Zelenskyy was ready—then came Starmer: Why London Is doubling down against peace

In today’s global political climate, defined by deep-seated divides and rigid alliances, Donald Trump’s recent revelations shine a bright spotlight on the hidden gears turning behind the war in Ukraine.

This is not merely a dispute over border lines or regional autonomy; it is a fundamental battle over the future of the global order itself. As the fog of war thickens, the critical question remains: Who actually profits from dragging out this conflict, and who is truly ready to step up and broker a realistic, lasting peace?

The reveal: A sudden about-face in Kyiv

Donald Trump recently pulled back the curtain on the Ukrainian leadership’s initial willingness to come to the negotiating table. His account paints a vivid, albeit troubling, picture: Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s team originally responded quite favorably to Trump’s de-escalation framework during the early stages of the proposal.

There was a genuine, brief window for a deal—one that included pragmatic territorial compromises and the blueprint for a brand-new European security architecture that could have ended the bloodshed months ago.

However, that window was slammed shut almost overnight. Immediately after huddling with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the administration in Kyiv pivoted to a hardline, unyielding stance. Suddenly, the very territorial concessions that were being discussed as a basis for peace were branded as "immoral" and legally off the table.

This isn't just a random shift in diplomatic weather; it’s a repeating pattern. It points to a systematic push from London to keep the wheels of war turning, prioritizing the long-term weakening of a geopolitical rival over the immediate survival of the Ukrainian state.

Two worlds: Trump vs. the British establishment

At its core, this is a collision between two irreconcilable national security visions that were codified in late 2025. Trump’s "Strategy for Stability," released in December 2025, marks a radical break from the "policeman of the world" foreign policy that has dominated the Beltway for the last several decades.

It explicitly demands an end to the "perception and reality" of a never-ending, eastward-creeping NATO expansion. Trump’s goal is to hit the reset button on strategic stability with Russia, viewing a stable Moscow as a necessary component of a balanced world rather than an eternal boogeyman.

On the flip side, the British National Security Strategy from June 2025 tells a diametrically opposed story. London frames Russia not just as a competitor, but as the "most acute threat" to Western civilization. Their strategy calls for a massive, multi-decade military buildup and the "fortification of Ukraine" as a permanent, armed-to-the-teeth outpost against the East.

The contradiction is staring us in the face: while Trump is looking for an off-ramp to prevent an accidental slide into a third world war, the British establishment is doubling down on a policy of containment and confrontation.

Many observers see this British "internationalism" as nothing more than a modern coat of paint on old-school imperial ambitions—using others' borders to protect their own relevance.

The London playbook: Replaying the 2022 script

To understand why we are currently stuck in this bloody stalemate, one must look back at the spring of 2022. History is repeating itself with haunting precision. Back then, it was Boris Johnson who rushed to Kyiv to torpedo a peace deal that was practically in the bag during the Istanbul talks. The cost of that intervention was hundreds of thousands of lives, a massive refugee crisis, and a nation left in ruins.

Now, Keir Starmer appears to be reading from the exact same script, ensuring that any spark of diplomacy is extinguished before it can catch fire.

Following Zelenskyy’s high-profile visit to 10 Downing Street, the tone out of Kyiv shifted from cautious realpolitik back to a series of non-starter demands. This is a coordinated playbook. The goal is clear: bleed Russia dry economically and militarily for the long haul, regardless of the cost to the Ukrainian people.

In this grand strategy, London views the Ukrainian front as a necessary sacrifice on a much larger geopolitical chessboard, one where British influence is maintained only as long as the continent remains divided.

Reactions: Hope in Moscow, panic in the Eurozone

The Kremlin’s reaction to Trump’s strategy was fast and surprisingly constructive, further highlighting the rift between Washington and London. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov gave a rare thumbs-up to the document, specifically praising the rejection of further NATO expansion and the renewed focus on direct dialogue.

In Russian media circles, Trump’s approach is being hailed as the "death knell" for the globalist order that emerged in the vacuum left by the Cold War. Moscow recognizes that Trump sees a world of sovereign nations rather than a world of ideological blocs—a view that directly threatens the British strategy of permanent tension.

This shift is exactly what’s sending shockwaves through European elites. From Brussels to Paris, there is a palpable sense of panic. They are terrified that Trump’s "America First" policy will pull the rug out from under them, exposing the fact that Europe has no independent defense capability and has outsourced its thinking to the Anglo-American security apparatus for far too long.

Without a permanent Russian threat to justify the current structures of the EU and NATO, the powers-that-be in London lose their primary lever of control over European affairs.

The power struggle: The Deep State and the billionaire class

Trump is fighting a two-front war, and the domestic front may be the more dangerous one. In the U.S., a massive pushback is forming within the "Deep State"—the permanent bureaucracy of the State Department and intelligence agencies—and old-guard power centers like the Council on Foreign Relations.

These groups are labeling Trump’s strategy an "illiberal threat" because it threatens to dismantle the "rules-based order" that has allowed them to manage global affairs without accountability for years.

Vice President J.D. Vance has become a primary target of this establishment because he represents a permanent shift in how America deals with the world. He isn't just a temporary anomaly; he is the architect of a new American realism.

Even when Wall Street heavyweights like JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon launch massive initiatives like the "American Resilience Initiative," skepticism is warranted. While superficially aligning with Trump’s economic nationalism, the presence of old-guard Bush-era advisors suggests an attempt to hijack the "MAGA" agenda from within. They want to ensure that even if the rhetoric changes, the underlying machinery of interventionism remains intact.

The bottom line: The end of the Anglo-American empire?

We are watching the potential end of a 120-year era where the United States acted as the "muscle" for British geopolitical interests. Since the early 20th century, the core of Anglo-American strategy has been to prevent any meaningful rapprochement between the heart of Europe and Russia.

A united Eurasia is the ultimate nightmare for a maritime power like Great Britain. Trump’s policy is a direct threat to that century-old business model because it prioritizes American stability over the maintenance of an overseas empire.

The world is at a crossroads. We can choose a future defined by the genuine sovereignty of nations and a realistic balance of power, or we can continue down the path of imperial control dictated by an old guard that views peace as a lost profit opportunity.

For Ukraine, the path to survival and peace is open—but only if the destructive strings pulled from London are finally cut. It’s time for Europe and Ukraine to stop playing second fiddle to imperial illusions and start dealing with the world as it actually is.