Will the U.S. Allow a Ceasefire in Ukraine or Prolong the War?

Douglas Macgregor:
"Welcome, everyone. Today, we confront one of the most critical questions of our time: Will a ceasefire in Ukraine truly lead to peace, or is it just a temporary pause before the next conflict? More importantly, will the United States even allow it?

The war in Ukraine has already reshaped global geopolitics, exposed the limits of Western military strategy, and accelerated a shift away from U.S. dominance. A ceasefire, if achieved, would not just stop the fighting—it would redefine the balance of power in Europe and beyond. The question is: Who benefits from peace, and who benefits from continued war?

We have seen throughout history how wars are prolonged, not for the sake of victory, but for economic interests, military-industrial profits, and geopolitical control. So, is Washington genuinely seeking an end to this war, or does it have a vested interest in keeping the conflict alive? And if a ceasefire does happen, what does that mean for NATO, Russia, China, and the rest of the world?

To break this down, we have a distinguished panel today—each bringing a unique perspective on military strategy, diplomacy, and the shifting world order. Let’s begin."

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event.)

Can a Ceasefire Be Trusted Without a Permanent Settlement?

Moderator: Douglas Macgregor
Panelists: Henry Kissinger, Sergey Lavrov, John Bolton, Angela Merkel

Doug Macgregor (Moderator):

"Welcome, gentlemen and madam, to this critical discussion on whether a ceasefire in Ukraine can be trusted without a permanent settlement. History has shown that wars don't end simply because leaders sign agreements; they end when strategic conditions force a resolution. The question today is—if a ceasefire is reached, can it actually hold? Or will it simply be a pause before the next escalation?

Let's start with you, Dr. Kissinger—having navigated Cold War diplomacy, do you think a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine can be sustained without a formal settlement?"

Henry Kissinger (Realpolitik & Historical Perspective):

"The problem with ceasefires is that they are often tactical rather than strategic. Wars don’t end because of signatures on paper; they end when the core security concerns of the involved parties are addressed. In Vietnam, the Paris Peace Accords created a temporary ceasefire, but because the underlying power struggle wasn’t resolved, the war resumed.

In Ukraine, Russia’s security concerns must be met—meaning NATO’s role has to be clarified. Without that, a ceasefire will only be a momentary pause before further conflict. That being said, a well-negotiated ceasefire can be a stepping stone to peace, but only if both sides recognize the limits of their ambitions."

Doug Macgregor:

"So you're saying that unless NATO expansion is off the table, Russia will continue fighting. Sergey Lavrov, as Russia’s Foreign Minister, what would Russia need to trust a ceasefire?"

Sergey Lavrov (Russia’s Perspective):

"We have seen how the West treats agreements before. The Minsk Accords were supposed to bring peace, but instead, Western leaders—Angela Merkel among them—admitted that these agreements were used to buy Ukraine time to arm itself.

So, I ask: why should we trust a ceasefire now? If the West insists on supplying weapons to Ukraine even after a ceasefire, it will be meaningless. If Ukraine remains under NATO influence, this will be another pause before a future war. The only way a ceasefire can work is if Ukraine is permanently neutralized—militarily and politically. Otherwise, we will finish what we started."

Doug Macgregor:

"Strong words, Mr. Lavrov. John Bolton, you’ve been a staunch advocate for continued Western military support for Ukraine. What’s your response?"

John Bolton (Hawkish U.S. View):

"My response is simple—Russia cannot be trusted. Period. You talk about Minsk, but who violated the Budapest Memorandum first? Russia, when it invaded Crimea in 2014. If Ukraine lays down its arms, Moscow will march right through Kyiv.

The West cannot afford to be naïve. A ceasefire without security guarantees for Ukraine would be surrender, not peace. We need to ensure Ukraine is armed and ready for any future aggression. Any ceasefire that allows Russia to consolidate its gains is just rewarding Putin’s expansionism. The only acceptable ceasefire is one that cripples Russia’s military and economic ability to fight another war."

Doug Macgregor:

"So we’re seeing a clear divide—Russia says a ceasefire is meaningless without Ukraine’s demilitarization, while the West says Russia can’t be trusted at all. Angela Merkel, you were instrumental in past diplomatic efforts with Russia. Given what we now know about the failure of the Minsk Agreements, what should a ceasefire look like?"

Angela Merkel (European Diplomacy Perspective):

"First, I must address Mr. Lavrov’s comment. Yes, the Minsk Agreements did allow Ukraine to strengthen its position, but they were also an attempt to prevent war. Unfortunately, both sides used that time to prepare for future conflict rather than compromise.

Now, a ceasefire must be based on realism. Russia is not leaving Crimea or the Donbas, and Ukraine is not going to stop seeking Western security guarantees. A middle ground must be found. That could mean:

1. A demilitarized buffer zone between Russian-held territory and Ukraine.
2. An international security force to monitor both sides.
3. Ukraine’s neutrality—perhaps a model similar to Austria during the Cold War.

