Alaska Summit: President Trump Is Setting Himself Up for Failure! No Peace Without Ending Zelensky’s Destructive Role and Changing the EU’s Flawed Stance

For years, I have argued in multiple blog entries—against the prevailing orthodoxy—that the true culprits behind the armed conflict in Ukraine were not to be found in Moscow, but in Washington, Brussels, and Kyiv. Western policy in Ukraine was a reckless, immoral gamble—driven not by the defense of democracy, but by a blind Russophobia and geopolitical vanity of Washington, Brussels, and their willing proxy in Kyiv. In those same essays, I also explained why the Russian Special Military Operation—routinely dismissed by the uninformed and ideologically blinded as a “war of aggression” (confusing militarily offensive with politically defensive)—was justifiable on moral grounds.

This point matters, because in our legal-positivist era, morality is often forgotten. Yet moral law—the ethical righteousness of human acts—precedes legal provisions. In the end and ultimately: Morality beats legality. Specifically in international relations! But for those unwilling to accept anything beyond legal norms, Russia’s campaign could also be justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows for collective self-defense—a principle applicable in light of the injustices committed by Kyiv against the eastern oblasts and their Russian populations since the Western-backed color revolution of 2014.

Ukraine leadership, backed by signatory states like Germany and France, failed to implement the Minsk I and II agreements. As a result, Russia acted to end the intolerable conditions suffered by large portions of the population and to rectify the wrongs inflicted since post-Maidan Ukraine first came under an American proxy president, Petro Poroshenko. This policy of repression was then intensified under Zelensky, whose bid to join NATO—and thereby place the alliance’s military reach directly on Russia’s border—combined with a massive rearmament program, left no doubt that Ukraine was ready to serve as a U.S. proxy for weakening Russia, even to the point of seeking regime change in Moscow.

As I wrote in my blog essay of December 18, 2022 (to be found in totality here):

“Preemptive war can be justified when all peaceful means and all alternatives to using force have been exhausted and only immediate military action can prevent higher threats from materializing.”

I do not repeat my arguments—very much in contrast to American and European warmongers—out of pride, pigheadedness, or the inability to revise my views when confronted with historical reality. The latter has meanwhile corroborated the appropriateness of my arguments. Unfortunately, intellectual flexibility is entirely absent among the decision-makers in the European Commission, NATO, and the Ukrainian government. They stubbornly cling to the very policies and flawed judgments that ignited the war in the first place.

Now, as President Trump prepares to meet President Putin in Alaska this Friday for historic peace talks—talks already boycotted by both Zelensky and the EU—another of my earlier warnings stands vindicated. In my March 5, 2024, post, I wrote (find the whole essay here):

“To end the war, the Zelensky regime—described by some as fascist—must be ousted. Ukraine should be divided, with the conquered territories temporarily under Russian control, and a new government should be established in Kyiv. This government must be able to cooperate with both East and West and should commit to refraining from joining NATO or engaging in any form of military cooperation with the U.S. and its allies.”

If peace is to be achieved, Zelensky must go. His continued presence in power guarantees only the prolongation of conflict, needless bloodshed, and further devastation for Ukraine. U.S. and EU support should have ended long ago; instead, the relentless flow of arms and funds has merely deepened the tragedy.

It is incomprehensible that President Trump failed to act decisively when Zelensky stirred discord in the Oval Office on February 28, 2025. He was allowed to leave Washington unscathed, returning to Kyiv to continue his ruinous course. The US is not a member to the International Criminal Court, but I am sure the legal experts in the US State Department could have found a paragraph justifying detaining the usurper and war criminal Zelensky. That was a missed opportunity to remove a central obstacle to peace.

With the Alaska talks imminent, the question now is how Trump and Putin can overcome the obstructionism of Zelensky and his European backers and achieve a settlement that is both just and durable. Such an agreement must, as I have long maintained, include territorial recognition for Russia in the east and south—regions subjected to repression, discrimination, political marginalization, and military assault since 2014. Any peace plan that ignores this reality—as European leaders seem to be committed to do—is doomed to fail.

Let us once again state the obvious: First Obama and then Biden and the American national security elites—not Putin—bear primary responsibility for this confrontation between Russia and the West. Unless the U.S. neoconservatives, the European Commission, and NATO’s senior leadership awaken from their Russophobe slumber and abandon their imperial dreams of global dominance, any armistice will be temporary, and future conflict inevitable.

