16/12/2025
Previous scenario
Russia proposed a Christmas Cease fire back in 2023 and 2024 - both times the arrogant clowns in Kiev USA and EU refused - and called it a sign of weakness.
Russia did not forget that - and returns the favor.
Current scenario
A “Christmas ceasefire” was never peace. It was a logistics pause disguised as virtue — a seasonal performance meant to interrupt Russian pressure just long enough for Ukraine to rotate exhausted brigades, repair its grid, re-arm with fresh weapons, and reset the narrative. Germany’s Friedrich Merz lit the match, standing beside Zelensky to offer a candlelit truce with nothing beneath it but choreography. Kiev embraced it instantly. Western media sanctified it. But Moscow saw it for what it was, the next chapter in a familiar script.
Russia has learned — painfully, methodically, that Western ceasefires are not bridges to peace, but time‑buying devices. Minsk was not a peace process; it was a strategic delay mechanism, a diplomatic cage designed to freeze the frontlines while Ukraine was militarized, trained to NATO standards, and politically hardened for a future showdown. This is not a Russian claim, with Angela Merkel and François Hollande admitting it openly, Minsk’s purpose was to buy time for Ukraine. Not to end war, but to postpone it until Ukraine was ready. Istanbul in 2022 briefly threatened to reverse the cycle, until Boris Johnson flew in and shut it down. From Moscow’s perspective, the lesson was final, every pause is weaponized.
So when Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded: “We want peace. We don’t want a truce that gives Ukraine breathing space to rearm and prepare for war” — he wasn’t posturing. He was closing a doctrinal chapter. The sequencing is now fixed: first, terms must be written in stone; only then does the gun fall silent. Anything else is theater. Anything else is deception. And with striking symmetry, Peskov’s logic echoed Trump’s own framing, that a truce without a deal is meaningless, and that gestures without architecture only extend war under a different name. Optics do not end conflicts. Structures do.
This is where the deeper geopolitical irony crystallizes. While Europe lit candles and recited the language of virtue, the real negotiations, as always, will circle back to Washington and Moscow. Not out of trust, but out of architecture: only Washington still holds the levers to enforce or sabotage terms. Europe holds no such keys. It offers no enforcement, no deterrent, no credibility. It has been reduced not merely to a vassal, but to a petulant child, flailing in malignant Russophobic hysteria, excluded from the table where outcomes are decided.
Europe forfeited its seat long ago, not through exclusion, but through deliberate ideological self-immolation. It did not lose diplomacy; it renounced it, replacing statecraft with Russophobic hysteria as official doctrine. It elevated its most extreme voices: Kallas, von der Leyen, while purging every remaining realist, every advocate of restraint, every memory of European diplomacy that once understood geography and consequence. It criminalized dissent at home, silenced its own citizens, and then demanded restraint from Russia while flooding Ukraine with weapons. In doing so, Europe rendered itself strategically toxic, a continent incapable of negotiation, incapable of pressure, incapable of relevance. For Moscow, this is not a problem to solve. It is a condition to exploit.
A Europe that refuses diplomacy is a Europe that cannot exert pressure. A Europe that speaks only in moral absolutes has no bargaining currency. A Europe that demands everything and offers nothing guarantees that no concessions are required from Moscow at all. This is the unspoken truth: Hungary and Slovakia are not Russia’s great assets inside the EU. Brussels itself is. The louder Europe screams, the less it matters. The more it performs, the more it confirms its own irrelevance.
The result is now inevitable. The future security architecture of Europe will not be authored in London, Berlin, or Paris. It will be written above their heads, by powers that retained the capacity to negotiate when Europe chose performance over statecraft.
Europeans already sense the extent of betrayal. They feel it in energy bills, in steep (engineered) industrial decline, in censorship laws, like the DSA, passed in their name but never with their consent. They know suicidal decisions are being made without them, and that their leaders volunteered for this humiliation by surrendering diplomacy as a principle.
Russia understands what Europe still refuses to grasp: peace is not born of gestures, rituals, or seasonal sentiment. Peace is born of finality. It does not arrive wrapped in candles or moral theater, but in maps, guarantees, and consequences. It comes only when power itself decides the war has reached its end, and the lines are redrawn to reflect reality, not Western fantasy. That moment will not be choreographed in Europe. It will come when Washington and Moscow settle accounts at the level where wars actually end. Kiev, tragically, is not holding the pen, it forfeited the final semblance of soverignty in 2014 . And Brussels, for all its noise, hysterical proclamations, and posturing, no longer even holds the paper on which history is written.
Europe did this to itself. It chose hysteria over realism, obedience over sovereignty, and illusion over negotiation. When the war ends, and it will, Russia will have secured her red lines, Washington will have accepted the reality of such terms and the limits of force, while Europe will be left to pay the bill for a conflict it prolonged, a diplomacy it abandoned, and a future it surrendered without a vote. The security architecture of Europe will not have been debated in Brussels, it will have been written elsewhere, by powers that retained the capacity to decide.
The final absurdity of this moment is that Europe is still on stage, faithfully reciting its lines, unaware the play has already ended, and the audience has gone home.