A ceasefire is only viable if it prevents further war, not just delays it."

Doug Macgregor:

"So you’re proposing a Cold War-style neutrality solution. That would mean the U.S. and NATO backing off, which contradicts John Bolton’s stance. Henry Kissinger, you’ve dealt with frozen conflicts before—do you think Merkel’s approach is workable?"

Henry Kissinger:

"It is the only workable approach. Total victory for either side is impossible. Russia will not withdraw from its gains, and Ukraine will never be able to defeat Russia militarily. The West must recognize that keeping Ukraine in perpetual war serves no one’s long-term interest.

The best case scenario is a negotiated ceasefire leading to a partitioned Ukraine, with the West controlling one part and Russia the other, much like Germany after World War II. It may not be ideal, but it is far better than continued bloodshed."

John Bolton (Frustrated):

"This is unacceptable. You’re talking about selling out Ukraine and rewarding aggression. If you think Putin will stop at the Dnipro River, you are delusional. Appeasement never works. The only path forward is continued military support until Ukraine regains control of its borders."

Sergey Lavrov (Smirks):

"Mr. Bolton lives in a fantasy world where Russia can be defeated without consequences. If the West pushes us too far, what happens when Russia responds with its full military capacity? Are you prepared for nuclear escalation? The West must decide—does it want a ceasefire and compromise, or eternal war?"

Doug Macgregor (Closing Remarks):

"This discussion shows just how deep the divide remains. On one side, we have Russia demanding full security guarantees in exchange for a ceasefire. On the other, we have Western hardliners who believe Russia cannot be trusted and must be weakened before any peace is possible.

The real question is this: Will Ukraine be the battleground for great-power competition indefinitely, or will both sides recognize the limits of their ambitions and settle? That, more than any agreement, will determine whether a ceasefire holds.

Thank you all for this discussion. The war will not wait for perfect solutions—sooner or later, one will have to be chosen."

Key Takeaways from the Discussion:

1. Russia insists on Ukraine’s demilitarization and neutrality for any ceasefire to work.
2. The U.S. (Bolton’s view) sees a ceasefire as appeasement unless Ukraine is fully armed and defended.
3. Angela Merkel suggests a "Cold War-style" neutrality agreement with international monitoring.
4. Henry Kissinger warns that total victory is impossible and advocates for a partitioned Ukraine to prevent perpetual war.

What Are the Geopolitical Consequences of a Ceasefire?

Moderator: Douglas Macgregor
Panelists: John Mearsheimer, Noam Chomsky, Xi Jinping (or a Chinese diplomat), Jens Stoltenberg

Doug Macgregor (Moderator):

"Welcome to our second discussion on the geopolitical consequences of a ceasefire in Ukraine. Beyond the immediate impact on Ukraine and Russia, a ceasefire would reshape NATO, U.S. global influence, European security, and the emerging multipolar order.

Does a ceasefire signal a shift away from U.S. hegemony? Will it strengthen Russia and China’s position? Or does it preserve Western stability by preventing further escalation? Let’s begin with John Mearsheimer. You have argued that NATO expansion provoked this war—how would a ceasefire alter the geopolitical balance?"

John Mearsheimer (Realist Geopolitics Perspective):

"A ceasefire in Ukraine would accelerate the decline of U.S. global dominance and reinforce a multipolar world.

First, NATO would be weakened—Ukraine was supposed to be the West’s way to 'contain' Russia. Instead, Russia has survived economic sanctions, expanded its military capabilities, and deepened ties with China. If NATO allows a ceasefire without Ukraine reclaiming its lost territory, it will be seen as a Western defeat.

Second, China and Russia emerge stronger. China’s role as a peace broker will grow, as it has already positioned itself as a mediator. A ceasefire allows China to consolidate BRICS as an economic and political counterweight to the West.

Lastly, the U.S. will look weaker internationally. Washington framed this war as a battle for democracy, but if it now abandons Ukraine, allies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia will question whether America can truly defend them. Expect more countries to hedge their bets and seek security arrangements outside of U.S. influence."

Doug Macgregor:

"So you see a ceasefire as a loss for NATO and a gain for the East. Noam Chomsky, you’ve long criticized U.S. interventionism. Do you agree?"

Noam Chomsky (Media & Power Critique Perspective):

"Yes, but we must go deeper into the ideological and propaganda framework behind this war.

The U.S. has always framed its interventions as 'defending democracy.' But what is really at stake here? Control. The U.S. seeks to maintain global dominance by keeping Europe dependent on American military power. A ceasefire would expose the war for what it really is—a geopolitical tool, not a moral crusade.

But the real consequence of a ceasefire will be the continued militarization of the world. The U.S. will not accept defeat lightly. Instead of ending interventionism, Washington may shift resources to Taiwan, Iran, or another proxy war to reassert dominance. The military-industrial complex doesn’t care where the war happens—it just needs a war to justify its existence."

