RADUN: British Spy in the Kremlin Convinced Trump to Continue the War
There is no element of surprise in Donald Trump’s shift in rhetoric toward Russia and Vladimir Putin. His plan from the outset has been that if Russia remains unyielding in peace negotiations with Ukraine—meaning if it does not accept most of the conditions dictated by the U.S.—America will withdraw and adopt a „remote containment“ strategy, increasing arms deliveries and intelligence support.Trump’s tactic involves selling weapons to allies, who would then transfer them to Ukraine, avoiding direct U.S. involvement in the conflict. This would encourage Europe to take on the financing and arming for a potential conflict with Russia. Anti-Russian sentiment in Germany is currently at its peak, with Germans preparing for war, while Poland is already primed.
According to Trump and his advisors, this would distance the U.S. from the risk of nuclear conflict and unnecessary costs that could become a political issue, while keeping Russia bogged down in a prolonged, exhausting war. If the situation deteriorates rapidly for Ukraine, it would not be Trump’s defeat but merely Europe’s military failure. Trump could then play his peacemaker card, ending the war to save Ukraine from collapse.His stance was bolstered by a trip to the UK, where, during a meeting with the King, the British presented him with confidential MI6 documents obtained from a highly placed agent in the Kremlin. These documents suggest Russia is on the brink of an economic crisis, with serious budget issues that could hinder its ability to sustain the war at the same intensity by 2026 and lead to default on financial obligations by 2027 if sanctions and the war persist.
This strategy of economic exhaustion is not new. Since 2022, the West has relied on strangling Russia’s economy with sanctions and „freezing“ the war through continuous military and financial support for Ukraine, aiming to prevent Putin from achieving a military victory while undermining him through economic pressure and propaganda. Yet, for three and a half years, Russia has relatively successfully endured this marathon, though it has not managed to defeat Ukraine militarily.Some believe the Biden administration failed in 2023 to deliver a decisive blow to Russia, resulting in heavy losses for Ukraine, including elite units and vast amounts of weapons, from which Ukraine never recovered. In reality, the U.S. knew Ukraine could not militarily defeat Russia; its role was to deplete Russian resources and the Russian public’s willingness to fight. Ukraine was deliberately sacrificed in unnecessary operations, like Kursk or the suicidal Ukrainian counteroffensive, to further humiliate or militarily engage Russia.
Similarly, the Biden administration did not expect a rapid collapse of Russia’s economy, despite messaging to allies and the public to encourage efforts to stop Russia in Ukraine and keep it entangled in a conflict long enough to exhaust it, ultimately sparking internal unrest in Moscow for a geopolitical triumph of the West and America.Why MI6’s „super agent“ in the Kremlin is so highly valued by the British and Trump remains unclear. Perhaps his information simply aligned with Trump’s plan to shift financial and military burdens onto Europe. European leaders today are optimistic, reminiscent of spring 2023, believing Russia, like Germany in 1918, will capitulate due to exhaustion despite holding strong militarily, with no foreign soldiers on its soil while controlling parts of Europe—though the validity of this parallel is questionable.
For Trump, the outcome is irrelevant—America won’t enter the war, and he won’t be defeated, no matter what happens. His „retreat“ in Britain, where he accepted MI6’s arguments, points to a complex dynamic between the pro-war, anti-Russian lobby led by European allies and the anti-China lobby, which Trump has traditionally supported, focusing on countering China as the main rival.
Has Trump switched sides, temporarily aligning with the anti-Russian lobby and its propaganda narrative under the influence of British intelligence, or is he merely using this information to strengthen his position while keeping his focus on China? Time will tell if this is a genuine shift or a tactical maneuver.This unexpected turn in Trump’s policy has caused confusion in American and European political circles.
The anti-Russian lobby, which has dominated Western policy for years, sees this move as validation of its economic exhaustion strategy. Conversely, the anti-China faction, supported by Trump’s allies in Washington, is concerned that this focus on Russia could divert attention from the primary goal of curbing China’s growing influence in Asia and globally. China, as an economic and military power, remains the main geopolitical challenge for the U.S., and Trump’s earlier rhetoric emphasized trade and military measures against Beijing.The MI6 intelligence that convinced Trump reportedly includes detailed analyses of Russian economic indicators, such as declining energy export revenues, rising inflation, and increasing difficulties in funding military operations. While confidential, this information is not radically new—similar assessments have circulated in Western analytical circles for years. However, their corroboration by a source within the Kremlin elite gave them added weight. The British, key players in anti-Russian lobbying, seized this opportunity to solidify their position in U.S. foreign policy.On the other hand, this move could be part of Trump’s broader strategy to balance pressures from both lobbies. While the anti-Russian lobby demands continued support for Ukraine, the anti-China faction insists on redirecting resources to the Indo-Pacific.
Trump, known for his pragmatism, may be using British intelligence as justification for sustaining indirect support for Ukraine while maintaining his image as a „tough negotiator“ who won’t drag the U.S. into direct conflict. This could allow him to retain support from both factions, at least temporarily. However, this balance is fragile. If Russia’s economy shows no signs of weakness in the predicted timeframe, or if China capitalizes on this situation to bolster its influence, Trump may be forced to choose a side. For now, his policy remains ambivalent—supporting Ukraine through allies with minimal direct U.S. involvement seems a compromise that suits both the anti-Russian and anti-China lobbies. The question is how long this balance can last.
