A full year after the meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska, which marked the high point of negotiations regarding the fate of the war in Ukraine, that attempted agreement between the two great powers who, through Ukraine, have been facing off in a conflict now dragging on for four and a half years, has given way to a continuation of hostilities.

Since the very early days of the war in Ukraine, there has been a succession of diplomatic meetings and negotiations aimed at finding a solution to the conflict.

Russia, having failed to bring about a change in Ukraine’s leadership, and to install a puppet government through its invasion of the country, immediately attempted the path of negotiation. First in Belarus and then in Turkey, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators had come very close to an agreement just two months into the war, but the process collapsed due to the opposition of Kiev’s true masters, primarily American imperialism, followed by the British, who sought to defeat Russia by sacrificing the Ukrainian pawn in a conflict designed to bring Russia to its knees, not only on the battlefield but, above all, economically, through a war waged via sanctions. The change of administration in Washington had initially led to a resumption of talks between the Americans and the Russians, culminating in the Anchorage meeting.

Yet, beyond any political will to reach some form of agreement, economic interests ultimately prevail, ranging from the need to recoup the billions already spent on the war to the prospect of a more favorable division of the spoils, and including the continuation of a war that is always a lucrative business for the bourgeoisie and a breath of fresh air for the rotten world of capital as a whole; for in the age of imperialism, war is fundamentally economic in nature, driven by the capitalist mode of production’s need to overcome its profound crisis of overproduction through the massive destruction of surplus commodities and proletarians.

Therefore, the tragedy unfolding on Ukrainian soil, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers slaughtered at the front, the suffering of the civilian population, and cities gutted, does not appear to be heading toward an end in the form of a cessation of hostilities, whether in the near future or otherwise. Indeed, the course taken by the imperialist struggle in Europe, barring profound economic upheavals capable of precipitating the collapse of the major powers involved in the Ukraine war (Russia on one side or Kyiv’s backers on the other), is leading to a direct conflict between the great imperialist powers in Europe. Once the Ukrainian cannon fodder runs out, there will be either surrender to Russia, though that is not an option for the voracious, bloodthirsty bourgeoisies of the so-called West, or an expansion of the war that tears the mask off Kyiv’s backers; having thus far waged war against Russia by flooding Ukraine with weapons and billions, they will inevitably find themselves forced to send their own soldiers to fight the Russian enemy.

Russia is winning on the battlefield

The fact that the war in Ukraine is increasingly turning in Moscow’s favor can be seen in at least three elements: the Russian advance in the Donbas and on other fronts, the blockade of Ukrainian ports, and the clash between the political and military leadership in Kyiv. Following the fall of the Konstantynovka stronghold into Russian hands, the Russian army is within sight of the fortress cities of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, the last two major urban centers in the Donbas still controlled by Ukraine; capturing them would mean achieving one of Russia’s primary objectives: the seizure of the entire Donbas region. Russian advances are also being reported in the Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk regions, while Ukrainians also fear that the Russians might open new fronts, such as the one in the Chernihiv-Kyiv area.

Regardless of the specific axes of the Russian advance, reports confirm a gradual Russian takeover of Ukrainian territory, particularly in the Donbas, which is heading toward the final battles for the major hubs of Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, as well as the difficulties facing the Ukrainian army, which continues to lose ground and suffer from an increasing shortage of manpower; indeed, Syrsky himself, recently removed from the top army command, had stated that defending the last two Ukrainian strongholds in the Donbas would require at least another 150,000 to 200,000 soldiers.

The situation in Ukraine deteriorated further in early July due to Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea and the Dnieper. Russian attacks have devastated the port of Odessa and other ports, effectively halting Ukraine’s port operations and leaving the country facing immense difficulties in exporting grain and other goods. Not only port infrastructure and silos but also several merchant vessels have been hit. Consequently, the devastation at the ports and the unwillingness of shipowners and insurers to risk operations in this environment have caused Ukrainian maritime trade to collapse. Alternatives for exporting Ukrainian goods, whether through Romania or by rail to the west, present logistical challenges but could also lead to serious tensions with neighbors due to competition from Ukrainian agricultural products.

The intensification of Russian attacks on Ukrainian ports is a severe blow to the Ukrainian economy, already battered after more than four years of war and heavily dependent on financial aid from its Western backers, and also marks an escalation of the conflict itself, representing Russia’s reaction to the lack of any prospect of an agreement and to Ukrainian strikes deep within Russian territory.