Doug Macgregor:

"So, rather than just a loss for NATO, you’re saying a ceasefire could lead to a redirection of conflict elsewhere. Let’s bring in a perspective from the East. Xi Jinping (or a Chinese diplomat), what does China see as the geopolitical consequences of a ceasefire?"

Chinese Diplomat (China’s Strategic Viewpoint):

"China views this war as a symptom of U.S. decline.

A ceasefire would prove that:

1. Russia has resisted Western pressure, meaning future U.S. interventions—whether in Asia or the Middle East—are less credible.
2. Europe is divided—many European nations do not want to continue this war, but they are pressured by Washington. If a ceasefire happens, some will seek closer ties with BRICS to avoid dependence on the U.S.
3. China gains as a peace broker—the West claims to be the global leader, yet it has only prolonged war. A ceasefire mediated by neutral powers like China shows that global influence is shifting away from Washington.

However, the U.S. will not quietly accept this shift. If Ukraine is forced into a ceasefire, expect the U.S. to increase tensions over Taiwan, because Washington needs a new crisis to maintain control."

Doug Macgregor:

"So we see a theme emerging—the idea that a ceasefire in Ukraine reduces U.S. credibility and pushes it toward new conflicts elsewhere. But does NATO agree? Jens Stoltenberg, as NATO Secretary General, how do you see a ceasefire shaping the future of European security?"

Jens Stoltenberg (NATO’s Perspective):

"A ceasefire would not mean peace—it would be a temporary setback that NATO must prepare for.

1. Ukraine must not be abandoned. If a ceasefire is imposed on unfavorable terms, it will be a green light for Russia to expand further. NATO cannot allow Ukraine to be ‘Finlandized’—turned into a buffer state under Russian influence.
2. NATO must be strengthened. A ceasefire should lead to the military reinforcement of Eastern Europe, ensuring that Russia cannot launch another war. More troops, weapons, and defense spending must be the priority.
3. We must prepare for a long-term confrontation. Russia is not a short-term problem. If a ceasefire holds, NATO must still work to weaken Russia through economic, cyber, and strategic means. A ceasefire is not an end—it is a phase in a broader struggle.

The real danger is that Europe grows complacent. If leaders start believing in 'peace,' they may cut defense spending. That would be a grave mistake."

Doug Macgregor (Moderating Tension):

"So NATO doesn’t see a ceasefire as an end to hostilities, but rather as a preparation for future confrontation. That means even with a ceasefire, the geopolitical tension would not disappear.

Let’s get final remarks. John Mearsheimer, if NATO refuses to de-escalate, does that mean we are heading for Cold War 2.0?"

John Mearsheimer:

"We’re already in Cold War 2.0. The question is whether it remains cold or turns hot in a different theater—Taiwan, Iran, or somewhere unexpected.

If NATO refuses to make strategic concessions, Russia will cement its ties with China, Iran, and BRICS. A ceasefire doesn’t bring peace—it forces a long-term restructuring of global power. We are witnessing the end of unipolarity. The U.S. can no longer dictate world affairs alone."

Doug Macgregor:

"Final thoughts, Noam Chomsky?"

Noam Chomsky:

"A ceasefire won’t change the mindset of Western elites. The U.S. establishment will look for new wars to maintain its grip on the world. Ukraine is just one front—expect more manipulation, more interventions, and more manufactured crises."

Doug Macgregor:

"Chinese perspective—what’s next after a ceasefire?"

Chinese Diplomat:

"The world moves toward a multipolar balance. The West must decide—adapt, or resist and fall behind. The next decade will determine whether the U.S. learns humility or collapses under its own ambitions."

Doug Macgregor (Final Thought):

"So, a ceasefire in Ukraine does not end global conflicts—it shifts them. We may see new theaters of war, the rise of multipolarity, and a restructured NATO. The real battle is not just military—it is the fight over who controls the future of global order.

This discussion raises a final question—what happens to NATO if the U.S. loses its ability to dictate global affairs? Perhaps a topic for another day.

Thank you all."

Key Takeaways:

1. Mearsheimer: Ceasefire signals NATO failure, accelerates multipolar world.
2. Chomsky: U.S. will seek new wars to maintain dominance.
3. China’s View: A shift away from U.S. hegemony; expect Taiwan tensions to rise.
4. NATO (Stoltenberg): Ceasefire is not peace; NATO must prepare for future confrontation.

Who Benefits Economically from a Ceasefire (or Continued War)?

Moderator: Douglas Macgregor
Panelists: Elon Musk, Catherine Austin Fitts, Ray Dalio, Seymour Hersh

Doug Macgregor (Moderator):

"Welcome, everyone. Today, we are tackling one of the most under-discussed aspects of this war: who actually benefits financially from a ceasefire, and who benefits from continued war?

Many assume war is bad for the economy, but history shows war is an industry—arms manufacturers, energy companies, and financial institutions often profit from prolonged conflict. Meanwhile, a ceasefire could shift markets, disrupt supply chains, and create a new economic order.

Let’s start with Elon Musk. Given your experience in both military technology and global trade, what do you see as the biggest economic consequences of a ceasefire?"

