Build a physical border—widen rivers from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Sell resources to those who keep their word. Not one ruble for Europe’s rebuild, Tim Kirby writes.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

This is the type of question that in 2022 would have sounded insane both within Russia and even more so in the West. How could ‘Nigeria with snow’ possibly save the Europe that it supposedly ‘attacked’ spontaneously? But now we are at a certain nexus of events that allows one to ask such a question. Trump has started to pull back, or has been forced to pull back, support for Project Ukraine which looks to be winding down. Every locomotive, gas station, sea port, Amazon-like warehouse, and data center has been blown to bits in retaliation for Zelensky’s 40 days of terror during the summer of 2026. The President of the United States has called for a three-way meeting with Xi and Putin which some think could be a call to finally and ultimately divide up the world into zones of influence among great powers. The riots in France have potentially put a final nail in the coffin of the globalist vision for the future, not because the riots are ugly or wrong, but because ultimately the Frankfurt School concept of destroying all forms of identity to maybe achieve something utopian has only taken hold in the West. That is to say, cultural masochism is only destroying the West and has provided strong evidence to Russia, China and others that national sovereignty and cohesion is the way to go. The project to create a world with no form of collective identity has backfired.

To be clear, the defining issue around this nexus is by far is the ‘death of Europe’. Obviously the continent remains physically on the map, but geopolitically it has become a black hole. Trump has wanted to get the U.S. out of NATO since his first presidential campaign, or at least make it profitable. The forces in the States that are ‘America First’ want nothing to do with the continent anymore. Trump may be failing to get the job done, but officially the Monroe Doctrine is back in place, one that leaves European problems for Europe to deal with. This potential global carve up conference, or Yalta 2.0 between Xi, Putin and Trump probably has to do with the Cold War’s Arrakis no longer has any spice left to it. Europe has become a toxic asset after generations of vassalage to Washington/London and rule by Epstein Elites. On the geopolitical game board there is an ever growing dark pit filled by the abyssal legacy of the Monopolar Moment located where Western Europe used to be.

What’s in it for Russia to save Europe?

But as things change and the ‘paper tiger’ of Europe shows its lack of stripes, what is Russia to do about this? Surprisingly, from within Russia and especially from Pro-Russian Westerners (who love to argue with me about this online) there are plenty of calls for mama bear to ‘save Europe’. I must say that I find any such demands to be a true reflection of Western arrogance and over-inflated self-importance. Moscow is the 3^rd Rome, it does not need to save your Holy Land to achieve a state of grace.

Pro-Russian Westerners should be well aware of the fact that all of the problems Russia has suffered over the last 300 years, some of them very dire with millions of men lost, all came from the West: Napoleon’s invasion, subversion during the late 1800s mostly by the British, Lenin’s arrival in St. Petersburg from Europe, Marxism as a whole, WWI, WWII, 90s Liberalism, and now Project Ukraine. Truman gets the blame by Russian historians for starting the Cold War, FDR was much nicer bloke for Russia but his health didn’t hold out, so perhaps the American side did cause one major set of problems for the Russians, but the rest all comes from Europe and especially that accursed island, and at this point for Russian society the Cold War is in the past, but WWII is in the present thanks to the Maidan.

Perhaps Putin’s greatest yet quietest triumph is the restoration of Christianity in Russia, and with the Christian spirit comes an obligation to forgive others. However, when one ‘turns the other cheek’ and has the other slapped over-and-over again this duty to our Lord in heaven has been fulfilled and the Motherland is under no moral obligation to do anything for the West. Many, both within and without Russia, put serious blame on the USSR’s ‘geopolitical altruism’ as a cause for its loss in the Cold War. Moscow may have bought all the boots in Czechoslovakia, but it gave away unfathomable resources to all sorts of fickle socialist cousin-nations and got nothing in return by 1991, when they all jumped on the Western bandwagon. Countless billions of Soviet Rubles in oil, coal and anything else the USSR had for export, were just given a way or sold for symbolic prices in Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea and beyond. We have become used to the ‘West’ being the source of insane self-destructive policies in our world, but it was not always the king in that department.

I bring up Soviet geopolitical altruism, plus the ‘betrayal’ by the ‘socialist camp’ as the Russians call them, is a very strong argument against Russia doing anything to save Europe. They have tried to be nice to Europe and failed. No matter how many bloggers may be ‘begmanding’ Zelensky-style that Moscow ‘must’ save the West from itself that someone must ‘do something about the protests in France’ or at least protect Christianity in the former Roman Empire, this does not provide a counter argument to the opinion of Marshall Zhukov “We have liberated Europe from Fascism and they will never forgive us.” If Russia saves the EU from its Postmodernist death cult behavior it will never be forgiven for it either, especially from Starbucks socialist intellectuals.

