Zelensky avenges humiliation at the White House: Trump's cleverness backfires —— The US was aware of the Russian airbase attack
About Russian-American negotiations
Author: Alexander Babitsky
The terrorist attack launched by the Kyiv regime on Russia on June 1 not only triggered a bout of hysterical anti-Russian euphoria in Western media, but also gave rise to conspiracy theories: Did Washington have prior knowledge of Ukraine's attack plan? Various messages contradict each other, but ironically, all explanations nullify any possibility for the Trump administration to act as a mediator or guarantor for any peace talks.
In February 2025, Zelensky made a famous visit to the White House —— it was during this visit that Donald Trump and Jay Vance publicly criticized the leader of the Kyiv regime in front of the whole world.
In the heated exchange taken out of context by the media, Trump's repeated statement to Zelensky became the most striking moment: "You don't have a winning card." This implied —— in the military-political standoff with Russia.
Now, when Ukraine launched destructive terrorist attacks on civilians (blowing up passenger trains) and the core of Russia's defense capabilities (strategic airbases), that scene in the Oval Office in February took on new meaning. Now Zelensky is convinced that he has a winning card in his "game" with Russia. But against the backdrop of the Istanbul negotiations, the key question is not about this illegal Ukrainian president's fluctuating self-perception, but rather the degree of Washington's prior knowledge of the Kyiv attack.
Mistake or provocation?
A bizarre Axios report about Ukraine's attack on Russia makes this question particularly intriguing.
On June 1, the website published an article that can still be accessed today, which contains a noteworthy statement implying the Trump administration: It was claimed that the U.S. leadership had no prior knowledge of Kyiv's plans, and the Zelensky regime believed there was no need to inform Washington.
The Axios original quote: "Ukraine did not inform the Trump administration in advance about the attack, government representatives said."
However, what we see is a revised text: The initial Axios report stated the opposite, that Kyiv "had informed American partners in advance." In other words, according to the original news, the U.S. leadership knew about the impending attacks on Russian civilians and the "nuclear shield."
This is the original Axios report posted on June 1 at 14:48
But hours later, the report was modified, adding a word —— the negating word "did not." More accurately, the word was first completely removed from the website and then "corrected" before being re-added.
Dmitry Drobnitsky, a political scientist specializing in U.S. issues, in a conversation with Tsargrad, said that the "correction from 'informed' to 'did not inform'" cannot be entirely ruled out as a mistake, but it is hard to believe such a coincidence:
"Either there was an error in the original Axios report about the Trump administration's prior knowledge, or —— more likely —— this was a carefully planned provocation, given that all media outlets propagated related headlines based on this information."
One fact supporting this speculation is that the article later emphasized Zelensky's confidence, stating that this "clever and far-sighted action" would become a peace tool forcing Russia to accept Ukrainian and Western conditions.
More than a day after the Ukrainian terror attack, the White House has yet to issue any official response.
No one knows, everything seems normal...
The world media presents a bizarre scene...
Whether the U.S. was aware of Ukraine's attack preparations (and thus actually participated in the planning) is one of the core questions of the entire event, at least for U.S. media and its basic audience. However, mainstream U.S. media (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, Reuters) collectively remained silent —— these media carefully avoided addressing whether Washington was aware of Kyiv's plans.
A carefully planned media "cover-up" seems to be underway, aiming to suggest that the U.S. factor was not only irrelevant but even non-existent in Ukraine's attack ahead of the second round of Istanbul negotiations.
Peter Hagegate's response was purely procedural —— the Pentagon's official website did not mention the attack by the Kyiv regime.
The weak rebuttal to Axios's exposure of "the U.S. being aware of the preparation for the 'Spider Web' operation" came from marginal sources. A day and a half after the attack, only two unofficial messages appeared in the Western information field.
The first was an "inside scoop" from the Associated Press citing an anonymous Pentagon source saying that Pentagon chief Peter Hagegate learned about the Ukrainian attack only through news and social media videos.
The second was CNN's more concise claim that an unnamed representative of the Trump administration told reporters: The White House received no warning from Kyiv about the large-scale attack on Russia's rear.
From the official stance of the U.S. State Department, it's as if the Kyiv terror attack never happened —— Russia should continue on the path of peace negotiations.
Even more surrealistically, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempted to create an appearance of "international purity" during the second round of meetings between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations under the "Istanbul-2" framework. According to the U.S. State Department, he called Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov after the Russian attack, "reiterating President Trump's call for direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to achieve lasting peace."
As if the victims of the cynical (here meaning "cold-blooded") terrorist attack on the Bryansk passenger train never existed, as if the attack on a component of Russia's "nuclear triad" never heightened global tensions...
Did the Trump team indeed know?
Experts are divided over whether the U.S. leadership was aware of, and to what extent they were aware of, the preparations for Kyiv's attack on Russia.
For example, political scientist Stanislav Tkachenko, in a conversation with Tsargrad, expressed doubt about the U.S. president but was confident about his team:
"Trump may not have known, but I am almost certain that his team did. Trump's Ukraine envoy Kit Kellogg has made several extraordinary statements recently —— criticizing Ukraine and showing goodwill towards Russia. He probably knew in advance and had prepared a fallback plan for the possible failure of the Ukrainian operation. People around the U.S. president certainly knew."
