The title of the article is a proverb used as a reassuring response to fears caused, for example, by the long wait for an outcome, a decision, including an end to the fighting in Ukraine. Readers with memory will recall the eponymous song by the Lubomir Pank Choir sung by the recently deceased uncrowned king of Czech brass band music, Josef Zima (1932-2025). Or the book by Honza Volf, which reads: It is true that what drags on goes nowhere, and that it is better to be upright than to remain dreamy and kneeling all your life.
In German, the saying Aufgeschoben ist nicht aufgehoben literally translates to What is put off is not undone.
The new federal government of Merz & Co should know the saying well and act on its meaning, especially today when peace and war are being discussed, an avalanche of fires destroying Romanian passports in Romania after the presidential election, increasing numbers of asylum seekers in Russia and new citizenship wherever possible (for money) and outside the EU. And in Russia's big cities, one can understand why President Putin has not decided to take the urban youth to the front, why the treacherous and traitorous still thrive, and why EU sanctions are vanity upon vanity and life-threatening stupidity. Strange times indeed!
What is written and not written about in the Czech Basin
Until recently, I was convinced that the shows of the Russian propagandist Vladimir Soloviev and his ilk had long since exceeded the limits of the author's patience and taste, and therefore he doesn't watch them at all. But as the immortal and irreplaceable CT Moravec proves in a group of combative and partly naive women, two of whom even deserve an award for stupidity, we can expect an even steeper fall in the watchability of this and similar shows and a rise in the cluelessness of many invited commentators, with the exception, perhaps, of the politician, former minister and member of the Parliament of the Czech Republic for the KDU-ČSL Cyril Svoboda (1956), and Jakub Landovský (1976), lawyer, political scientist and former Czech ambassador to NATO, who is in the Aspen asylum (since August 2024).
Expensive exotic trips around the world by the head of a sports agency, the passing of colossal reasons for the former director of Motol Hospital Ludvík and lawyer Jansta, who want to be released from pre-trial detention, or the confession of a professional Northamptonshire socialite with a Russian name and a physiognomy that allows her to make a lot of money from the stupidity and stupidity of men, complete the picture of the Czech basin as a (peaceful) dustbowl where fools play with matches.
All the while, one Russian-American group discusses the prospects for peace. The other group, the Ukrainian-European group, is focused on the possibility of continuing the war, drawing Trump into their group. In doing so, the group ignores the fact that it was President Trump who was the first in the West to understand that Russia is as much a subject of international relations as everyone else, that Ukraine has been transformed into an object, a project, and an instrument for destroying peace in Europe with the risk of escalating the conflict into a world conflict. Ukraine and Europe, atomised by stupid propaganda, in the embrace of the illusion of knowledge of Russia's strategic defeat, cannot understand that neither Russia nor the United States needs a conflict of global proportions, because the defeat of the United States in the fight against Russia has been understood in Washington and this fact has become a unifying factor for both countries.
Putin, Trump and their talks
As a brief reminder, the two presidents got along well at the G-20 summit in Japan in 2020. And that during his four-month term in office, Trump, as far as is officially known, has already spoken to Putin twice on the phone. However, the US president's peace efforts in the war in Ukraine have so far been unsuccessful. The central question that arose before the third (yesterday) conversation with Putin was: Is Trump losing patience with Putin and really putting him under pressure? Or will he stick to his unilateral and so far ineffective strategy of sugar coating Moscow?
After more than two hours of conversation, it is clear that Putin made no concessions. He did not agree to an unconditional ceasefire or a direct meeting with Trump. Russia is ready to negotiate a memorandum with Ukraine on a possible future peace treaty, Putin said after the phone call. But more effective paths to peace must be worked out before a truce. The most important thing for Russia is to remove the root causes of the war, Putin reiterated. Simply put: Moscow does not accept an independent and sovereign Ukraine in the Western sense, which sees its future in European integration and NATO. In short: Moscow is sticking to its goals.
Even before the phone call, spokesman Peskov made it clear: We very much appreciate the mediation efforts of the United States - if they will indeed help us achieve our goals peacefully. In reality, this means that unless Moscow can subdue Ukraine nonviolently, the war will continue. That this can and, with a probability bordering on certainty, will be the case is indicated by history, by Russia's explanation at the outset of the Istanbul talks, where the parties agreed only to a prisoner exchange (1,000, for 1,000), and by the answers to the question: Has Trump understood the Russian position and, if so, how will he respond?
