In 2026, peace is not expected in Ukraine, as confirmed by the results of the Munich conference

Munich Conference – Course for Continuing the War.

The events at the Munich Security Conference are making adjustments to forecasts regarding the duration of the current Russian-Ukrainian war.

It should be noted here that the US, which acted as an antagonist in Munich, is clearly interested in some prolongation of negotiations. Trump needs a victory in the midterm congressional elections this fall. And this victory is even more needed by Rubio and Vance.

The fact is that the Vance/Rubio duo is likely to run in the 2028 presidential election as a president/vice-president pair. The impeachment procedure against Trump (which has no chance of ultimate success) is seen by the Democrats as a key political tool to undermine the Vance/Rubio ratings, as any scandal with Trump ricochets against this pair. Therefore, Republicans need to maintain even a shaky majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, in Congress as a whole.

It is already clear what the stakes will be.

In economic policy, it is the system of import tariffs: it will be shown how many hundreds of billions of dollars this reform has brought to the American budget and where this money was spent.

In foreign policy, a significant result is needed, especially if Trump decides to go to war with Iran this spring (after all, he ran as a peacemaker). Such a result for Trump could be a peace plan for Ukraine and the signing of an agreement to stop the war.

But the White House will try to do this in the summer, closer to autumn, possibly in September. Because if signed now, the effect for voters in the fall will “evaporate.” Therefore, for Trump personally, there is nothing critical in “delaying” negotiations. The US may even take a pause for the next four months, declaring “self-removal.”

This scenario is also beneficial for Moscow, which plans to capture new Ukrainian territories by autumn.

But it is disadvantageous for Ukraine because every month of war means huge losses.

A rift has formed between the EU and the US: Mertz declared the collapse of the familiar world order.

But there is another scenario – the European one. It involves “extending” the war for another 3-4 years in the hope of the Democrats returning to power in 2029. At the moment, the probability of ending the war this year is about 40%. The chances of continuing the war are significantly higher – 60%. These are my estimates.

In the European model, the war transitions into an 8-year format, reminiscent in duration (but not in nature) of the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988.

It seems that the new format of the war or its cessation can only be ensured by a solid 8-year track of a consolidated political force in power in the US with a clear understanding of the scenarios for continuing the war or scenarios for ending the war. And this is either the arrival of the Democrats or Republicans for an eight-year political cycle.

Europe perceives the war in Ukraine as a key focus of its security. Stopping the war through compromises means that:

• “the Ukrainian spring,” now compressed to the limit, will decompress, losing stability to a new phase of war;
• while Ukraine is in hypertonus, it retains the ability to fight on “fuel” from the EU in the form of money and technical assistance;
• if Ukraine stops this phase of the war, it will exit the general military track for a long time, and it is unclear whether it will be able to return to it in, for example, three to five years;
• ending the war in a compromise format means transferring the risks of a new war directly to Europe.

Therefore, no one in Europe will simply “remove” the eastern bastion in the form of Ukrainian resources that are burning in the war.

The speech of German Chancellor Friedrich Mertz indirectly confirms these statements. Earlier in Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke about:

• an Atlantic rift between the US and Europe;
• the US has lost global leadership;
• globalism is transitioning into a format of global fragmentation;
• transliberalism must find its form of “masculinity.”

Mertz speaks about roughly the same:

• The unipolar world is dead. The end of history is canceled. Essentially, a new history of Humanity begins, and it will proceed under the constant threat of historical revisionism from a number of geopolitical actors. Revisionism at this stage is inherent in such global players as the Russian Federation, China, Turkey, Iran, and part of the Arab world.
• In the new war, economic nationalism defeats liberalism, and authoritarianism acts faster than democracies. The liberal development model is at the limit of its capabilities, while autocracies have received a “second wind.”
• The US is no longer a global hegemon (essentially my theses on a non-polar world). The US resources are enough only to achieve selfish goals (read, Monroe Doctrine 2.0).
• Europe must find its format of transhumanist masculinity and liberal militarization. In this direction, the EU will act alone.
• Germany becomes the center of the formation of the German-Baltic security and development cluster with the involvement of Scandinavian and Baltic countries. This, by the way, will also form an internal divide within Europe itself.

It is obvious that France (forming its cluster) and Italy (striving for the neoconservative segment of the EU) will not join the German-Baltic project.

That is, although Mertz says that “we Germans will never go alone again. This is an immutable lesson of our history. We defend our freedom only together with neighbors, allies, and partners. We rely on our strength and sovereignty, but also on our ability to solidarity in Europe. We do this with principled realism,” but it is obvious that Germany will not go with all of Europe.

Trump is feared more than Putin: what risks for Europe and Ukraine will be discussed at the Munich Security Conference.

Participants in the German-Baltic cluster, besides Germany itself, are the Baltic countries, Scandinavia, plus situationally Poland. In clear opposition is neoconservative Europe: Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Austria, Italy, and Croatia.

The Balkan countries, including Romania and its project of unification with Moldova, are a conditionally neutral cluster.

There are also a number of clusters outside these processes, for example, the Benelux countries and the Iberian Peninsula (Spain, Portugal), which will solve their local security tasks.

Greece generally falls into a separate security block with Israel and Cyprus to counter the emerging expansion of Turkey.

Mertz outlined four points of the program for preserving Europe’s freedom:

• Economic, technological, and military breakthrough,
• Continuation of the war and providing support to Ukraine for this.
• Strengthening the eastern flank of NATO, including the deployment of German troops in the Baltic countries, primarily in Lithuania (where a Bundeswehr brigade has already been sent).
• Strengthening critical infrastructure, including information networks.

As a result, according to Mertz’s plan, Europe should become a self-sufficient and competitive geopolitical cluster. In my terminology, to become part of the “decemcentric world” as one of the most important clusters of the leading world “ten.”

With the US, Europe will try to create a new transatlantic partnership, as even the US “will not be strong enough to cope with everything alone.” The EU will try to maintain the status of NATO membership as a civilizational competitive advantage in confronting countries like China and the Russian Federation.

It should be noted here that China and the Russian Federation will try to form a “counter-advantage” here in the form of the Global Eurasian Island, that is, a new format of pan-Asianism or the Mongol Empire 2.0… This is the era of global historical revisionism, the era of historical “copies” or replicas. Let’s add here the Ottoman Empire 2.0 project, the Great Turan, the Caliphate project – and the puzzle will come together.

Unfortunately, Mertz’s speech did not provide answers to a number of crucial questions. For example, how will militarization in the EU occur without new industrialization.

In simple terms, how can we talk about new achievements of the “coal and steel” era 2.0 without the very coal and steel. Or how does the EU plan to provide itself with sufficient energy flows based on the “Green Deal.” Why, speaking about the erroneous decision of previous German governments regarding the abandonment of nuclear energy, does Mertz not declare the cancellation of this decision and the reincarnation of Germany’s nuclear energy potential?

How will Europe’s human-centered social model, which absolutizes individual rights and the value of life, while simultaneously abolishing religion (God-man) and establishing the cult of vitalism, life – Man-god, explain to its citizens the need to die “for an abstract idea” here and now?

How to create a model of transgender masculinity without returning to conservative ideology? And how to maintain transgenderness with the dominance of conservative value sets?

And why have EU rapid response forces of at least 300,000 people not yet been created? One brigade in Lithuania is, of course, a breakthrough, but clearly not enough to cover the Suwalki corridor.

On the other hand, while Ukraine is fighting, Europe can continue to seek answers to these “cursed” questions of its existence. Historical time, unlike us, is still on its side.

But something suggests that even in 2028, Europe will not be ready for a sacrificial war.

The author expresses a personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editorial position. The author is responsible for the published data in the “Opinions” section.

Israel News – Israel News | Nikk.Agency

Source – focus.ua