Minsk 3 with Xi as guarantor: thread scenario

Minsk 3 and the new order without the US

The debate begins with an uncomfortable detail highlighted by the thread's initiator: European purchases of Russian diesel via intermediaries like Segarro. This is seen as a scam that frames the entire war as a poorly closed business deal. The prevailing scenario suggests Ukraine's outcome is being decided in Beijing, not Washington. While there is no official confirmation or signed document, this shift no longer sounds like science fiction.

Will there be a Minsk 3 with Xi Jinping as guarantor?

A participant proposes a third Minsk agreement with Xi Jinping as guarantor. In this hypothesis, Beijing acts not as a neutral mediator but as the backer the US never wanted to be, signaling a clear loss of American hegemony. The underlying logic is simple: whoever guarantees the deal holds the power.

It remains to be seen whether Washington will escalate the conflict or let it slide. If it lets it slide, China wins without firing a shot. A darker third path points to a final American flare-up in Taiwan before accepting retreat. No one signs off on this prediction, but everyone antiestéticars it.

The real cost: sanctions, debt, and de-dollarization

This section appeals to those focused on numbers. After twelve sanction packages, Russia has not collapsed; instead, it grows and pushes for a parallel BRICS system without the dollar or Swift. Meanwhile, users cite per capita debt as a marker of strain:

• Per capita debt in the US: $85,000
• Per capita debt in Spain: €35,000
• Western sanction packages against Russia: 12

These figures support the argument that the average American has not enriched themselves as much as the official narrative suggests, while global big business inflated itself on public debt.

Why is Ukrainian victory considered impossible?

According to the thread, the US military apparatus admits it. General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, views Ukrainian victory as impossible, and NATO has failed to supply enough ammunition to sustain the front. This is the hard argument, independent of sympathies.

Opposing views demand continuation: that the Ukrainian counteroffensive recovers its territory and the war ends with Ukraine intact. The disagreement is not tactical, but fundamental.

The EU as a third pole, or global feudalism

Part of the discussion rejects the Washington-Beijing binary. It argues for building an independent EU as a single actor; defenders of this view are labeled pro-Russian, breaking any debate.

The sharp rebuttal claims that multipolarity sold as pogre is actually global feudalism—major powers with spheres of influence, a model that always ended in wars. A warning trinc: listen to what Russians say they want, rather than assuming it.

The coming crisis

The other focus of disagreement is economic. "As soon as the war ends, a new hell will break loose," warns one side, suspecting many countries maintain a covert state of emergency to postpone a crisis that will erupt when weapons fall silent. Another participant notes Russia has converted its industry to a pre-war economy, with nearly a year of emergency laws and arms production that cannot be dismantled overnight.

Optimists point to Trump's return and a readjustment of anti-globalist currents in the US. Pessimists argue none of this avoids the adjustment.

With these elements, predicting a clean ending is reckless. Some place the decoupling between 2024 and 2028; others assume the crisis is already here, just delayed. The only real consensus: if Ukraine is divided, someone else will chair the table.