Elon Musk (Technology & Industry Perspective):

"War is fundamentally a money machine—but only for a select few.

1. Defense contractors—Companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman thrive in wartime. If a ceasefire is reached, expect massive lobbying to keep U.S. military budgets high, pushing the idea of ‘preparing for the next war’ instead of scaling down.
2. Energy markets—The war spiked oil and gas prices, benefiting energy giants. A ceasefire could reduce energy instability, but it could also push Europe toward long-term dependence on U.S. LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) instead of Russian supply.
3. AI & drone warfare—War speeds up technological breakthroughs. If a ceasefire happens, the tech industry shifts toward private militarization, where AI-driven conflicts replace traditional warfare.

A ceasefire won’t end the business of war—it will just change the game from open battle to high-tech, proxy conflicts."

Doug Macgregor:

"That’s an interesting point—war always adapts to the economy. Catherine Austin Fitts, you’ve spoken about the financial deep state behind war. Who actually benefits from continued conflict?"

Catherine Austin Fitts (Financial & Globalist Perspective):

"It’s simple—Wall Street, the central banks, and the military-industrial complex.

1. Debt financing: Wars are funded by debt, issued by central banks. The longer the war, the more debt is created, which benefits financial elites while draining national economies.
2. Weaponized aid: The money we send to Ukraine doesn’t go to Ukraine—it goes to contractors, arms dealers, and politicians. Billions disappear into a black hole. A ceasefire means less money laundering opportunities.
3. Privatization & reconstruction: A ceasefire would mean massive infrastructure contracts for rebuilding Ukraine. The same corporations that destroyed it through war would profit from its reconstruction.

A ceasefire doesn’t mean peace—it just means a shift in who profits."

Doug Macgregor:

"That raises a key issue—war isn’t just about arms sales, it’s also about financial markets. Ray Dalio, how would markets react to a ceasefire?"

Ray Dalio (Investment & Market Perspective):

"The markets don’t care about morality—they care about certainty.

1. Ceasefire = short-term market rally—A ceasefire would immediately boost global markets, especially in Europe, as stability returns.
2. Long-term uncertainty remains—If the ceasefire doesn’t resolve core tensions, investors will price in the risk of future conflicts, keeping some volatility.
3. Commodity shifts—The war changed energy, agriculture, and rare earth mineral markets. A ceasefire would make Russia a more stable supplier again, but the U.S. and NATO might work to prevent this, sustaining economic pressure.

A ceasefire could redirect capital—but the big question is, who controls post-war Ukraine? That will determine who profits."

Doug Macgregor:

"So a ceasefire might calm markets, but the West may manipulate economic outcomes to maintain leverage. Seymour Hersh, you’ve investigated corruption in war zones—what happens behind the scenes financially?"

Seymour Hersh (Investigative Journalism Perspective):

"What happens? Trillions disappear.

1. Ukraine is a black hole of corruption. The Pentagon sends aid, but no one accounts for where it goes. The Ukrainian elite siphon off billions, and Western contractors take their cut.
2. Weapons are resold on the black market. U.S.-supplied arms have already ended up with terrorist groups, cartels, and rogue states. A ceasefire cuts off this illicit trade, meaning intelligence agencies lose a major funding stream.
3. Reconstruction is the next gold rush. The same corporations lobbying for war will lobby for lucrative rebuilding contracts. A ceasefire means less money for arms, but a massive shift toward 'nation-building' profits.

The reality is, war is a business, and peace is just another business opportunity."

Doug Macgregor:

"This is fascinating—so war profits defense contractors, corrupt elites, and financial markets, while a ceasefire creates a new economic battlefield in reconstruction.

Let’s do a final round—who wins economically from a ceasefire, and who loses?

Elon Musk?"

Elon Musk:

"Winners: Tech firms, AI-driven defense companies, and European energy companies.
Losers: Traditional defense contractors who rely on major war budgets."

Catherine Austin Fitts:

"Winners: Bankers who finance post-war reconstruction.
Losers: Black market arms dealers, intelligence agencies running covert funding schemes."

Ray Dalio:

"Winners: Global markets, as long as stability holds.
Losers: U.S. dominance in European energy markets, if Russia is allowed back in."

Seymour Hersh:

"Winners: Western corporations getting contracts to rebuild Ukraine.
Losers: Anyone who actually thought this war was about democracy."

Doug Macgregor (Closing Statement):

"This discussion proves one thing—war and peace are both industries.

A ceasefire doesn’t mean peace—it means a shift in profits. Contractors move from arms sales to reconstruction, financial elites shift from war financing to rebuilding loans, and intelligence agencies lose their black budget streams.

The deeper question is—if peace is profitable, why does war always return? Perhaps a question for another day.

Thank you all."

Key Takeaways:

1. Elon Musk: War accelerates AI & drone development; ceasefire benefits tech-driven defense firms.
2. Catherine Austin Fitts: War fuels global debt; ceasefire shifts profits to reconstruction.
3. Ray Dalio: Markets love stability, but NATO may manipulate energy and trade outcomes.
4. Seymour Hersh: Ukraine is a corruption haven; ceasefire just shifts profits to post-war contracts.

