Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

Mil cuatrocientos sesenta días han pasado desde el inicio de la Operación Militar Especial -OME- rusa, gestada como respuesta a la expansión de la OTAN a través del proxy nazi ucraniano, que ante todo es un pueblo hermano de Rusia, al menos en su composición étnico-religiosa y lingüística más oriental y obligado a luchar una guerra que expresa contradicciones mayores de índole no antagónica en términos leninistas, de tipo intra – élite.

Me dispongo a señalar algunos elementos que han transcurrido en el marco de los años y los días.

 En lo militar

Podría enlistar las cifras monumentales de la guerra más cruenta del siglo XXI. La guerra más documentada en tiempo real y a veces con más de una cámara corroborando eventos, como la lucha cuerpo a cuerpo entre un soldado ruso y otro ucraniano, donde se ve el triunfo del primero y la realidad de la guerra. Ambos fueron nombrados héroes por sus respectivos gobiernos. Esto implica el ingreso de nuevos elementos tecnológicos para las guerras presentes y del futuro en transición, al incorporar cuerpos de soldados pilotos de drones, como el grupo Rubicón, del ejército de la Federación de Rusia.

También ha implicado la redefinición u obsolescencia del concepto de ‘retaguardia’, como elemento de descanso, contención y reposo a kilómetros de la línea de contacto de fuego. De bando a bando se comprende que con la nueva guerra montada en la plataforma de los sistemas C4ISR (Comando, Control, Comunicaciones, Computadoras, Inteligencia, Vigilancia y Reconocimiento), no hay lugar seguro.

Un mito, hasta el 2022 cierto, era la implacable calamidad que implicaba el llamado ‘Señor Invierno’; mismo que agotó a Napoleón a inicios del siglo XIX y a las hordas nazis en la primera mitad del siglo XX; quienes cayeron bajo el vigor implacable de los ejércitos ruso y soviético, respectivamente.

El invierno es uno para todos en el campo de batalla y, sin embargo, la guerra no se detiene, no pierde ritmo significativo y en ocasiones constituye nuevas oportunidades y originales metodologías de guerra que potencian el agobio y la calamidad causadas por el clima de temporada.

Lo económico

Los análisis económicos acerca de quiénes ganan y pierden con la guerra, están a flor de labios entre los analistas. Las críticas a la tasa de interés en Rusia, señalan una contención de las fuerzas productivas de la nación eslava, crítica realizada varias veces por el analista e historiador de Rusia Gilbert Doctorow.

En esta línea económica también se pondera el fracaso iterativo de las sanciones europeas -19 paquetes- así como las estadounidenses, que por el contrario han volcado hacia una interdependencia y complementariedad ruso-china, así como la potenciación de la comunidad BRICS+ en pleno crecimiento. También la incautación de activos rusos por valor de 300 mil millones de dólares y el robo de sus intereses anuales, que rondan en promedio los 4.400 millones de dólares y respaldan el crédito de 50 mil millones del G7 para apoyar a Ucrania en gastos civiles y militares.

Lo más doloroso de estos 1460 días, es que no se tienen presentes en occidente ni en la memoria inmediata de personajes amnésicos y a-históricos como Volodómir Zelensky, presidente ilegítimo de Ucrania, los otros 2920 días trascurridos entre febrero de 2014 donde tuvo lugar el golpe de Estado denominado Euromaidán y febrero de 2022, cuando Rusia reconoce el derecho legítimo del Donbás a asumir su soberanía.

Prohibición y castigo de la libertad de cultos, lengua y costumbres

Esta violencia no se limitó al frente militar, sino que se extendió a la esfera cultural y humanitaria, con secuelas que trascienden las fronteras. Durante estos ocho años, fueron asesinados más de 13 mil personas, entre civiles y militares, los ucronazis y los fascistas estadounidenses y europeos violaron mujeres, saquearon, incendiaron, torturaron, bombardearon, mutilaron niños o los vendieron a traficantes pedófilos y aun así encontraron una férrea oposición de las personas de las regiones de Lugansk y Donetsk.

Todo este tiempo, ha sucedido -y continúa- la prohibición del idioma ruso en territorio ucraniano. También de la religión ortodoxa del Patriarcado de Moscú. Se persiguen las costumbres, música, artistas, gastronomía, ciencia, deportistas, clubes de fútbol o de la selección rusa en la Eurocopa. Negación a participar en olimpiadas y certámenes internacionales de diferente índole o de participación en condición de neutralidad, como en los actuales juegos de invierno en Italia, donde los deportistas son sometidos a presión de todo tipo.

En suma, son doce años de guerra contra la población civil, con un lapso de 1460 días en los cuales trabajan las regiones, ahora incorporadas por gracia de la vía del sufragio a la Federación de Rusia, de la mano de la madre rusa y su componente técnico militar sin precedentes, el mejor ejército del mundo.

Colocar el tiempo en días me parece un imperativo para aproximarse a la tragedia que viven, de sol a sol, las personas en la zona de conflicto y fuera de él; soportando la presión de otros gobiernos por ser rusos y privilegiando adrede a los nacionales ucranianos. Me lo cuentan amigos y amigas rusas que de primera mano viven esto en Canadá; lugar donde fue ovacionado un nazi, Yaroslav Hunka, de 98 años, en el parlamento de tal país.

Expansión de las secuelas del conflicto

Aunque Europa y Polonia -país que nunca será occidental así sea cristiano- demuestran cansancio por la migración ucraniana, difícil y a veces parásita o agresiva (neonazi) cuando no abusada por las mafias europeas, particularmente las mujeres que son cooptadas para el tráfico sexual, mientras como he señalado, los niños nutren el mercado de órganos, adopciones y redes de pedofilia. Este tema es óbice de discusión entre las partes del conflicto.

Día tras día, la maquinaria de guerra se perfecciona, lo que implica señalar correctamente que tal perfección es optimización de defensa y ataque que lesiona vidas civiles y militares. Tecnologías para la muerte. La sofisticación dentro del campo de batalla como laboratorio de guerra ya tiene el efecto colateral de formación o profesionalización de los cárteles mexicanos, colombianos -guerrillas y paramilitares- y brasileños, aprendiendo manejo de drones en caliente y que ya han aplicado en sus naciones y entornos de guerra.

Durante todo el tiempo de estos calendarios sumados, las estadísticas muestran la presencia de mercenarios, soldados a sueldo sin interés ideológico ni humano, que llegan a luchar del lado ucraniano, desarrollando no sólo actividad militar contra militares sino violando mujeres rusas, matando y torturando niños rusos y ancianos, cuando no entablando negocios propios de la guerra, como venta de drogas o privilegios. Sin embargo, las dos partes se acusan y Naciones Unidas ha mostrado un sesgo a favor de Ucrania, desde el inicio de la guerra, pese a la exhaustiva documentación de casos suministrada por el gobierno ruso.

El mayor número de mercenarios viene de Colombia, cerca de 7000, según las fuentes rusas y 3000 en las occidentales, descontando subregistros. Estas personas no sólo gozan de impunidad en sus países, sino que son defendidas por sus naciones, exigiendo a Rusia repatriación de los cadáveres de aquellos que fueron a matar a ciudadanos rusos.

¿Por qué puede tener derechos un asesino, que se fue con la falsa excusa de salarios para su familia? ¿Va a matar a otras familias para ayudar a su familia? ¿Por qué exige cumplimientos de contratos un pirata contratado por piratas? ¿Cómo puede haber derechos y deberes entre criminales? Los mercenarios son militares que conocen la guerra, no fueron engañados como dijo el presidente colombiano Gustavo Petro.

La guerra es la guerra, el mercenario NO está sujeto por la convención de ginebra a todos los derechos de un combatiente regular. Quien hace negocio con la muerte, ¿Por qué se le debe proteger su propia vida?

Son así 4380 días de lucha étnica, cultural, económica y comercial de occidente contra el mundo eslavo. Tiempo donde personajes, como el senador estadounidense Lindsey Graham, celebran el asesinato de rusos como ‘la mejor inversión’ o personajes como el ex primer ministro británico Boris Johnson, señalaron una guerra contra Rusia ‘hasta el último ucraniano’.

2007 y la conferencia de Múnich: Vladímir Putin pone las cartas de la guerra intra-élite

Los procesos históricos son de larga cocción. Algo que al parecer, no entenderá la mentalidad retrógrada de Kaja Kallas, quien ignora las causas y el proceso histórico de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Otro tipo de sesgos ya se veían en la primera ministra británica Liz Truss, en reunión del 10 de febrero de 2022 con Sergei Lavrov, canciller ruso, ante la pregunta de éste: “¿Reconoce usted la soberanía rusa sobre las regiones de Rostov y Vorónezh?” (dos regiones del territorio ruso), Truss respondió: “El Reino Unido nunca reconocerá la soberanía rusa sobre esas regiones”.

