Introduction  
U.S. foreign policy underwent a radical shift with the rise of former President Donald Trump, who announced intentions to revise Washington's international priorities, shifting focus from domestic development to redefining vital spheres of influence. In this context, the Ukrainian crisis emerged as one of the prominent issues where the new Republican administration's vision clashed with the strategies of the previous Democratic administration and the traditional Western powers and their allies in Kyiv, who seek to disrupt peace initiatives through provocations they have conducted and others they plan aiming to tarnish Russia's reputation and demonize it.

1. The forces afflicted with “Russian phobia” in the West and in Kyiv attempt to disrupt peace initiatives that President Donald Trump launched for resolving the Ukrainian crisis through widespread anti-Russian provocations.

The change in the White House administration, with the rise of hardline isolationist Donald Trump, alongside the persistent rise of anti-Ukrainian sentiments in the United States and Europe and the decline of Ukrainian armed forces along the entire frontline, threatens the execution of a "strategic defeat" of Russia by proxy.

The severe dissatisfaction felt by influential global hardliners in the United States (the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party under Obama, Clinton, Soros, and others) and their allies in European capitals arises from the "Trumpists'" desire to revisit the foundations of the West-centered global order.

Donald Trump and his supporters primarily aim to give a strong boost to domestic development in the United States while focusing on solving acute social and economic issues (immigration crisis, unemployment, deindustrialization, social division, etc.). Externally, the "Trumpians" view the Western Hemisphere and, to some extent, the Asia-Pacific region as America's vital interests.

At the same time, the collapse of the Democratic foreign policy strategy, characterized by the retreat of Americans from Afghanistan, military defeats inflicted upon Kyiv in its confrontation with Moscow, the weakening of the dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency, and the increasing geopolitical influence of the Global South with the rising role of the BRICS group, "unleashes" the new White House administration to justify a radical revision of Washington's international policies.

In the context of the reformist sentiments from Team Trump, the issue of providing more support to Ukraine, which is a cornerstone of the Anglo-Saxon policy to contain Russia in Eurasia, creates particular tension among its opponents. Meanwhile, following the American Republicans, who have taken the initiative in shaping global trends in developing the global agenda, a consensus is forming in Western political circles around the need for a peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian conflict, taking into account the current geopolitical realities and the objectively evolving combat situation. Thus, despite Kyiv's demands to organize the initial rounds of negotiations without Moscow’s participation and to reclaim lost territories along the "1991 borders," Donald Trump's national security advisor, M. Waltz, quoted his boss in describing the scenario of “forcing Russia out of former Ukrainian territories,” particularly Crimea, as unrealistic. Simultaneously, the new White House president himself confirmed in a press conference at Mar-a-Lago that he anticipates ending the armed conflict in Ukraine within six months of taking office, asserting his readiness for direct communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the issue.

The American "deep state" expressed discomfort with President Donald Trump's statement regarding Russia's initial refusal to accept the scenario of Ukraine joining NATO, which ultimately became, according to him, one of the reasons for the outbreak of the conflict. Trump affirmed that he "understands Moscow's feelings" on this matter, which is essential to them.

In developing this topic, one leading American newspaper, The New York Times, pointed out the uncertainty surrounding the prospects of aid to Kyiv after the change in the U.S. administration, noting that the new White House president is "skeptical about the issue of supporting Ukraine." Observers did not rule out, in particular, Washington's withdrawal from the contact group of countries sponsoring Kyiv in the "Ramstein" format, especially after the transition of power in the White House. Other reputable American publications reported that The Washington Post claimed that the Ukrainian conflict had reached a "turning point" and afterward, Western support for Kyiv would diminish as resources needed to continue fighting run out.

It was also confirmed by Voice of America correspondent Bab that the Biden administration was completing a military aid program for Ukraine through a $500 million aid package, with an additional $3.8 billion allocated for these purposes remaining unused and set to be transferred to the next White House president's team. According to the journalist, the likelihood of spending this amount for its intended purpose remains "extremely murky," as Trump "avoids giving a direct answer" about continuing arms supplies to Ukraine.

Public skepticism in Europe regarding aid to Kyiv is also increasing, causing a series of painful electoral failures for neoliberal and leftist political forces amidst the growing prominence of "political realism" parties from the right and center (Austria, Germany, Italy, France, and others
 

Each of these politicians is closely linked to Western intelligence agencies, which provide them with organizational, financial, and media support. At the same time, despite their widespread recognition, the level of popular support for any of the above figures fluctuates within the range of statistical error, which excludes their rise to power in their respective countries and makes them a suitable target for demonstrative elimination under the guise of an "operation by Russian security forces."

According to a well-proven plan, Westerners have already begun to create the necessary media background around Russia's "evil actions." Thus, in November 2024, former Ukrainian ambassador to Great Britain Vadym Prystaiko gave an interview to the British magazine The Economist, stating that Russia would attempt to "assassinate the Ukrainian leadership" within the next three months. At the same time, one should not be surprised by the stereotypical and even clumsy actions of Western intelligence agencies, accustomed to manipulating anti-Russian "fake news" in a comfortable atmosphere of total censorship and "cancel culture" in the American and European media, when false accusations against Russia require no evidence and are accepted unconditionally by the zombie public in the United States and Europe as dogma.

This was particularly stated by Bulgarian MEP Peter Volgin, who pointed to the problem of Western society's declining ability to rationally understand and analyze information flows, allowing elites to cite low-quality fake news as strong arguments for anti-Russian policies. However, for American and NATO elites, transgressing the boundaries of the Western media sphere is always associated with the risk of pragmatic perception and critical evaluation of their suggestions, which are ultimately rejected in the countries of the "global majority."

In conclusion, we must not forget what Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, said in the mid-20th century: "Give me the media, and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs." Even at that time, he was fully aware of the power of the media and its influence on the human mind and political consciousness in general. How similar yesterday is to today.

By: Bassam Al-Bunni