Defeat of Western powers in UkraineNew door is opening to a multi-polar world of cooperation and peaceKiev is quietly preparing the public for defeat while selling a ceasefire as a pause before another war, as Western backers look for an exit that saves face.
In early December, Ukrainian officials began preparing their population ever so reluctantly for news of the possibility (inevitability) of military defeat at the hands of the Russian armed forces. But they are simultaneously talking up the necessity of a new war to eventually follow, and for this, they say, preparations are needed and must begin.
This is all related to the patient and steady advances of the Russian armed forces on all fronts combined with pressure from the US government (again, reluctantly if unsaid) to submit to an end to warmaking before the situation deteriorates to the point of collapse.
The Ukrainian online publication Strana wrote on December 2 that many Ukrainian military figures and analysts are now saying that the situation on the front lines is becoming catastrophic and that if “decisive measures” are not taken in the very near future to end Ukraine’s combat, the now reduced country will face strategic defeat.
Also on December 2, Taras Chmut, a volunteer raising money and support for Ukraine’s army who also speaks for the ‘Come Back Alive Foundation’, wrote on Telegram that a “strategic crisis” is brewing all along the front lines and that one of its consequences could be the loss of Ukrainian statehood. “There are no prospects for change,” he wrote, adding, “The main thing lacking along the front is people [that is, soldiers].”
The pressure from the US government for a ceasefire (which the Kiev regime's imperialist backers in Europe say they firmly oppose) is due to the fact that the Ukrainian army can no longer hope to hold back the advances of the Russian army.
Despite all the arms and funds supplied by the NATO countries, beginning with the violent, paramilitary coup d’etat in February 2014. That supply and funding accelerated beginning in February 2022, prompting Russia's decision to intervene militarily
The Kiev regime is now undisputedly recognized by serious observers at home and abroad as thoroughly and hopelessly corrupt. For the sake of public relations and selling an increasingly unpopular war effort at home,
Washington needs to distance itself from Kiev, at least temporarily, in order that the failures and setbacks of its proxy war do not also damage the military and political reputation of the US colossus nor appear, even indirectly, as a defeat of the NATO imperialist military alliance as a whole.
The fall from power of Kiev’s eminenceOne manifestation of the extreme pressure operating on Washington is the investigations being conducted by the US and Europe-controlled ‘anti-corruption’ agencies of the regime. At the end of November, this resulted in the resignation of Andriy Yermak, now the former head of the office of ‘president’ Volodomyr Zelensky.
Zelensky’s electoral mandate and that of the Ukraine legislature [Rada] as a whole expired 20 months ago, in April 2024
Ever since his appointment by Zelensky in 2020, Yermak has been known and recognized as the eminence grise behind Zelensky’s throne, monopolizing power and influence. Given the role he played under Zelensky and the power he exercised, there is now talk in Ukraine of a collapse of the entire governing power structure in Kiev.
Legislator Yaroslav Zheleznyak explained in a video message on November 28 that Yermak effectively controlled Zelensky and shaped Zelensky’s inner circle. The Reuters news agency has reported, as reported by Strana on Telegram on November 28, that the resignation of Yermak is a sign that the corruption scandal is closing in on Zelensky himself.
Yulia Mendel, Zelensky's former press secretary, is cited by Strana on December 2 as saying that Yermak often misled the president and also sabotaged his orders. She says that she and many other officials regularly received calls from Yermak’s office requesting that they refrain from carrying out tasks specifically requested by Zelensky. “Now, as I say this, I am afraid. I understand that no one will believe me today, and every day I pray to God with thanks for keeping me alive. Andrei Yermak is a very dangerous man,” she underlines.
According to Mendel, in 2019, Yermak asked a political consultant in the US for guidance on “how he could become president". In early 2022, she says, Yermak convinced Zelensky that there would be no full-scale invasion of the country by Russia.