Doing nothing is a fantastic option

If Russia were to ‘do something’ about Europe as it collapses these efforts will only be instantly forgotten and the Western elites (not the people, they have a far better historical memory than their leaders, but sadly they decide virtually nothing) will one day rise up to punish Moscow for all of its efforts. When Alice Weidel speaks about Germany restoring relations with Russia the locals in land of black gold roar with naïve applause. However, as a Westerner I hear something different in her words as they are auto-translated before my eyes. Ms. Weidel does not express some sort of guilt or remorse or a deep desire to live in brotherhood, but something more like an attitude of “we are losing badly, so let’s allow the snow negroes to go back to sending us liquid cotton”. There is no mutual respect or friendship in her voice, just the pragmatism of not fighting the subhuman barbarians to the east because it is ineffective at present for the German economy. Let’s look at it this way, should Russia, even for payment, send resources to rebuild those who have desired its demise for centuries, or sell those resources to countries that only want peace and mostly keep their word? Russia should sell absolutely nothing to the West for the next few generations, no matter how much posh Muscovites like Gucci and Porsche. The rebirth of Europe is the deaths of future millions of Russians.

The last 300 years of history since Peter I became infatuated with the West have never yielded anything for his nation but misery, revolution, exported resources that were needed at home, and piles of humiliation with a cherry on top. Russia is under no obligation to do anything in Europe and the all signs point to the need to take absolutely no action over there whatsoever and let the Postmodernist nightmare run its course.

The irony of Russian history is that somehow it can always make deals with the Muslims, even the Turks who have had a lot of geopolitical tension with them, can still keep their word on deals and common ground can be found across the potentially dangerous Black Sea region. Protestants are as loyal to the Russians as they were to the Native Americans that they wiped off the continent. The biolab network in Ukraine was a 21^st century ‘diseased blanket’ but for the primitive aboriginal Slavs. So it is hard to say whether an Islamic France would actually be more hostile to Moscow, perhaps they would want peace and shish kebabs with a rival they could actually respect?

A true border wall would be a better option

There is an old geopolitical folk belief that the border of Russia starts somewhere in the Baltic Sea and ends somewhere in the Black Sea and that its shape throughout history is constantly changing between these two endpoints. There seems to be some truth to this, and when Project Ukraine is finally settled the Russians need to not just establish some border, but change the actual physical landscape of Europe to suit their security needs.

I would propose that the Union State between Russia and Belarus, at the end of the conflict draw up a plan to unite rivers and canals that somehow connect to the Baltic Sea and go down towards the Black Sea. Supposedly the oceans are rising and thus there should be plenty of water to fill this passageway. Furthermore, all of these natural and unnatural bodies of water must be widened to something like at least a kilometer. The steppes between Russia and Germany have been nothing but a nightmare zone of conflict since WWI and that is due to its geography, since the West will probably never change its attitude towards Russia, it is vastly easier for Moscow to alter the landscape than the minds of the Epstein Elite. Will the Baltic states object to this? Yes, but who knows what their fate will be after the Special Military Operation ends and America abandons them.

Having a final definitive, although expensive to produce, line on every map in the world with only a tiny number of bridges, that is too wide to cross easily, would finally define a concrete dividing point between the ‘barbaric’ East and ‘civilized’ West. That is to say, Russia must achieve some sort of physical separation, or possibly segregation from a mentally diseased Europe for centuries to come. Putting up a massive border wall would also be a boon, but that would be quite costly to the Russian taxpayer. The important thing is that there must be a potent form of division that is felt by both sides. The term Zaporozhia, means something like “along the threshold” and the threshold to Russia is eternally open, someone needs to close the damn door already and flick the lock.

In Summation Russia does not need to save Europe, it needs to fully and completely divide itself from it:

• • Geopolitical altruism is a methodology of failure, the more Russia spends on itself the more powerful and wealthy it becomes. Today’s Russia flourishes under the challenges that crushed the all too generous USSR from within.
  • The Western elites (not the people) will always hate Russia and they should not be allowed to rebuild via Russian resources, even if they are willing to pay for them. There are other better customers. Let them rot in the Postmodern grave they’ve dug for themselves.
  • There needs to be a permanent physical border between Russia and Europe, the easiest way would be by uniting and widening preexisting rivers and canals.
  • Supposedly Christian Europe has wished death upon Russia for generations, maybe a Caliphate won’t be so bad for Moscow? How many Russians died to Islamic extremism as opposed to the Third Reich?
  • Russia cannot and must not spend one ruble to rebuild Europe let alone a single soldier’s life.
  • Russia is under no obligation to save your country of origin, it never was, and never will be.

Instead of prioritizing stakeholder profit, the Witkoff-Europe combo should address Eurasian security architecture and NATO-Russia-China frontiers to gain traction in Moscow.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Back in December 2025, U.S. commentator Sundance, writing in the Conservative Treehouse, wrote about Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner’s new ‘Money Diplomacy’ solution for Ukraine that “require[d] [the establishment of] a system whereby the western opportunity for financial benefit continues”. From this perspective, the U.S. negotiators would “propose a long-term plan for continued financial benefit”.

