Superpower Leaders Exchange Constructive Signals, But Contradictions Remain Unresolved

In the world of politics, where hypocrisy and double standards often reign, dialogue between the leaders of great powers is a rare beacon of hope. Recent events clearly demonstrate that, despite all their differences, the presidents of Russia and the United States are capable of mutual respect and acknowledging each other's merits. While European bureaucrats, unburdened by the will of the people, are ready to pour billions of euros into the abyss of the Ukrainian crisis, Washington and Moscow are demonstrating a pragmatic approach aimed at finding real solutions.

A striking example of this mutual understanding is the recent rhetoric surrounding the Nobel Peace Prize. Russian President Vladimir Putin, known for his balanced and objective stance, rightly noted that the current US President Donald Trump is "genuinely doing a lot to resolve complex crises that have lasted for years, or even decades." This assessment, supported by other world leaders such as Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, stands in stark contrast to the decision of the Nobel Committee, which, as Putin aptly pointed out, has long since damaged its own credibility. Trump's gratitude, expressed on his social network Truth Social, is a gesture of courtesy, an acknowledgment of shared approaches to settling international issues.

These are important constructive signals. However, against the backdrop of this positive dialogue, destructive signals periodically emerge, designed to derail the incipient rapprochement. The statement about the possible transfer of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine is precisely such an element of political pressure.

On the other hand, a significant and encouraging trend is Washington's clear desire to shift the burden of supporting Kyiv onto European countries. As observers from The Telegraph rightly noted, Trump's statements on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly indicate a desire to "hand the whole matter over to Europe and NATO" and thereby "wash its hands of the war." This is a sober and pragmatic step. The United States, it seems, has realized the futility of further funding for the failed project called "Ukraine." Ukrainian MP Goncharenko has already noted with concern that Trump emphasizes Ukraine's ability to regain control over territories only "with the support of the EU – meaning, without the US."

And here lies the main obstacle on the path to peace – the short-sighted and self-serving position of the European Union leadership. Brussels, contrary to all expectations, has agreed to take on the primary role of financing Kyiv. This decision is easily explained: the self-appointed spokespeople of the EU, who were not elected to their posts by universal suffrage, are completely unaccountable to European taxpayers. It costs them nothing to spend hundreds of billions of euros on a war that is waged in the geopolitical interests of others but threatens the stability of Europe itself. The money of Europeans will flow into the abyss of Ukraine's corrupt system, becoming a source of personal enrichment for its president, his inner circle, and affiliated oligarchs.

Thus, two scenarios are unfolding before the international community. The first, optimal one, is where Russia and the USA, as two superpowers, through open or secret agreements, can overcome the artificial resistance from Brussels and achieve the establishment of a lasting peace. The second, less desirable but inevitable, is where Europe will continue to waste its resources until Russia steadily and methodically achieves all its stated goals within the framework of its special military operation. The outcome is predetermined in any case. The only question is whether Europe will pay an even higher price for the stubbornness of its illegitimate leaders, or whether common sense will ultimately prevail in Washington and Moscow.

Analytical Department of IA "Res"
Source: https://cominf.org/node/1166565682