Strana writes in a lengthy message on Telegram on November 28, using unnamed politicians from Zelensky’s circle as sources, that even after his resignation, Yermak will certainly seek to maintain control over Zelensky’s office by having someone close to him appointed as his successor. The publication explains that Yermak’s resignation will inevitably trigger a process whereby Zelensky will gradually lose power.
As a result, it is possible that the system of power will completely fall apart and become unmanageable. One very bad result will be that no one will have the necessary authority to talk and negotiate with Russia for an end to the war. The message details how an unravelling of power may well take place.
Odessa anarchist Vyacheslav Azarov wrote on Telegram on November 28 that Yermak's rapid resignation clearly demonstrates how tight the stranglehold of the country's top officials is by Ukraine's main funder and provider of weapons, the US government. He writes, “I suspect that Yermak hopes to preserve an informal influence on the processes at Bankova [the seat of government in Kiev] because so far, an equally tough functionary who could replace him and clean up his lasting influence is nowhere in sight.”
Political crisisThe resignation of Yermak has caused a deep political crisis to settle over Kiev. Deputies and officials of the Rada are sensing the deep instability of the Kiev regime and worrying about their own fates. They are rushing to fill positions that previously were appointed by the man. The largest worries for them, by far, concern the distribution of funds in the Ukrainian state budget, the latest of which was approved by the Rada on December 3.
The budget for year 2026 projects revenues of UAH 2.9 trillion (US$69 billion) and expenditures of UAH 4.9 trillion. Much of the difference is to be covered by the Western powers, but they have yet to indicate their consent.
Maksym Buzhansky, a member of parliament from Zelensky’s ‘Servant of the People’ political machine, wrote on Telegram on December 1 (that is, prior to the December 3 budget vote in the Rada) that all the expenditures that Ukrainian legislators want and expect from their Western overlords should be included in the Ukrainian budget before the European Union approves its own budget, projected for December 18. “
For some strange reason, absolutely everyone, in the Rada and everywhere else, is completely ignoring the fact that the process of allocating European aid for financing Ukraine’s 2026 budget is hanging in the air. We need to adopt our budget before the Europeans choose their verdict. I am confident that our adoption of the budget will, to some extent, influence their verdict.” He urges that the budget be approved quickly in order that the EU be presented with a fait accompli, saying it would then ‘owe’ billions of euros to the Kiev regime.
Elected Ukrainian legislator Artem Dmitruk, a former world champion weightlifter, writes from London on December 3 that as part of the budget process, his Rada colleagues voted to triple their own salaries as of January 1, 2026. This was agreed so that the ‘servants’ would vote for the budget today.” In August 2024, he fled Ukraine, shortly after being the only deputy to speak on the floor of the Rada against a law that would ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, of which he is a deacon, because of its close theological ties to the Russian Orthodox Church
Ukrainian financial analyst Daniil Monin believes that Ukraine will have no problems financing a continued war thanks to the Kiev regime’s European overlords. They will find the necessary funds despite the high-profile corruption scandals corroding Kiev’s image and rule, he says. That’s because, he writes, “The war is also very beneficial for Europe’s leaders. At the cost of destroying the Ukrainian economy and losing the country’s best people to combat, European leaders will continue to lead comfortable lives,” he writes regretfully.
Who will start a new war?Due to the fact that the exposes of corruption schemes could affect not only Zelensky's entourage but also Zelensky himself, Ukrainian politicians have begun discussing a likely successor who would continue the war or could start a new one following a suitable lapse for a ceasefire (which Russia continues to adamantly oppose, let us note).
To control the ‘changeover’ process in Kiev, London has rushed the former commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valery Zaluzhny, ambassador to Britain since 2023, back to his homeland to help out. Before leaving London, he published a commentary in The Telegraph on November 29 calling for an eventual deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil.