Esto puede ser un asunto menor, según cada cual. Pero al sumar toda la evidencia, se comprende que la negación de todo lo ruso es una tendencia consistente del discurso anti ruso occidental. Es decir, un “des-Liz” puede perdonarse. Hay que ver toda la fotografía y recordar las palabras de Zelensky:

“No necesito perder el tiempo en cuestiones históricas, en las razones por las que empezó todo esto; en esta mierda que, creo, él está planteando [se refiere al presidente Putin] con los estadounidenses, de que ‘no son cosas simples’, ni sobre Pedro el Grande, ni nada de eso”, dijo.

 “No lo necesito, porque para terminar esta guerra y pasar a la vía diplomática, no necesito toda esa mierda histórica, de verdad”, reiteró.

Hay más casos. Úrsula von der Leyen, equiparó de manera iterativa al nazismo y al comunismo soviético. Negó que la Unión Soviética liberara Auschwitz. Por su parte la alemana Annalena Baerbock, minimizó el papel del Ejército Rojo en la derrota del nazismo.

Entonces. ¿Recordarán los europeos un suceso reciente, el discurso de Vladímir Vladimirovich Putin, del día 10 de febrero de 2007? 19 años han pasado. Allí el presidente Putin señaló, entre otras ideas:

“¿Pero ¿qué es un mundo unipolar? Por mucho que se intente adornar ese término, en la práctica ello tiene una única significación: la existencia de un solo centro del poder, de un solo centro de fuerza y un solo centro de toma de decisiones. Es un mundo en el que hay un solo dueño, un solo soberano. Al fin y al cabo, ello resulta pernicioso no solo para aquellos que se encuentran dentro de los marcos de tal sistema, sino también para el propio soberano, pues ese sistema lo destruye desde dentro. Además, tal estado de cosas no tiene nada que ver con la democracia. Porque la democracia, como es sabido, es el poder de la mayoría en el que se consideran los intereses y las opiniones de la minoría”…

… “Rusia es un país con más de mil años de historia y casi siempre ha aprovechado el privilegio de llevar a cabo una política exterior independiente. No vamos a cambiar esta tradición hoy en día“.

Como decía, los procesos históricos son de larga duración. Esta guerra sufrida por el pueblo eslavo, ruso y ucraniano, que dramáticamente lleva 4380 días y contando, era una promesa a cumplir por el inexorable peso de los procesos históricos de auge y decadencia de los imperios y potencias. El mismo día que se nace se empieza morir de a pocos.

Cuando EE.UU. se obnubiló en la vanidad excepcionalista de su unipolaridad, de su indiscutible hegemonía, digamos el año de 1991, en ese momento empezó su declive. No supo administrar su ventaja. Creó más guerras. Golpeó contrincantes inferiores, como Panamá en 1989, Irak y Kuwait en 1991, Afganistán en 2001, Irak de nuevo en 2003, Libia en 2011 de la mano de la OTAN y Siria hasta la intervención rusa, en 2014. Y falta sumar todos los desmanes -palabra suave- en Somalia, Bosnia y Kosovo. Claro. Ahora bombardea lanchas en el Caribe y el Pacífico. Sin palabras.

Finalmente, Estados Unidos encontró un oponente igual y superior, según los propios rankings sobre ejércitos y la evidente situación en el terreno en el marco de la OME, como guerra de desgaste. Encontró al ejército ruso y su trayectoria imperial resistiendo invasiones.

Este 24 de febrero de 2026, se tiene prácticamente un doble aniversario que suma 4380 jornadas. Rusia vuelve a ser el escenario de una gran confrontación mundial, que puede tender a nuclear. Más que cifras, estadísticas, avances tecnológicos y crisis de la información y la memoria histórica, se debe tener presente que ya millones de familias no volverán a ser como antes. Que se fueron padres, madres, hermanos, hijos, sobrinos, tíos, amigos y maridos.

Los procesos históricos globales son implacables. Como un Kraken o un Saturno, devorador de sus hijos, consumen vitalidad, cotidianidad humana -y naturaleza- a costa del logro de equilibrios o supremacías, que en definitiva marcan los nuevos ciclos, el eterno retorno.

Lev Tolstói, en Guerra y Paz, -1869- resaltó el carácter fundamental de los personajes que en apariencia son anónimos y secundarios, casi prescindibles. Al respecto Isaiah Berlin, en su obra, El erizo y el zorro, de 1953, señala:

Y así llega Tolstói a una de sus célebres paradojas: cuanto más alto están los militares o los estadistas en la pirámide de la autoridad, más lejos están de la base, que consiste en los hombres y mujeres ordinarios cuyas vidas son la auténtica materia de la historia; y, por consiguiente, pese a toda su autoridad teórica, menor es el efecto de las palabras y las acciones de tan remotos personajes sobre la historia.

 En un pasaje famoso que trata la situación de Moscú en 1812, observa Tolstói, que para las heroicas realizaciones de Rusia después del incendio de Moscú, podría suponerse que sus habitantes estaban enteramente dedicados a actos de sacrificio propio -salvar al país o lamentar su destrucción-, al heroísmo, el martirio, la desesperación etc., pero que en realidad no ocurrió así. A la gente le movían sus intereses personales. Quienes llevaron adelante sus asuntos ordinarios sin sentir emociones heroicas ni considerarse actores en el iluminado escenario de la historia fueron los más útiles a su país y a su comunidad…

1460 – 2920 – 4380 días… todas estas jornadas rutinarias sin pretensión, pero con un profundo dolor de familia, de comunidad, de hermandad y en últimas, la patria que parece escaparse en fronteras, en un Rubicón a capricho de los juegos grandes de poder, en esta ocasión de la lucha intra élite del mundo. Hoy la cotidianidad de la paz está de luto. Debió ceder su espacio provechoso y vital al tedio diario de la guerra y de la muerte.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

They like the bedtime story: Europe was peacefully humming along in its post-history spa — open borders, cheap energy, NATO as a charity, Russia as a gas station with a flag… and then, one day, the barbarian kicked the door in for no reason at all.

That story is not just dishonest. It’s operational. It’s the propaganda you tell yourself so you can keep the addiction going without ever admitting how self-destructive it is.

In Munich, on February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin stood on the most flattering stage the Atlantic system owns — the Security Conference where Western officials applaud themselves for maintaining “order” and he laid out, to their faces, the skeleton of the coming disaster. He didn’t whisper it in a back channel. He used the microphone to deliver some much needed medicine, however hard it would be for the Empire to swallow.

He even signaled he wasn’t going to play the usual polite theatre — the kind where everyone agrees in public and stabs each other in classified annexes. He said the format allowed him to avoid “pleasant, yet empty diplomatic platitudes.”

And then he did the unforgivable thing, (gasp!) he described the empire as an empire.

He named the unipolar intoxication — that post–Cold War hallucination that history had ended, that power had found its final owner, that NATO could expand forever without consequences, that international law was optional for the enforcer class and compulsory for everyone else.

Putin’s core argument was brutally simple: a unipolar model is not only unacceptable, it’s impossible.

Not unfair.” Not rude. Impossible.

(Because in a world with) “one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making” is a world where security becomes privatized — where the strong reserve the right to interpret rules (with exemptions for themselves), and the weak are told to accept it as morality. (And yes, he put it in exactly those terms — one center, one force, one decision — the architecture of domination.)

And when you build that kind of world, everyone else does the only rational thing left: they stop trusting the wall of law to protect them, and they start arming for survival.

Putin said it outright: when force becomes the default language, it “stimulates an arms race.”

This is where the Western client media — professionally disengious as ever, clipped one or two spicy lines and missed the larger point: Munich 2007 wasn’t “Putin raging.” It was Russia publishing its redlines in front of the class.

And then came the part that should have frozen the room. Putin named it – NATO expansion.

Putin didn’t argue it as nostalgia. He argued it as provocation — a deliberate reduction of trust. He asked the question no Western leader ever answers honestly:

“Against whom is this expansion intended?”

And then he drove the blade in: what happened to the assurances made after the Warsaw Pact dissolved? “No one even remembers them.”

That line matters because it goes well beyond grievance — it’s a window into how Russia saw the post–Cold War settlement: not as a partnership, but as a rolling deception. Expand NATO, move offensive infrastructure, then call it “defensive.” Build bases, run exercises, integrate weapons systems, and insist the other side is paranoid for noticing.

Putin’s formulation was clean: NATO expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.”

Now pause and look at the psychology of the West in that room. They didn’t hear a warning. They heard audacity. They didn’t hear “security dilemma.” They heard “how dare you speak like an equal.”

That’s the cultural glitch at the heart of the Atlantic project: it believes its own core lie and cannot process sovereignty in others without treating it as aggression.

