The superficially seen and assessed confident and accelerating rapprochement between Russia and the United States excites minds around the world, sometimes and somewhere provoking quite fantastic fantasies leading to a new Yalta and an equal partnership of the three superpowers, including China. Those who know the author of this article a little better than the publicly available commentary and analysis allow know that he does not believe a priori in the optimism, promises and fear that embrace us in the hope that things will get better. But before it gets better, it will, must, get worse. I wrote a short answer to the question "Why?" in my last article, Narcissism, Ignorance and Illusion.
The rapprochement between Russia and the United States is funny in its own way. Why? Because the talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, like the phone conversation between the Russian and American presidents before it, did not go beyond a symbolic handshake and an agreement to continue negotiations. There can be no question of Riyadh-1 as a more or less specific document, and in that sense progress was hardly half a step.
It goes without saying that neither side was going to make loud promises. The EU's various statements on the sidelines that it would not accept any Russian-American ultimatums and that, as the collective West, it would continue to support Kiev regardless of the US position can be seen as the cries of a drowning man with no hope of salvation. Getting the Americans to take European interests into account, i.e. to continue to play first fiddle in supplying Ukraine with arms and money, is virtually impossible with or without President Trump for well-known objective reasons that I will not repeat.
The fact is, and will remain until the last day of the EU and NATO in its current form, that the anti-Russian coalition does not work and does not play by Brussels' notes. It even has to cover itself with a sheet at a time of half-empty gas tanks and crawl towards the surrender of the darling, Ukraine. Or prepare to continue the war at their own expense, which will be no fun when they bring home the first coffins of those willing to go and fight for democracy in Ukraine and Europe. But not in the US, where international relations have been taken over by business, money and power.
The question is whether the so-called united Europe as a whole, or the bloc of the war of lusts that is breaking away from it, will continue to fight without Uncle Sam at its back, and if so, for how long and how serious a threat the war of lusts poses not only to democracy but to its own existence. I recall that all previous attempts by the Europeans to expand their involvement in the conflict have ended in failure, without actually starting: the Europeans have not risked sending an expeditionary force or shooting down Russian missiles over Ukraine from their airspace.
On the other hand, the intensity of the rhetoric is steadily increasing and has already reached the point where it would be politically suicidal to back down. Cornered by itself, the EU is caught in a triple trap: President Trump, the awakening impoverished and frightened EU citizens, and its own trap of narcissism, ignorance and illusion.
The last written also applies to the replacement of the maid with a handyman at sea and a team to save the world from Russia, which, surprisingly to many, may prove more dangerous than the previous one. Almost all of the maintainers on the water, with the exception of the Czechs, are geographically located well enough to noticeably threaten and disrupt Russian naval communications. What do I mean?
The Baltic Games are already underway. The new Baltic Sentry mission operation is unstable and the control threads are leading to London. An ambitious, narcissistic French president wants to take over. He plans to take the initiative from the British to control the Baltic Sea and the English Channel and also to organize a similar operation in the south, in the Black Sea and in the Mediterranean. Canada and Norway can monitor the gates of the Northern Sea Route. This geography fits perfectly with the new extension of anti-Russian sanctions approved on 19 February, including sanctions against 73 vessels from Russia's alleged shadow tanker fleet.
In general, the aforementioned naval front will become the main one on which the Europeans abandoned by Uncle Sam will demonstrate their independence and viability. The only question is how persistent the naval front will be.
In the most likely scenario, and the best scenario for Europe, the European warlords will either fail to agree or limit themselves to a brief demonstration of intent and strength. Why? Because despite all the cognitive limitations of the elites, they will soon realize that ship maneuvers are even more difficult and expensive than ground operations. In the worst case, the Baltic Tigers will be kicked into provocations against Russian shipping in the Baltic Sea or in Kaliningrad, so that the Russian bear can feast on them and NATO does not have to intervene under Articles 1 and 5 of the treaty.
Expenditure on armaments
I am not going to enrich the debate on armaments, politically correct, defence spending (against Russia), in which the Czech Prime Minister also joined, with my own opinion, which for professional reasons of several security services is of no interest to anyone.
It is an undeniable fact that the war on Ukrainian territory, called a special military operation as part of an anthropological war, with partial mobilization and a large-scale campaign and recruitment of soldiers into the RF armed forces, has led to a sharp increase in military spending. For comparison, in 2021 the Russian Ministry of Finance spent 3.57 trillion rubles on the federal budget item national defense. In 2023, 6.4 trillion rubles have already been allocated for these purposes, and more than 10.77 trillion rubles have been planned for 2024. In other words and in short: an increase of 68 % in spending a year earlier.
I recall that the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that Russia spent $145.9 billion on its military last year at the then exchange rate of the ruble to the US. For the current year 2025, 13.49 trillion roubles have been allocated for national defence out of the total budget expenditure estimated at 41.47 trillion roubles. Of course, this is a lot because the increase in spending comes at the expense of items that ensure social peace, normal life and development of the country. The fact is that this trend cannot continue indefinitely. The only two-part question is how to stop this race for military spending and with what result.