The systematic economic, infrastructural, and military destruction of Ukraine is triggering a backlash within the political and military leadership, driven by the need to find a scapegoat to shoulder the blame for the disaster and to prevent the population’s anger and suffering from turning against the Ukrainian bourgeoisie and its political rubber-stampers. Ukrainian Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov and Army Chief General Syrsky bore the brunt of the consequences. The two were portrayed by the bourgeois press as being in conflict with each other over how the war should be conducted. On the one hand, there was the „Soviet” vision of General Syrsky, linked to a way of fighting where different types of weapons, ammunition, logistics and above all soldiers predominate, so much so that the general is also known as „the butcher”, for his willingness to comply with the wishes of the political leaders, never willing to make the soldiers retreat even in desperate situations, causing a large number of losses; on the other, the more modern vision of Fedorov, who is credited with having developed the massive use of drones. Such reconstructions serve only to pull the wool over the eyes of a population ravaged by war. Figures like Fedorov serve a narrative in which fighting can take place without the need for a constant manhunt through the streets of Ukraine’s cities and villages to find men to throw into the meat grinder of war. But it is precisely a narrative: the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, bankrolled by Western bourgeoisies, needs hundreds of thousands of soldiers to continue playing its role as a combatant against Russia. Ultimately, Fedorov’s dismissal stems from his attempt to overhaul the Ministry of Defence’s procurement system, a point he himself made in an interview: “The reason has to do with procurement and tenders, and the fact that we began restructuring processes in this area; this caused significant dissatisfaction.” He added, “I never imagined that, at the Ministry of Defence, people could be appointed to head departments by private companies.”

War is excellent business for the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, and interference by political personnel is not tolerated!

Who calls the shots, who pays, who dies

Given the difficult economic and military situation it faces, the only thing enabling Ukraine to continue fighting against Russia is the support of Western imperialist powers. However, to continue the war, Ukraine needs to constantly address the shortage of equipment and manpower.

As for military supplies, it has no choice but to rely on financial support from allies in Europe and on the United States’ interest in profiting from defense contracts. This reliance on foreign support was starkly illustrated by the Patriot Missile affair, as the United States backed away from the idea of ​​licensing the production of these missiles directly in Ukraine (the recent Russian strike on a US-owned drone factory in Ukraine was, in all likelihood, a decisive factor in this shift in the American stance).

Instead, the shortage of men is met in the only possible way: through forced recruitment, or rather, the outright capture of men to be sent to the front. Ukraine’s alleged “resistance” exists only in the contortions of the worst kind of opportunism. The Ukrainian bourgeoisie has sold its country and its proletariat to the interests of Western bourgeoisies, turning the nation into a battleground against Russia and its people into cannon fodder.

Now, four and a half years into the war, it is not only the role of sacrificial victim played by Ukraine that is becoming increasingly clear, but also the relationship between the imperialist powers involved in the Eastern European conflict alongside Kyiv.

The start of the Trump presidency was marked by an attempt to move closer to Russia, a move intended to drive a wedge into the relationship between Russia and China, thereby seeking to undermine the advantageous ties China (the principal adversary of American imperialism) maintained with its Russian neighbor. The lack of progress in negotiations has pushed the United States toward the only viable path, namely, continuing the war against Russia via Ukraine, while introducing a substantial difference compared to the Biden administration: the fact that the costs of the war have been offloaded entirely onto the compliant Europeans.

European countries that were compelled by the US to use Ukraine as a pawn in the war against Russia, thereby forfeiting the benefits of Russian energy supplies and plunging their own economies into decline, now find themselves in a state of subordination to American imperialism, forced to serve US interests on that front through massive economic support, alongside the purchase of American weaponry and a reliance on the US for energy.

The NATO summit in Ankara, held on July 7 and 8, 2026, merely confirmed the current state of relations within the diverse anti-Russia front, refuting the accounts of certain “experts” regarding the demise of NATO. It is the nature of imperialist rivalry that pits even allies against one another in the division of the spoils, a process that occurs not only at the expense of enemy imperialist powers but also involves a struggle among colluding brigands to secure a larger share of the loot.

The Ankara summit first and foremost confirmed Russia as the Alliance’s adversary; the final declaration speaks of a “long-term threat” that must be countered.

It is precisely the abandonment of that attempt at rapprochement with Russia on the part of American imperialism. The price to be paid by European “allies” consists of increased financial and military commitments: “For 2026, the Allies pledge to provide Ukraine with 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training, and reaffirm their sovereign commitment to maintain at least equivalent levels in 2027,” according to the final declaration.

In this way, the Europeans’ acceptance of the burden of increased defense spending has eased the transatlantic tensions that preceded the summit, and the American threat to disengage from Europe has also receded. The United States has thus secured the continuation of the war against Russia, not only at virtually no cost, given that no American contribution is envisaged for the €70 billion package, but also by striking a lucrative deal for its defense industry, since a large portion of the €70 billion to be funded by European countries (and Canada) will be spent on purchasing weaponry manufactured by American companies. This marks a departure from the early years of the war, introduced by the Trump administration, which eliminated U.S. spending and shifted the costs of the conflict onto European nations. Furthermore, there remains another demand from the American master to be met: he wants the Europeans to also take on the goal of increasing defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035.