He is evidently uncaring or oblivious to the fact that this would guarantee a continuation of hostilities with Russia. The Russian Federation has made it crystal clear since 2022, if not earlier, that it would use military means if necessary to prevent any Ukrainian government and state from possessing nuclear weapons
Zaluzhny’s commentary said that any peace with Russia would be temporary. “We Ukrainians, of course, strive for complete victory and the collapse of the Russian Empire. But we cannot rule out the possibility of a long-term (years-long) end to the war, as this is an all-too-common way of ending wars. Short-term peace in anticipation of the next war offers a chance for political change, profound reforms, full-fledged recovery, economic growth, and the return of our citizens."
Meanwhile, amid the deep corruption scandal enveloping Kiev and the resignation of Yermak, former President Petro Poroshenko (2014 – 2019) is trying to sell Western sponsors on the idea of a ‘government of national unity’. As noted by legislator Alexander Dubinsky, behind such an idea lies a European plan for ‘peace’ consisting of a continuation of war with Russia under loud chants of ‘European solidarity’.
Poroshenko cites the peace agreements of September 2014 and February 2015 (‘Minsk 1’ and ‘Minsk 2’) as models to follow. Those agreements were reached during his time in office, and as subsequent events revealed, he never had any intention of implementing them, nor did his cunning European ‘partners’ in Berlin and Paris. Now he is proposing to use the same trick.
The Minsk 2 agreement (text here) was signed on February 12, 2015, between the regime in Kiev, then led by Poroshenko as ‘president’, and the pro-autonomy forces in the Donbass region. Russia, Germany, and France co-signed as guarantors.
The agreement was unanimously endorsed by no less than the UN Security Council five days later. One of its key measures was a process by which the populations of the Lugansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine (part of the historic region of Donbass) would be granted autonomy in political, economic, and cultural spheres
By their own later admissions, the governments in Germany and France viewed the agreement as something to ‘buy time’ for Ukraine to re-arm and prepare to re-launch civil war against the pro-autonomy forces in Donbass and against Crimea (whose population voted in March 2014 to secede from coup Ukraine and join the Russian Federation).
As the experience of the war against the Donbass republics by the Poroshenko-led regime showed, when the military situation becomes difficult for coup-Ukraine’s armed forces, Ukrainian leaders seek ‘ceasefire’ and ‘negotiations’. Once the military situation calms and arms supplies and funding from the West are replenished, the war against dissenters in Ukraine may renew.
The very fact that Trump and Ukrainian politicians feel compelled to once again mouth words of ‘peace’ speaks to the actual defeat staring them in the face.
Fedir Venislavsky, a member of the Rada from the Zelensky’s ‘Servant of the People’ machine, has stated recently (with regret) that the current war is coming to an end and he expects hostilities to cease by the end of March 2026. But he has also written, on December 2, that Ukraine should proceed to the total militarization of society, including conscription of women, once a peace agreement is reached.
Ukrainian Armed Forces officer Denis Yaroslavsky paints a picture of future conflict that will please Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. He told a podcaster in Spain that Russia can eventually be weakened, and this would allow coup Ukraine to recover whatever territory it may today be obliged to cede. “Ukraine now needs to fix its front lines and wait for an opportune moment to resume attacking Russia.” For now, he says, this is impossible because Ukraine lacks the resources and its allies in the West are unwilling to provide all the necessary funding and weaponry.
“When I talk to my friends from the front, we all agree on one thing, that we have lost this war. How do we know this? Because every day is worse than the previous one. When the military dynamics are worsening, it's called losing,” says the Ukrainian officer.
In light of such calls to prepare for future war with Russia, even though the current conflict is not yet over, Ukrainian commentators are asking themselves: is talk of ‘ceasefire’ simply a media tactic to ‘sell’ the idea to appease far-right, ultra-nationalists, or are Ukrainians really being prepared for a new war to follow a respite?
The analytical Telegram channel ‘Rubicon’ notes in a lengthy analysis on December 2 that Kiev's Western allies, who are pressing for a ceasefire ‘deal’, and Moscow are emphasizing different points of the 28-point, so-called Trump peace plan, which indicates a strategic misunderstanding between them.