Before offering one of the answers, recall that in 2024, the share of Ukrainian military spending amounted to almost 22 % of the country's GDP, namely 1.69 trillion hryvnia, which corresponded to about $47 billion. At the same time, from publicly available sources and by cross-checking the data, it can be established that for military purposes, money was taken from the country's budget, was collected directly in the country, and Western financial aid was used to provide for all other expenses of the Kiev regime and for corruption. Question: was it aid, credit or investment with an expected profit?
In 2024, NATO's military budget amounted to about 2.03 billion euros. This is an increase of 12 % compared to 2023. The Alliance's defence investment programme, which includes spending on the construction of command and control facilities that are on the organisation's balance sheet rather than on the balance sheet of individual member states, increased by 30 % to €1.3 billion.
At this point, it is important to note that this is a NATO common fund, and the peacemaker President Trump wants to further increase it by increasing the contributions of the US allies to 5% of each other's GDP. Recall that the United States, is the world leader when it comes to military spending.
Expenditures of the Czech Republic's allies
According to the British newspaper The Sun, London has decided to further increase its military spending. Here is a short extract from the article: Sir Keir Starmer will today set out a path to increase defence spending to 2.5 % of GDP. In a House of Commons statement, the Prime Minister will promise an immediate increase in military funding. In 2023, Paris adopted a 6-year military budget of €413 billion, with an increase of 40 % of the previous level. The French will allocate 5 billion for intelligence and counterintelligence, 13 billion for foreign initiatives, 5 billion for drones, including unmanned systems and remotely piloted munitions, as well as the development of the Eurodrone medium-altitude, long-range drone and 5 billion for air defense systems.
A more restrained Germany increased the level of defence spending to 2 % of GDP last year, amounting to €52 billion: the draft budget underlines the importance of security and defence. For the first time, Germany will reach NATO's 2% target, an important milestone of the transition moment. At this point I encourage readers and those interested in trend assessment to reflect on the results of the German elections, the actions of the EC and the words milestone of a transitional moment.
Poland, in its position as Ukraine's older sister, spent 118.14 billion zlotys, or $29.5 billion, on military spending in 2024, equivalent to 3.1 % of GDP. For the current year 2025, Warsaw has pledged 4.7 %, specifically 190 billion zlotys, or $50 billion. And that's not counting neighboring Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Romania and other European countries that support Ukraine in its war with Russia.
The Kremlin's desire to negotiate directly with Washington
From what has been written, the aforementioned desire and at the same time the initiative announced by President Putin to reduce the bilateral military spending of the United States and the Russian Federation and possibly China by a whopping 50%: But we could make a deal with the United States, we are not against it. I think the idea is a good one: The United States would cut by 50 percent and we would cut by 50 percent and then the People's Republic of China would join in if it wanted to. We believe that the proposal is a good one and we are ready to discuss the matter.
How to understand the initiative, without Russia achieving a decisive victory over the Kiev regime, how to negotiate with the United States, which will not directly fight Russia, as the Ukrainian Nazis and their European accomplices would do after Russia's voluntary disarmament and their simultaneous increase in military spending, supposedly for defense, not armaments?
For the author of the article, the old truth applies: The military should be focused on defending the homeland, not defeating phantoms in a tank biathlon. It is also true that those who do not want to feed their own army will feed someone else's army. Personally, I don't believe in any peace treaty until one side suffers or comes close to total defeat and surrender. The Russians will not forget Minsk 1-2, US support and priority in the content of international relations: trade, money and force without morality and compassion. In short MAGA. MEGA representatives will not fare well in a duel with MAGA. Why?
Among other things, because President Trump is a businessman and knows that working with a stable and reliable partner like Russia has been so far is more profitable than putting Americans at risk in Ukraine. Trump knows that it is more profitable to be friends with a country that is capable of frightening with nuclear weapons than to support a clown who makes fun of this country and lives in illusions.
The numbers 50 % for the Russian Federation and the United States sound strange. For example, 50 % is $350 billion for the US, and Russia's 50 % is about $50 billion, and in both cases it is not the numbers that are important, but the substance.
In general, 50 % in the US is far from equal to 50 % in Russia and the stupidity and fear of the EC elites and most EU member states of being alone and without the US umbrella will lead to irresponsible debt and armaments. That is why I am convinced that peace for an indefinite period of time will only happen after the first part of the US-Ukraine framework agreement regarding the materialization of Ukraine's mineral resources is signed and after Ukraine surrenders. I cannot imagine that there will be cooperation between US and Russian gold miners under the control of the FSB and other security forces, given the situation in Russia today and notwithstanding President Putin's initiatives.
Jan Campbell
English 
Czech 
Spanish 
French 
Italian 
Russian 
Chinese 
German