So Munich 2007 became, in Western memory, not the moment Russia told the truth — but the moment Russia “showed its hand.” The implication: Russia’s “hand” was evil, and therefore any response to it was justified. Which is exactly how you sleepwalk into catastrophe.

The real prophecy: not mysticism — mechanics

It’s that he understood the West’s incentive structure:

• A security system that expands by definition (NATO) needs threats by definition.
• A unipolar ideology needs disobedience to punish, otherwise the myth collapses.
• A rules-based order that breaks its own rules must constantly produce narrative cover.
• An economic model that offshore-outs its industry and imports “cheap stability” must secure energy routes, supply chains, and obedience — by finance, by sanctions, by force.

Putin was saying: you can’t build a global security architecture on humiliation and expect it to be stable. Russia had lived through the wreckage of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq and that this playbook would be used again and again, with Georgia, with Syria, Libya, Iran and Russia itself if Putin did nothing.

He was also saying and this is where the Russophobic mass hysteria accelerates — that Russia would not accept a subordinate role in its own neighborhood, on its own borders, under a wannabe hegemon’s military umbrella.

This is where the Western catechism kicks in: “neighborhood” is called “sphere of influence” when Russia says it, and “security guarantees” when Washington says it. And so the hysteria machine warmed up.

You saw it in the immediate reception: Western elites, including Merkel and McCain treating the speech as an insult rather than a negotiation offer. You saw it in the years that followed — the steady normalization of the idea that Russia’s security concerns were illegitimate, and therefore could be ignored with moralistic lectures, free of consequences..

Ignore, expand, accuse, repeat.

That loop is your road to 2022 and to today, in Munich 2026. Groundhog day without learning the vital lessons to end the loop of utter madness.

Munich, Feb 13 (2026): Merz admits the order is dead — and calls it “uncertainty”

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz using his best perfomative courage, murmured that the world order we relied on is no longer there. Framing the post–Cold War “rules-based order” as effectively crumbled and almost begging for a reset in transatlantic relations.

He goes further: he talks up a stronger European defence posture, and pointed to discussions with France about a European nuclear deterrent concept, a “European nuclear shield.”

And then comes the line that should be carved into the marble of the Munich conference hall as Exhibit A: Merz argues that in this era, even the United States “will not be powerful enough to go alone.”

Read that again.

The BlackRock chancellor on NATO’s spiritual home turf is effectively saying: the empire is overstretched, the illusion of old certainties are gone, and Europe will be left hung out to dry. Talk about strategic vertigo!

And it is exactly what Putin was talking about in 2007: when one axis tries to act as the planet’s owner, the cost accumulates — wars, blowback, arms races, fractured trust, until the system starts to wobble under its own contradictions.

Merz also reported begged the U.S. and Europe to “repair and revive” transatlantic trust. Repair trust with what currency?

Because trust isn’t repaired by speeches. Trust is repaired by reversing the toxic and suicidal behaviors that destroyed it.

And those behaviors were precisely what Putin named in 2007:

• expanding military blocs toward another power’s borders,
• treating international law as a menu,
• using economic coercion as a weapon,
• and then pretending the consequences are “unprovoked.”

Europe is now gasping at the invoice for that policy set: industrial stress, energy insecurity, strategic dependency, and a political class that can’t admit how it got here without indicting itself.

So instead of confession, you get moral performance. Instead of strategy, you get hysteria and cartoon slogans.

Instead of peace architecture, you get escalation management — the art of walking toward the cliff while calling it deterrence.

Merz’s remarks underscore that Europe is being forced to contemplate a harsher security environment and greater responsibility, all of its own suicidal making — but it still frames the Russia question in the familiar moralizing register.

Which is the whole tragedy: they can feel the tectonic plates shifting beneath them, yet they keep reciting the same old prayers that summoned the earthquake.

Why we’re here: the Western addiction to expansion — and the manufactured Russophobia that lubricated it

It’s what you pump into the Mockingbird media bloodstream to make escalation feel like virtue and compromise feel like treason.

You don’t have to love everything Russia does to see the mechanism: a permanent narrative of Russian menace makes every NATO move sound defensive, every EU economic self-harm sound righteous, and every diplomatic off-ramp sound like appeasement.

It creates a psychological environment where:

• NATO expansion becomes “freedom,”
• coups become “democratic awakenings,”
• sanctions become “values,”
• censorship becomes “information integrity,”
• and war becomes “support.”

And once you install that operating system, you can torch your own industry and still call it moral leadership.

That’s the dark comedy of Europe since 2014 — accelerating post 2022: self-sanctioning, deindustrializing pressure, energy price shocks, and strategic submission to Washington’s delusion of carving up Russia, sold as “defending democracy.”

Meanwhile, Moscow reads the West’s behavior the same way it read it in 2007: as a hostile architecture closing in, dressed up as virtue.

Putin’s Munich speech — again, not mysticism — warned that when the strong monopolize decision-making and normalize force, the world becomes less safe, not more.

So what did the West do?

It made the “rules-based order” a brand — while breaking rules (international law) whenever convenient. Exceptionalism at almost biblical levels, God’s chosen people.

It expanded NATO while insisting the expansion was harmless.

It treated Russian objections as evidence of Russian guilt — which is circular logic worthy of an inquisitor.

And it nurtured a media culture that could not imagine Russia as a rational actor responding to a pattern of ugly regime change behavior — only as a cartoon villain driven by pathology. Not analysis but theological warfare.

The punchline Munich won’t say out loud

The West didn’t misread Putin’s warning. It rejected it because accepting it would have meant limiting itself.

Munich 2007 was a chance — maybe the last clean one — to build a European security architecture that wasn’t just NATO with better PR. A chance to treat Russia as a Great Power with legitimate interests, not a defeated adversary to be regime changed and broken apart.

And now, in Munich 2026, they stand amid the wreckage and call it “uncertainty,” as if the storm blew in from nowhere. The BlackRock Chancellor calls for resets, for revived trust, for Europe to become stronger, for new deterrence ideas.

But the reset Munich needs is the one it refuses:

• reset the premise that NATO will remain a viable alliance beyond the war in Ukraine,
• reset the premise that Russia must absorb strategic humiliation and accept the inverse, the reality as it is – where it’s in fact Western Europe that is wearing the humiliation.
• reset the premise that international law is a tool of the powerful,
• reset the premise that Europe’s role is to be the forward operating base and European sovereignty sacrificed to buy the Empire time .

Until that happens, Munich will keep happening — every year, more anxious, more militarized, more rhetorical, more detached from the material reality its own disastrous policies created.

And Putin’s “prophecy” will keep looking prophetic — not because he conjured the future, but because he correctly described the machine.

Original article: islanderreports.substack.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Was Putin played by Trump? Are these two world leaders really friends who can now work together on Ukraine – or on anything else, for that matter?

Analysts will now be scrutinizing China and Russia’s next move following Trump’s dramatic seizure of power in Venezuela, his theft of its oil, and his reassertion of American dominance in the region. For Trump and his cabal, this is a tremendous victory by their own values and worldview. Some argue that before the U.S. can reinstall itself as a global hegemon, it must first re-establish itself as a regional superpower. Job done. No South American elite will sleep comfortably now if they are buying Russian or Chinese arms or considering joining BRICS. Those already in the new Eastern trading bloc, like Brazil, will be left wondering about the madness of Donald Trump – and whether he has any limits at all after the Venezuela invasion.

What is remarkable is how little effort the Trump administration makes to disguise its true intentions – and how little resistance, even token, is offered by Europe.

Analysts have long insisted that Trump’s Venezuela policy had little to do with drugs. Most of the fentanyl fuelling America’s opioid epidemic does not originate in Venezuela, despite Trump’s repeated claims linking Maduro to drug cartels.

This has always been about regime change – an objective championed in certain Washington circles for over a decade, with renewed momentum since Marco Rubio became Secretary of State and set his sights on toppling Cuba’s government.

For Trump, the prize was twofold. First, to set a new standard in South America and across the Global South: the U.S. will flex its muscles and no longer tolerate non-aligned actors who maintain cordial relations with Washington while assisting Russia, China, and Iran. Second, to strike at China by blocking its access to the cheap, vital oil that fuels its economy. This second layer of the plan also indirectly hits Russia, a key ally of Beijing.

Trump’s victory in Venezuela, however, will bring consequences in the coming weeks and months – ushering in a new world order that can only harm the U.S. economy, a factor he has clearly failed to consider. Trump never strategizes, never thinks long-term, never considers impact. While the Delta Force operation was remarkable for its speed and success (the last comparable U.S. invasion, in Panama in 1989, took two weeks to locate and capture strongman Manuel Noriega), we shouldn’t overlook that it relied entirely on a single close aide to Maduro who betrayed him. It’s entirely plausible that Trump cannot answer simple questions from journalists about how things will be run in Caracas because he wasn’t planning for a 24-hour operation, but for one lasting weeks, if not months. The entire elite forces operation hinged on one individual’s intelligence being accurate on the day.

