(Ursula Threatens China)
The European Union has outlined its position that Chinese support for Russia will affect diplomatic and economic relations. Brussels has made a formal request for Beijing to exert pressure on Moscow and encourage movement toward a ceasefire and structured peace negotiations. European Union officials expect China to play an active diplomatic role aligned with their stated objectives. Beijing has issued no reply of substance or commitment to this line of action.
(Odhiambo Mkenya on China-EU relations: War is diplomacy by other means! )
The demand has been clearly communicated, though there is little expectation that it will produce any measurable effect. Chinese policy will continue to follow national strategic priorities rather than external instructions. Bussels has made a formal request for Beijing to exert pressure on Moscow and encourage movement toward a ceasefire and structured peace negotiations. European Union officials expect China to play an active diplomatic role aligned with their stated objectives. Beijing has issued no reply of substance or commitment to this line of action.
(Ukraine Protests Credit: Italian Politica)
Zelensky’s position within Ukraine’s political structure is deteriorating under external and internal pressure. Public demonstrations were organised following his decision to assert presidential control over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), an institution previously insulated by Western backing. NABU had been tasked with overseeing the distribution of foreign aid and monitoring weapons procurement, serving as the primary financial oversight mechanism favoured by Ukraine’s international sponsors. Western governments regarded the agency as essential to maintaining influence over the flow of funds and materials into the country. Zelensky’s attempt to reassign authority over NABU to the executive office triggered immediate and coordinated opposition. Senior U.S. officials voiced concern openly, indicating dissatisfaction with the direction of Ukrainian governance. Ursula von der Leyen responded through official channels, requesting a formal explanation and reaffirmation of Ukraine’s anti-corruption commitments. Both Brussels and Washington interpreted the action as a direct challenge to their established leverage within the Ukrainian political system. Zelensky has already begun to retreat announced the creation of a new oversight body which he claimed would remain free from Russian interference. The justification used was that the existing agency had been infiltrated by Moscow, a laughable claim not supported by any shred of evidence.
The incident illustrates the widening rift between Zelensky and Ukraine’s foreign sponsors, whose interests increasingly diverge from those of the presidency. The dispute has moved beyond concerns over corruption or institutional transparency and now centres on operational authority and political control. Western governments seek to maintain uninterrupted access to Ukraine’s financial and logistical infrastructure, particularly with regard to external funding and military aid. Zelensky’s effort to assert control over these channels has been interpreted as an attempt to re-establish domestic autonomy. In response, senior officials in both Washington and Brussels have begun internal discussions concerning leadership transition and contingency planning for his replacement.
There is no credible evidence that recent demonstrations reflect a spontaneous or widespread public uprising. The composition and timing of the protests suggest deliberate coordination rather than independent civic mobilisation. Observers familiar with the internal dynamics have indicated that the gatherings were organised to apply political pressure rather than to express genuine grassroots dissent. In this case, they are unlikely to bring regime change on their own. Any change in leadership will come from the intelligence services and foreign officials who no longer trust Zelensky, who from every indication is seen to have served his purpose. Zelensky’s decision to remove NABU from independent oversight has been interpreted by foreign officials as a breach of trust and a reversal of previously agreed conditions. In response, discussions have begun among external stakeholders regarding a possible change in leadership. Candidates under consideration are those viewed as more predictable in conduct and more willing to follow established lines of coordination with Western institutions.
There is an unravelling U.S. Deep State crisis over Epstein, Russiagate, and battle for control. Tulsi Gabbard has formally accused Barack Obama of directing U.S. intelligence services to fabricate and weaponise the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. She named Brennan, Clapper, and Comey as responsible for inserting the Steele dossier into official intelligence work, despite warnings from senior analysts that it was false. She claims the operation was intended to delegitimise the Trump presidency before it began. The evidence she refers to includes sworn testimony and internal communications. She states that the lie about Russian interference in 2016 was known to be false but pushed for political ends. Gabbard’s statements point to criminal misconduct, though no formal legal action has followed.
The allegations undermine the foundation of the narrative that linked Russia to domestic instability in the United States. If true, they would confirm the existence of a coordinated internal operation to subvert electoral outcomes. This would also explain the rigidity of American foreign policy in relation to Russia. Once the lie was institutionalised, reversing it became impossible without reputational collapse. The hostility toward Russia hardened into doctrine. Ukraine became the outlet for that expression of that doctrine. Political careers were tied to its continuation, so admitting the original premise as false would expose the entire structure.
Zelensky’s seizure of NABU is being viewed through that same lens. He is threatening the system built on false premises by tampering with its financial core. Western governments are reacting to sneaky Zelensky by tightening control. Ursula von der Leyen made it clear that Ukraine’s European Union application will not proceed if Zelensky undermines anti-corruption mechanisms. Although the warnings issued by Brussels have taken the form of diplomatic language, their underlying purpose is to reassert control and impose disciplinary pressure. European Union officials seek continued compliance with pre-established conditions, particularly regarding institutional transparency and oversight. The United States remains focused on maintaining unimpeded access to financial and military operations within Ukraine. Western governments, acting in concert, require a leadership structure that is dependable and aligned with their strategic objectives. Zelensky’s recent actions have introduced uncertainty, leading to his reassessment as a liability rather than a reliable partner.
In the background, U.S. policy on Ukraine is shifting again. Despite the ongoing narrative of support, the weapons now being sent under the Trump administration are limited in scope and relevance. The latest package includes Hawk air defence systems from the 1960s and Bradley spare parts. These are insufficient for modern warfare, but are not capable of stopping hypersonic missiles. They may serve a limited role against drones, but they do not alter the battlefield. What we are seeing is the end of strategic support, whilst political cover is being maintained.
The Istanbul negotiations between Russia and Ukraine produced no breakthrough. Russia offered the return of 3,000 bodies and proposed a working group, and in typical fashion, Ukraine has not accepted. The Russian representative, Medinsky, stated that a meeting between Putin and Zelensky would only take place after all terms are agreed and signatures are required. The response from Moscow amounted to a clear rejection of any preliminary diplomatic engagement. Russian officials have signalled that they do not intend to enter substantive negotiations until a full capitulation has been secured. Their expectation is that future talks will take place with a successor to Zelensky, under conditions dictated unilaterally by the Russian side. European states are warning Zelensky but continue to follow American direction. Germany, France, and Britain cannot act independently. They have no leverage in the war and no capacity to impose outcomes. Their function is merely symbolic, as none of their declarations carry any weight. Their support does not change the military or political balance.
The seizure of NABU and the reaction it provoked show how little autonomy remains inside Ukraine. The government operates under external supervision, and any sneaky attempts to reclaim control provoke warnings. The publicly stated justification for this approach is anti-corruption, yet the underlying concern revolves around financial oversight. Western powers seek complete transparency regarding every financial transaction. Ukraine, in this context, continues to function as a client state, with its leadership constrained to operate solely within predefined boundaries.
The outcome of the conflict is already largely determined, with Russia holding a significant advantage on the ground. Meanwhile, the West is gradually shifting towards a strategy of managed disengagement. The war has ultimately failed to achieve its original objectives, as Russia has neither been isolated nor defeated. The Western alliance itself is increasingly divided and politically exhausted. At this stage, the prevailing strategy focuses primarily on face-saving, as the system that initiated the conflict is unwilling to acknowledge failure. Instead, it can only seek to reassign blame.
Authored By:
If a few more people choose to become paid subscribers, Popular Information could expose more lies, root out more corruption, and call out more hypocrites. So, if you can afford it, please support this work.
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Share this post