Anton Gerashchenko’s warning —
and what it means for Europe’s shortsighted neighbors
R.M. Westerink; October 2026
A war to seize a neighbor’s territory can become something larger: an attempt to decide how the whole neighborhood is allowed to protect itself.
That is the warning running through Anton Gerashchenko’s Bluesky post of October 23. Bringing together statements by Russian officials, analysts and political commentators, he describes a Moscow looking beyond Ukraine toward a wider rearrangement of European security. Negotiations would provide an opportunity to pursue that ambition, even while the war continues. [1]
His account closely follows the predicament described in my earlier article, What Good Are Shortsighted Neighbors? [2] There, an intruder occupies rooms in a neighbor’s house while the other residents struggle to organize an effective response. They provide substantial help, but their divided decisions prevent their combined resources from becoming sufficient power. Meanwhile, their powerful friend from another street begins discussing a settlement with the intruder.
Gerashchenko adds an unsettling next chapter. The intruder has ideas about the rest of the street, too.
What Moscow hopes to gain
Gerashchenko describes an emerging negotiating agenda that reaches beyond stopping the fighting. Putin has called for discussion of security guarantees for Russia and the wider security order. The announced initial format brings together Russia, Ukraine and the United States, leaving European participation for later.
Alongside those official positions, Gerashchenko assembles more expansive expectations from Russian public figures. These include restrictions on NATO deployments and enlargement, recognition of territorial seizures, sanctions relief and the return of frozen Russian assets. Other voices celebrate the status Moscow gains from dealing directly with Washington, or see an opportunity in Trump’s desire for a political success before the American elections.
These statements have different standing. A commentator’s ambition is not automatically a Kremlin negotiating demand. Nor does a Russian description of American intentions establish what Washington has agreed to do. But taken together, they reveal a way of thinking Europe needs to understand: the war may be used to obtain concessions extending well beyond the territory Russia occupies.
Three points particularly stand out.
1. The argument reaches beyond Ukraine
The demands Gerashchenko attributes to analyst Stanislav Tkachenko concern the security arrangements of other European countries, including NATO’s military presence in Eastern Europe and further enlargement.
That changes the scale of the issue. A settlement could become a means of seeking influence over decisions that belong to sovereign European states.
Ukraine’s freedom to choose its protection is already at stake. The wider danger is that coercion becomes an accepted basis for restricting other countries’ choices as well. Russia would gain political authority from the very insecurity it has created.
This closely matches the central concern of the neighbors parable. Helping Ukraine defend its house is part of defending the rules under which everyone else lives. Europeans cannot assume that securing their own doors will settle a dispute about who has the right to control the street.
2. Negotiations can reward Russia before an agreement
Gerashchenko’s second important point is that Moscow can value negotiations even when they produce no peace settlement.
Direct dealings with Washington confer recognition. A broader agenda creates opportunities to connect Ukraine’s future with sanctions, economic relations and European security. Disagreement among Western governments can weaken their common position.
None of this makes negotiations inherently undesirable. Ending a war requires diplomacy. But holding talks and making progress toward a durable peace are different achievements.
Europe therefore needs to ask what changes while negotiations proceed. Does Ukraine become more secure? Does Russia face stronger reasons to stop? Are concessions reciprocal and enforceable? Or does Moscow gain status and practical benefits while preserving its ability to continue the war?
The existence of a negotiating table answers none of those questions.
3. Fighting continues to shape the bargain
Gerashchenko reports Dmitri Trenin’s expectation that negotiations can proceed while fighting continues, potentially into 2027, with eventual terms depending on military outcomes.
The implication is straightforward. A negotiating position rests partly on what each side expects to gain by continuing the war.
If Moscow expects further advances, mounting Ukrainian exhaustion or declining European support, it has reasons to delay and demand more. If it expects sustained resistance and diminishing returns, its calculation can change.
For Europe, this connects diplomacy directly to the speed, reliability and effectiveness of its support. Ukraine needs the means to defend its population, maintain its forces and keep its society functioning. European promises matter most when they become capabilities in time.
Your place at the table carries more weight when your actions affect what happens away from it.
What this means for the neighbors
Gerashchenko’s account strengthens the warning in What Good Are Shortsighted Neighbors? Europe’s fragmentation creates opportunities for an adversary willing to combine violence, bargaining and delay.
It also sharpens the response. Europe needs shared resources, faster decisions and a credible common position, developed with Ukraine. Being represented in negotiations matters. Being able to sustain the country under attack gives that representation substance.
Return, then, to the street.
The intruder is still inside his neighbor’s house when he sends a message. He is willing to discuss peace. But the meeting must also settle which locks the other neighbors may install, who may join their protection agreement, and how close their patrols may come to his home.
The powerful friend agrees to talk. The homeowner has a chair, though he remains under enormous pressure. The other neighbors are told they may be invited later.
Before anyone signs anything, the intruder is pleased. He is being treated as someone entitled to negotiate the rules of the street. Meanwhile, his men keep breaking through the house. Every room they capture may improve the terms he can demand.
The neighbors finally understand what their meetings have been missing.
They establish a common security fund, coordinate their equipment and arrange decisions that one household cannot indefinitely block. They help the homeowner repair his defenses and keep his family safe. Together with him, they agree on what they will support at the negotiating table—and prepare to sustain it if the talks fail.
Then they send their answer.
They are ready to discuss how the violence ends. The homeowner will decide his own future.
The street will decide its protection together.
And the intruder will no longer be allowed to make delay work entirely in his favor.
About Anton Gerashchenko
Anton Gerashchenko is a Ukrainian political figure and commentator. He served in Ukraine’s parliament from 2014 to 2019 and as deputy minister of internal affairs from 2019 to 2021, and has also advised the interior minister. He shares news and analysis about Russia’s war against Ukraine with international audiences through social media. His commentary offers an explicitly pro-Ukrainian perspective, informed by experience in government and security affairs.
References
[1] Anton Gerashchenko, Bluesky post, October 23, 2026.
https://bsky.app/profile/antongerashchenko.bsky.social/post/3mykvec6sgs2b
[2] What Good Are Shortsighted Neighbors?, Europe Is Us, October 24, 2026
https://europe-is-us.blogspot.com/2026/10/what-good-are-shortsighted-neighbors.html
No comments:
Post a Comment