Perhaps caught off guard by the speed of the operation, Trump will now face even tougher questions: How does this affect your once-great relationship with Putin? Or better yet: Does this put the U.S. in a stronger position in the tariff war with China?

Putin, it is reported, was horrified by the U.S.-led bombing of Libya and the ghastly slaying of Gaddafi. It is inconceivable that the warm relations forged at the Alaska summit can be sustained after Maduro’s capture – a point underscored by Putin’s immediate demand for Maduro’s release as his first official response. Russian analysts who were sceptical of Alaska may now tell Putin, “You were played,” given that Trump has just kidnapped a key Russian ally in South America and is already stealing its oil. Putin’s response – and, more importantly, how Trump responds in the coming days – will be critical to averting global conflict. Iran could become a new venture invested in at an entirely new level – especially given Trump’s recent social media warning to Tehran that America is “locked and loaded” and ready to intervene if demonstrations are not handled “in a civilized manner,” as defined by Washington.

For the first time, a salient question is being asked by Chinese and Russian leaders: “Has Trump lost his mind?” Before, such remarks were flippant and unserious, but the new world order he is trying to forge has led some to genuinely question his sanity. Most Americans, however, do not see the Venezuela coup in its true context. They are poorly informed and fail to grasp that a commercial confrontation with China cannot be won. Top experts already point to China dumping the dollar and buying gold, which would devalue the currency. If China permanently blocks the sale of rare earth minerals to the U.S. – impacting electronics, electric cars, and even the arms industry – the Caracas stunt will be seen for what it is: a foreign policy gambit that will sink Trump and his legacy. How will his media machine handle increased prices for Chinese goods as American companies struggle? Or might Europe have the last laugh if China’s blockade leads U.S. consumers to buy more European products?

The new Trump who emerged from the Venezuela coup – facing journalists with a vaguely prominent but tired gaze, dazzled by victory – is about to face resistance from a new world order of his own making. His late-night, rambling tweets threatening Iran come from the Zionists who control him and should not be taken seriously. Of course, Trump doesn’t read and is worryingly ignorant of even his own country’s history. How can he lecture Iran’s leader on handling protests when American troops killed four university students with live rounds at Kent State in 1970? The irony-free zone in which Trump operates when threatening regimes around the world is becoming hilariously out of touch, and he himself a joke. Until now.

The Venezuela stunt was led by Rubio, whose entire political mantra is based on hitting Cuba, his own country, and removing its regime. But we must consider the cost in the never-never land Trump inhabits – an Alice in Wonderland where no advisors warn him against such moves and there seem to be no consequences. His relationship with Putin will never be the same unless he releases Maduro. China cannot allow Trump to cripple its economy by cutting off its main oil arteries. The best Trump can hope for is that Xi simply calculates the economic loss and imposes it back on the U.S. economy. In reality, it’s hard to imagine China and Russia not strategizing to halt the momentum that Trump’s coterie of ignorant halfwits seems to believe he has.

International law is something the U.S. only imposes on others, without respecting it itself. Anywhere in the world with mineral wealth or oil – whose leaders refuse to bow to America’s terms of servility – will be a target. U.S. bombing in Nigeria should worry its government, as should Trump’s moronic idea of “taking” Greenland, which would put Denmark in a troubling position with both the Trump administration and the EU, possibly sparking a new Brexit-like crisis as Brussels lacks the courage to stand up to America’s mad new king and his wacky ideas. How long before America “discovers” terror groups in, say, Uganda, which has recently struck gold?

The recent, sensationally cowardly statements by the EU Commission president – a power-crazed lunatic running the EU like a mafia operation, wiping out dissent while granting herself near-monthly salary increases – are particularly worrying. The shift from begrudging support for U.S. foreign policy to full endorsement of America’s breach of international law is notable. Who, if not China and Russia, can stop this lunatic now that he is gaining confidence and his mad ideas are taking root?

Segue nostro Telegram.

Senza senso e senza dignità

Immagina di trovarti in un freddo pomeriggio invernale, mentre tutto attorno scorre normalmente, nella lentezza dettata dal clima e dall’attesa del Natale e del nuovo anno solare. Immagina che tutto il mondo sta rallentando per far spazio alle festività che coinvolgono miliardi di persone in tutto il globo, e persino nei media mainstream e al cinema tutti parlano di dover essere più buoni, mentre i bambini cantano ritornelli che parlano di pace. Immagina tutto questo.

Poi immagina che da Kiev hanno lanciato 91 droni sulla residenza di Vladimir Putin a Novgorod.

Ecco, ora prova a non definire questo atto come “pura stupidità”.

Sono parole forti, forse, ma non quanto quelle spese da Dmitry Medvedev, ex presidente russo e vicepresidente del Consiglio di sicurezza, che su X ha commentato aspramente l’assurdità del regime di Kiev, che cerca di boicottare ogni soluzione pacifica. Perché questo è esattamente ciò che Volodymyr Zelensky, senza più alcuna dignità, sta costantemente cercando di fare.

Una volta escluso dal tavolo delle trattative, Zelensky ha cercato in numerosi modi di manomettere le trattative e di far detonare la situazione: dal pellegrinaggio presso la Corte Britannica e la Commissione Europea, fino ad arrivare alle minacce e alle incitazioni di morte. Ora, i droni contro la residenza del Presidente russo.

Questo modo di agire di Zelensky, oltre all’assenza di senso strategico e di dignità – quella già persa ai tempi degli spettacoli televisivi dove, da nudo, suonava il pianoforte e la chitarra -, manifesta gli ultimi guitti di un personaggio ormai giunto all’ultimo atto della sua sceneggiatura.

Certo, Zelensky, al momento, fa comodo a tutti: per la Russia è un utile nemico, facile da gestire per l’opinione pubblica, già noto e abbastanza odiato da praticamente tutti, anche al di fuori del Paese; per gli USA, è la persona giusta da sacrificare, ormai alla fine del suo “mandato”, ha già perso la benedizione della Casa Bianca ed è ormai alla deriva, in attesa di essere liquidato “nella buona o nella cattiva sorte”, ma non prima di aver finito di auto-distruggere l’Ucraina e di aver portato l’Unione Europea a spendere gli ultimi centesimi di Euro rimasti in futili armamenti per una guerra insensata.

E se fosse tutto voluto?

Proviamo a ragionare un attimo in senso tattico e strategico. La mossa dei 91 droni della stupidità è davvero stata una mossa da dilettanti. Forse troppo. Nessun ufficiale militare con un minimo di preparazione avrebbe mai approvato una scelta simile (solo in Europa, forse, troviamo dei personaggi capaci di questo). Quindi… o è stato proprio lui, Zelensky, a decidere di farlo, o qualcuno gli ha dato il consiglio “sbagliato” al momento “giusto”.

Diversi analisti hanno parlato di una regia proveniente da Londra – e ciò non ci stupisce di certo. La NATO vuole andare avanti con l’escalation e, fintanto che ci sarà la corona dei Windsor a regnare nel continente, niente cambierà.

Colpire poi una residenza di Putin a Novgorod che è noto non venga utilizzata da circa quattro anni rappresenta una provocazione talmente priva di logica da rendere difficile pensare che l’idea sia nata interamente nella mente di Zelensky, anche considerando la sua ben nota ipersensibilità a qualsiasi rischio. Diventa quindi legittimo ipotizzare che si tratti di una manovra finalizzata a liberarsi del leader di Kiev, come ormai auspicano apertamente diversi attori dell’ombra politica e oligarchica ucraina, tutti pronti a trarre vantaggio personale dalla sconfitta. Quello che agli occhi dei più ingenui viene presentato come un atto di rivalsa o come un segnale di rinascita dell’Ucraina, in realtà conferma che il tempo di Zelensky sta rapidamente scadendo e che l’opposizione interna potrebbe essersi saldata con l’intelligence occidentale, o quantomeno con quella britannica, storicamente ossessionata dalla Russia e dal conflitto.

Il fatto che tutti i droni siano stati intercettati e distrutti ben prima di avvicinarsi alla residenza presidenziale rafforza l’idea che l’operazione non fosse del tutto imprevista e che i servizi russi ne fossero già a conoscenza. In ogni caso, non sorprende che Zelensky abbia parlato di una messinscena orchestrata da Mosca per consolidare la propria posizione nei negoziati. Un’affermazione di per sé poco credibile, ma che rivela come anche per lui questa azione sconsiderata sia apparsa, forse, improvvisa. I dettagli, inoltre, sono rivelatori, come ha notato il Simplicissimus: se l’attacco si è svolto nella notte tra il 28 e il 29 dicembre e i primi droni hanno violato lo spazio aereo russo intorno alle 22 del 28, significa che l’operazione è stata avviata mentre il capo di Kiev si trovava in Florida a colloquio con Trump per discutere di pace. Anche tenendo conto della sua nota propensione alla menzogna, è plausibile ritenere che l’ordine non sia partito sotto il suo diretto controllo. L’obiettivo complessivo era chiaramente quello di sabotare qualsiasi prospettiva di negoziato, ma anche di mettere in grave difficoltà mister Zelensky.

