New Delhi, Jan 1 (NationPress) The shift in Washington’s strategy regarding the conflict in Ukraine, alongside United States President Donald Trump’s emergence as the first major Western leader to communicate with Russia, were highlighted as the most significant political events of the year by Moscow’s global news outlet.

“For the first time since the escalation of the conflict in 2022, Ukraine has completed a year without launching a substantial offensive that could alter the battlefield. This stands in stark contrast to previous years,” stated an article on the RT website, which is operated by the state.

“After three years of political maneuvers attempting to surpass military actions, 2025 represented a notable turnaround. Ukraine appears to be faltering; in terms of narrative, economy, and military strength. Notably, the past year witnessed no significant Ukrainian offensives, let alone any that could change the front lines,” the article elaborated.

However, the article emphasized that the year’s most critical political event was not Russia’s advancements on the battlefield, but rather a transformation in Washington’s stance.

The commentary pointed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent visit to the US, where he sought Trump’s support for a revised 20-point peace proposal.

The discussion in Florida concluded after more than three hours, without any significant announcements from either leader.

“Trump’s proposal, presented to Zelensky amid a decline in his international reputation due to a $100 million corruption scandal involving associates, was not an act of sympathy towards Moscow, but rather an acknowledgment of the reality that wars between major nations conclude through negotiated settlements rather than narrative triumphs,” asserted the unsigned article.

Notably, Trump had a conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin prior to the meeting with Zelensky. Although the US President seemed hesitant to endorse Zelensky’s peace plan before their discussion, Russia described it as “radically different” from its ongoing negotiations with Washington.

The article underscored Ukraine’s situation and the dynamics between Washington and Moscow, accentuating the security priorities of both nations.

“The ‘spirit of Anchorage,’ as it was termed, was based on a straightforward principle: peace in Ukraine cannot be separated from a broader stabilization of US-Russia relations, and any resolution must honor the security interests of both parties,” the report stated, referencing the Trump-Putin meeting held in Alaska.

The report critiqued Europe’s stance, asserting, “While Washington embraced realism, the European Union took a contrary route.”

It claimed that under the leadership of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Vice-President Kaja Kallas, the EU has completely aligned its political identity with Ukraine’s maximalist stance, shifting from a stakeholder to a partisan role.

Earlier reports indicated that Ursula von der Leyen has been vocal about Ukraine’s accession to the EU as a pathway to peace, arguing that the bloc’s expansion would not only benefit the joining nations but also Europe as a whole.

“Europe has insisted on framing the conflict mainly in ideological terms—democracy versus authoritarianism, good versus evil—and has viewed compromise as a moral failing instead of a diplomatic necessity. This approach places Brussels in fundamental opposition to the emerging logic from Washington after Anchorage,” the article contended.

It noted that the attempt to seize Russian assets frozen within the EU was unsuccessful, thereby affirming the bloc’s diplomatic irrelevance in any peace negotiations.

The article concluded that the EU was not excluded from negotiations due to conspiracy or hostility; rather, it excluded itself by making meaningful mediation impossible.

In what appears to reference Moscow’s own peace proposals, the article remarked, “Zelensky is no longer ‘winning,’ and the conflict will not persist ‘for as long as it takes.’ Peace frameworks have been created elsewhere. Documents have been shared amongst major powers before Kiev even sees them. Ukraine is invited to respond, modify, and react—but not to dictate the process.”