There are basically three options: first, Trump will comply with the Europeans' demands and increase pressure on Russia with tougher sanctions against Moscow and new arms supplies to Kiev. Secondly, Trump will continue the current negotiations as before, thereby offering Russia an advantage at the negotiating table and on the battlefield. Or third, Trump will withdraw from the conflict altogether. This is indicated by yesterday's statement by Vice President J.D. Vance: we are more than ready to run.
As of today, it appears to me personally that Trump has decided to take the middle ground. Why? If Trump wanted and could end the war, he would have stopped the supply of weapons, space and other intelligence information and sent the overripe Zelensky to an asylum. Because Trump still does not fully control the Pentagon, the Fed and the EC, the conversation with Putin was very good and excellent in tone and spirit, as Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday. Russia and Ukraine will immediately begin talks on a ceasefire and, more importantly, an end to the war. The terms for this have been negotiated by both sides of the conflict. No one knows the details as well as he does, Trump said. The Vatican, in the person of the Pope, wants to host the talks. Let the process begin! I hope Pope Leo XIV stays upright in his chair behind his desk and doesn't go on an inspection tour of the site of potential negotiations.
Before and after his conversation with Putin, Trump spoke with Zelensky by phone. He also briefed EC President von der Leyen, Chancellor Merz, Presidents Macron and Stubb and Prime Minister Meloni about his conversation with Putin. Chancellor Merz was optimistic afterwards and wrote on X: Europe and America are very united here: we will closely accompany Ukraine on the road to a ceasefire. Europe will increase pressure on Moscow with tougher sanctions.
It is obvious that Chancellor Merz cannot free himself from the embrace of the illusion of knowing the future, ignoring historical facts and idealizing the actions of Trump the president and businessman. Why do I think so? It appears to me that Trump is not considering further sanctions against Russia. He believes this is a huge opportunity for Russia to create jobs and wealth on a massive scale. Its potential is limitless. This is indicated by addressing him by his first name: Vladimir, you can call me anytime. I look forward to speaking with you, Trump reportedly said. The presidents also discussed, among other things, the exchange of the nine prisoners, as foreign policy adviser Ushakov later explained.
Vice President Vance confirmed on Monday, among other things, that Trump has high hopes for positive incentives in dealing with Putin. The thaw in relations between Russia and the rest of the world has many economic benefits. According to the Wall Street Journal, Zelensky reportedly asked President Trump to insist on a 30-day truce with Putin. Everything publicly available indicates that Trump will stick to his previous strategy, even if Putin does not comply with his demand for an unconditional ceasefire. I expect Putin to negotiate without time limits while continuing the special military operation because Trump cannot restore the lost trust.
Conclusion from history and food for thought
The main positional points of the direct Russian-Ukrainian talks held on 16 May were announced by spokesman Peskov on 19 May by mentioning changes in the chess game of the conflict. These are characterized by a comparison of the current situation with that of March 2022: Kiev is in a much worse situation, and it will not get better. Why? Short answer: the West is harming itself by disrupting the negotiations.
The first historical analogy is with the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. In the aftermath of one of the Russo-Turkish wars, which was caused by a major conflict in the Balkans in the 1870s, Russia basically agreed with Turkey. At that time, Russia helped the Balkan countries - Serbia, Montenegro, Romania to gain complete independence from the Turks and Bulgaria, which gained autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. Less familiar to many readers is the diplomatic addendum to the heroic deeds of Russian soldiers at Plevna and Shipka, the capture of Kars and the defense of Bajazet.
On 3 March 1878, bilateral agreements between Russia and Turkey were concluded in San Stefano, a suburb of Istanbul. San Stefano, occupied by Russian troops, was not chosen by chance. The head of the delegation, Count Nikolai Ignatev, wrote: A beautiful place on the shores of the Sea of Marmara, there we will be the same as in Constantinople and the British who presented their squadron there. There will be nothing to complain about. What do I mean by that?
