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.

What Happened to Trump? Disillusionment, Ukraine, and the Return of the Deep State

I remember a time when President Trump seemed to embody a long-awaited political corrective—a repudiation of America’s imperial overreach, a purge of the entrenched bureaucracy of the deep state, and the promise to restore sanity in national security and foreign affairs. But that promise is rapidly fading.

His recent decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites—just three days before the expiration of a negotiation window—already raised alarms. But the current decision to resume arms deliveries to Ukraine reeks of strategic confusion. Quite obviously, the warmongering neocons and deep-state operatives tied to the military-industrial complex have outmaneuvered the president, confirming a suspicion long in the making: the deep state is not only alive but thriving. The very machinery President Trump once vowed to dismantle appears to have prevailed over him.

Let me be clear once again and say this to political advisors on both sides of the Atlantic: the political elites of international affairs and security in the US and the EU have placed themselves, from the very beginning of the Ukraine conflict, on the wrong side of history. The war could have easily been prevented.

I have meticulously detailed the origins of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict—most notably in this very blog, in entries since before the outbreak of the war in 2022. From the outset, I argued that the root cause was not Russian imperialism, but the West’s refusal to recognize Russia’s legitimate security concerns. NATO’s relentless eastward expansion, the betrayal of promises once made to the contrary, and the refusal to grant Ukraine neutral status were all ingredients in a recipe for war. Ukraine could have served as a bridge between East and West. Instead, it was converted into a proxy for a delusional confrontation—one orchestrated by American neoconservatives and executed by an ideologically compromised, corruption-prone Ukrainian leadership.

Mr. Trump seemed to know all of this. His initial rhetoric rightly identified NATO as obsolete, the EU as bureaucratically overreaching, and Ukraine’s role in the conflict as problematic. His claim that, had he been president in 2022, the war would not have happened bears truth. In his first term, he signaled clearly that he intended to cooperate with Russia and respect its national security concerns.

But what are we to make of his latest decision—resuming weapons deliveries to Kyiv, implicitly blaming Putin while giving Zelenskyy a free pass, and backtracking on what was once a principled rejection of globalist interventionism?

One can only hope that this does not mark the collapse of Mr. Trump’s America First doctrine. His policy shift bears the signs of a betrayal of his own strategic project—which was never about isolationism but about prioritizing national interest and strategic restraint. Yet by supporting the extension of a war that, by his own account, would never have occurred under his presidency, he now legitimizes the very structures he once challenged.

President Trump—once an opponent of ideological dogmatism—now joins the chorus of moralizers in the European Union, most notably in Germany, France, and Great Britain, who refuse to face geopolitical reality.

Even now, in the fourth year of this tragic conflict, the West’s political elites have failed to learn their lessons. Instead of critical reflection, they double down on failed policies and reject the application of long-established theoretical frameworks in international relations. They ignore the philosophical underpinnings required to understand global affairs. They dismiss, for instance, the insights of thinkers like Francis Fukuyama, whose central warning—the need for recognition in global relations—remains as relevant as ever. It is precisely the failure to recognize Russia’s demand for dignity, its civilizational space, and its strategic red lines that led to war.

For now, the neoconservatives and other war hawks have won. They have reasserted their control over foreign policy by outlasting Mr. Trump’s initially meaningful stance. They are exploiting a moment of crisis—the Russians have intensified their military advance, and the war is clearly lost for Ukraine—to reinstall their failed doctrines. It is quite disheartening that Mr. Trump would fall prey to their pressure and allow himself to be talked into such an intellectually dishonest and historically tragic course. He is not aware—and nobody in his administration seems to explain to him—that the planned resumption of weapons delivery will only prolong an already lost war, increase the casualty rate, and cost further meaningless loss of human lives, territory, and treasure. 

The president demonstrated throughout his first term that he understood the conceptual tragedy of America’s post–Cold War strategic design. He took promising steps to reverse it, returning to a more principled and philosophically grounded posture—one that drew inspiration from the restraint of the Monroe Doctrine.

As I’ve written repeatedly on www.edwinseditorial.com and elsewhere, including in my political-philosophical study 44 & 45. The Tenures of US Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, the proper orientation of international relations demands a return to foundational insights of political theory: sovereignty, recognition, the minimum standards of international law, an ethics of foreign policy, and respect for civilizational diversity. These would be the prerequisites for peace.

Trump once seemed to intuitively grasp all this. That he has now forgotten—or forsaken—it is cause for serious concern.