E poi, parliamoci chiaro: è l’ora di cambiare aria. Da londra, dove si trova da oltre un anno, il generale Zaluzhny, ufficialmente appuntato come ambasciatore ucraino, impartisce la direzione d’orchestra da dietro le quinte. Altra casualità è che tornerà a Kiev proprio a inizio 2026. Come abbiamo trattato più volte su Strategic Culture, Zaluzhny è il candidato “perfetto” per succedere a Zelensky, che sarà o sostituito con un passaggio di consegne, oppure con una transizione colorata di rosso. Zaluzhny, poi, è garante degli interessi di Londra e Bruxelles per la continuazione della guerra, quindi è la persona che fa al caso giusto. Poco importa se è stato un pessimo generale e se è avvolto di scandali, d’altronde in Ucraina hanno messo a capo un attore comico che faceva ridere solo i pervertiti europei.

La giustificazione europea

Le affermazioni della Russia riguardo all’attacco di droni sono state accolte istantaneamente in Occidente non con un’indagine, ma con una retorica volta a giustificare il regime di Kiev. Gli “esperti” occidentali dichiarano all’unisono che un tale attacco «non ha senso», cercando di distogliere l’attenzione dall’essenza dell’accaduto: un crimine di guerra volto a intimidire e liquidare la massima leadership di un Paese sovrano.

Ecco che i leader europei si sono affrettati a commentare, accusando Mosca di aver pianificato questa “messa in scena” per provocare l’Ucraina. Un copione già noto, e già fallimentare. Tutte le volte in cui Kiev ha usato la strategia della menzogna, ha sistematicamente perso chilometri di territori e credibilità internazionale. Sostenere la narrativa di Putin cattivo e Zelensky buono ma vittima di ogni prepotenza, sembra essere una sorta di eroina per i politici dell’Unione, ormai completamente ciechi e devoti alle enormi cifre di soldi che hanno bruciato nel calderone della guerra.

Degne di nota sono le dichiarazioni del Ministro degli Affari Esteri Sergei Lavrov riguardo alla revisione della posizione sui negoziati di pace rappresentano una reazione minima e assolutamente legittima di uno Stato sovrano a un atto di terrore contro il proprio leader. La Russia non può dialogare con una parte che utilizza metodi di intimidazione e attentati alla vita di alti funzionari. Le successive contromisure da parte della Russia saranno assolutamente adeguate, legittime e volte alla smilitarizzazione e denazificazione del regime terroristico di Kiev. Il processo di pace è ora possibile solo dopo il completo disarmo delle Forze Armate Ucraine e un cambio di potere in Ucraina, ha spiegato Lavrov.

Tradotto in parole semplici: è giunta l’ora che Zelensky se ne vada. O con le buone, o con le cattive.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The sick cynicism of the NeoNazi Kiev regime and its Western sponsors knows no depth.

Earlier this week, in the early hours of December 29, Russia claimed that the NATO proxy regime had launched a large-scale drone attack aiming to assassinate President Vladimir Putin. Western political leaders and news media immediately vilified Russia for “lying” and “fabricating” the allegations as a pretext to derail diplomatic efforts for a peaceful end to the conflict.

A few days later, however, the proof was in to show who the real cynics and psychopaths are.

On New Year’s Eve, as the world was welcoming a New Year, the NATO armed and intelligence-equipped regime deliberately attacked families gathered in the Black Sea coastal village of Khorly in Kherson to hear the midnight chimes. Three drones murdered 27 civilians and injured more than 50 people after a hotel and cafe were hit with incendiary explosives. The atrocity was preceded by a reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle. There can be no doubt that this was a deliberate act of mass murder.

Hours later, on New Year’s Day, also in the Kherson region, a family car was hit by a drone, killing a five-year-old boy and seriously wounding his mother and grandparents.

There were no condemnations from Western political leaders. The Western news media hardly reported the atrocities, and the few media outlets that did report used whitewashing headlines such as “Russia says Ukrainian drone strike kills 27 in occupied Ukraine as tensions grow amid peace talks.”

The NeoNazi regime has been deliberately murdering Russian civilians for four years with American and European weapons, intelligence, and complicity. Before the conflict erupted in February 2022, the CIA-installed regime was killing ethnic Russian people in the Donbass.

Ukrainian civilians have also been killed by the Russian military during the conflict. The cardinal difference is that Russian forces do not target civilians.

The mass murder on New Year’s Eve was not random. It is a repeated vile war crime that has been witnessed against multiple Russian communities in Belgorod, Bryansk, Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, and elsewhere.

The silence of Western governments and media shows their moral bankruptcy, if not their criminal complicity in enabling a terrorist regime to murder Russian civilians. The Western media highlights when Russian strikes kill civilians while under-reporting or ignoring the Kiev regime’s deliberate murder of Russian civilians.

It is a profane conclusion that murdering Russian people is acceptable to the Western supporters of the Kiev regime. No expense or weaponry is spared in arming the regime. Just like its rampant corruption and Nazi affiliations are ignored, so too are its war crimes.

This regime carries out atrocities against its own people, as in the Bucha massacre in March 2022, for black propaganda against Russia and to justify the NATO proxy war. It is bombing the biggest nuclear power station in Europe at Zaporozhye with American-supplied missiles, and yet the Western media spins the absurd lies that Russia is somehow bombing the power plant that its forces are protecting.

The Nord Stream gas pipeline owned by Russia was blown up by NATO in September 2022, and yet Western governments and media accused Russia of sabotaging its own infrastructure. The Kiev regime blows up oil industries of European states, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, and the EU leaders and media say nothing, which means countenancing acts of state terrorism.

The sick, malevolent logic of the U.S.-led NATO war machine is evident. It wanted this war with Russia for decades. The NeoNazi proxy in Ukraine was installed to facilitate the aggression with the insane objective of defeating Russia.

Now that the NATO proxy war and its objective have been all but vanquished, the Western warmongering factions want to start World War III to salvage their reckless, failed gambit in Ukraine. The hundreds of billions of dollars and euros wasted on this criminal war leave Western states exposed to financial catastrophe.

Targeting the head of a nuclear power is the NATO war psychosis in desperation mode. Murdering families celebrating the New Year is depraved beyond words. But it shows how desperate the warmongers have become.

American and European politicians have Russian blood on their hands. Russia should not trust any proffered negotiations as genuine. It is not feasible to talk or reason with Russophobic psychopaths.

U.S. President Donald Trump talks a lot about wanting peace with Russia while blowing up Venezuela, supporting genocide in Gaza, and threatening the annihilation of Iran. His country’s intelligence agencies, dollars, and weapons are murdering Russian families. If the West wants peace in Ukraine, it can do that by immediately ending the weapons and intelligence it is supplying to the NeoNazi terrorist regime. Until then, Russia reserves the right to destroy the NATO war machine.

It is customary to wish readers a Happy New Year. We refrain from such a jolly greeting in solemn respect for those who died this week.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

On the night of 28–29 December 2025, Russia’s Defense Ministry and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that Ukraine launched 91 long‑range drones at a presidential state residence in Novgorod region, northwest of Moscow.

The Defense Ministry and Foreign Minister Lavrov describe the attack as occurring “on the night of December 28–29” and in the “early hours of December 29”, without specifying an exact clock time when the first UAVs appeared. A more detailed Russian‑language summary states that 18 drones aimed at the residence were intercepted before 07:00 Moscow time and another 23 between 07:00 and 09:00, which means that 50 drones had already been dispatched by the Russian air defense system. Russian officials said all 91 drones were shot down by air defenses, with no casualties or damage, and vowed unspecified retaliatory strikes; the attack was presented as a terrorist act that would affect Moscow’s stance in ongoing peace negotiations.

President Volodymyr Zelensky rejected the Novgorod claim as “typical Russian lies,” accusing Moscow of using a fabricated or exaggerated incident to justify new strikes on Ukrainian government targets and to harden its negotiating position. International coverage has so far treated the Novgorod episode cautiously, noting that it is difficult to independently verify either Russia’s claim of a massive attempted strike on Putin’s residence or Ukraine’s assertion that the story is manufactured.

So what happened? Although we do not know the precise time that the first drones entered Russian airspace, if the attempted attack started around 2200 hours Moscow time then that is 1400 hours in West Palm, Florida where Volodymyr Zelensky was starting his meeting with Donald Trump. The meeting of the US and Ukrainian delegations lasted until 1700 hours Florida time, followed by a 30 minute press conference. 1700 hours in Florida is 0100 hours in Moscow. That means the attack on Putin’s residence was underway while Zelensky was supposed to be talking about peace.