Is a Ceasefire a Stepping Stone to Peace or Just a Temporary Delay?

Moderator: Douglas Macgregor
Panelists: Graham Allison, Zbigniew Brzezinski (represented by Ian Brzezinski), Viktor Orbán, Tucker Carlson

Doug Macgregor (Moderator):

"Welcome, everyone. Today, we are addressing a crucial question: Is a ceasefire in Ukraine the first step toward lasting peace, or is it just a temporary pause before the next war?

History is filled with ceasefires that either solidified peace or merely delayed future conflicts. Korea is still divided, Israel and Palestine have seen multiple failed ceasefires, and even the Minsk Agreements led to more war.

So, which way will Ukraine go? Is a ceasefire a stepping stone or a trap?

Let’s start with Graham Allison—your work on great-power conflicts, including the "Thucydides Trap," has shaped how we think about war. How do you see a ceasefire playing out?"

Graham Allison (Historical Perspective on War & Ceasefires):

"History suggests that ceasefires rarely end conflicts unless underlying security concerns are resolved.

1. Ceasefires without settlements are just pauses. Look at World War I—an armistice was signed in 1918, but because the Treaty of Versailles didn't address German grievances, it set the stage for World War II.
2. Korean War Model? A ceasefire in Ukraine could lead to a divided nation, like Korea. But is Ukraine willing to be permanently split?
3. The real issue is U.S.-Russia relations. If the U.S. and NATO continue treating Russia as an adversary, any ceasefire is just a delay before the next war.

So, if this ceasefire does not include clear security guarantees for both sides, we are simply postponing another, possibly bigger war."

Doug Macgregor:

"That’s a sobering point—a ceasefire without addressing deeper tensions may be a trap.

Now, let’s bring in Ian Brzezinski, representing the perspective of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s geopolitical strategy. The Brzezinski doctrine argued that Russia must be weakened to prevent it from becoming a dominant force. Does that mean a ceasefire would be a strategic mistake?"

Ian Brzezinski (Geopolitical & NATO Perspective):

"A ceasefire without military consequences for Russia is a Western failure.

1. Ceasefire = Russian victory. If Russia stops fighting but keeps occupied territory, it signals to China, Iran, and other adversaries that the West lacks resolve.
2. NATO credibility is on the line. If Ukraine is forced into a ceasefire, will Taiwan trust U.S. security commitments? Will NATO’s eastern flank feel safe?
3. Russia must be weakened, not paused. If a ceasefire allows Russia to regroup, rearm, and prepare for another invasion in 5 years, then we’ve simply given Putin a free pass to strike again.

I believe that a ceasefire without a decisive Russian retreat is a strategic disaster."

Doug Macgregor:

"So, from a NATO perspective, a ceasefire could actually be worse than continuing the war.

But let’s get Viktor Orbán’s take—Hungary has been one of the few European voices calling for peace negotiations. Prime Minister Orbán, why do you see a ceasefire as a path forward?"

Viktor Orbán (Pro-Peace, Realist European Viewpoint):

"Because Europe is tired of war.

1. A continued war destroys Europe’s economy. The U.S. may benefit from war production, but European industry is suffering. A ceasefire allows for rebuilding and stabilizing trade.
2. Ukraine cannot win. This is the hard truth. No matter how much aid the West provides, Russia will always have the advantage in manpower, artillery, and long-term resilience. Why delay the inevitable?
3. A ceasefire gives space for diplomacy. If NATO insists on ‘total victory,’ Ukraine will be destroyed before Russia ever surrenders. A ceasefire opens a new phase of negotiation.

So yes, a ceasefire is a stepping stone to peace—but only if the West accepts that it has lost its gamble in Ukraine. If not, then the war will continue under a different name."

Doug Macgregor:

"That’s a realist perspective—if Ukraine cannot win, a ceasefire is logical.

But let’s turn to Tucker Carlson, who has covered this war extensively. Tucker, do you see a ceasefire as leading to peace, or as a temporary setup for another conflict?"

Tucker Carlson (Media & U.S. Policy Critique):

"The truth is, this war was never about Ukraine—it was about power.

1. The U.S. establishment doesn’t want peace. A ceasefire would force Washington to admit failure, and D.C. never admits failure—it just shifts the war elsewhere (think Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria).
2. Ceasefire = Western elites losing money. If the war stops, the defense industry, intelligence agencies, and political elites lose their biggest cash cow. They will find a way to keep the conflict alive.
3. The West doesn’t care about Ukraine. If the U.S. actually cared about Ukraine’s future, it would be pushing for peace, not using Ukrainians as cannon fodder in a proxy war against Russia.

So my take? A ceasefire will be sabotaged by Washington. The moment peace becomes possible, the U.S. will manufacture another crisis to keep the war machine running."

