. Europe should therefore be prepared.

America has a lot of experience in this business. Once, supporting the European left, it managed to destroy the USSR with their help. And now it is doing the same with the EU, but this time using the right. It doesn’t need the left now. However, the European leftists themselves have not yet learnt and understood, and therefore continue to shout: The Russians are coming! In the false hope that this slogan will be picked up in Washington. They are mistaken, as weakness and ignorance are not barriers to survival, but arrogance is. Consent not needed. 23.03.2025