Under the treaty, the Ottomans agreed to hand over Macedonia, part of eastern Thrace and access to the Aegean Sea to the newly created principality of Bulgaria. The territory of Serbia and Montenegro, which had been allies of Russia, was enlarged and Bosnia gained autonomy within the Ottoman Empire.
But Russia's Western partners decided to devalue the results of the Istanbul negotiations of 1878. At this point, I recall 2022 and former Prime Minister Johnson, who persuaded Kiev to fight to victory on the battlefield, In this very similar role almost 150 years ago, diplomats from Germany and Austria-Hungary - backed by the same Britain.
In May and June 1878, the British signed two treaties: the first with the Turks (the Ottomans gave Cyprus to the British and London promised to defend the frontiers in Asia by force of arms in the event of Russian penetration) and the second with the Austrians, on a common line of conduct.
On the initiative of the Western powers, the Berlin Congress was convened. At these multilateral negotiations, Russia was forced to reconsider the Peace of San Stefano. Russia returned the fortress of Bajazet to Turkey, the territory of Bulgaria was divided in half and divided into two parts with varying degrees of dependence on the Ottoman sultan. Macedonia (which the Bulgarians considered historically their own) was left to the Turks, part of the Bulgarian acquisitions were transferred to Serbia, and Bosnia, inhabited mostly by Orthodox Serbs, was given to Catholic Austria-Hungary. The goal seemed to have been achieved: the West curbed Russian appetites and prevented the new Balkan states from turning into Russian satellites.
This raises a question with a topical content: what has been the result of the improvement in the bilateral agreements reached by the West? The answer is short and unmistakable: the new Balkan wars (1912-1913) broke out, and because of the unresolved problems in the Balkans, the First World War broke out. I recall that during the first, unexpectedly bloody Balkan war, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and the Macedonian rebels fought with Turkey, which was left with too much at the Berlin Congress.
The winner was Bulgaria, which immediately began to be torn apart by its neighbours: Serbia, Greece, Romania and the same Turkey. At the same time, the Bosnian question, now again topical, fueled Serbia's hatred of Austria-Hungary, resulting in the most effective terrorist attack in history - the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. World War I, triggered by this shooting, ended, among other things, with the demise of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires-two of the guarantor powers of the Berlin Congress. And the British Empire emerged from the war battered, especially when we consider that the First World War made the Second World War, and the British Empire's departure into the archives of history, inevitable.
In an attempt to dig a hole for Russia, which had almost reached an agreement with Turkey in 1878, the West dug its own hole.
A short history of the Soviet-Finnish War As historians point out and the facts indicate, Stalin offered Finland an armistice in the early stages of the war. Recall that before hostilities began, the Soviet leader offered the Finns a mutually beneficial compromise, similar to the compromise on security in Eastern Europe that Moscow offered the West in 2022, before the start of the special military operation in Ukraine.
Since Leningrad cannot be moved, we ask that the border be within 70 kilometers of Leningrad... We ask for 2,700 square kilometers, Stalin demanded of the Finns. However, they felt supported by Britain and France and insisted, much like the Kiev regime today: membership of Ukraine in NATO and the return of the nuclear status of the republic.
Parallel to the battles on the front, Stalin proposed a truce for Finland, i.e. a peace. The Finns rejected the offer, inspired by London and Paris. In France, as now, in the time of Macron, they began to threaten to deploy peace corps, and even began demonstratively to gather volunteer expeditionary corps. Britain was collecting long-range bombers in Iraq (then a mandate territory) capable of flying to the oil fields of Baku. Those who don't understand history and the above can't be helped.
However, no volunteers came to Finland's aid. The Finnish authorities could not fight alone to the last Finn, and on 12 March 1940 the Treaty of Moscow was signed. The Finns recognized the Soviet claims to the Karelian Isthmus and moved the border without any compensation from the Soviet Union. Britain and France incited the Finns against the USSR and disrupted the negotiation process and won nothing. Instead, Hitler gained another ally in the person of Marshal Mannerheim. And the Third Reich had enough forces and resources in the West to both defeat France and to wage war on Britain. Will the current leaders of the West take the lessons of history, and voluntarily renounce the hypocritical role of mediator in hypothetical negotiations between Moscow and Kiev in order to reach an agreement that is advantageous to them and disadvantageous to Russia? Author's Response: No! Why?