NATO remains standing, with all its internal divisions, but also with the explicit confirmation that the United States is the master of the Alliance. Internal tensions are the inevitable backlash resulting from American imperialism’s need to disengage from Europe, not in the sense of relinquishing its grip on the continent (maintained through the subjugation of weak and divided European nations), but rather by redirecting financial and military resources toward other fronts: the Middle East today, and East Asia tomorrow, where a decisive clash looms with China, American imperialism’s principal rival for global dominance. The decline of American imperialism, driven by the rise of new imperialist powers, China above all, no longer allows the US to play the role of global policeman it has held since its victory in World War II. The United States needs to redefine its global supremacy by shifting resources to those regions of the world, specifically Asia, where its dominance is being challenged by the growing expansionism of rising imperial powers; consequently, it must cut spending on Europe, forcing its European subordinates to shoulder the costs of confronting Russia while reducing them to mere purchasers of American weapons and energy.

Billions in European funds for the war

Having endured the war against Russia, which, as we established from the outset, was itself a war against Europe, European nations, economically weakened by high energy prices and drained by the costs of supporting Ukraine, have obstinately pursued this military campaign against Russia. For the European bourgeoisies, Russia’s defeat represents the only way out, offering a much-needed lifeline through the imperialist plunder of Russian resources and the carving up of Eastern Europe currently under Russian influence.

Defeating Russia is therefore the only way to emerge from the economic crisis, and given that Russia is winning the war on the battlefield, European support for Ukraine must be viewed within the perspective of a long-term war. So far, Russia has held firm; using Ukraine has failed to bring Russia to its knees, just as sanctions have, but the path is set: once Ukraine’s resources have been fully drained, it will fall to the Europeans to plunge directly into war against Russia. However, this perspective requires time for rearmament, and that time is bought by flooding Kyiv with billions and weapons, turning Ukrainians into cannon fodder. In essence, arming Ukraine today serves to rearm Europe for the war of tomorrow.

It is against this backdrop that the 70 billion in support for Ukraine, agreed upon at the NATO summit in Ankara, came into play. The European Union will provide approximately 30 billion euros as part of the so-called Ukraine Support Loan, a financial aid package for Ukraine allocated by the EU for the 2026–27 period, set to reach a total of 90 billion euros. Of this amount, 30 billion euros are earmarked for 2026 to fund Ukraine’s rearmament, thereby integrating these funds into the plan established at the Ankara summit. The remaining 40 billion will be funded by individual states, specifically, those countries in Central and Northern Europe that are providing the greatest support to Ukraine.

The halt in US financial flows to Ukraine in early 2025 has been almost entirely offset by increased contributions from the EU and individual European countries. According to data from the Kiel Institute, funding for Kyiv reached one of its peaks last June, the third-highest since the start of the conflict, at €7.2 billion; when added to the allocations from May, the total reaches nearly €11 billion. Data provided by the institute also reveal a trend of maintaining military aid at the previous year’s levels, while financial and humanitarian aid are declining, alongside a reliance on US arms supplies, with Europeans allocating at least €3 billion in military aid between January and June for weapons manufactured by American companies.

In essence, the withdrawal of US financial backing is not fully offset by increased contributions from Europeans; given this reduced availability of economic resources for Ukraine, priority tends to be given to military aid, with American weaponry forming the backbone of that support, at the expense of other Ukrainian budgetary needs and humanitarian supplies, confirming that the role assigned to Ukrainians is to fight and die against Russia in the interests of Western bourgeoisies.

Europe needs all these billions to buy the time required for its rearmament, a process that relies primarily on individual European countries.

German imperialism will come out on top, its economic power far surpassing that of the other European countries. This is not a matter of political choice, but an unavoidable course of action to halt the country’s deindustrialization; rearmament plans are serving to revitalize German industry, which had been stifled by the loss of access to low-cost Russian energy and had ceased to be competitive on the global market.

The costs of European rearmament are being shifted entirely onto the shoulders of the proletariat, which will pay the price through a deterioration in living and working conditions.

Faced with rearmament plans and the imperialist war, which is threatening to expand beyond Ukraine, the proletariat will be called upon to shed sweat and blood for the bourgeois fatherland.

Only if united in genuinely class-based organizations that reject any appeal to national sacrifice, and under the leadership of the Communist Party, will the proletariat be able to fulfill its historic task of seizing power and destroying the bourgeois rule that is preparing a new, gigantic massacre.