A Farce Plus A Photo Shoot

• Karina Kokrell-Ferre
• 22.10.2026, 14:32

Putin harbors a strange illusion that is unprecedented in the history of warfare.

On October 9, two days after his “bloody birthday” (the bombing of Ukraine), a 74-year-old dictator decided to finally make his greatest dream come true— the greatest gift of his life—the very reason he started this whole bloody, years-long bloodbath in the first place—"Yalta-2," where the Big Three—him, Trump, and Xi—would finally divide the planet among the three of them. Into spheres of influence. And so that Ukraine would be handed over to the Kremlin.

And so, having agreed on a diesel fuel deal during THAT phone call, spraying their phones with droplets of elderly saliva from their excitement, the two like-minded men spent a couple of hours discussing how wonderful it would be when they established a world order in which only the Big Three would make all the decisions.

The safest place for the leader of the Russian Federation, it seems, is China—and it was precisely on the sidelines of the APEC summit on November 18–19 that he proposed it.

So is there a chance “we can repeat” Yalta and “hand over” Ukraine to the Kremlin, as was done with Poland?
So, 1945. February. Yalta, the Big Three victors over Nazism. Armchairs, overcoats, rows of shiny buttons, two men with bare heads, one wearing a cap. Symbolism? Perhaps. The Soviet Army was already approaching Berlin. Stalin’s 8-million-strong force was, in effect, running the show in all the territories it had captured, without observing a single condition of the previous agreements. Anglo-American troops had already liberated France and “their” part of Europe; the bulk of the U.S. force was preparing to board ships and sail home shortly, leaving only a limited American contingent and a British force in Europe—the British ground forces, as always, have been traditionally weak for centuries, in contrast to their naval forces. Under these circumstances, it was impossible for the Allies to refuse to hand over to Stalin the territory he had captured. Therefore, Yalta merely cemented the balance of power that the armies had established on the battlefield. To the misfortune of Eastern Europe...

Why did the world recognize the signatures of the Big Three as legitimate and was prepared to accept their decisions? Because their armies had defeated Hitler and were standing on the very ground that those gathered in Yalta were dividing up.

What do we see now?

First. Celestial Being-1—Trump did not bring about regime change in Iran, did not destroy Hamas, and the Strait of Hormuz has not been unblocked (one can argue endlessly about the reasons and who stands to gain from this, but the fact remains a fact). Celestial Being No. 2—for the fifth year in a row, he has been unable to capture all of Donbas and Malaya Tokmachka, while his own territory is under constant and painful attack. Where are the victorious armies on the land they’re dividing up? Xi is a whole other story.

Moreover, Putin (the collective) harbors some strange (and unprecedented in the history of warfare!) illusion that if a nonexistent victory is RECORDED, sealed with a stamp, and marked “paid,” then there they are—the “new territories.”

Perhaps because of this illusion, he believes that if the three of them sign Ukraine’s surrender in China today, it will come to pass by tomorrow morning. And the very next morning, the Ukrainian army—the most combat-ready, well-equipped (by a wide variety of countries), and hardened by four years of war (and victories)—deprived of American Starlink and Starshield (such a complete shutdown remains highly questionable)— will immediately flee, surrender Kyiv, and capitulate to the Kremlin. Analyzing the experience of four years of war, I believe this is an illusion. Poland, handed over to Stalin to be torn apart in 1945, found itself in circumstances entirely different from those of today’s Ukraine. Putin can sign whatever he wants—even on the precious skin of a monitor lizard with gold ink—it won’t change a thing. All “Yaltas” are merely the CONSEQUENCE of a military victory, not a SUBSTITUTE for it.

The second difference. In 1945, the world—which was being carved up by the superpowers—consisted of colonies and occupied, devastated countries. Dividing it without consulting other governments was no trouble at all. Today, those potentially left out of “Yalta-2” are EUROPE, Britain, India, Turkey, Brazil, Japan, and the Gulf States—independent, sovereign, and geopolitically and economically very powerful players who are under no obligation whatsoever to acknowledge (and will not) that a “collective Trump-Putin” is making decisions for them (Xi is a separate matter).