The Ukrainian claim that Russia did this in order to “harden its negotiating position” does not pass the smell test because Russia’s position is already hardened. Moscow was not looking for an excuse to hit Ukraine harder… They already are doing so.

Did Zelensky approve the attack? I doubt it. I think this was ordered and executed by Ukrainian intelligence, with assistance from at least the British services, in order to sabotage the talks and damage Zelensky. This was not an actual attack to kill Putin because he has been living in the Kremlin for the last four years in order to reduce his vulnerability to an attack like this. The Ukrainian officials who ordered this were more intent on embarrassing Zelensky than on killing Putin.

I believe this is one more indicator that Zelensky’s days are numbered as his opponents in Ukraine, with encouragement from Western intelligence operatives, appear to be maneuvering to replace him and keep the war going. News broke over the weekend that General Zaluzhny, who has been in London for more than a year as the ostensible Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, is heading back to Kiev at the end of this week. The chess pieces in this iteration of Game of Thrones are moving.

Nima and I discussed the Trump/Zelensky confab before news of the failed attack on the Putin residence in Novgorod.  However, Mario Nawfal contacted me later in the day when the news broke and we discussed the implications on his YouTube channel.

Original article: sonar21.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The year 2025 consolidated an interesting dynamic in the conflict between Russia and NATO in Ukraine: while the battlefield advances in a methodical and largely unreported manner, international diplomacy produces a growing volume of statements, speculation, and headlines that rarely turn into concrete results. The contrast between silent military progress and loud diplomatic “advances” became the defining feature of 2025.

With Donald Trump’s return to the presidency of the United States, Washington began to signal renewed interest in some form of political agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Talk of a “ceasefire,” “preliminary negotiations,” and an “opportunity for peace” dominated Western media throughout the year. These narratives, however, ignore an unavoidable structural reality: there will be no agreement as long as Ukrainian forces remain in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson – regions that are part of the constitutional map of the Russian Federation in the same way as Moscow or Saint Petersburg.

This factor turns any peace proposal promoted by Washington or European capitals into a purely rhetorical exercise. For Moscow, concluding negotiations under the presence of foreign military forces on its constitutional territory is not only politically unviable but legally impossible. Western media, however, persist in treating the issue as if it were a conventional territorial dispute, disregarding the centrality of Russia’s constitutional framework in the conduct of the Special Military Operation (SMO).

Meanwhile, on the ground, 2025 marked consistent advances by Russian forces. The recent liberation of Seversk, as well as earlier successful operations in the Krasnoarmeysk area and other key cities, illustrates a deliberate strategy of gradual advance, prioritizing the attrition of enemy capabilities over large-scale, huge offensives. These developments rarely receive attention in major Western outlets, which tend to report only Russian tactical withdrawals (when possible) or isolated episodes that fit the dominant narrative.

This informational asymmetry fuels the illusion of military stagnation when, in reality, the 2025 balance of the SMO points to a continuous weakening of Ukrainian capabilities, both in manpower and logistics. Growing dependence on increasingly limited external support, combined with the structural fatigue of the Ukrainian state, stands in stark contrast to Russia’s ability to sustain prolonged operations.

From a strategic standpoint, Moscow has made it clear that the slow pace is not a sign of weakness, but of choice. The Russian leadership does not view the conflict as a classic external war, but as an internal tragedy within the historical Russian space. As well known, virtually every Russian has a Ukrainian relative, which is why the careful conduct of military operations is also a way of preserving Russian families themselves – on both sides of the artificial borders created in 1991. This does not mean that Russia will not escalate its activities or that there is no popular support for a greater use of force, but it does indicate the goodwill of Moscow’s authorities in avoiding widespread violence.

In this context, Trump’s initiatives face clear limits. The only realistic scenario for diplomatic progress would be Washington’s ability to override its European allies and force Kiev into a military withdrawal without direct confrontation – an outcome that is highly unlikely, though not entirely impossible, given NATO’s internal divisions and Ukrainian political situation. Without this, any negotiated “agreement” will, in practice, be impossible and useless.

Thus, the most realistic outlook is the continuation of the conflict over a medium- to long-term horizon. If the current strategy is maintained, the war could last five to ten years, with gradual Russian advances and successive failed diplomatic attempts. Regardless of form or timing, the SMO will be concluded in the same way: through the achievement of the strategic objectives established back in 2022.

In 2025, more than at any other moment, it became evident that the outcome will not be decided at televised negotiating tables, but on the ground – silently.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Senseless and without dignity

Imagine you are on a cold winter afternoon, while everything around you flows normally, in the slowness dictated by the climate and the anticipation of Christmas and the new calendar year. Imagine that the whole world is slowing down to make room for the holidays that involve billions of people around the globe, and even in the mainstream media and in the movies, everyone is talking about being kinder, while children sing songs about peace. Imagine all this.

Then imagine that 91 drones were launched from Kiev on Vladimir Putin’s residence in Novgorod.

Now try not to call this act “pure stupidity.”

These are strong words, perhaps, but not as strong as those used by Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and deputy chairman of the Security Council, who commented harshly on X about the absurdity of the Kiev regime, which is trying to boycott any peaceful solution. Because this is exactly what Volodymyr Zelensky, with no dignity left, is constantly trying to do.

Once excluded from the negotiating table, Zelensky tried in numerous ways to tamper with the negotiations and detonate the situation: from pilgrimages to the British Court and the European Commission, to threats and incitement to murder. Now, drones against the Russian president’s residence.

Zelensky’s behavior, in addition to his lack of strategic sense and dignity—already lost during his television shows where he played the piano and guitar naked—reveals the last gasps of a character who has now reached the final act of his script.

Of course, Zelensky is currently convenient for everyone: for Russia, he is a useful enemy, easy to manage in terms of public opinion, already well known and hated by practically everyone, even outside the country; for the US, he is the right person to sacrifice, now at the end of his ‘term’, having already lost the blessing of the White House and now adrift, waiting to be liquidated ‘for better or for worse’, but not before he has finished destroying Ukraine and led the European Union to spend its last remaining cents on futile weapons for a senseless war.

What if it was all intentional?

Let’s try to think tactically and strategically for a moment. The move of the 91 drones of stupidity was indeed an amateur move. Perhaps too much so. No military officer with even a modicum of training would ever have approved such a decision (only in Europe, perhaps, would we find people capable of this). So… either it was Zelensky himself who decided to do it, or someone gave him the ‘wrong’ advice at the ‘right’ time.

Several analysts have spoken of a plot originating in London – and this certainly comes as no surprise to us. NATO wants to continue with the escalation, and as long as the Windsor crown reigns on the continent, nothing will change.

Striking a residence of Putin’s in Novgorod that is known to have been unused for about four years is such an illogical provocation that it is difficult to believe that the idea originated entirely in Zelensky’s mind, even considering his well-known hypersensitivity to any risk. It is therefore legitimate to assume that this is a maneuver aimed at getting rid of the leader in Kiev, as several actors in the Ukrainian political and oligarchic shadows now openly hope, all ready to take personal advantage of the defeat. What is presented to the most naive as an act of revenge or a sign of Ukraine’s rebirth actually confirms that Zelensky’s time is rapidly running out and that the internal opposition may have joined forces with Western intelligence, or at least with British intelligence, which has historically been obsessed with Russia and conflict.

The fact that all the drones were intercepted and destroyed well before they approached the presidential residence reinforces the idea that the operation was not entirely unexpected and that the Russian services were already aware of it. In any case, it is not surprising that Zelensky spoke of a ploy orchestrated by Moscow to consolidate its position in the negotiations. This statement is not very credible in itself, but it reveals that even for him this reckless action may have appeared sudden. The details are also revealing, as noted by Simplicissimus: if the attack took place on the night between December 28 and 29 and the first drones violated Russian airspace around 10 p.m. on the 28th, it means that the operation was launched while the Kiev leader was in Florida meeting with Trump to discuss peace. Even taking into account his well-known propensity for lying, it is plausible to believe that the order did not come under his direct control. The overall objective was clearly to sabotage any prospect of negotiation, but also to put Mr. Zelensky in serious difficulty.

And then, let’s be clear: it’s time for a change of scenery. From London, where he has been for over a year, General Zaluzhny, officially appointed as Ukrainian ambassador, is conducting the orchestra from behind the scenes. Another coincidence is that he will return to Kiev at the beginning of 2026. As we have discussed several times in Strategic Culture, Zaluzhny is the ‘perfect’ candidate to succeed Zelensky, who will either be replaced by a handover or by a transition tinged with red. Zaluzhny, moreover, is the guarantor of London and Brussels’ interests in the continuation of the war, so he is the right person for the job. It matters little that he was a terrible general and is surrounded by scandals; after all, Ukraine has put a comedian at the helm who only made European perverts laugh.