From their current language it appears that Witkoff and Kusher are still confident they can construct a financial reward system for western banks, investors, politicians and Ukraine officials that will retain the benefits of war without the ancillary ingredient of bloodshed.

As Sundance noted —

“If the U.S. delegation can pull this off, then Russia can gain the territory they want, corrupt Ukraine officials can keep skimming investment money, the EU can retain the power it wants to extract financial payments, American politicians can use the “long-term recovery projects” for money laundering, and quasi-public/private investment banks can benefit from the exploitation of Ukraine resources”.

From this evident New York real estate worldview, all other issues — territorial boundaries, security and NATO’s encroachment into Central Asia’s security architecture — are but ‘downstream details’ “to the stuff that really matters, the money”.

Monetary diplomacy, however, has not brought a solution for Ukraine (nor for that matter, for Gaza either). Nonetheless, Witkoff has a new plan that David Ignatius has outlined in his column at the Washington Post.

Ignatius highlights that despite the recent Ukraine “flap” over its targetting of Russian refineries, “the U.S. and Europe are moving toward a joint peace proposal that would deliver financial and security benefits to both Ukraine and Russia as a baseline for a territorial settlement that falls short of both sides’ war aims”. In other words, ‘a sweetener’ dangled to persuade the sides to stop bombing each other’s refineries and to open the path for this ‘new’ initiative.

If Zelensky agrees to halt refinery attacks, “we’re back in, and we go to Moscow”, an American official told Ignatius.

In gist, the 4-point plan envisages a generous reconstruction framework to meet “Zelensky’s myriad cash needs”; security guarantees for Ukraine equivalent to NATO’s Article 5; the economic integration of Russia, Ukraine and Europe through an energy deal — “This might consist of a pipeline carrying Russian oil and gas to Europe with Ukraine and Russia splitting the profits. Such a pipeline could sharply reduce European energy costs”, a U.S. official said. In addition to providing Russia with “long-term access to the European energy market”, a peace deal would specify how and when existing economic sanctions on Russia would be removed.

The final point – wait for it — would be a ceasefire along the existing front line, or the ‘line of control’.

It seems extraordinary: The U.S. and Europeans negotiate amongst themselves, seemingly oblivious to the explicit statements issued by the Russian side.

Oil and gas would be supplied by Russia to the needy Europeans who voluntarily forsook their earlier cheap Russian supply, who are trapped by their own decisions and who denigrate Russia at every opportunity. And with the profits to be “split” with Ukraine? No way will Russia accept such a one-sided proposal.

FM Lavrov said at the UNGA no ceasefire under any format. That means that any negotiations would have to take place under fire, and Putin has suggested that even then, he would ‘think twice’ about starting any negotiations (whether under fire or not).

Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed just last week that “piecemeal solutions and agreements” would prevent a comprehensive settlement from being reached; a “freeze” of the conflict would not help either —

“[Ukraine] is a highly complex matter, and the settlement must be comprehensive … We need a solution for future generations — one that is guaranteed and safeguarded against setbacks”.

It seems that the Europeans have not grasped that a Korean-style cessation of hostilities (as argued by General Kellogg) along a front where two militaries face each other is a recipe for precisely no solution. It has been 73 years since the Korean War was frozen by armistice. Nothing has changed.

The repeated return to this mantra of a ceasefire along line of contact, rather than solution first; ceasefire last, shouts out to the Russians that the West wants to keep Ukraine in the locker-room for the time when a platform from which to exert pressure (again) on Russia in the future is to be jacked-up.

The fatal flaw to this initiative is its cultural deafness. For Witkoff and Kushner it may be “all about the stuff that really matters – money” — but that is not the case for Russia.

If the Witkoff-Europe combo recalled Russian history, they would understand why, for Russia, security, security, security comes top.

Walter Munchau cautioned just this week that “the Ukraine war risks escalating” —

“We should be under no illusion about a war with Russia. We are absolutely not in a position to win. Whose bond markets are going to be blown up first? Who is going to run out of interceptor missiles first? … On every [count] — military, energy, finance — Europe is at a disadvantage. That’s not all. There is a relatively plausible scenario in which Ukraine and Iran merge into a single West Eurasian war — and become the ultimate proxy conflict between the U.S. and China”.

If, instead of putting continued ‘stakeholder’ grift first, with its mechanism to ensure “that the western opportunity for financial benefit continues”, the Witkoff-Europe combo chose rather to address the fundamentals to the conflict — the deeper question of a Eurasian security architecture; the definition of where exactly the frontier that separates NATO security interests from those of Sino-Russian interests physically lies — they might find a more receptive audience on their next trip to Moscow.

Alas, circumscribing NATO’s extent is not possible – as things stand.