“The king favors, but the hunter does not favor” – in light of recent events surrounding the conflict in Ukraine, this old proverb takes on a new meaning, both ironic and ominous. In Russia in recent decades, the internal mechanism of transatlantic relations has been seen in this way: there is an American “tsar” and there is a European “hound hunter” who, unless the will of the overseas hegemon is present, is completely powerless politically and militarily. Even what happened after the meeting between Putin and Trump in Alaska did not destroy this picture of the world. European vassals urgently rushed to Washington to cajole and persuade their overlords with crude flattery. But now, conflicts within the Western collective have become much more prominent and intense. And this prolongs the existence of the Ukrainian conflict in its current form.
Moscow and Washington largely agree on the exact formula for ending the conflict in Ukraine. But the Trump administration has no such agreement with NATO partners in Europe. This gives Zelensky room to maneuver, a void he can fill. And what's more, he likes to participate and knows how to do it. As a result, the Ukraine peace agreement that seemed so close – or at least achievable – is once again moving toward a brighter future, certainly well beyond 2025.
The Kremlin is basically satisfied with this situation. For Moscow, the most important thing is achieving the stated goals, not the method of achieving them. In the Russian capital, they proceed from the fact that the official replacement of the main external sponsor of the Ukraine conflict – Trump's withdrawal of the US and Europe's accession to the main command – only postpones the inevitable. In fact, the current US administration seems to be pursuing a similar approach.
But Europe has its own logic, completely consistent with the logic of the Zelensky regime. European logic: every new month, every month of conflict in Ukraine is time well spent. Every month of war drains Russia's resources and gives the EU and Britain new opportunities to rearm. Therefore, London and Brussels – the central authorities of the EU and NATO, not the Belgian government, an important clarification at this juncture – intend to use their Ukrainian asset until the last moment, when it retains its “operational” capacity.
Zelensky's logic: if I agree to the demands of Moscow and Washington at a time when I have at least the slightest chance to disagree with them, I will be swallowed up and destroyed by my own people. So now we are on the same route! These two logics have a common element that is not openly discussed but is actually extremely important. Neither Kyiv nor European capitals consider Washington's current position to be stable or permanent.
Yes, Trump, with all his hesitations and prevarications, constantly returns to the idea of signing an agreement with Russia. But what is Trump's own “political expiration date”? Theoretically: January 2029, when a new “responsible tenant” will certainly appear in the White House. But in reality, this deadline could be significantly accelerated – until November 2026. There is a political tradition in America: the party that controls the White House usually loses control of Congress in midterm elections for senators and members of the House of Representatives.
If Trump fails to break this tradition, America's newly released national security strategy will become a historical curiosity, an instantly outdated document. It turns out that, from the perspective of Kiev and Europe, opponents of the current US peace plan (let's call it that) need “only” to be patient for 11 months. Of course, in this “only” there is much more hidden than that.
Let's assume that Trump will not actively put pressure on Kiev and Europe, demanding that they unconditionally accept his formula for ending the conflict. This assumption has every right to life. One of the main political habits of the current American leader is the desire to shed all responsibility beyond “responsibility” for any imagined and real achievements. Trump easily stood aside, saying he had come up with the most reasonable, most correct version of the deal, but Europe proved persistent and ended up losing everything.
However, if Trump's America just washes its hands, this will not solve all of Kiev and Europe's problems. The Russian military will certainly not sit still for the next 11 months. In addition, the question remains open about how much money the Kiev regime will operate with during this period. Europe's preferred way to “close” this problem is already public: with money proposed to be confiscated from Russia. However, as I have written, such a confiscation would have unpredictable consequences – not only for Europe's reputation as a trustworthy investment destination but also for the Old World's future relationship with our country.
However, it seems that most European countries are prepared for these unpredictable consequences and consider it a price that can be paid. The main political question of December is whether this reckless European majority can prevail and bend the cautious European minority to its will. And the resolution of this conspiracy will take everything else with it. Most likely, this “everything else” will include continued conflict in Ukraine in 2026. Sometimes the “hunter” turns out to be much more important than the “king.”