Moreover, according to some sources, Trump refused to discuss Ukraine and instead wants to discuss nuclear disarmament—a topic China does not wish to discuss. Ergo, not only do these three lack a common enemy and a common existential war (as in 1945), not only are they not allies at all (whereas Iran and Russia are allies), but they are also hostile toward one another. What “Yalta”?
Third. The 1945 Yalta Conference was a meeting of equal and INDEPENDENT (albeit circumstantial) allies. Today’s Russian Federation—and there is a global consensus on this, backed by statistics—is merely China’s junior partner, no matter how much Putin extends the range of his missiles or how high the Kremlin shoemaker raises the heels of his boots. As for Nebozhitiel-1, his political position is far too precarious: it remains to be seen how the midterm congressional elections will turn out...

All in all, as a result of this meeting, Trumputin might score a few perks: lucrative deals, the appearance of overcoming isolation, the appearance of regaining legitimacy, and the chance to puff out his cheeks: look at us, the Three Big Decision-Makers, plus a lo-o-o-ot of photos of the three of us together, which he can put on the nightstand next to his deathbed: I once ruled the world. But that’s all.

And now is the perfect time to talk about SI. Because behind his mysterious smile may lie the following. Yalta took place—where? – in the USSR, and indeed, the postwar political period became a time of peak prosperity and territorial expansion for this totalitarian dictatorship. The planned “Yalta-2” in China (!) also signifies the dawn of a New Era. It’s not hard to guess what kind. If you look at it from the perspective of Chinese history (Xi’s ironic smile): two large, white, FORMER colonizers have arrived at the new center of the world to receive labels and pay homage. Xi will not OPENLY endorse or support the territorial seizures in Ukraine (which is precisely the sole purpose for which Putin is organizing this “Yalta-2”!) for several reasons.

This contradicts China’s doctrine of non-interference and the violation of territorial integrity—a departure from which would jeopardize China’s position on Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang. China has not yet reached the point of completely disregarding logic in its actions, unlike the other two. Moreover, all these Trump-Putin-style maneuvers and METHODS bear too much resemblance to the methods of 19th-century European empires and hegemonies—methods all too familiar to China—which have caused the Chinese deep historical trauma. So we’ll smile and nod, but that’s all.

Moving on. With a victorious and strengthened U.S., Russia is becoming less dependent on China. The ideal scenario for China is to drive Russia into a veeeery long “Controlled Dead End” (which it has succeeded in doing), in which Russia’s dependence on China grows progressively.

And most importantly, why China will never sign any “Yalta-2” agreement. It cannot afford to appear in Europe’s eyes as the one “dividing” it—and over Europe’s head, no less—and especially not with “Trumputin,” given Europe’s perception of them as a growing threat. This is what the collective “Trumputin” fails to understand as it dreams of this “Yalta-2”—each for their own reasons.
Europe and Britain are China’s most important trading partners and export markets. And it is precisely this, paradoxically, that can ensure temporary, fragile security (AND STABLE Chinese trade) in Europe and limit Putin’s hybrid war: Putin could be inflicting far more damage on Europe and Britain right now, but China keeps him firmly on a leash: it’s bad for China’s wallet, and it’s bad for Chinese business.

The main danger for Europe is a full alliance between Putin and Trump, who would assure Putin that he WILL NOT fulfill the terms of NATO’s Article 5 and who would break Russia’s dependence on China. That is precisely what could lead to an actual Russian attack on Europe.

This is the common ground on which these two infernal old men have converged.

Both are ignoring Europe in their quest to force Ukraine to capitulate, but China knows full well: there are two nuclear powers there; Poland—for which Russia has been a centuries-old existential threat—has built the EU’s largest land army, incomparable to that of 2021; the defenses of Finland, the Baltic states, and Sweden; since 2022, military production in Europe has increased tenfold; the Russian Central Bank’s assets are frozen there; and even if Trump lifts all sanctions against Russia, that will not be enough unless all European sanctions are also lifted.

Europe can block a bad deal for Ukraine, but, alas, it is powerless to impose a good deal on Ukraine. It can only delay a Russian attack on Europe by supporting Ukraine and its Armed Forces.

Conclusion: “Yalta-2” will not be able to ensure the practical implementation of ANYTHING the “Celestials” are striving for, except for a group photo of the three of them and a worsening of their megalomaniacal tendencies.

This is precisely the kind of situation where an attempt to repeat history results in a disgusting farce—plus a photo op...

Karina Kokrell-Ferre, “Telegram”