Chaos Unfolding: The Israel-Iran Escalation and the Crisis of Western National Security

For years, if not decades, we’ve heard that Iran is on the brink of building a nuclear bomb. This rationale has been used again and again to justify interventions, sanctions, and threats. It has now served as the moral pretext for Israel’s preemptive strike against Iranian infrastructure and personnel. Not only did those operations target nuclear enrichment sites but have also been extended to pinpointed strikes and assassinations against individuals, nuclear scientists and military brass, including their families—all flagrant violations of the principles of international law, yet, more importantly, of the fundamental stakes of an Ethics of International Relations.

The classical boundaries of just war—proportionality and distinction—have been discarded. The guiding principle is no longer rooted in legality or morality but in Machiavellian expediency. Imaginary political goals are pursued by any and all means. The immoral logic of “the end justifies all means” is applied without any limits and humanitarian concerns—a shameful conduct, which is not merely tragic, but rather a symptom of a deeper civilizational disorder.

Yet, the Israel-Iran confrontation is but one facet of a much broader global descent into chaotic disorder. Alongside it, we witness the persistence of the Ukraine war—now in its fourth year and still dominated by the West’s refusal to engage in serious diplomacy and in acknowledging Russia’s legitimate security interests—as well as domestic turbulence in the United States.

Protests erupted nationwide on June 14—coincidentally Donald Trump’s birthday and the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army—against the perceived authoritarianism of his administration, while cities like Los Angeles see mounting resistance to federal ICE operations. People tend to forget—or, more accurately, people particularly on the left are unaware of—that a democratic system's governing executive in order to maintain social stability and security must grow more authoritarian the more society gets increasingly lawless and anarchistic. This apparent authoritarianism is a natural outcome of political evolution toward societal disintegration and internal striving rather than having anything to do with the reign of an absolute monarch or king. Local Democrat mayors and governors defy presidential directives and—in their civic illiteracy—act in support of the ignorant leftist mob.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union engages in its own form of institutional despotism. Unelected Eurocrats in Brussels frequently contest or sabotage Conservative triumphs in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Austria and other places. Under the pretense of unavoidable rule of law-interventions, results of democratic elections are nullified—exposing an ideological disdain of political leaders and administrations on the left for the very populations they purport to represent. Authoritarian imposition of the European Union on member states where conservative parties and candidates are democratically elected has meanwhile become a matter of course. These widespread pseudo-interventions of totalitarian character are proof that the world is ever more entangled in chaos and mayhem.

In this environment, violence and outright war are no longer an anomaly and appear to be on the resurgence. All promising attempts post-Cold War to usher the world into a new, more peaceful and cooperative order, have failed. From Washington’s neoconservative warmongers to the belligerent factions in Brussels, Berlin, London, and Paris, one sees little evidence of restraint or prudence. They act as if they’ve lost their minds and dropped their moral compasses long time ago. They push the continuation of armed conflict that comes at horrendous expenses for populations in terms of blood and treasure. The armament and buildup of military organizations across Europe and beyond accelerates at an alarming pace. The fiscal and human cost of these policies is staggering, yet they continue, animated by a doctrine that no longer consults moral reason.

Regarding Iran specifically, I have long maintained that a rational, credible, and peaceful deterrence strategy was available. In my essays of 10 August and 27 September 2017, published in this blog here and here and included in my 2024 book "44 & 45. The Tenures of US Presidents Barack H. Obama and Donald J. Trump. A Social-Philosophical Treatise" (pp. 158–162), I proposed to apply the already existing doctrine of Annihilation upon First Strike as a sufficient strategic response to North Korea. Now it should be applied to Iran as well. This doctrine assures powers that the US will not use nuclear means first against them, but will strike with all her might when herself and allies are attacked by nuclear means first. When paired with rigorous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), this strategy would ensure Iran’s nuclear program remained confined to peaceful civilian purposes. No preemptive strikes, sabotage, or assassination campaigns were necessary—or justifiable.

One cannot help but wonder whether President Trump, now in his second term, is still in command of U.S. foreign policy? Or has he been sidelined by a permanent national security bureaucracy—the so-called “Deep State”—and shadow-government figures such as South-Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and like-minded interventionists and war hawks? Trump doesn’t seem to be wholly informed about the ongoings in the security arena and left out of important decisions, such as the preemptive strike Israel’s against Iran. Trump’s 2019 decision to cancel retaliatory strikes against Iran following the downing of a U.S. drone showed prudence and moral instinct. It is hard to believe he would have approved the Israeli strikes amid active negotiations. And yet, if he was uninformed or bypassed, it raises profound constitutional and strategic questions about the erosion of civilian oversight in matters of war and peace.