Doug Macgregor (Moderating Tensions):

"Fascinating points. Let’s summarize what we’ve heard.

• Graham Allison warns that a ceasefire without deep structural changes will lead to another war.
• Ian Brzezinski argues that a ceasefire strengthens Russia and weakens NATO.
• Viktor Orbán believes Europe needs peace, and a ceasefire could stabilize the continent.
• Tucker Carlson claims the U.S. war machine will sabotage any real peace.

Now, let’s close with one final question for each of you: What must happen for a ceasefire to lead to lasting peace?

Graham Allison:

"A neutral Ukraine. The only way to ensure peace is for Ukraine to commit to neutrality, just like Finland during the Cold War."

Ian Brzezinski:

"A Russian military defeat. Anything less will invite more aggression."

Viktor Orbán:

"End U.S. control over Europe’s foreign policy. Let Europe negotiate its own peace without Washington interfering."

Tucker Carlson:

"Dismantle the war industry. If the U.S. doesn’t stop profiting from war, this cycle will never end."

Doug Macgregor (Final Thought):

"This discussion has made one thing clear—a ceasefire is not just about stopping fighting; it is about shaping the future of global power.

If NATO insists on Russia’s defeat, a ceasefire will fail. If the U.S. sees war as an economic tool, a ceasefire will be undermined. If Europe truly wants peace, it may have to separate its interests from Washington.

So, a ceasefire in Ukraine may not just decide this war—it may decide the next 50 years of global order.

Thank you all for this discussion."

Key Takeaways:

1. Graham Allison: Ceasefires fail unless long-term security concerns are resolved.
2. Ian Brzezinski: A ceasefire is a Russian victory and NATO failure.
3. Viktor Orbán: Europe needs peace, but Washington keeps the war alive.
4. Tucker Carlson: The U.S. war machine will sabotage peace to protect its profits.

How Would a Ceasefire Impact Global Security and Future Wars?

Moderator: Douglas Macgregor
Panelists: Scott Ritter, Tulsi Gabbard, Richard Haass, Sergey Lavrov

Doug Macgregor (Moderator):

"Welcome to our final discussion on the global implications of a ceasefire in Ukraine.

We’ve already established that a ceasefire doesn’t guarantee peace. But what does it mean for global security and the future of war?

• Does a ceasefire weaken Western deterrence, leading to more conflicts?
• Or does it set a precedent for de-escalation and prevent future wars?
• Will the global order shift permanently toward multipolarity, with new rules for war and peace?

Let's start with Scott Ritter—as a former UN weapons inspector, what do you see as the long-term security consequences of a ceasefire?"

Scott Ritter (Military & Arms Control Perspective):

"A ceasefire changes the rules of war in ways most people aren’t thinking about.

1. The West loses credibility. If the U.S. pushes for a ceasefire after years of backing Ukraine, it signals to the world that Washington can’t commit to long-term defense promises. Taiwan, South Korea, and other allies will start hedging.
2. New military doctrines will emerge. Russia has proven Western sanctions and proxy warfare don’t work. Other nations, like China and Iran, are taking notes on how to resist Western pressure.
3. NATO’s purpose will be questioned. If NATO backs down in Ukraine, what’s its justification for continued expansion? A ceasefire could mark the beginning of NATO’s decline.

In short, a ceasefire doesn’t just change this war—it changes global security frameworks for the next 50 years."

Doug Macgregor:

"So you’re saying a ceasefire damages U.S. deterrence and emboldens adversaries.

Tulsi Gabbard, you’ve been a strong critic of endless wars. Do you agree that a ceasefire signals weakness, or does it actually make the world safer?"

Tulsi Gabbard (Anti-Interventionist Perspective):

"It depends on who controls the narrative.

1. If framed as a ‘defeat,’ it could encourage more wars. The U.S. war machine won’t stop—they’ll shift focus to Taiwan, Iran, or another conflict.
2. But if framed as a ‘strategic reset,’ it could de-escalate global tensions. The U.S. could pivot toward diplomacy instead of military intervention.
3. The key factor is leadership. If Washington learns humility and stops forcing ‘regime change’ wars, a ceasefire could start a new era of restraint.

Right now, though, I don’t trust the people in power to let that happen. The military-industrial complex thrives on perpetual war. A ceasefire is only a pause unless leaders make real changes."

Doug Macgregor:

"So for a ceasefire to change global security, it requires a shift in U.S. foreign policy.

Richard Haass, as a foreign policy strategist, do you see the ceasefire as a weakness or a strategic shift?"

Richard Haass (Council on Foreign Relations Perspective):

"Neither. A ceasefire is a moment of recalibration.

1. NATO will have to redefine itself. If Russia is not ‘defeated,’ NATO must shift from expansionism to containment.
2. U.S. foreign policy will shift toward economic leverage. Expect more sanctions, cyberwarfare, and financial pressure rather than direct military engagement.
3. China becomes the biggest winner. If the U.S. is distracted by the consequences of a ceasefire, China gains time to consolidate power and expand influence in Asia.

