The West has now capitulated to Russia on Ukraine.

25 April 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

Just as had happened when Russia won the Battle of Kursk on 23 August 1943 and so decided The Allies’ victory against Germany in World War Two (and therefore Germany’s formal political capitulation to the Soviet Union in Berlin on the night of 8 May 1945, morning of 9 May 1945 — which was already more than a week after Hitler’s suicide there on 30 April 1945 — did not actually do that; it had already happened on 23 August 1943); so, too, NATO’s informal political capitulation to Russia regarding Ukraine, on 24 April 2025, decided Russia’s victory in the Cold War that U.S. President Truman had started (very privately) against Russia on 25 July 1945, and yet it still will continue as mere wasted effort and expense, for some while longer, in order for The West (UK and U.S.) to save face, but this time as not having been defeated by Russia, instead of (like had happened at the end of WW2) as not having been salvaged by Russia’s victory against Germany — and, just as also has happened, between 23 August 1943 and 24 April 2025, regarding the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan War, and many other wars that were actually lost by America, throughout that 80-year period.

The West’s decision yesterday, not to cross Russia’s final red line on its national security — not to send its own soldiers en masse into Ukraine to do war against Russia and place a nuclear missile within five minutes of annihilating Russia’s central command in The Kremlin a mere 317 miles away — signals decisively that, in the era of nuclear weapons, The West really DOES, finally, after these 80 years, get it, that they must take into account and finally RESPECT, instead of merely continuing to violate, Russia’s national-security necessities — its “red lines,” such as that Russia must NOT be made vulnerable to a blitz nuclear-first-strike attack annihilating its central command, coming from the supremely aggressive U.S. empire.

On April 25th, India’s “Times Now World” News headlined “Ukraine abandoned by allies: UK & France Pull Out Troops, Leaving Only Trainers Behind! | TN World”, and reported (based upon this April 24th news-report from Rupert Murdoch’s London Times, which veiled this reality) that,

0:06

What once looked like a bold show of

0:09

strength from Britain and Europe is now

0:12

quietly being reworked into a more

0:14

cautious scaledback military commitment

0:17

to Ukraine.

0:21

Britain is now likely to scrap proposals

0:24

to send tens of thousands of ground

0:27

troops to defend key Ukrainian

0:30

infrastructure, a plan originally floated

0:33

to protect cities ports and nuclear

0:36

plants under a potential post-ceasefire

0:39

peacekeeping mission.

0:43

The Times, which reviewed internal

0:46

deliberations, reported that the risk of

0:49

direct confrontation with Russia was

0:51

deemed too high, a source involved in the

0:55

UK-led Coalition of the willing said. The

0:58

proposed force was always inadequate to

1:01

provide real deterrence. Noting the risks

1:05

are too high and the force is inadequate

1:08

for such a

1:10

task: in a sharp pivot, the UK and its

1:14

European partners are now expected to

1:16

shift their focus toward reinforcing and

1:20

rearming Ukraine's military with a

1:22

stronger emphasis on air and maritime

1:25

protection over ground

1:29

presence. British and French military

1:31

trainers are set to be deployed to

1:33

western Ukraine far from active front

1:37

lines, to fulfill earlier commitments to

1:40

Kiev. Officials hoped this limited

1:42

deployment could still signal long-term

1:46

support while avoiding

1:50

escalation [to WW3]. Aircraft would patrol

1:52

Ukrainian skies offering air cover to

1:56

Western trainers on the ground. Meanwhile

1:59

Turkey is expected to play a significant

2:02

maritime role under the most likely

2:04

scenarios now under discussion.

2:09

The UK Ministry of Defense declined to

2:12

confirm the current iteration of plans,

2:16

describing it as speculation.

2:19

A spokesperson told the Times that

2:22

advanced operational planning for land

2:25

sea and air support continues across the

2:29

coalition.

2:32

According to the Times it had been

2:34

France not Britain that initially pushed

2:38

hardest for a more muscular military

2:40

presence on Ukrainian soil. However

2:43

London had long viewed such a deployment

2:46

as a dangerous

2:48

overreach. The trainers reassure by being

2:52

there the same source said, but they are

2:55

not a deterrence or protection force.

3:00

British planners remain wary of a

3:02

scenario where a ceasefire collapses and

3:06

foreign troops become entangled in

3:09

renewed

3:10

hostilities — a situation that could

3:12

stretch NATO's eastern flank thin and

3:16

risk dragging the alliance into direct

3:19

conflict.

3:22

Russia meanwhile has preemptively

3:25

rejected any proposal involving foreign

3:28

troops in Ukraine. Valentina

3:31

Matvienko, chair of the Russian

3:33

Federation Council, made Moscow's

3:36

position unmistakably clear: Russia will

3:39

never participate in any negotiations or

3:42

any talks to discuss the terms for this

3:45

potential deployment. She said

3:50

the idea was doomed to fail from the

3:51

very beginning; we will never support

3:54

this because these are issues concerning

3:56

our country's security, our sovereignty,

3:59

no matter under what flag they do it,

4:01

under what guise NATO or not NATO, these

4:04

are troops from countries unfriendly to

4:06

us who are fighting against Russia, who

4:08

still harbor the idea of inflicting a

4:10

strategic defeat on us. It is

4:12

inconceivable that they would be

4:14

deployed in Ukraine, Russia will never

4:16

allow this. It is impossible, unrealistic.