The decisive challenge is to reintroduce philosophical depth into the thinking of those advising both President Trump and Europe’s leaders. Trump’s instincts are, as so often, correct—anchored in conservative-Christian principles and oriented toward fair, mutually beneficial outcomes. Yet his inner circle remains mired in Cold War thinking, granting humanity and legitimate interests to allies while denying them to perceived adversaries.

Here, Mr. Putin could serve as an example: a statesman of intellect and moral clarity whose consistent positions—from his February 10, 2007, Munich Security Conference speech to countless press conferences with world journalists since—have been deliberately distorted by Western politicians and media, who project onto him the cynicism that truly resides in their own policies.

The hope now is that Presidents Trump and Putin can reach an agreement that serves Ukraine, Europe, and the wider world. The support of Zelensky and his morally bankrupt backers in Brussels will not be needed—and indeed, would only imperil any chance of lasting peace. How these forces can be neutralized so they do not sabotage a potential settlement may require nothing less than a statesmanlike miracle at the Alaska Summit.

The Responsibility for this War in Ukraine is on the West's Side

---

Disclaimer: I am a friend of Europe and the US, but not necessarily of their ruling political class or policy decisions. None of my criticism is intended to be malicious or adversarial. It is only meant to enlighten the discourse, broaden perspectives, and improve political relations and decisions.

---

Although Western political elites and their media unanimously condemn President Putin's decision to recognize the breakaway regions of Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) in eastern Ukraine as autonomous people's republics, Putin's strategic maneuver can be seen as one of last resort.

Donetsk and Lugansk separated from Kiev following the Western-backed Maidan coup of 2014. They did not tolerate the deposition of the incumbent President Yanukovych and the installation of Poroshenko, whom they perceived as a puppet of Washington and Berlin. Poroshenko’s policies opened Ukraine to the political, military, and economic influence of the US and the West. Since then, the Ukrainian leadership has rejected—disregarding the Minsk I and II agreements—meaningful discussions on the status of its eastern territories, even resorting to a civil war-like conflict in an attempt to forcibly reintegrate the republics.

In 2014, following the Maidan revolution, it became immediately clear that Putin would not passively accept Ukraine's potential NATO membership, which could result in the expulsion of Russia from its Black Sea ports in Crimea. For the first time, Putin was confronted with an anti-Russian regime in Kiev. This prompted the annexation of Crimea and support for the separatists in Donbass, who opposed Ukraine’s transformation into a NATO base. The predominantly Russian population in these areas also resisted the Ukrainian regime's efforts to eliminate Russian traditions, language, and culture.

The annexation of Crimea and support for the eastern territories should have been predictable had the US and Europe taken the time to consider Russia's legitimate strategic interests and conducted an overdue, intelligent evaluation of the region’s security dynamics. How would the United States react, for instance, if Mexico allied with Russia and Putin stationed massive troops along the southern border?

Western political elites have not made a single meaningful effort to address Russia's legitimate security concerns. Instead, they have pursued ruthless regional and global dominance, which has shaped international relations—and particularly relations with Russia—for over a quarter-century.

Resolving the crisis in Ukraine would have only required a reassessment of Washington, Brussels, and Berlin’s strategic miscalculations and a respect for Russia’s legitimate security interests. Unfortunately, the current political leadership in the US and Europe lacks the necessary restraint to peacefully resolve the conflict.

For example, neither the weeks-long Russian troop build-up on the Ukrainian border nor Russia’s security demands—outlined in a letter to Western leaders prior to the military action—led to any acknowledgment of Russia’s national security concerns by the US, EU, or NATO. They denied Putin any opportunity for diplomacy. The blame for the collapse of dialogue and the first step toward Russian aggression lies solely with the West.

While public and international discourse on this issue often focuses on the Kremlin and the White House, little attention is paid to Ukrainian President Zelensky’s role in the current crisis. Had he defined his country’s national security interests wisely and sensibly within the broader geopolitical context, particularly in relation to Russia, he might have avoided the conflict and preserved his country’s territorial integrity. Instead, driven by his Western backers and perhaps megalomaniacal ambitions, he pushed Ukraine toward NATO membership and the stationing of nuclear weapons—decisions that overstepped the reasonable limits of an adequate security strategy.

