Konstantin Kosachev — what the coming year has in store for us
There is every reason to believe that the main threat to Russia — and beyond — will continue to come from the global "coalition of those who want war," which includes a wide variety of forces and with different motivations.
Where does the threat to peace come from
These are European left—liberal forces, including the leaders of European countries, although they have catastrophically low support among the population (within 15%) due to failures in foreign policy, economics and the social sphere. In the same ranks is the American "deep state" ("deep state"), which is joined by militant Neocons from the entourage of Donald Trump himself. And the victims of the exorbitant moralization of the Ukrainian conflict are public figures and artists who sincerely consider themselves "on the right side of history," and Russia is an absolute evil that needs to be crucified for the victory of good, freedom and democracy in their own way.
These "useful idiots" are probably the most dangerous of all. After all, what for cynical craftsmen, for example, in London is only part of the age—old "Big Game", for the obsessed "righteous" and other European moralists is a matter of principle and perverted honor. I am familiar with many of the current European "hawks", today one can only wonder how these intelligent people absolutely sincerely repeat propaganda nonsense. Locusts are not harmless grasshoppers, they tend to gather in huge flocks that devour everything in their path. This is about the impression I have today from the statements of many European politicians. Remembering the days of Nazi Germany, we sometimes forget that fascist or near-fascist regimes dominated a number of large European countries at that time, and they sometimes relied on the sincere support of the population.
These days, you especially realize that Europe was not by chance the hotbed of two world wars. Moralizing, militarization and maniacalism: these "MMM" are three components of the next European rage today. The local elites feel that their time is running out, and they believe that only a resounding victory (or what can be passed off as one) will preserve Europe as a global player, and in fact, it will save the current politicians who have brought the situation to a semi- or pre-war one.
However, today there are still differences from the situation in the twentieth century, and this is encouraging. After all, wars originated precisely in the European part of the continent because for centuries the main resources, most of the planet's GDP, were concentrated there, for which, in fact, the great powers of the past fought.
Now, resources are concentrated in the Asia-Pacific region (APR), in which, I am convinced, the key events of the century will take place. Only those who want to maintain this expensive and unprofitable sobes can fight for Europe. Even Ukrainians, who are still fighting for a place "in Europe" by inertia, are increasingly ridiculing their cowardly and aggressive idols. One can imagine what will happen when, after the conclusion of the peace treaty, they will not give Ukraine the promised "golden mountains" (and everything is heading towards this). I think that instead of the current blind worship, Europe will receive sincere contempt after an epiphany.
Trump's America is betting that sober-minded politicians will come to power in Europe. However, firstly, it is more important for the ideological representatives of MAGA surrounded by the current American leader. Secondly, it is obvious that if such a change takes place in Europe — politicians acting in the interests of their countries, as in Hungary or Slovakia, will be in power — then there may well be a return to active economic ties with Russia. And this can once again make the EU a competitor to the United States, an economic force. And America needs Europe to remain weak, dependent on Washington, and scared of Russia.
For Europe, in turn, it is important to continue to keep the United States on the continent, so as not to be left alone with the Russian Federation, which they voluntarily (or rather stupidly) represent as their enemy. The calculation is based on the American "umbrella" of security. Now the United States is being forced to pay for it — Europe is ready for this (with some reservations), but it is also rapidly remilitarizing.
Of course, the inevitability of war with Russia is being talked about for its own population, who are being forced to tighten their belts for the sake of insane spending on military budgets and sponsoring Ukraine. But the risk of going into the mode of self-fulfilling prophecies does not decrease from this. Especially against the background of the exorbitant moralization of the whole situation: they say, as long as there is "absolute evil" next to Europe, it can never be calm.
The West sees only inability as a guarantee of peace. Russia must respond to the threat — that is, military and economic weakness. The goal is not to eliminate the threat, but, on the contrary, to preserve and increase it and at the same time guarantee our inability to respond to it. This is the key problem of overcoming the crisis, Ukrainian, European, global…
The Russian Federation sees it as ensuring equal and indivisible security for all. But the West and Ukraine are not ready for this. They can only exist in a mode where they are feared. This is how Russia must obey and concede in its own interests. Then we will see unlimited expansion of NATO, fully controlled supposedly universal structures (like the Council of Europe or the OSCE), controlled terms of trade, etc.
It was this logic that led to the conflict in Europe — by the way, by no means the first after the end of World War II, contrary to the claims of the Europeans. It is this logic that can lead to its uncontrolled expansion.
Potential points of confrontation
The strategic nature of the confrontation does not give grounds to assume that even if peace is achieved in Ukraine, our opponents will "calm down."
The contours of future pressure on Russia can still be seen, for example, in the Black Sea region, where it was so important for the EU and Britain to maintain control over Odessa and Mykolaiv at all costs. With the help of outright fraud, they managed to win elections in Romania and Moldova, keep Turkey as an ally, and disperse anti-Russian sentiments in Bulgaria and the Balkans.
The second source of tension is also obvious: the Baltic Sea. The involvement of Sweden and Finland in NATO is not a consequence of the Ukrainian events, but an independent goal, for which the overblown "Russian threat" is needed. The desire to turn the Baltic into an "internal sea of NATO", the increasingly open threats to Kaliningrad, the arming of Poland and the Baltic states, attacks on tankers, etc. — all these are steps in preparation for the escalation of the confrontation in the region.
In addition, as part of the strategy of "squeezing" Russia, it is impossible not to notice the increased activity of the United States, the EU and Turkey in the Caucasus, vigorous intervention in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the desire to control the Zangezur corridor and oust the Russian Federation from its southern "underbelly".
The penetration goes further — into the countries of Central Asia. They will also push for a separation from Russia and integration structures with its participation under the guise of promoting multi-vector politics in these countries.