Of course, I hold no illusions that either he or his advisors are familiar with the outlined positions. Although, fortunately, President Trump seems to have intuitive grasp of my idea when expressing on social media: "If we were attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before." If he added to this statement "if we or Israel or other allies in the region were attacked," the strategy of Annihilation Upon 1st Strike would render any preemptive application of violent means unnecessary. I have consistently called attention to the shocking illiteracy of Western security elites in the realm of strategic philosophy and international ethics. That these actors, hidden behind a screen of bureaucratic privilege and ideological confusion, continuously ignore wiser counsel is no surprise. It is, however, a tragedy.

The only hope of returning to reason and to bring the Western world to its senses is to restore the voice of philosophical insight in matters of policy as I have also pointed out in my book 44 & 45 mentioned above. As Immanuel Kant once emphasized in his 1795 essay "Zum ewigen Frieden" (Perpetual Peace), philosophers—who ideally think holistically and are immune to manipulation and propaganda—should be welcomed (again) into the ranks of political advisors and counselors to those in power.

Today, that advice is more needed than ever. Without it, the West drifts ever further from sanity, morality, and the rule of (moral) law—and closer to an age of chaos, unrestrained violence, and unreasonableness.

Trump's First 100 Days: A Presidency the Media Can't Spin into Failure

After the first hundred days of Donald J. Trump's second term as the 47th President of the United States have passed, the political opposition and global interest media try to paint it as if his presidency had already failed. If you listen to The New York Times, CNN, or their European counterparts like The Guardian or Der Spiegel, you’d think the country is on the brink of collapse. But nothing could be further from the truth.

In striking contrast to the four years of drift, decline, and dysfunction under Joe Biden—about which the same dishonest legacy media outlets kept mostly silent—, Trump has already made significant headway on the key issues that propelled him back into the White House: securing the border, revitalizing the economy, restoring energy independence, and confronting the cultural rot that had taken hold in American institutions.

The united Left both in the US and Europe can’t come to terms with the most dramatic conservative counter-revolution the MAGA movement has launched under President Trump’s leadership, basically reviving a political upheaval that had started in Mr. Trump’s first term and now continuing in a more systematic and professional way.

From day one, President Trump acted decisively to restore order to the southern border, reversing Biden-era policies that had effectively opened the floodgates to millions of unvetted migrants. Biden’s border policy was a catastrophe: over six million illegal crossings that caused sanctuary cities buckling under the weight of unmanaged immigration and triggered a largely ignored humanitarian and security crisis. Today, under Trump, illegal crossings have plummeted, cartels are on the run, and for the first time in years, the rule of law is being reasserted at the border.

Ending the Reign of Woke

Perhaps one of the most underreported and deliberately misrepresented victories of Trump’s early presidency has been his decisive stand against the woke ideology that has infected corporations, schools, and government agencies. Within weeks, Trump signed executive orders barring federal funding for DEI programs that promote racial essentialism and division. He defunded radical gender ideology in education, banned it from federal training sessions and determined by executive order that “sex” is immutably defined by biological classification as either male or female and determined by reproductive anatomy.

These moves were predictably labeled “fascist” or “anti-democratic” by the legacy press. But for millions of Americans—and indeed, for many Europeans cheering from across the Atlantic—they marked a long-overdue reassertion of reason over ideological madness.

From merit, occupational proficiency and character replacing affirmative action and gender identities in government hiring to protecting children from irreversible medical procedures pushed under the banner of “gender affirmation,” Trump is waging a cultural battle that forces of sanity are hoping he will win as DEI and radical gender politics have done little to create a more just society, but undertook much to divide, confuse, and demoralize one.

Economic Stability

Trump’s first 100 days have already begun to stabilize an economy ravaged by inflation, high interest rates, and bureaucratic overreach. By establishing DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) under the leadership of Elon Musk, the administration focused on eliminating “Waste, Fraud, and Abuse” within the federal government. As of early May 2025, DOGE claims to have achieved savings for taxpayers of around $165 billion by terminating wasteful contracts and improper payments, workforce reductions and regulatory savings. The Left’s hollow criticism is directed mostly toward the fact that DOGE has focused on terminating worldwide contracts for “energy and climate advisory services” and gender-focused curricula and projects  

President Trump’s rollback of Biden’s anti-growth regulations and tax policies has boosted business confidence, and early signs indicate a recovery in manufacturing and energy employment. The administration’s rapid response—cutting red tape, unleashing domestic energy, and restoring fiscal discipline—has signaled a return to common sense in economy as well.