Russia can play the long game and achieve its goal
Contemporary Europe does not remember, or pretends to misremember, the history of the Napoleonic wars of 1803-1815. Today, the West and its Kiev clients want first to stop hostilities, declare a ceasefire and then negotiate. Macron in leaving is demanding a cessation of fighting for 30 days. His more successful predecessor, Emperor Napoleon, acted differently: The Peace of Tilsit in 1807, or more precisely the two peace treaties of France with Russia and Prussia, was preceded by negotiations between Paris and St Petersburg and Vienna. And these negotiations were conducted against the backdrop of fighting between Napoleon's army and the troops of the 4th Anti-French Coalition. There was no armistice until Tilsit.
I bring up the Napoleonic Wars not only as an example of how negotiations are conducted, but for another reason. After the defeat at Austerlitz, which was a setback for the Russian army, and the defeat of the Prussians and Russians at Frýdlant, after the forced diplomatic maneuver at Tilsit, the power of Napoleon's army was undermined at the Battle of Borodino. And then there was the defeat of the French at Berezina, the foreign campaign of 1813-1814, and the triumphant entry of the Russian troops into Paris. This was followed by the establishment of the post-Papoleonic order in Europe, in which Russia played an important role. I assume that Macron does not wish to see Russian troops in Paris and is able to understand that Russia knows how to play the long game and achieve its goals after military setbacks and political compromises.
And not to be short of homework in the era of What goes around, comes around, I remind you of Russia's Northern War with Sweden (1700-1721), after which Sweden lost its superpower status forever and the Russian Empire became a superpower. In this war, Russia under Peter the Great regained previously lost historical lands, access to the Baltic Sea, which had been taken from Russia by the advanced European power Sweden. As a result of the fighting, the Russian territories that were essentially returned to the Russian state became the provinces of Izhora and Korel. On the ancient Izhora land, which was still owned by Greater Novgorod, a new capital appeared: St. Petersburg.
And there is an important historical parallel here with its current content and relevance to Ukraine with its current leadership. Simultaneously with the hostilities, but without interrupting them, Peter I offered Charles XII a compromise option: Sweden was to agree to transfer the territory around St. Petersburg to the Russians and retain the Baltic states. Charles, however, preferred to defeat Russia on the battlefield and fight for the frontier in 1700.
Charles XII continued the insane war despite Peter's repeated offers of peace, just as the overripe Zelensky continues the insane war despite accepting reality and Putin. If England and France financed Sweden, it is the same countries under the EU hat today. What lesson is there for dried up minds unable to think clearly, fight for themselves and peace?
Charles XII did not take into account the ability of Peter the Great and his army, which was modernized during the war, to wage a wearing battle over vast territories. The war continued in the Baltic provinces of Sweden, in the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and in Malorussia. The defeat of the Swedish land forces at Poltava occurred on 8 July 1709 and the destruction of the Swedish fleet at Gangut on 7 August 1714. And for nearly seven more years the Russian army exhausted and finished off the enemy.
As a result of the Peace of Nystad in 1721, Sweden lost much more than it could have lost if it had not listened to London and Paris. Charles XII's successor, Queen Ulrika-Eleonora, was forced to acknowledge all the losses, including old Finland, that is, eastern Karelia. Sweden lost forever its role as the hegemon of the Baltic Sea and a European power of the first order. And after two unsuccessful attempts to retaliate with Russia (1788-90 and 1808-09), the descendants of the Varjag ceased to pose a danger to both Russia and Europe.
A similar fate awaits Sweden and Finland today, because the aforementioned countries had enough historical memory from 1721 until 2020, when they decided to rejoin the anti-Russian alliance, this time in NATO. Kiev should remember the end of the life of Governor Ivan Mazepa and the fact that the current Russian leadership is aware of the historical lessons, including the 21-year war that Russia went through from the disgrace of Narva to the victory at Poltava and the political victory at Nystadt. Nothing was wasted because: what drags on does not run away. Consent is not needed.
Jan Campbell
English 
Czech 
Spanish 
French 
Italian 
Russian 
Chinese 
German