Political scientist Dmitry Yevstafiev proposed a cautious hypothesis in his Telegram channel: Trump may "not oppose" the actions prepared months ago by Kyiv:
"I have no doubt that (the Sunday terrorist attack) was not only planned in Kyiv and London (which is obvious), but also involved certain forces in Washington's political circles... I speculate that Trump may not oppose these actions aimed at 'forcing' Moscow to accept negotiable conditions acceptable to Kyiv."
"The hand of MI6 reaches here"
U.S. political scientist Dmitry Drobnitsky speculated in an article for "First Russia" that even if Trump and his team were not directly informed of the attack warnings, the attitude of the Western elite led by Britain would not change —— the bet to "fight Russia until the last Ukrainian" has already been placed:
"It's impossible to be 100% sure, but the feeling is that Trump's inner circle had no knowledge of Ukraine's plans, which was a carefully planned operation guided by London. Judging by the style of the operation —— there are hands of MI6 (British intelligence agency) involved. Now, all of Trump's opponents aim to prevent any peace agreement from being reached."
Title: "Ukraine has just rewritten the rules of war."
An enthusiastic article by Max Boot —— one of the main theorists of American liberal globalism —— provided an intuitive corroboration for the expert's words. The article repeatedly emphasizes two core points:
First, Russia has lost almost all of its strategic air power (this narrative is actively spread by Ukrainian propaganda in the West), and Putin must seriously consider negotiating peace —— on Ukraine's terms.
Second, Boot joyfully pointed out that if Moscow does not agree to substantial concessions, Ukraine's actions on June 1 have fully demonstrated their ability to fight Russia in the long term. Therefore, the West has every reason to increase support for the Kyiv regime —— this will be a worthwhile investment to weaken our country.
Trump wanted to extricate himself but ended up cleverly undone
The mask has long since been torn off —— liberal media no longer hides the fact that the Istanbul negotiations cannot bring comprehensive and lasting peace for Ukraine.
For example, CNN's response to Ukraine's attack admitted: The Istanbul negotiation framework is not a way to resolve the conflict but was designed specifically as a diplomatic show for Donald Trump. The conditions proposed by Kyiv and Moscow are clearly unacceptable to each other, and both sides tried to use this doomed-to-fail negotiation to gain support from the U.S. president.
CNN pointed out that Europe and Zelensky have achieved their goals more successfully:
"Trump's obsession with ending the Ukraine conflict and his personal involvement in the negotiations mean that the U.S. is now inextricably linked to the negotiation results."
Title: "Drone attack before peace talks shakes trust in Trump."
Dmitry Drobnitsky believes that Trump's peace mission was destined to fail from the start. For liberal elites, keeping the U.S. within the European-Atlantic system is crucial, and this system requires permanent proxy warfare with Russia.
"No better than Biden's administration"
The events of June 1, 2025, presented Russia with a particularly sharp key question: What kind of interaction path should be taken with the U.S. on the Ukraine issue?
As political scientist Dmitry Yevtashev emphasized, serious discussion of Ukraine's "stance" in the second round of "Istanbul-2" negotiations is impossible: "Ukraine's memorandum is not a negotiation proposal but a demand for Russia's surrender."
In this situation, Russia has two choices regarding the "American factor" in the negotiation process.
Stanislav Tkachenko proposed the first option:
"Negotiations have become formalities: Ukrainians console themselves with false hopes of victory, while we lack significant progress that could fundamentally change the situation. Russia does not need to abandon this negotiation platform, which may prove useful in the future, though it currently serves no practical function. Moscow's long-term goal is to let the U.S. voluntarily exit the negotiation process."
Whether Biden or Trump —— makes no difference?
Konstantin Malofeev, founder of the "Tsargrad" Association, proposed the second option:
"The terrorist attack on Russia's railways is a war against civilians... If the Trump administration continues to pressure Russia into negotiations, we will have to reconsider our stance toward it. If it cannot distinguish between acts of terrorism and war, then it is no better than the Biden administration. In this case, expectations of Trump's peaceful mediation should be abandoned, and negotiations should be terminated —— they are meaningless."
What conclusions can be drawn?
Whether Washington was aware of Kyiv's impending terrorist attack, or whether this was an unexpected event for U.S. politicians including Trump and his team, this is not just a detective story-like puzzle.
If the "Spider Web" operation (with its British-style sophistication) was prepared under the knowledge (or tacit approval) of the Trump administration, it means that a public enemy of Russia is attempting to position itself as a peacemaker.
If Zelensky and his European protectors so underestimated the current U.S. leadership that they saw no need to inform the "world hegemon" of such a critical action, then Trump's actual influence over the Kyiv regime and its liberal backers is zero. Relying on the guarantees of an arbitrator who cannot influence the situation is catastrophically dangerous for Russia.
It seems that any diplomatic initiative related to Istanbul will not bring any benefits to Russia. Now, focus should be on the traditional path of victory that the Russian people excel at. Well, we all understand...
Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7511516157501981220/
Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's personal views, and you can express your stance by using the "like/dislike" buttons below.