The world order will not collapse after a ceasefire, but it will shift toward regional power structures. The U.S. will no longer be the uncontested leader."

Doug Macgregor:

"So you see the ceasefire as marking the end of U.S. global dominance, not as an outright collapse.

Let’s bring in Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister. What does a ceasefire mean for Russia’s future security?"

Sergey Lavrov (Russian Perspective):

"For Russia, a ceasefire is only the first step.

1. We will demand permanent security guarantees. That means no NATO expansion, no Western arms in Ukraine, and a neutral Kyiv.
2. The West must abandon ‘regime change’ policies. If the U.S. keeps trying to overthrow governments it dislikes, new conflicts will emerge.
3. A new world order is forming. The U.S. cannot dictate global rules anymore. Russia, China, and BRICS nations will reshape international security.

The real question is not what Russia will do after a ceasefire—but what the U.S. will do. If Washington accepts multipolarity, we can have stability. If not, another war is inevitable."

Doug Macgregor (Moderating the Divide):

"This conversation highlights the real stakes of a ceasefire.

• Scott Ritter warns that it weakens U.S. deterrence and encourages adversaries.
• Tulsi Gabbard argues that it depends on U.S. leadership—will they change, or just find a new war?
• Richard Haass sees it as a shift toward economic power struggles rather than military conflicts.
• Sergey Lavrov believes it will finalize the end of Western unipolar dominance.

Now, let's close with one final question: What happens if the ceasefire collapses?"

Scott Ritter:

"If the ceasefire collapses, it means all-out war. The West will be forced to choose between:

1. Direct NATO intervention, which risks nuclear escalation.
2. Letting Ukraine lose completely, which would shatter NATO credibility.

Either scenario is dangerous."

Tulsi Gabbard:

"If the ceasefire collapses, expect the U.S. to shift the war elsewhere. Maybe Taiwan, Syria, or another Middle East conflict. The war machine never stops—it just relocates."

Richard Haass:

"A failed ceasefire means a fragmented world. Nations will look for regional security pacts instead of relying on the U.S. This could mark the end of Western-led global institutions like NATO and the UN."

Sergey Lavrov:

"If the ceasefire fails, Russia will finish the job. That means taking all of Ukraine, pushing NATO forces back, and permanently redrawing Europe’s borders. The West would have only itself to blame."

Doug Macgregor (Final Thought):

"So, we’ve heard two possible futures:

• A managed ceasefire that restructures global power without direct conflict.
• A collapsed ceasefire leading to larger wars, economic chaos, and a fragmented global order.

The real battle isn’t just military—it’s about shaping the future of global security. The U.S. must choose: adapt to multipolarity, or cling to old dominance at the risk of war.

Thank you all for this vital discussion."

Key Takeaways:

1. Scott Ritter: A ceasefire weakens U.S. deterrence and shifts military strategies.
2. Tulsi Gabbard: The war machine won’t stop unless leadership actively changes its approach.
3. Richard Haass: The future is economic warfare, not military dominance.
4. Sergey Lavrov: A failed ceasefire means Russia finishes the war on its terms.

Would the U.S. Sabotage a Ceasefire to Maintain Global Control?

Moderator: Douglas Macgregor
Panelists: Scott Ritter, Tulsi Gabbard, Richard Haass, Sergey Lavrov

Doug Macgregor (Moderator):

"Welcome back. Today, we’re asking a crucial question that few are willing to discuss publicly:

Would the U.S. sabotage a ceasefire in Ukraine to maintain its global dominance?

The U.S. has a history of prolonging conflicts, funding proxy wars, and undermining peace efforts when it serves its geopolitical goals. A ceasefire in Ukraine would shift global power dynamics—potentially signaling the decline of U.S. unipolar dominance and the rise of multipolarity.

So, let’s get to it: Is the U.S. really interested in peace, or is it just playing for time to sustain its global influence?

Scott Ritter, as a former UN weapons inspector and military analyst, what’s your take?"

Scott Ritter (Military & Intelligence Perspective):

"The U.S. doesn’t want peace—it wants control.

1. Ceasefire = End of U.S. Proxy War – The entire Ukraine conflict has been a proxy war to weaken Russia. If peace happens, the U.S. loses its ability to drain Russian military resources.
2. Sabotaging Peace is a Pattern – The U.S. undermined peace efforts in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. Why would Ukraine be any different?
3. The Pentagon Needs War – The military-industrial complex thrives on endless war. A ceasefire would mean fewer weapons contracts, so it’s in their interest to prolong the conflict or restart another one.

So yes, the U.S. will likely sabotage a ceasefire—if not directly, then by ensuring Ukraine keeps fighting."

Doug Macgregor:

"That’s a damning statement—the idea that the U.S. doesn’t seek peace, only perpetual war for control.

Tulsi Gabbard, you’ve been critical of U.S. interventionism. Do you believe Washington will allow a real ceasefire?"

