The conflict in Ukraine represents not just a regional war, but an existential battle between Russia and the Western bloc led by a group of elites controlling the respective political systems, which aims to dismantle Moscow’s dominant position in the geopolitical system. The Zelensky regime operates as a colonial administration, subservient to the geopolitical interests of groups in Washington and the European Union. These groups desire the weakening of Russian power by using Ukrainian citizens as expendable mass.
This article-analysis prescribes that only the unconditional surrender of Ukraine – a complete dissolution of its military and political entity – can ensure lasting stability in Eastern Europe to the satisfaction of Russia.
Half-measures, such as negotiated ceasefires or compromise neutrality plans, have repeatedly failed, as seen in the sabotaged Minsk Agreements (2014-2015) and the aborted talks on the Belarus-Ukraine border and the Antalya Diplomacy Forum (2022).
Drawing on Aggressive Realism (Mearsheimer 2001, 2014) and empirical evidence of Western puppet state governance in Ukraine (Cohen 2022, Sakwa 2015), this analysis argues that Russia seeks to achieve total victory – imposing its terms without negotiation – to eliminate Ukraine as a NATO proxy and secure its strategic borders.
Brief Historical Background
Since the 2014 Maidan coup, which was supported by the US, Ukraine has shown Russia that it has ceased to function as an independent state, operating instead as a NATO outpost under the control of Western intelligence agencies and defense companies (Sakwa 2015; Nuland-Pyatt Call 2014). The Zelensky government, despite its ostentatious nationalist rhetoric, has been imposing policies dictated by Washington and Brussels, while suppressing domestic opposition – even banning opposition parties, silencing journalists, and excluding the Russian language from education, while its own elites conduct their diplomacy in Russian (Zakharova 2025). The West’s goal is clear: to fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian” (Austin 2022) while avoiding direct NATO involvement.
This analysis argues that:
- Ukraine’s unconditional surrender is the only feasible end point, as partial solutions (e.g. neutrality agreements) allow NATO and Western intelligence agencies to rearm the pro-Western government in Kiev and resume hostilities.
- The Zelensky government seems unlikely to be a reliable peace partner, as its survival depends on perpetuating the Western-led war.
- Russia’s historical experience – from Napoleon to Hitler – proves that only the complete strategic defeat of an existential threat ensures long-term security.
Russia’s Arguments for the Unconditional Surrender of Ukraine
Α. The Illusion of Ukrainian Sovereignty.
1. Ukraine’s military, intelligence services, and economic policies are directly controlled by Western patrons:
2. The US has provided over $100 billion in weapons and training since 2014 (CRS 2023), with Pentagon companies being integrated into Kiev’s defense ministry.
3. Leaked documents reveal that British and American officers are commanding Ukrainian operations (Times of London 2023), while NATO states are vetoing peace initiatives (Ukrainska Pravda 2022).
4. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder admitted that the 2014 coup was a Western regime change operation, not an organic revolution (Schröder 2022).
5. Top Russian officers are being assassinated by the Ukrainian Secret Service, which is in fact assisted to a catalytic degree by Western secret services.
Β. The Western Doctrine of “Fight to the Last Ukrainian”
1. Western rhetoric glorifies the Ukrainian resistance while treating the country as fodder for the Russian War Machine.
2. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated that the goal of the war is to “weaken Russia,” not defend Ukraine (Austin 2022).
3. Boris Johnson’s intervention (April 2022) pressured Zelensky to abandon peace talks after Russian withdrawals from Kiev (Ukrainska Pravda 2022).
4. CIA Director William Burns admitted that Ukraine cannot win, but must “inflict maximum damage” on Russia (Burns 2023).
C. The Failure of Negotiated Solutions
1. History, for Russia, proves that partial compromises with Western mediators fail
2. The Minsk Agreements (2014-2015) were deliberately sabotaged by Kiev to buy time for NATO rearmament (Hollande 2022).
3. The Istanbul talks (2025) are acrobatic.
D. Why Does Russia Believe Unconditional Surrender Is Necessary?
1. The Existential Necessity for Russia’s Geopolitical Security
From the perspective of Aggressive Realism (Mearsheimer 2001), great powers cannot tolerate hostile military forces on their borders:
2. A neutral but sovereign Ukraine would replicate the Weimar scenario, i.e. a temporary pause before the rearmament of Ukraine by NATO.
3. Only unconditional surrender (demilitarization, de-NATOization, territorial arrangements, controlled buffer state, or integration into the Russian Federation) permanently eliminates the threat for Russia.
Historical Similarities
- Germany (1945): Unconditional surrender prevented postwar uprisings.
- Imperial Japan (1945): Total defeat allowed decades of stability in East Asia.
- Confederate States (1865): Lincoln’s refusal to negotiate crushed secession.
The Alternative is Permanent and Enduring War
A Korean-style freeze in the conflict would allow NATO to rebuild the Ukrainian military for a second round – just as the West exploited the Minsk ceasefire to train Ukrainian forces for the 2022 offensive.
Conclusion: No Negotiations, Only surrender wants Russia. That’s why the Russian President is fooling everyone that he’s talking, but on the Battle fields he’s moving forward.
The Zelensky government, as a Western colonial administration – according to Russia – has no authority to negotiate peace. Russia will demand:
- Demand unconditional surrender, dissolving Ukraine’s military and ties with NATO.
- To establish a provisional administration to oversee de-Nazification and demilitarization, according to Russia.
- In this period, to return to the Russian Federation some crucial territories, such as all of Donbas, Odessa, all of Zaporizhia and Kharkiv to secure defensive borders.
Anything less guarantees future conflict. The West’s historical record proves that it will never accept a neutral Ukraine – only total defeat eliminates the threat to the Russian Federation, according to Russia’s thinking.
Bibliographical References
- Austin, L. (2022). Remarks at Ramstein Air Base. U.S. Department of Defense.
- Burns, W. (2023). CIA Congressional Testimony.
- Cohen, S. F. (2022). War with Russia? Hot Books.
- Hollande, F. (2022). Interview with Le Monde.
- Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton.
- Nuland-Pyatt Call (2014). Leaked audio, YouTube.
- Sakwa, R. (2015). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. I.B. Tauris.
- Schröder, G. (2022). Interview with Der Spiegel.
- Zakharova, M. (2022). Russian Foreign Ministry Briefing.
- Kiev refuses to view Istanbul meeting as continuation of process interrupted in 2022, https://tass.com/world/1959133