A cornerstone of President Trump’s “America First” economic agenda has been his much-discussed tariff policy as a strategic tool to protect American industries from unfair foreign competition and to revitalize domestic manufacturing. The US’s trade deficit amounts to more than one trillion dollars annually and needs revision. While critics argue that tariffs are raising prices and function like a hidden tax on consumers, also inviting retaliatory tariffs that hurt U.S. exporters and could distort global supply chains, Trump’s tariff strategy reflects a shift from blind and—in many cases—one-sided trade arrangements toward more balanced and just economic realism. While this strategy must be managed with careful precision and its results remain to be seen, the hasty condemnation by most media owes more to ideological ill-will rather than factual critique.

The Unreasonableness of European Political Elites Prevents Peace in the Ukraine-Russia War

The war in Ukraine, now entering its fourth year, has left the European Union and much of the West on the wrong side of history. This conflict, deeply rooted in the complex geopolitics of Russia, Ukraine, and the broader Western alliance, was—at least from Russia’s vantage point—never merely about territorial disputes or nationalistic ambition. It was instead about NATO expansion and the ongoing subjugation of Russian populations in the Donbas by Kiev in the wake of the Maidan Revolution in 2014. The response to these legitimate Russian concerns by the US and Europe has been short-sighted and historically misguided, and owed to a substantial failure in the West’s security policy design and diplomatic foresight. 

Ukraine’s potential accession to NATO would have represented a significant shift in the balance of power on Russia’s doorstep. Rather than an imperial ambition, as often portrayed by the West, this was a matter of national survival for Russia.  Despite Russia's repeated warnings, Western policymakers, particularly in the US and the EU, dismissed these concerns, choosing to expand NATO right up to Russia’s borders.

 Maidan and the Neglect of Russia’s National Security Interests 

The situation took a decisive turn after the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, which was largely instigated by the United States. The revolution overthrew then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who had been seen as pro-Russian, and installed the anti-Russian Petro Poroshenko as the new president. This shift, backed by Washington and much of the EU, sowed deeper divisions within Ukraine, particularly in the Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions.

Instead of seeking peace and reconciliation and preparing Ukraine as a neutral bridge for political exchange between Russia and Europe, the West pushed Ukraine into an arms race that ultimately escalated the conflict. [for the rise in Ukraine's defense budget from 2013 until before the outbreak of the war see https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2022/02/russian-statesmanship-against-ukraine.html]. Feeling its hand forced, Russia moved toward the annexation of Crimea in 2014. From Russia’s perspective, this move was a necessary and strategic response to the destabilization of Ukraine and the growing military presence of NATO forces near its borders. Crimea, home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, held immense strategic significance. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO posed a direct threat to Russia’s access to the Black Sea, making the annexation of Crimea an inevitable step in Russia’s security strategy.

As the Maidan Revolution unfolded, Russian-speaking minorities in these regions felt increasingly marginalized by the new Kiev government. Poroshenko’s policies, including restrictive language laws and the suppression of Russian cultural identity, led to a violent backlash that escalated into a full-blown civil conflict, with Russia stepping in to protect its ethnic kin and safeguard its strategic interests.

The Right is the Actually Good! (What happened to Trump is now happening in Europe)

Success should be the primary criterion for evaluating the appropriateness of political parties' and governments' action plans. The key question should be whether the implementation of political concepts has led to an improvement in the common good or its decline. This outcome should be the sole determining factor by which political forces are legitimized in the democratic election process and entrusted with governmental responsibility, or conversely, deprived of it.

If this criterion is applied, it is undeniable that the progressive policies imposed on the populations of Austria and Germany in recent years—especially by left-leaning and EU-loyal coalition governments—have caused significant harm and worsened living conditions.

These policies, largely based on ideological utopianism, have resulted in:

• A failure during the pandemic, driven by irrational fears and an over-reliance on science rather than sober reason;

• A thoughtless, pseudo-humanistic attitude toward immigration, the prosecution of criminals, and deportation, characterized by moralizing without actual morals;

• Economic decline due to a fanatical climate policy that was practically imposed on the people by the political left, resembling a secular substitute religion;

• Amateurism in security policy, particularly marked by Russophobia.

The reality of life disproves the social and political theories of the left, which claim to be validated by continuous success and the improvement of human living conditions at all levels of society.