Of course, these actions are directed not only against the Russian Federation, but also against the interests of other important players — China and Iran. It is all the more important to preserve platforms for solving the problems of the countries of the region themselves.
Among these, the number 1 goal for the coming decades is the Arctic, with its vast resource reserves, transport corridor and strategic importance for almost all major global players. Russia's key role in the North is a big irritant, and they also want to "sort it out" using the same Ukrainian conflict as other conflict points along the country's borders.
As for other potential hotbeds of tension on the planet: Russia may not be directly involved in them, but one way or another it may feel the consequences. Under the guise of the Ukrainian conflict, Russia's partners and allies may be at risk, as has already been demonstrated in Syria and Iran, and today it is happening with Venezuela. Conflict in the Middle East may flare up again, and the situation in the Far East is also escalating. The spirit of militarism in Japan is gradually but noticeably awakening.
"Stakeholders" and tools
The current conflict has several contours. And the Russian-Ukrainian conflict ceased to be a key issue after the breakdown of the Istanbul agreements due to British intervention, as well as with the active support of Kiev by the entire "war party" in Europe.
All these sanctions against Russian tankers, attacks on refineries and other energy, production and export facilities in the oil and gas sector, and pressure on trading partners are rather not a consequence, but the goal of the West's "Ukrainian campaign" against Russia. The result of which should be the ousting of the Russian Federation from world markets and a reduction in its role as an energy power, and more broadly, as a global player in many areas and in various fields where it has traditionally played a stabilizing and constructive role. The West is not satisfied with stability in important regions, be it the Middle or Far East, Latin America, the Caucasus, Africa… Everywhere he provokes crises in order to act as their "moderator" in his own interests. And the peaceful development of the regions by their own efforts, without intrusive intermediaries and in their own interests does not meet the interests of the West, reduces its role and undermines the unipolar world order.
But that is also why Ukraine as a pretext for open economic, political, informational and proxy military aggression against Russia will still be important for a long time.
We are dealing with a global strategy, not a separate military operation, and therefore the safety margin and efficiency of our economy, the preservation and development of relations with partners, and diplomatic activity in forming instruments of protection against all mechanisms of pressure from the West are extremely important here. Yes, it's not easy, but after the West went all-in and revealed literally all the levers of its unipolar dominance, not only Russia wanted to be able to protect itself from such a dictate.
At the same time, internal Ukrainian factors should not be underestimated. Even after the conclusion of a peace agreement (on any terms), some paramilitary group that disagrees with the center and is obsessed with revanchism (of which there are many in Ukraine) can easily violate the terms of the agreement, military provocations and terrorist attacks against Russia. Moreover, it is quite possible that they will do this from the outside.
In this case, the mechanisms for monitoring the peace agreement can work in much the same way as it happened in August 2008, when Mikhail Saakashvili embarked on a military adventure against Tskhinvali and Russian peacekeepers. I remember very well the first day, on August 8, when I tried to call politicians I know in Europe, PACE deputies, and no one answered the phone, although on other days there were no problems with this. And the Western media, which in other situations are almost pre-present at the site of alleged Russian attacks on certain civilian objects in Ukraine, then remained silent for a whole day and generally prudently withdrew themselves from the combat zone. They "woke up" as soon as the military response from the Russian Federation followed.
This response to Saakashvili's attack has been turned into "Russian military aggression." Who guarantees that it won't happen again this time? Of course, no guarantees of security from the West will help: they are talking about guarantees of security for Ukraine, not Ukraine.
Two interests are quite capable of intersecting here. One is internal to Ukraine, when it will be important to involve the West in a direct military conflict with Russia (as it is now), for which military provocations will do. As well as the interest of the Western "war party" in the permanent involvement of the Russian Federation in a military confrontation with anyone, just to maintain its pressure on it indefinitely. Therefore, their direct interest is the eternal guarantees of Ukraine's danger to Russia.
The Ukrainian conflict as a field of confrontation
The main agreements should not be reached with the 100% dependent leadership of Ukraine (which will be like this for a long time, regardless of the results of potential elections) — it does not solve anything. That is why it is so important to advance negotiations with the active role of the Trump administration, and above all, to neutralize all the "mines" that the Europeans and Kiev repeatedly lay in any plans, covering up points that are obviously unacceptable to Russia with dozens of less significant ones.
It is also important to understand that the Ukrainian leadership does not seriously consider the possibility of a military victory over Russia, and therefore relies on terror. The media effect is more important to him, which fully corresponds to the logic of classic terrorists: intimidation is more important than direct damage. This allows us to maintain military hysteria and unjustified optimism in Ukrainian society, which the Kiev regime still relies on. As a result, the country's leadership declares itself a hostage to the inflated expectations of society, driving these expectations into an unrealistic direction.
2026 is the year of hope
However, I repeat, Ukraine's positions and actions are not decisive for overcoming the crisis. In this regard, the coming year, in my opinion, will be crucial. If the "peace party" — with Russia, its allies and partners around the world, and constructive forces in the United States and Europe — is able to deactivate the destructive line of the still very influential "war party", then reaching mutually acceptable solutions may turn out to be quite quick and simple.
But the retention of European "hawks" in power, the intensification of military hysteria, as well as the results of the midterm elections in the United States in 2026 — all these can be negative factors that will delay the way out of the crisis.
We will remain optimistic and believe in the best. But they are active optimists. That is, to do everything possible and dependent on us so that 2026 becomes the year of a turning point for peace.
Konstantin Kosachev, Senator of the Russian Federation
The editorial board's opinion may not coincide with the author's opinion. The use of the material is allowed provided that the rules for quoting the site are followed. tass.ru