Ukraine - Another Failure of Western Interventionism

As I've made clear in my previous blog of March 2014 below, by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Ukraine, Washington, with support from the European Union's leading powers, has brought the United States and the West into a confrontation with Russia.

In about a year, the West has managed to topple the democratically-elected Ukraine government, install the Washington and Berlin-backed Poroshenko administration in Kyiv, and drive the nation into a fratricidal civil war. It turned the country into a failed state, virtually destroyed its economy, and severely damaged Russia's.

In its usual reversal of cause-effect realities, the mainstream media, in its typical reversal of cause-effect facts, blamed Russia and Putin's aggression and expansionism for protecting incumbent administrations and concealing their sad and ill-defined policies. Had the U.S. and Europe conducted just and wise policy procedures, they could have foreseen the support of Ukrainian separatists and annexation of Crimea by Russia as inevitable for its national interest.

Think about this: A year before scheduled presidential elections through which the Ukrainian people could have gotten rid of president Yanukovich's allegedly corrupt administration and chosen an administration espousing a more EU-oriented course, the U.S. and E.U. instigated an unnecessary coup. Why, for what reasons? To install a Western puppet administration that the people of Ukraine might have never elected themselves? To prevent a Russian-prone government (that was simultaneously establishing good relations with the West) from being democratically confirmed in OSCE-monitored elections? To put Ukraine into NATO and E.U. and drive Russia out of its Black Sea ports in Crimea?
 
Whatever the reason or ensemble of reasons, the applied policies provide evidence of a colossal misunderstanding of foreign affairs in a post-Cold War global setting and an astounding lack of any practical political philosophy of international relations in Washington. However, the incompetence and dilettantism that is hiding behind the democratic principle is widespread and not limited to the White House. Senators and politicians of both parties in Washington are pushing the notion of arming Ukraine and an increased show of force in Eastern Europe by the U.S. and NATO. GOP Senator James Inhoffe just introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate to arm Ukraine with "Lethal Military Aid" against pro-Russian separatists, which means the hawks are doubling down on the political foolishness. They perpetuate the damage to global affairs and continue to push Ukraine into a proxy war with Russia.

However, the overbearing arrogance and hubris of Washington appear to drive a wedge into transatlantic relations, as ever more European nations distance themselves from the idea of arming Ukraine and potentially dragging NATO into war with Russia. Western Europe's economic ties with Putin's country are too close, and a significant portion of Russia's natural gas delivery to Europe runs through Ukraine. Aside from that, European nations, even when NATO-members, know that their populations are not ready to subscribe to go to outright war with Russia over Ukraine.

What are the options for future development? From Ukraine breaking apart with the eastern and separatist parts integrating into Russia to outright war between the West and Russia over Ukraine, almost anything appears possible. Given the strength and commitment of the Russian-backed separatists, it seems unlikely that the Ukrainian Armed Forces, lacking in coherence and dedication to the cause, would reconquer the eastern and southeastern parts of the country. A diplomatic solution along the lines of the Minsk negotiations results will depend on the ending of military and armament support from the U.S. and other western nations. I am convinced, though, that the arms support will seize soon or never get up to speed as it has become quite clear by now that Kyiv has lost and is unable to wage a full-scale war with or without weapons from the West. While the U.S. and individual European nations might be willing to prolong the agony, Kyiv can't fight a war without the will of its people behind. And in the long run, even the most hawkish politicians in Washington couldn't possibly want to throw NATO in and fight World War III against Russia over some folly and utter political blunder they have instigated and committed in Ukraine by themselves in the first place?

It is mind-boggling to note that, like in the Middle East, western political authorities could have easily prevented the meaningless bloodshed in Ukraine and the state's unnecessary disintegration. The hubris of liberal interventionism and U.S. activism worldwide - resulting from distorted interpretations of history, misguided doctrines of international relations, and an unjustifiable sense of moral superiority - appears unconquerable.

No matter how many times history proves them wrong and presents the horrendous damage, these policies are causing worldwide, self-righteous pride and defiant inertia prevail over any judiciousness or informed judgment.