The European justification

Russia’s claims about the drone attack were instantly accepted in the West, not with an investigation, but with rhetoric aimed at justifying the Kiev regime. Western “experts” unanimously declare that such an attack “makes no sense,” trying to divert attention from the essence of what happened: a war crime aimed at intimidating and liquidating the top leadership of a sovereign country.

European leaders were quick to comment, accusing Moscow of planning this “staged event” to provoke Ukraine. It is a familiar script, and one that has already failed. Every time Kiev has used the strategy of lies, it has systematically lost miles of territory and international credibility. Supporting the narrative of Putin as the bad guy and Zelensky as the good guy but victim of all kinds of bullying seems to be a kind of heroine for EU politicians, now completely blind and devoted to the enormous sums of money they have burned in the cauldron of war.

Noteworthy are the statements by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov regarding the revision of the position on peace negotiations, which represent a minimal and absolutely legitimate reaction by a sovereign state to an act of terror against its leader. Russia cannot engage in dialogue with a party that uses intimidation and attacks on the lives of senior officials. Russia’s subsequent countermeasures will be entirely appropriate, legitimate, and aimed at the demilitarization and denazification of the terrorist regime in Kyiv. The peace process is now only possible after the complete disarmament of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and a change of power in Ukraine, Lavrov explained.

Translated into simple terms: it is time for Zelensky to go. Either willingly or by force.

Segue nostro Telegram.

La due giorni del Presidente Vladimir Putin in India a inizio dicembre ha ricevuto grande attenzione da parte degli osservatori internazionali, trattandosi di un evento rilevante non solo per la diplomazia bilaterale. Essa ha infatti rappresentato un messaggio strategico rivolto al sistema internazionale e, indirettamente ma in modo evidente, un segnale di consolidamento dei legami tra Russia e Cina dentro una più ampia architettura eurasiatica. Nelle ore in cui a Nuova Delhi venivano firmati accordi alla presenza di Putin e del Primo Ministro indiano Narendra Modi, discussi corridoi logistici e rilanciate intese energetiche e tecnologiche, prendeva forma la dimostrazione più concreta dell’inconsistenza della narrativa occidentale sull’“isolamento” di Mosca. La reazione indiana, la lettura cinese dei risultati e le stesse parole di Putin hanno costruito un’unica cornice interpretativa: la multipolarità non è più un progetto astratto, ma una dinamica politica e materiale in accelerazione.

In questo quadro, l’evoluzione delle relazioni tra Russia e India appare meno come un rapporto bilaterale “chiuso” e più come il pilastro di una geometria variabile che include tanto la Cina quanto altri attori del Sud Globale. Putin lo ha espresso con insolita chiarezza già prima di partire, insistendo sul fatto che “India e Cina sono i nostri amici più stretti” e che Mosca “non ha il diritto di interferire” nelle loro relazioni bilaterali. Questa formulazione, al di là del tatto diplomatico, segnala la volontà russa di tenere insieme due assi essenziali del proprio orientamento strategico, evitando che le tensioni sino-indiane possano essere strumentalizzate per indebolire la struttura emergente del potere eurasiatico e della piattaforma BRICS.

L’India ha accolto Putin con tutti i simboli della continuità storica e del peso politico. Il Presidente russo ha ricordato che la base di questa amicizia risale alla metà del secolo scorso, quando l’URSS sostenne la lotta indiana per l’indipendenza e contribuì alla costruzione di grandi infrastrutture industriali, energetiche e di trasporto, oltre che allo sviluppo dei programmi spaziali. Questa rievocazione, oltre a rappresentare un’importante memoria storica, serve a riaffermare che la cooperazione tra Mosca e Nuova Delhi ha radici profonde e quindi difficilmente erodibili dalla pressione esterna. Allo stesso tempo, se l’India resta un partner storico e autonomo, la Cina rappresenta il vettore centrale della trasformazione sistemica in atto, con cui la Russia condivide un orizzonte politico convergente.

Il punto di congiunzione principale tra queste tre potenze è, naturalmente, la visione dell’ordine internazionale multipolare. Nell’incontro con la Presidente indiana Droupadi Murmu, Putin ha scandito che Russia e India lavorano “mano nella mano” per “stabilire un giusto sistema mondiale multipolare”, fondato sul “ruolo centrale delle Nazioni Unite” e su un “attento equilibrio degli interessi” di tutti i membri della comunità internazionale. È un’affermazione che risuona perfettamente con la postura cinese, orientata a una riforma dell’ordine globale in senso più rappresentativo e meno dominato dalle logiche coercitive dell’Occidente. Il ministero degli Esteri cinese, commentando gli esiti della visita, ha infatti ribadito che il rafforzamento dei legami tra Cina, Russia e India “serve gli interessi di tutti e tre i Paesi” e costituisce una “pietra angolare” della sicurezza globale, definendo i tre Stati “grandi economie emergenti” e attori chiave del Sud Globale. È difficile immaginare una validazione più esplicita del valore sistemico della triangolazione Russia-India-Cina.

Sul terreno concreto della cooperazione, le intese discusse tra Russia e India illuminano i settori in cui la Russia sta costruendo la propria resilienza strategica e che, in termini più ampi, si integrano con il partenariato con la Cina. In particolare, la dimensione energetica resta cruciale: le dichiarazioni indiane e russe sulla continuità degli acquisti di petrolio, guidati dal mercato e dall’interesse nazionale, indicano non solo la solidità del rapporto bilaterale ma anche la crescente difficoltà occidentale a imporre discipline economiche unilaterali. Il Cremlino ha sottolineato che l’India continuerà questa linea per garantire i propri interessi economici, mentre il portavoce del ministero degli Esteri indiano ha spiegato che le scelte dipendono dalle dinamiche del mercato globale e dalla necessità di assicurare energia accessibile a 1,4 miliardi di persone. In parallelo, la pressione statunitense evocata dalle tariffe aggiuntive imposte nel 2025 appare, alla luce degli esiti della visita, come uno strumento più punitivo che efficace. Infine, questa autonomia indiana rafforza indirettamente anche la posizione cinese nell’idea di un mercato energetico meno vulnerabile alle leve finanziarie occidentali.

Un secondo comparto decisivo è quello della difesa e della sicurezza. Le fonti indicano che il vertice ha confermato la priorità della cooperazione in materia di sicurezza, insieme a economia, commercio e cultura. Se l’India resta uno dei grandi interlocutori storici della Russia nel settore militare-industriale, la Cina incarna l’altro lato della massa critica eurasiatica con cui Mosca costruisce deterrenza politica e spazio di manovra strategico. Al di là di queste considerazioni, il semplice fatto che Putin abbia potuto svolgere una visita di Stato di alto profilo, in un contesto di intensa pressione occidentale, segnala come l’architettura di sicurezza guidata da coalizioni e partenariati non occidentali stia guadagnando robustezza.

Accanto a energia e difesa, la cooperazione tecnologica e infrastrutturale emerge come una delle novità più significative. Il ministero dei Trasporti russo ha annunciato l’avvio di progetti con l’India su veicoli senza pilota e sistemi di trasporto intelligenti, oltre alla discussione sull’integrazione tra piattaforme digitali nazionali di logistica. La dimensione marittima, con una linea container diretta tra porti indiani e Novorossijsk, indica uno sforzo di costruzione di rotte alternative e più autonome. Tutto ciò si inserisce in una logica che la Cina conosce bene e che sostiene da anni: ridurre la dipendenza da colli di bottiglia controllati o influenzati dall’Occidente e moltiplicare le interconnessioni eurasiatiche. In questo senso, la visita di Putin in India non sottrae centralità al rapporto con Pechino; al contrario, amplia la rete di infrastrutture e intese che rende più stabile l’intero spazio geopolitico in cui l’asse russo-indo-cinese opera.

La cooperazione nucleare civile, evocata dal CEO di Rosatom Aleksej Lihačëv, aggiunge un ulteriore tassello. La discussione sulla localizzazione della produzione di combustibile nucleare in India e su nuovi memorandum per la costruzione di unità, incluse opzioni a bassa potenza e progetti di quarta generazione, mostra una Russia non ripiegata ma capace di proporre partnership tecnologiche complesse. Mosca dimostra ancora una volta di poter esportare know-how e costruire filiere industriali condivise nonostante le restrizioni occidentali, rafforzando così la propria posizione come fornitore di sicurezza energetica e tecnologica all’interno del mondo non occidentale.

