It is a strange feeling, agreeing with one's past self but being wiser. Hindsight is a strange tool. It allows us to trick ourselves into believing we were always correct or always wrong. In a post made three years ago I was convinced of Russia's ultimate victory in the Russo-Ukrainian war, with its simultaneous loss of face. I maintain this view today, but at a far more nuanced level. 

Sensible future historians of this war will likely start to set the stage for their readers with Joe Biden's haphazard withdrawal from Afghanistan. I do not wish to criticise how the evacuation was conducted, nor will I dwell on the rumours that the US army (and other branches) left behind a whole lot of equipment to destabilise the region. I personally find that unconvincing. I would probably not have done a better job in withdrawing from Afghanistan, perhaps I would have done something differently, but the ultimate outcome would be the same: the "international community", a.k.a world players, would perceive the US as weak, or, more precisely and avoiding evocative terms, unwilling to engage in prolonged land conflicts, opting instead to influence the world "from over the horizon". Russia took note, issuing an absurd ultimatum, demanding the withdrawal of NATO troops east of the Vistula, and proceeded to invade Ukraine, under the flimsy pretence of defending separatist self-proclaimed republics of Donbas and Lugansk. We all know this. Russia has led a wasteful war. After three years it is clear it still holds the same upper hand it had three years ago, the edge in manpower and materiel, but has not been able to break Ukrainian resistance. Russia's bluff of using nukes should "Russia's territory come under threat" has also been called and revealed to be fake - there was no such response when the Ukrainian army managed to advance somewhat into unambiguously Russian territory. Three years ago I was certain of an ultimate Russian victory, but at present it seems as if in the field the war is far from decided militarily. On the other hand, Russia has recently become somewhat less reviled in the so-called West when Donald Trump's second administration decided to end the war - and has made clear signs of willingness to talk and arrive at a compromise with the Kremlin. It turns out wars do not end with a few phone calls - and Trump found out that US influence, while huge, is no longer boundless and cannot be applied evenly wherever the president chooses.

Why should Zelensky or his handlers (he is, after all, an actor promoted to become president by Ihor Kolomoyskyi) tell the 116 Ukrainian divisions standing in the field to stand down just because a president of a foreign country put ending the war down as a campaign promise? What can Donald Trump offer Zelensky, besides cutting off aid? On that latter point one must remark that handing over approximately what 1/3 of a million of American citizens will pay in tax over the course of their lives is actually a pretty good deal for the USA, since the alternative to that is having hundreds of thousands of Americans dying in a war to keep the dollar the global currency. In other words, we are in WWIII, a war which will decide what the new world will look like. War always defines the peace that comes after more than peace defines the war that breaks it. Perhaps a better term would be to say we are in WWIV, since the Cold War was certainly a global war. This war is about who, if anyone, will replace the global policeman and keep trade free - at a price. Currently the USA is subsidised by the whole world. It costs the US 11 cents to acquire 100 dollars. It costs the world 100 dollars in goods and services to acquire 100 dollars. The USA set up a world in which everyone could trade with everyone else and the US was the main, but not the only benefactor of this. Currently, it is not the main benefactor of this post WWII order, modified by their success in WWIII, China is. Trumps current policy of shaking down "allies" (read: vassals) in Europe is the action of a policeman-turned-rogue. The rules of the game are unfavourable to the USA and it seeks to change them, while still maintaining the benefits of being the global hegemon, such as deciding what the borders of Europe are and being able to use its resources or not have its huge technology giants taxed in Europe. To have such preferential treatment one has to pay up. The USA no longer wants to pay with blood, few ever do. But now it has decided the blood of Ukrainians dying for their interests is too expensive. Withdrawing support can only end in two outcomes: either someone else buys their blood and a stake in their country or they collapse and are taken over by Russia. In both cases the USA will have no say in what happens in Ukraine. The Baltics might well be next, then Poland, then Europe will broker a deal with Russia and what then? Why would anyone give Americans preferential treatment when they were unable to secure their own zone of interests? The USA is out of carrots for its vassals and can only threaten with the ominous the stick of regime change. Trump did this on Truth Social with his jab at Zelensky as being a dictator and his right hand man Vance did this in Munich, denouncing current European elites and giving a not-so-subtle endorsement of the AfD in Germany, later enthusiastically promoted by another member of Trump's court, Elon Musk. Ugly times are ahead of us, and by ugly I mean inelegantly violent.