The failure stems primarily from the fact that ruling left-wing parties in Austria and Germany—who dragged traditionally conservative, Christian-social forces like the ÖVP (Austrian People's Party), or the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) in Germany to the left—prioritized ideological intentions over objective insights into various policy areas. Whenever this happens, every political initiative inevitably carries the seeds of its downfall.

Now, it is being suggested that these failures came upon us as if by some natural occurrence. In reality, they are self-inflicted, the result of educational and moral deficits among the elites.

The United Left—along with its allies on the so-called right—now stands before the ruins of its policies. Although fully aware of this, the left is too obsessed with power to admit its mistakes or learn from these painful experiences. If they had any sense of decency, the coalitions in Germany and Austria would have resigned long ago and called for new elections.

Given the damage done and their proven incompetence, the ruling administrations, along with the parties and media sympathetic to them, are now in desperation. As a result, they have turned to what they see as their only remaining strategy for maintaining power: the demonization of the remaining conservative bastions within the state and society.

The left has taken the offensive and is not afraid to use inflammatory terms like "fascism" and "right-wing extremism" inappropriately, seeking to discredit every conservative and Christian-social political force to maintain their grip on power.

In truth, it is the left that is undermining democratic political structures and processes. In a desperate attempt to remain in power, it has tried to establish a "dictatorship of opinion," creating a mental autocracy that no longer allows for classically conservative or Christian-social positions. With its anti-democratic approach, the left seeks to pave the way for a one-party rule dominated by left-progressive political movements. The recent leak of a secret document outlining a proposed ÖVP-SPÖ-NEOS coalition confirms this intent.

If we redefine the concept of fascism in the modern context as anti-liberal, anti-democratic, secular, and radically anti-Christian—and exclude the irrelevant elements of ethnic and racial elitism—we can see how the political left embodies the actual fascist elements in our societies. In an audacious way, it projects this strategy, which it itself practices, onto everyone who stands outside its narrow ideology.

Therefore, left-wing fascism represents the primary danger to our societies in the current culture war. The myth of "left is good" and "right is bad," which has been preached since the 1968 generation, is gradually unraveling. Increasingly, people are recognizing that the radical, indifferent-progressive left is the true adversary of humanity. The opening of the Summer Olympics in Paris served as a stark reminder of this in an archetypal way. It is nearly too late for our societies to wake up.

The right, in the well-understood sense of bourgeois-Christian thinking, is returning inevitably to realpolitik. More and more citizens are seeing through the left’s deceptive tactics. They are realizing that only a renaissance of conservatism can save Western civilization and its societies.

---

Comprehending Putin: The Unconsidered Resolution for the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The statesmanlike strategist has always distinguished himself from ordinary ideologues and low-ranking politicians by his ability to assess an opponent’s politico-military capabilities and, more crucially, their political thinking, strategic goals, and disposition toward the use of force.

At the heart of understanding what has been termed a country’s “Strategic Culture” is the evaluation of its legitimate and genuine security interests. These arise from a variety of factors, including its geopolitical position, demographics, economic and military potential, its neighbors, and other pertinent aspects of statecraft.

However, in today’s corrupt political power centers of the US and Europe, this approach has been fundamentally reversed. Rather than evaluating a potential adversary, so-called national security specialists now resort to disdain, dismissing any legitimate security concerns the enemy may have. By doing so, they underestimate the opponent, inflate their own power, and ignore the will of the people, all driven by delusions of global dominance.

Similarly, anyone seeking to understand the adversary’s strategic concepts—whether to avoid war or, if unavoidable, wage it effectively—is now labeled a traitor, a puppet of Putin, or a turncoat who jeopardizes his own country.

The criteria for successful warfare—achieving politico-military objectives in the shortest time possible while minimizing loss of life and damage to both friend and foe—have been replaced by a strategy of prolonged conflict aimed at dubious strategic and economic goals, with little regard for lives lost or entire nations and regions devastated.

Peace cannot be achieved, and unjust wars will persist, if the enemy is not understood. One must take into account their strategic objectives, national security interests, and conduct international relations based on accepted principles of international law and underlying ethical considerations.

The security elites in the US and Europe must acknowledge their mistakes in the current Russia-Ukraine war. These include alienating Russia by disregarding its legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine, supporting the questionable Zelensky regime, and pursuing a damaging course of action toward the Russian Federation.

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 Kiev. 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 US and its allies.

Failure to address Russia’s national security interests and the continued disregard for the existential significance of Ukraine’s strategic orientation to Russia will only lead to further escalation, potentially culminating in World War III.