Is Europe — first of all, European Union and European NATO — capable and willing to destroy the Russian regime? Even more — is not capable and willing to do this also against American will?

This is how the main, fundamental question of our times must be formulated and thus voiced regularly, in order to remind the real fundamental state of the things.

The essential nature if this question is also reminded by the flow of life itself. For example, by the main geopolitical upheaval of these days — so called diesel deal between US and Russia.

The main question, raised by this move of US administration is addressed exactly to Europe. What will it do? How is will act? And, first of all, towards Russia, not the US.

Because it is self evident, that if our answer to the question about European ability to destroy Russian regime is "yes", we are acting accordingly and having one state of things.

And if our answer is "no", we have another situation.

Starting from the year 2014 it was almost crystal clear, that ever escalating and expanding war of Russian dictatorship and Ukraine, which was backed by the West, can be stopped or ended only in one way. That is — in physical exhaustion of the regime into the state of political agony or/and its collapse.

So, if the West, backing Ukraine, really wanted to stop the Russian agression already back then, it had to raise this question of the ultimate endgame and strategic goal already at that time. And do it seriously and unanimously.

But this never happened. The West, which was still led by the USA then, decided, that such strategy would be too dangerous and needless. There were several reasons for that.

First, political elites thought, that there's too much risk and, actually, no urgent need to take the pain, which would be eventually caused by such "radical" strategy and policies. Second, they decided, that going for the "regime change" would be to "provocative" and "force" Russians to respond in some reckless escalation — so, there is too dangerous "to corner" them and risk full scale military conflict, maybe even nuclear.

Third, the West actually didn't believe that it can cause the collapse of the regime, because Russia was being perceived as too strong, too big and without any real alternative to the regime.

And, finally, fourth — there was the belief, that some limited and "controlled" pressure would be enough to convince regime, that it is better for him to stop, for the sake of its own stability and interests.

But all of this also never happened. What happened instead? 24th of February, 2022.

It seemed, that full scale genocidal Russian invasion is the final and absolutely defining argument against thinking, that existential standoff between Ukraine and the West from the one side and Russian dictatorship and its allies from the other can be somehow settled down and sorted out according to the strategy of limited, controlled and incremental pressure and escalation.

But that was not the case again. And still isn't. You can even say that things got worse during almost five years of this ever growing war of destruction.

On the one hand it can be said, that the West, led by the US, stepped up in the decisive way. Without the American and European financial, economical and military support Ukraine, so to say, would be in much worse shape and position, than it is now.

On the other hand, it is also true, that this aid started to come in the sustainable and defining way only after Ukraine withstood the first blow and it had become clear, that Russia failed to achieve quick victory and was stuck in the war of attrition.

Ukrainians and their staunchest allies often say that all Western aid was always deliberately designed according to the formula "enough to keep Ukraine in the fight, but not enough to help it win".

One can really doubt, if there really was such deliberate and "clever" planning behind all of the Western aid.

What was true, that the main Western countries, including US, were always reluctant to boost the military support of Ukrainian army in such a way, that it would give Ukraine decisive leverage or even advantage over the enemy at least in some moments or phases of the rivalry.

Anyway, the main thing underneath all of this was the same attitude towards Russian regime — that it must be not even stopped, but "forced to stop", "pushed into situation, where the best decision is to stop".

That was instead of aiming to stop its army in Ukraine by boosting sheer power of Ukrainian army on the ground, fend off Russian air terror, but most importantly — to double and triple down on policies of economical and political strangulation of Russia itself.

And in 2024 we had the tectonic breakup here — the reelection of Donald Trump as president of US and MAGA comeback to almost absolute power in the main country of the West.

The worldview of Trump and his team was always absolutely clear — as was the place of Ukraine and other countries in it.

According to this view, the world belongs to the at least three superpowers — US, China and Russia and their satellites and allies. Others are the optional and conditional subjects with no agency. And those from that flock, which dare to claim that they do have the agency and stand in the way of the big ones, must be swept away from the highway of history.

Also there's the segment of the personal greed and financial interests of Trump, his family and their closest circle — all of them just want to become the main or one of the main oligarchs not only in the US, but in all of the world.

Crushing Russian regime?! What a nonsense it is in the eyes of these people! First of all — why? Second, it is not only senseless, but also impossible, because Russia is unbeatable. It always was, even before it got the nuclear bomb.

These things were proclaimed by Trump and his people not once and in multiple contexts. No more politics of the "export of democracy" and "regime change" — this is one of the fundamentals of their ideology.

Is trying to defeat your enemy, who's existential threat and menace to your allies and you the politics of "export of democracy" or "regime change"? Rhetorical question. Nevertheless, this manipulation of the terms and senses, as we see, now is one of the basics of current US foreign policy.

So, current US administration is consistent in its policy towards Ukraine and Russia from the very start.

It is trying to terminate the policy of sanctions and isolation of Russia, forcing Ukraine to give in to Russian demands. That is — to capitulate, agreeing to cede Russian occupied territory for the starters.