4:20

The covens and gatherings that they hold

4:22

every now and then, well they can keep on

4:24

having fun. Diplomatic sources told the

4:28

Times that the talks now revolve around

4:30

crafting a compromise that won't require

4:33

Ukraine to abandon all its red lines

4:37

while pressuring Moscow to shift its own

4:43

behind closed doors. Western officials

4:46

are betting that stepping back from

4:48

boots on the ground might just be the

4:51

concession Moscow needs to rethink its

4:54

hardline terms, a strategic gamble that

4:58

could either open the door to peace, or

5:00

be read as

5:20

retreat

The muddled, poorly written, London Times report, dated April 24th, was headlined “UK could scrap plans to send thousands of troops to Ukraine” and contained self-contradictory assertions such as “British and French military trainers would be sent to western Ukraine. This would fulfill a commitment to put forces inside the country, however they would not be near the front line, guard key installations or be there to protect Ukrainian troops.” (They would “fulfill a commitment to put forces inside the country,” but not “protect Ukrainian troops.” They also “would not be near the front line,” or “guard key installations.” So: how would this “fulfill a commitment” to Ukraine? Oh, that “commitment” wasn’t to Ukraine? Then, to whom was it a commitment?) Elsewhere, the Times’s report said that “The trainers ‘reassure’ by being there but aren’t a deterrence or protection force.” So: how did this “‘reassure’” Ukraine? Even the London propaganda-vehicle placed that word “reassure” in the skeptical single-apostrophe form (surrounded by single-quotes), and thereby (though NOT overtly) acknowledged that Russia will win this war.

The Indian version said that “Aircraft would patrol Ukrainian skies offering air cover to Western trainers on the ground,” and the U.S./UK version said that “Training would move to a location near Lviv, in western Ukraine.” That city was always Ukraine’s center for support of Hitler against Russia, and then for America against Russia; and, so, the new plan is to establish a no-fly zone there, in order for the U.S./UK alliance to salvage that region as being the part of Ukraine that won’t become taken by Russia. Ever since 2014, I have been expecting that this would be the way the war that Obama created in Ukraine in 2014 would end, especially because the map that shows voting-percenteges in the 2010 Ukrainian Presidential election that had elected Yanukovych (“Janukovych”) — the proponent of neutralism for Ukraine (the man whom Obama overthrew) — versus America’s candidate, the rabidly anti-Russian Tymoshenko, showed that over 90% of the voters in the Lviv area selected Tymoshenko. (And here is a Ukraine map that shows where Lviv is.) Even to the present day, I have seen no indication that Putin might want that part of Ukraine to become a part of Russia. He might offer that part of Ukraine to the U.S. empire if the U.S. empire will sign a Treaty promising not to place, or allow, any nuclear weapons or delivery-vehicles in the surviving territory of what will (if anything) remain of Ukraine. That would be the sensible end for this war that the U.S./UK/Dutch/Polish alliance created in 2014. If the U.S. would reject it, then Russia will need to eliminate there (in the Lviv area) the people who hate Russians. (This would be part of Putin’s promised “denazification of Ukraine.”) That would be by far the bloodiest part of the war that Obama began in February 2014 — bloodier even than Obama’s war in Ukraine against Russia and Russians was. It would all be a result of the war that Truman started on 25 July 1945, and, thus, ever since 1945, the U.S. Government has been determined to ultimately control Ukraine so as for the U.S. then to invade Russia from its nearest-of-all borders to The Kremlin. That dream, by the U.S. Government, has always centered on the Lviv area. Putin should offer it to the U.S.; and, if the U.S. then turns that offer down, the U.S. would be responsible for the resulting bloodbath there. It would then be a bloodbath that Washington had made necessary in order for Russia to be able to protect its national security. So, it would be best for the U.S. empire to take into its own area that nest of nazis — not to force Russia to have to deal with the matter.

Of course, all of this history and news is extremely different from what Trump or any other leader in The West has been talking publicly about regarding a settlement of the war in Ukraine. The U.S. empire’s publics are constantly being deceived, but this is the reality, regarding these matters.

This constant lying by the U.S. regime extends throughout, and not only in international affairs but also in domestic affairs; and it happens because during the past 25 years (at least), America has become economically uncompetitive with the rest of the world. Its leaders are thus becoming increasingly desperate. For example, also on April 25th, we had Reuters headline “Trump says Xi called him, lays out trade and other deal plans in TIME interview”, and they reported that “The Republican president did not say when Xi called or what the two leaders discussed, telling TIME: ‘He's called. And I don't think that's a sign of weakness on his behalf.’” Then, China’s Government-controlled newspaper Global Times headlined “Chinese FM reconfirms no tariff consultations or negotiations with the US have taken place”. Then, Reuters headlined “Conflicting US-China talks statements add to global trade confusion”. The only way America’s leaders deal with their constant failures is by constant lying so as to deceive their public not to know that the problem isn’t really the other Political Party, or immigrants, or other “Let’s have you and him fight each other” ‘solutions’, but is instead those leaders themselves — that they represent no one but their political megadonors, NOT the public. Already on April 24th, Brian Berletic had explained all of this to Danny Haiphong on youtube, headlining “Trump FOLDS: China SHUTS DOWN His Tariff Bluff, Putin Rejects War Ultimatum w/ Brian Berletic”. The American empire is definitely into its declining phase, and can’t reverse that at all. All of America’s leaders’ proposals evade the real issues, because they themselves ARE the problem, and all they can do about it is to deceive the public NOT to know this.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.