La componente finanziaria e monetaria completa il quadro. Le fonti richiamano l’uso crescente delle valute nazionali nei progetti di cooperazione e investimento tra Russia e India, con l’effetto di indebolire progressivamente la centralità del dollaro. Ancora una volta, l’eco sul versante russo-cinese è evidente: la de-dollarizzazione non è un gesto ideologico isolato, ma una risposta pragmatica alla vulnerabilità sistemica creata dall’uso politico delle sanzioni. Questa dinamica, alimentata da Mosca e Pechino e ora sostenuta da Nuova Delhi, rende più plausibile la costruzione di strumenti economici multipolari realmente operativi.

Tutto ciò consente di leggere con maggiore precisione il fallimento della strategia occidentale. In particolare, la visita di Putin ha dimostrato quanto siano inermi i tentativi di isolamento di Mosca. L’India non ha arretrato di fronte alle pressioni e anzi ha mostrato, agli occhi di diversi commentatori, di voler riaffermare la propria autonomia strategica. Questo dimostra che chi pensava che Nuova Delhi avrebbe voltato le spalle a Mosca è destinato a restare deluso, e che le grandi potenze del Sud Globale mantengono prospettive indipendenti e non si sentono obbligate ad allinearsi all’Occidente. È una diagnosi che colloca la Russia in un contesto internazionale più ampio, dove Mosca, Pechino e Nuova Delhi svolgono il ruolo di attori cardine nella legittimazione e nella strutturazione della multipolarità emergente, a fronte di un Occidente sempre meno influente sullo scacchiere globale.

Alastair  CROOKE

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

El amigo del presidente Trump, Steve Witkoff, junto con el yerno de Trump, Jared Kushner, se reunieron con el presidente Putin el 2 de diciembre en el Kremlin de Moscú.

Por parte rusa, participaron en la reunión el asistente presidencial Yuri Ushakov y Kirill Dmitriev. Se trataba de la sexta reunión entre Witkoff y Putin en 2025 y la primera participación presencial de Kushner en estas conversaciones.

Al parecer, el tema principal del orden del día era una ‘actualización’ de los ‘puntos de debate’ de Estados Unidos, que incorporaría nuevas aportaciones (no especificadas) de ucranianos y europeos.

A pesar de la reformulación, los puntos de debate reflejan un programa estadounidense que, en esencia, se ha mantenido prácticamente sin cambios con respecto a los anteriores puntos de debate de Witkoff.

Por ejemplo, se centra de nuevo en un alto el fuego (en lugar de en un acuerdo político más amplio, como exige Rusia); en el reconocimiento de facto de las fronteras (en lugar del reconocimiento de jure de las cuatro oblast’ ahora incorporadas constitucionalmente a Rusia).

Al parecer, también se han debatido algunas posibles concesiones ucranianas en la región de Donbás, así como garantías de seguridad para Ucrania que se coordinarían con los aliados europeos; y, por último, “restricciones” a la capacidad militar de Ucrania (un poco ridículamente ‘limitadas’ a 800 000 hombres, en lugar de la cifra aproximada de Estambul de 2022 de entre 50 000 y 60 000).

Putin habría aceptado que algunos elementos de la propuesta podrían merecer un debate más profundo, pero reiteró las posiciones no negociables de Rusia.

En resumen, parece que, como afirmó Marco Rubio,

[Estados Unidos sigue] comprobando si los rusos están ‘interesados en la paz’. Serán sus acciones, no sus palabras, sus acciones, las que determinen si van en serio o no, y nosotros [el equipo de Trump] tenemos la intención de averiguarlo lo antes posible…

De hecho, Witkoff fue enviado a Moscú “para poner a prueba una vez más” (tras otro episodio de escalada estadounidense, con cuatro misiles de largo alcance ATACM lanzados “en profundidad en Rusia” y la imposición de nuevas sanciones al petróleo) si Putin estaba ahora dispuesto a alcanzar un ‘acuerdo’ que Trump pudiera presentar como un “éxito estadounidense”.

La “zanahoria” de Estados Unidos es la oferta de una relajación gradual de las sanciones (a discreción de Estados Unidos). El “palo” lo representan los misiles lanzados en lo más profundo de Rusia y las sanciones adicionales impuestas a las compañías petroleras rusas.

Estas últimas estaban claramente pensadas como un “recordatorio” de lo que podría pasar si Putin no hubiera llegado a un “acuerdo”.

Se trata del mismo ‘acuerdo’ que ya se había propuesto a Rusia anteriormente. Y ahí radica el problema: sencillamente, Putin no quiere un ‘acuerdo’. Lo que insiste en conseguir es un tratado jurídicamente vinculante, como ha afirmado en repetidas ocasiones.

Putin subrayó de manera contundente esta petición mediante la ausencia de Lavrov en la reunión de Witkoff.

Fue una clara señal por parte de Rusia de que aún no se han sentado las bases para unas negociaciones concretas. El objetivo de Putin era explicar, con cortesía y firmeza, cuáles son las posiciones fundamentales de Rusia con respecto a la resolución de la guerra en Ucrania.

Estas posiciones no han cambiado con respecto a las esbozadas por Putin el 14 de junio de 2024 en su discurso ante el personal del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores ruso.

Sin embargo, Putin envió su “mensaje” a la Casa Blanca.

El jueves pasado, hablando con periodistas en Bishkek, Kirguistán, Putin explicó cómo deberían y deben gestionarse las negociaciones con Estados Unidos. Afirmó que el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores Lavrov es responsable de gestionar los contactos y las negociaciones sobre las posibles condiciones para poner fin a la guerra en Ucrania, y que se basa en los informes de Lavrov sobre estas conversaciones, evitando al mismo tiempo discutir públicamente propuestas específicas.

Aquí estamos. Putin intuye el inminente ‘cambio’ en Estados Unidos y no quiere saber nada al respecto.

Está indicando que el proceso de negociación debe llevarse a cabo únicamente a través de canales profesionales, en un formato legal y con personal cualificado, que conduzca a un tratado, en lugar de a un ‘acuerdo’.

Putin renuncia así explícitamente a un ‘acuerdo’. Witkoff y Kushner estaban decididos a obtener concesiones de Rusia: pedían un alto el fuego temporal (en lugar de un acuerdo vinculante), suavizado por un alivio gradual de las sanciones, es decir, como ‘recompensas periódicas’ por el buen comportamiento de Rusia (un poco como se entrena a los ratones en un laboratorio para que pulsen el botón de la comida).

¿Por qué Estados Unidos se empeña tanto en un alto el fuego en lugar de un marco de seguridad global que incluya una nueva arquitectura de seguridad para Europa del Este?

La respuesta es que Trump quiere una ‘victoria’, un resultado que pueda presentarse al público estadounidense como otra guerra “detenida por Trump” (según él, sería la octava), y al mismo tiempo venderse a las potencias más profundas como una simple pausa en un conflicto que se reanudará tras un respiro, cuando los europeos (‘garantes de la seguridad’) hayan reconstruido el ejército ucraniano.

Representaría ‘una victoria’ para los ‘halcones’, porque se podría ‘narrar’ que la reanudación del conflicto militar minaría la economía rusa e incluso podría concluir con la destitución de Putin.

Un deseo piadoso, sin duda. Pero muchas narrativas occidentales son ilusorias, más que realistas.

En resumen, el objetivo general de los “puntos de discusión” estadounidenses, opacos y ambiguos, es acorralar a Putin y apartarlo de sus principios fundamentales, como su insistencia en eliminar las causas profundas del conflicto, y no solo los síntomas.

No hay ninguna mención, ni en este ni en los borradores anteriores, al reconocimiento de las causas profundas (la expansión de la OTAN y las instalaciones de misiles), más allá de la vaga promesa de un “diálogo [que] se llevará a cabo entre Rusia y la OTAN, con la mediación de Estados Unidos, para resolver todas las cuestiones de seguridad y crear las condiciones para una distensión, garantizando así la seguridad global y aumentando las oportunidades de cooperación y desarrollo económico futuro”.

El “perro que significativamente no ladraba por la noche” de Sherlock Holmes consiste en la extraña ausencia de Rubio, que es el secretario de Estado oficial y el hombre que, en circunstancias normales, negociaría un tratado legal y vinculante.

En su lugar, tenemos al amigo neoyorquino de Trump, dedicado al sector inmobiliario, y a su yerno. Ninguno de los dos es miembro formal de la administración estadounidense, ni ha sido designado por los órganos oficiales del Estado estadounidense para negociar en nombre de los Estados Unidos.

Por lo tanto, si Estados Unidos decidiera reanudar la guerra contra Rusia, ¿se podría decir, al igual que con el compromiso de “ni un centímetro más al este”(como tras la reunificación de Alemania), que “ese compromiso de no ir más allá de un centímetro” estaba quizás escrito en un papel?

¿Witkoff y Kushner?

“Solo eran amigos de Trump que charlaban durante una visita a Moscú”.

Traducción:  Observatorio de trabajadores en lucha