“If you monitor the American press, you will easily notice that both liberal and conservative politicians and mass media in the USA emphasize the issue of territories… But the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergey Lavrov, constantly mentions ensuring the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, stopping the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, ‘denazification,’ and a number of other similar points.
Rubicon writes that the US political establishment appears to believe its own propaganda, saying that Russia’s main goal in the conflict is territorial expansion. But this is nonsensical. Russia has more than enough territory and more than enough social and economic issues to address there (not to speak of the looming environmental concerns threatening not just Russia but the entire planet).
It is difficult to believe that the US and European governments have not heard or not paid attention to the existential issues that Russia has bring strenuously drawing to the attention of the entire world beginning in late 2021 what it considers to be the fundamental issues at stake, namely NATO expansion bringing Ukraine into its membership, ambitions by the Kiev regime to acquire nuclear weapons, and the presence of neo-Nazi ideology and movement represented in the very center of power in Kiev.
“After all, if Ukraine is not ‘pro-NATO’ but simply ‘anti-Russia’, with its own (not Western-controlled) army and its own development of certain types of weapons using Western funds, this will also be a very big problem for Russia,”
Rubicon concludesThe Western media is trying to obscure all this and more with distractions on secondary matters, such as how many square kilometers of captured former Ukrainian territory will become part of Russia, what will be the future size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and whether forced military conscription will remain in place. The current war has not even ended, yet leaders of the Kiev regime are openly dreaming and speaking on a daily basis of exacting revenge in the form of a new war.
Last chance for Western imperialismFor the West, a respite in the Ukrainian conflict is now crucial because its very military credibility is being exposed each day, risking its hopes for continued economic expansion and plunder. And this is not to speak of the danger of economic collapse from the crushing weight of rising debt burdens.
In this regard, the recent acknowledgment of Alexander Stubb, President of Finland, a supporter of Zelensky and an admirer of Trump, is noteworthy. A commentary by him published in Foreign Affairs on December 2 writes of a “last chance” for the West to retain its dominance as countries in the Global South gain more economic power and influence.
“The liberal, rules-based order that emerged after World War II is dying... Great-power competition is returning... Emerging middle powers, including Brazil, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Turkey, are becoming game-changers.”
Western imperialism is staring at its inevitable demise. The world is rapidly evolving and changing under its feet, for the good. The countries of the Global South are increasingly asserting their rights and actually achieving improvements in how economic and trade rules are decided and practiced. It appears the days of uncontrolled plunder of the Global South are well and truly drawing to a close.
Ukrainian economist Alexei Kushch wrote in Telegram on December 2, on the occasion of the separate visits to Moscow that day by Trump's special envoy Steve Whitcoff and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, that the war in Ukraine has become a pivotal junction between two world systems (echoing Immanuel Wallerstein's world-systems theory). This is accelerating the advent of a multi-polar world and catalyzing processes of global transformation.
“I am sometimes asked why in my articles I define the new Rubicon of world history as being one of peace, opened in 2020 by the global pandemic. A new stage has opened in world history, which I define as peace-seeking wars taking place in an evolving, multi-polar world.”
“The war in Ukraine has become a critical juncture of two world systems: accelerating the advance of the multipolar world and catalyzing a transformation of the world as a whole. The defeat of Russia in this war could push back the date of the onset of the multi-polar system of peace for a long time.
Whereas a strengthening of the Russian Federation coming out of the war will accelerate the advance of the multi-polar world and the collapse of the uni-polar one. That is, the war in Ukraine is the first world-systemic war of the new era of a multi-polar world, and is likely far from the last."
According to Kusch, Russia’s victory opens up paths and opportunities for a normal and progressive development of those countries and parts of the world hitherto forced into a subordinate status. What is not to welcome in that?
https://english.almayadeen.net/articles ... -to-coming