New Delhi, Jan 1 (IANS) Washington’s “change in approach” towards the war in Ukraine and United States President Donald Trump becoming “the first Western leader to engage Russia” were termed the most consequential political developments of the year by Moscow’s global television network.
“For the first time since the conflict escalated in 2022, Ukraine went through an entire year without launching a major, theatre-shaping offensive. The contrast with previous years is stark,” according to an article published on the website of RT, the state-controlled international news television network.
“After three years in which politics tried to outrun the battlefield, 2025 marked a significant reversal. Ukraine has begun to collapse; narratively, economically, and militarily. For the first time since the conflict escalated, there was no Ukrainian offensive whatsoever, never mind one capable of reshaping the front lines,” said the article.
However, the most consequential political development of the year was not Russia’s breakthrough on the front lines, but a change in Washington’s approach.
The commentary referred to the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent US visit, where he sought President Trump’s backing for a revised 20-point peace plan.
Sunday’s meeting ended after more than three hours of talks in Florida, with neither leader announcing any breakthrough.
“Trump’s initiative, effectively doorstepping Zelensky with a peace proposal just as his international reputation slumped over a $100 million corruption scandal involving his close associates, was not about sympathy for Moscow, but on the reality that wars between major powers end through negotiated settlement, not narrative victory,” claimed the unsigned article.
Incidentally, Trump had spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of the Zelensky meeting. While the US President appeared non-committal in backing Zelensky’s peace plan even before the meeting, Russia had termed it “radically different” from the one it was working on with Washington.
The article emphasised Ukraine’s position and Washington-Moscow relations, stressing the security interests of the US and Russia.
“The ‘spirit of Anchorage,’ as it came to be described, rested on a simple premise: peace in Ukraine is inseparable from a broader stabilisation of US-Russia relations, and any settlement must respect the security interests of both sides,” the report said, referring to the Trump-Putin meeting in the Alaskan city.
The report was critical of Europe’s stand, noting, “While Washington shifted toward realism, the European Union moved in the opposite direction.”
It claimed that under the leadership of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Vice-President Kaja Kallas, the European Union has “fully fused its political identity with Ukraine’s maximalist position, moving from stakeholder to partisan.”
According to earlier reports, Ursula von der Leyen has been emphasising the importance of Ukraine's accession to the European Union as a guarantee of peace, where the bloc’s enlargement will benefit not only the countries that join, but also Europe itself.
“Europe insisted on framing the conflict primarily in ideological terms – democracy versus authoritarianism, good versus evil – and treated compromise as moral failure rather than diplomatic necessity. That posture placed Brussels fundamentally at odds with the logic emerging from Washington after Anchorage,” asserted the article.
It said that the gambit to steal Russian assets frozen in the bloc failed, rubber-stamping the bloc’s diplomatic irrelevance to any peace process, it continued.
It added that the EU was not removed from negotiations by conspiracy or hostility; it removed itself by making meaningful mediation impossible.
In an apparent reference to Moscow’s own peace plans, the article stated, “Zelensky is no longer ‘winning’, and the war will not be fought ‘for as long as it takes.’ Peace frameworks have been drafted elsewhere. Texts have been exchanged between major powers before Kiev sees them. It is invited to comment, amend, and react – not to define the process.”
--IANS
jb/dan