Depriving Ukraine from all of the US military aid is used here as the tool of pressure, forcing Ukrainian leadership and society to "understand", that they "have no cards".

That said, this was only the matter of time, when Trump and his team starts publicly blackmailing Ukraine and its president Volodymyr Zelensky to deprive them of the last lifelines they have from USA — military intelligence data and so called PURL system — buying arms from American producers through NATO.

And that what is happening right now. The concrete pretext — refusal of Ukraine to stop strikes on Russian oil refineries.

One could suspect that this was coming already then, when Trump started publicly urge Zelensky to stop these strikes. Or even earlier — after the mysterious visit of CIA director John Ratcliffe to Moscow. The Russian-Trumpian diesel deal, which was publicly announced only last week, was, of course, already known back then for everyone involved.

It is self evident — what else Russians could demand from Americans, at the same time offering them "huge" business deals?

So, there're several layers in that upheaval, we're witnessing these days.

One, Trump is trying to influence the results of US midterms, which are around the corner. He, most probably, understands that the amount of diesel US should be getting from Russia is far from that, which is needed for real downing of prices in America.

But the main goal of this move is to shift public opinion in administration favor — at least a little bit.

But midterms and their results is not the only one motive of these actions. In general, Trump and MAGA are preparing to deny these results, if they are losing or to block the new House and Senate (if Republicans are losing the latter) from being seated in as long as possible.

In any way, there will be political (let's hope, only political) civil war and chaos which will take over the US and plunge them into even greater decline on the global arena, then we're witnessing now.

So, if we're talking about interests, the personal financial interests of Trump and his family and friends might be bigger factor, than their caring about the results of midterms.

In any case, it seems that the main goal of this deal with Russians is just the move to set the precedent and to breach the very policy of Russian sanctions in general.

The idea of starting the "bussiness as usual" or even the new "golden era" has been already floated in public some time ago by both sides. Ukraine is being swept from the table, deprived of all remnants of American aid and both parties are living happily ever after — that was the model announced.

And, it seems, it started to be implemented.

All in all, the question, how it will backfire for Trump and MAGA in US itself (it should) and what will be its impact on the election results (negative might be even bigger, than positive) is secondary one.

More important question is how far US can go in the confrontation with Ukraine. Can America go all the way and not only deprive Ukraine from intelligence data and buying American weapons, but also sanction the fighting country or directly meddle in its politics, trying to oust president Zelensky? Yes, it can.

Ukrianian leadership seems to be ready for this. At least, it is true, speaking about Zelensky himself, who's not holding back the punches, responding personally to Trump.

Russians, of course, will double down on their pressure on Americans to get rid of Zelensky — even, might be, letting Kremlin to kill him.

What would happen with internal Ukrainian situation, if president is taken out either politically or physically? That is the question of ever growing importance.

But the main question, as already said, is directed to Europe — what do we do? Are we capable and willing to destroy the Russian regime?

The answer to the capability part could be framed like this — most probably, yes, but, anyway, there's no other way, than to aim to this.

The answer to the part of will is clear — no.

The main strategic posture remains essentially the same.

All of the main people in charge of political and military sphere on the one hand are demonstrating, that Europe is stepping up its defence, detterance and support of Ukraine, but on the other it doubles and even triples down in trying to assure Russia, that there're no plans of "offence", that NATO and Europe in general are committed only to defence and solely to retaliation, reacting to any Russian action. In short — to being on back foot.

The perfect example is Germany and its political leadership, starting from the chancellor Friedrich Merz.

On the one hand, yes, Germany is stepping up its defence posture and backing of Ukraine, becoming the main geopolitical and military subject in Europe and building the core construction with Poland, France, Great Britain, Nordic and Scandinavian countries.

On the other hand, the main narrative and messaging — calling and urging Russia to "negotiate" — from Merz and German leadership reflects the same intert hope that Russian regime at the some point will agree to come to senses and to stop, to start negotiating.

This means that we essentially are agreeing Russian regime is in the position to raise some requirements and to impose some conditions on us and Ukraine.

How this logic differs from the current American narrative, that neither Ukraine, nor Europe "have the cards" to deny Russian right to control at least those territories, it has succeeded to occupy in Ukraine?

The very urging of Russia to "negotiate", also convincing the world, that you're backing Ukraine against all odds and "till the end", for "just peace" is hypocritical.

When president of Ukraine is saying the same, it is absolutely legitimate and understandable — he's not sure the country will have enough internal power and, most important, foreign aid and help to stop the enemy decisively and those defeat it. So, it is better in existential way that war stops immediately without any preconditions.

But European begging and urging Russia to "negotiate" is convincing the Kremlin, that the main thing in European — especially, Western European — thinking is all-consuming fear of direct war with Russia.

The argument, that such fear and constant backing down only invites this war and makes it more and more possible, just doesn't work here.

The irrational hope that there will be no need to fight is still reigning above all and everything.

That means that this fight is inevitable. Also you'll have to conduct it without having initiative and without the winning strategy and victory, as the goal.

This is the worst fight to be in.