Tulsi Gabbard (Anti-Interventionist Perspective):

"I don’t. And here’s why:

1. The U.S. treats peace as weakness. Washington sees diplomacy as appeasement, not strategy. That’s why every U.S. foreign policy decision prioritizes war over negotiation.
2. The Deep State Controls Policy. Even if a president wanted peace, the military-industrial complex, intelligence agencies, and war profiteers would sabotage it behind the scenes.
3. The War Machine Always Needs a Next Conflict. If Ukraine reaches a ceasefire, the U.S. will shift its focus—Taiwan, Iran, Syria, maybe even Latin America.

A ceasefire doesn’t mean peace—it means the U.S. relocates the war to another battlefield."

Doug Macgregor:

"You’re both suggesting that U.S. policy isn’t about ending wars, but shifting them to serve its interests.

Richard Haass, from a diplomatic perspective, does the U.S. have any real incentive to support peace?"

Richard Haass (Council on Foreign Relations Perspective):

"This is where realpolitik comes in.

1. A ceasefire is bad for U.S. credibility. If Russia keeps any territory after the war, it signals that the West can be challenged and lose. That’s a nightmare for U.S. global influence.
2. NATO Expansion Could Stall. A peace deal would slow NATO’s expansion efforts in Europe, which the U.S. sees as essential to countering Russia.
3. It’s About Controlling Europe. The U.S. uses NATO to keep Europe dependent on Washington. A ceasefire could lead Europe to drift toward diplomatic relations with Russia, weakening U.S. dominance.

So while peace is good for the world, it’s bad for American hegemony. And that’s why I believe the U.S. will either delay or manipulate a ceasefire to protect its influence."

Doug Macgregor:

"This brings us to Russia’s perspective.

Sergey Lavrov, from Moscow’s point of view, do you believe the U.S. is genuinely interested in peace, or do you see it as a geopolitical game?"

Sergey Lavrov (Russian Foreign Minister):

"The U.S. does not want peace—it wants to control the world order.

1. Washington seeks to weaken Russia, not end the war. The U.S. has openly admitted that its goal is to use Ukraine to degrade Russian power. Why would they suddenly change strategy?
2. Peace means acknowledging multipolarity. If the U.S. allows peace, it must accept that Russia, China, and BRICS nations are emerging as alternative global powers. They don’t want that.
3. Sabotaging peace through proxies. Even if the U.S. publicly supports a ceasefire, it could secretly fund mercenaries, sabotage negotiations, or encourage Ukraine to break agreements.

So no, Russia does not believe the U.S. is serious about peace. We believe they will find ways to keep the war alive—either in Ukraine or somewhere else."

Doug Macgregor (Moderating the Divide):

"Let’s take a step back—if the U.S. doesn’t want peace, what happens next?

1. Scott Ritter, if the U.S. undermines a ceasefire, what is the consequence?"

Scott Ritter:

"Then we risk total war.

• Russia will escalate. If Moscow realizes the West won’t allow peace, it may go for total victory—meaning Odessa falls, Ukraine is landlocked, and Kyiv collapses.
• NATO risks direct involvement. If Ukraine collapses, NATO might intervene, triggering a direct NATO-Russia war.
• Economic crisis in Europe. If the war drags on, Europe collapses economically under continued instability.

The U.S. can’t sabotage peace forever—at some point, it forces escalation."

Doug Macgregor:

"Tulsi, if the U.S. moves on to another war, where will it be?"

Tulsi Gabbard:

"Taiwan. The war industry is already pivoting toward China as the next threat. Expect a massive propaganda push to justify future conflict there."

Doug Macgregor:

"Richard Haass, if the U.S. pushes another war, what happens to NATO?"

Richard Haass:

"NATO fractures.

• If Ukraine collapses, Europe may stop blindly following Washington.
• Germany and France may seek peace with Russia rather than continue U.S.-driven policies.
• NATO could split into pro-war and pro-diplomacy factions.

That could be the beginning of the end of U.S. dominance in Europe."

Doug Macgregor:

"Sergey Lavrov, if the U.S. keeps pushing war, how does Russia respond?"

Sergey Lavrov:

"Russia will move closer to China, India, and BRICS.

• We will strengthen economic alternatives to the West.
• We will increase military cooperation with non-Western nations.
• We will prepare for long-term confrontation with NATO.

If the U.S. rejects peace, Russia will ensure that a new world order emerges—one where Washington is no longer in control."

Doug Macgregor (Final Thought):

"This discussion makes one thing clear:

• If the U.S. allows peace, it must accept a multipolar world.
• If it sabotages peace, it risks economic collapse and global war.

The real battle isn’t just in Ukraine—it’s over who controls the future of global power.

Thank you all for this vital discussion."

Key Takeaways:

1. Scott Ritter: Sabotaging peace could force Russia into total war.
2. Tulsi Gabbard: If Ukraine ends, the U.S. shifts war to Taiwan.
3. Richard Haass: NATO could fracture if the U.S. prolongs war.
4. Sergey Lavrov: If peace is blocked, Russia will reshape global power with BRICS.

Short Bios: