Tag: russia

Trump Flirts with NATO’s Hardliners

Multiple reports in Western news media highlight President Donald Trump’s growing dissatisfaction with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Financial Times reported that Trump had encouraged Kiev to punish Putin by striking deep inside Russian territory—perhaps even hitting Moscow—if the U.S. provided it with more long-range weapons. (Trump has denied he supports such strikes.)

In marked contrast to the initial weeks of his second term, Trump has now effectively signed on to NATO’s uncompromising strategy of insisting on Russia’s capitulation with respect to the terms of a peace accord between Russia and Ukraine. The Western demands include Russia’s complete withdrawal from conquered Ukrainian territory (including Crimea) and its acquiescence to Kiev’s possibly joining NATO. 

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral James Stavridis expresses the prevailing mentality of hardliners when he contends that sending Ukraine openly offensive weapons might be the most effective way to force Moscow back to the negotiating table.

The ongoing transformation of Trump’s overall approach to the war between Russia and Ukraine has been breathtaking. During the 2024 presidential election campaign, Trump portrayed the Biden administration’s participation in NATO’s policy of using Ukraine in a proxy war against Russia as an expensive, potentially dangerous blunder. Trump led his political followers to believe that he would terminate the Ukraine entanglement as soon as possible, since it was inconsistent with his overall concept of an “America First” foreign policy. On one occasion, he even boasted that he could bring an end to the Russia–Ukraine conflict in 24 hours. Instead, he has now decided to help rearm Ukraine and even escalate Washington’s support by accelerating shipments of Patriot air defense missiles and other munitions to Kiev.

Trump’s attitude toward Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has undergone a similarly radical transformation. In the initial weeks of his second term, Trump seemed to grasp that improving Washington’s relations with Moscow needed to be a high priority, and that the Ukraine conflict was the principal obstacle to achieving that objective. His rhetoric toward Putin was conciliatory, in marked contrast to the openly hostile and contemptuous attitude of Biden administration officials. At the same time, Trump seemed to regard Zelensky as an arrogant, ungrateful U.S. and NATO client determined to continue pursuing a “wag the dog strategy” toward his Western patrons.

Keep reading

Medvedev condemns western ‘treachery,’ says preemptive strikes possible amid rising tensions with NATO

Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev warned on 17 July that Moscow must be prepared to deliver preemptive strikes against the west if necessary.

Speaking to TASS on the 80th anniversary of the Potsdam Conference, Medvedev said, “The west’s treacherous nature and its warped sense of superiority are still evident. And we should therefore act accordingly, responding in full or even delivering preemptive strikes if need be.”

Reflecting on the historical lessons of 1945, Medvedev added that the conference – attended by the leaders of the USSR, US, and UK after their victory in World War II – revealed that relations with the west must not be based on illusions. He accused former Soviet allies of violating the decisions made at Potsdam, implying that today’s NATO-aligned nations continue to betray post-war agreements.

Medvedev’s comments follow a string of escalatory statements made by US President Donald Trump and plans to deliver new weapons to Kiev.

A Financial Times report on 15 July revealed that Trump, during a 4 July phone call, encouraged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to strike deep into Russian territory. According to sources, Trump asked, “Can you hit Moscow? Can you hit St. Petersburg too?” Zelensky allegedly responded, “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.”

Trump announced on Monday a series of steps aimed at pressuring Moscow to end the war with Ukraine. This includes “massive” supplies of US weapons and assistance, among them Patriot air defense systems. 

The Kremlin, through spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, also signaled it is analyzing US President Donald Trump’s recent threat to impose 100 percent secondary sanctions on countries purchasing Russian exports unless Moscow agrees to a peace deal within 50 days.

Keep reading

Ukrainian Proposal to Trade WWII Corpses for Living Prisoners is Beyond the Pale – Ex-DoD Analyst

The callousness of the Ukrainian offer to exchange the exhumed remains of Russian WWII soldiers for Ukrainian military prisoners is “hard to imagine,” former US Department of Defense analyst Karen Kwiatkowsky told Sputnik.

“It also suggests that there are not enough current Russian soldiers dead or captured to match those Ukrainians dead or held as POWs by Russia,” Kwiatkowski notes.

This offer, and other similar acts perpetrated by the Ukrainian side, “ensure Ukraine’s future will even more impoverished, less free, and even more widely held in contempt by the world community.”

Kwiatkoswki also lamented the West’s inability to “get its data and intelligence right regarding Ukraine,” and argued that “such willful ignorance on the US and NATO side kills more Ukrainians, and degrades Ukraine as desperate acts and offers such as this one become normalized.”

Keep reading

Kiev setting stage for chemical disaster – Moscow

The Ukrainian military is trying to provoke a major ecological disaster close to the front line and blame it on Russia, the Defense Ministry in Moscow warned on Thursday.

The accusation came from Maj. Gen. Aleksey Rtishchev, the commander of Russia’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops, who briefed the public about alleged Ukrainian violations of an international treaty prohibiting the use of chemical weapons.

Rtishchev disclosed a document obtained by the Russian military, in which the deputy director of Ukrainian state-owned company Ukrkhimtransammiak informed a regional official appointed by Kiev that in late June Ukrainian troops had illegally accessed a site operated by the firm.

The Ukrkhimtransammiak executive stressed his concern that the location could be damaged due to the military’s involvement, potentially causing the release of up to 566 tons of highly toxic liquified ammonia.

Keep reading

Trump Believes Russia Will Win In Ukraine, It’s Just A Matter Of How Long

“The president’s view is Russia is going to win, it’s a matter of how long it takes,” said a senior, unnamed White House official to Politico this week, reflecting on President Trump’s view on where the war stands.

“Russia has the bigger economy, has the bigger military, has more than enough bodies to throw into the meat grinder, and just doesn’t care. And although they are making slow progress, they are still making progress,” the official added. “The president just wants to stop the killing.”

Indeed the last several weeks have seen clear Russian gains on the ground in Eastern Ukraine, with a steady flow of reports of towns, settlements, and villages being newly captured in Donetsk and elsewhere.

There’s been some confusion over Trump’s policy in arming Kiev. He has gone further than he ever has before in approving new anti-air defense systems, but still appears to be ruling out long-range offensive weapons, amid conflicting reports.

Has realism finally set in concerning Washington policy? It should have been evident from the start of this horrific ‘war of attrition’ that Ukraine was never going to win.

Still, Zelensky has resisted doing the one thing which could end the war – make territorial concessions. He hasn’t so much as offered to give up Crimea.

Keep reading

Trump Clarifies No Long-Range Missiles To Ukraine, Declares “I’m On Nobody’s Side”

Only this week are further contents of a July 4 phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky being revealed, but it comes amid accusations of fake news and taking statements out of context.

“Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? … Can you hit St Petersburg too?” – that’s reportedly what Trump posed to the Ukrianian leader in their July 4th call, which came the day following the president had a disappointing call Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Zelensky responded: “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.” All of this is according to a report in Financial Times, which the White House is now pushing back against. The FT presented the exchange as indicative of a new US approach of quietly encouraging Ukraine’s military to strike Moscow and other targets deeper inside Russia.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said the FT’s framing of the call was misleading and without proper context. “The Financial Times is notorious for taking words wildly out of context to get clicks because their paper is dying,” she has stated.

Trump sought to clarify in remarks to reporters on Tuesday that Zelensky “shouldn’t target Moscow” and proclaimed in interesting and ironic remarks that he’s “on nobody’s side” – but that simply he wants the killing to stop.

The major announcement which had been planned for Monday did not include any new package of offensive long-range missiles (that the public knowns about at least).

“President Trump was merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing. He’s working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war,”  Leavitt has added.

All of this helped paint a picture of Trump doing a complete 180 on Ukraine policy. To some extent he has – given he has continued sending Kiev arms packages, albeit ‘defensive’ in nature, supposedly. More anti-air defenses have been approved, despite that America’s own stockpiles are being depleted.

But clearly the White House is somewhat feeling the sting of pushback and angry criticism from among the Right and Trump’s base.

Keep reading

Here’s How Trump Was Manipulated Into Mission Creep

Zelensky, anti-Russian US hawks, Melania, and the Mainstream Media each exploited in their own way his false expectation that Putin would agree to a ceasefire-partnership deal.

Many are struggling to make sense of Trump’s decision to clumsily thread the needle between radically escalating US involvement in the Ukrainian Conflict and walking away from it. The preceding hyperlinked analysis concluded that he was manipulated into this by his advisors, who exploited his false expectation that Putin would agree to a ceasefire that doesn’t resolve the root security-related causes of the conflict in exchange for a resource-centric strategic partnership. This observation will now be elaborated upon.

Trump campaigned on the promise of ending the Ukrainian Conflict “on day one”, which he later admitted was an “exaggeration”. He claimed that his friendship with Putin and keen dealmaking skills would easily bring this about. In pursuit of that end, Trump tried sweet-talking Putin by blaming the conflict on Biden and Zelensky, lending credence to Russia’s claims that Ukraine’s NATO aspirations posed a threat to its security, and promising that “Crimea will stay with Russia” once the conflict ends.

To further sweeten his proposal for an unconditional ceasefire that would essentially freeze the conflict along the Line of Contact, Trump also suggested a resource-centric strategic partnership with Russia. For his part, Putin suggested the same, albeit with the intent of encouraging Trump to coerce Zelensky into Russia’s demanded concessions for peace. Nothing was ultimately achieved due to the resultant deadlock, which Trump apparently took personally, thus making him susceptible to manipulation.

After spring’s US-Ukrainian minerals deal was signed, Zelensky began more loudly talking about his earlier interest in an unconditional ceasefire, which influenced Trump into thinking that Putin is the only obstacle to peace due to the ceasefire conditions that the Russian leader demanded in June 2024. Trump had already speculated that Putin is “tapping [him] along” so Zelensky’s rhetorical reversal from pledging to fight till Russia’s strategic defeat to calling for an unconditional ceasefire was timely and strategic.

It wasn’t just Zelensky whispering in Trump’s ear that Putin was playing him but also anti-Russian hawks like Lindsey Graham and even his own wife Melania, who Trump revealed on Monday would challenge his claim of “wonderful” calls with Putin by pointing out that Russia was still bombing Ukraine. In parallel with this, the Mainstream Media claimed that Putin was “humiliating” Trump, which aimed to take advantage of his pride and desire for praise from his critics alike to push him into mission creep.

Keep reading

Russia Unleashes ‘Most Massive’ Attack Since War’s Start On Zelensky’s Hometown 

Russia unleashed a massive overnight assault on Ukraine, deploying 400 Shahed and decoy drones along with a ballistic missile, Ukraine military authorities say.

The drones rained down primarily on four major cities, including Kharkiv in the northeast, Kryvyi Rih in central Ukraine – which is President Zelensky’s hometown, Vinnytsia in the west, and Odesa in the south. These fresh strikes primarily targeted energy infrastructure and injured at least 15 people.

This month has seen record numbers of daily Russian drone strikes on Ukraine, coming also at a moment of conflicting reports over Trump policy toward arming Ukraine.

“Russia continues to rely on the same tactics,” President Zelensky said in response to the latest attacks, while emphasizing the need for stronger air defenses. He’s calling for a stronger support stance from Washington. 

According to details of the fresh attack on Zelensky’s hometown:

Kryvyi Rih, in central Ukraine, faced “the most massive attack … since the beginning of the war,” said the head of the city’s military administration, Oleksandr Vilkul, adding that it involved a ballistic missile and 28 drones. The onslaught sparked several fires and left parts of the city without electricity and water, he added.

Zelensky said Russia had targeted energy infrastructure in the city and that 15 people had been wounded there.

Trump’s much touted major Monday announcement merely threatened more Russian sanctions, and set a 50-day deadline for peace talks to happen.

However, the 50-day deadline has left some US lawmakers and European officials fearful that this simply gives Russia time to gain more ground before any potential peace deal is finalized.

“We appreciate President Trump’s decision to supply more weapons to Ukraine, but we would like the US to share in the cost,” said EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, at a moment Trump is calling for NATO states to do more.

Below: Kryvyi Rih, Zelensky’s hometown, faces blackouts and water cuts after waves of Russian strikes…

Keep reading

Russia warns of nuclear Armageddon after Trump’s latest Ukraine move

Donald Trump was today warned by Moscow that he is pushing Russia towards nuclear war with his new go-ahead for arms to Ukraine and the threat of punitive sanctions.

State TV propagandist and war pundit Aleksandr Sladkov said: “Trump is trying to scare us with missiles, but this is difficult to do… Trump should be scared. Everyone is trying to push us to turn Kyiv and Lviv into Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

The Ukrainian leadership – in calling for new missiles to strike Russian territory – “is taking the most active part in this”. It comes as Fox News fans declare it’s the ‘end of MAGA’ as Donald Trump loses it in press conference.

The new Trump deal green lights the supply of possible $10 billion worth of defensive and offensive missiles and other arms, to be paid for by US allies in Europe along with Canada, as well as the threat of sledgehammer sanctions if Putin refuses to negotiate in 50 days.

Sladkov declared: “Imagine our country under attack by American cruise missiles, like Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. I am sure that the Yars should go in response.”

Yars are Russia’s main land-based strategic nuclear weapons – each missile typically carries three or four nuclear warheads.

Each has a yield estimated between 100 and 300 kilotons, making each warhead between seven and 20 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Frothing Putin TV propagandist Vladimir Solovyov claimed the arming of Ukraine by NATO meant a full scale war.

“The question is about the survival of our country,” he fumed on Kremlin-funded state TV. We are already at war. It cannot be avoided. The [Western] task is to destroy our country…. We are not fighting in Ukraine, we are fighting with NATO. Understand this already.”

Keep reading

Russia’s Doctrine of “Peaceful Coexistence”. A Solution to Avoiding WWIII?

Introductory Note 

The doctrine of peaceful coexistence was first formulated by Moscow in the wake of the 1918-1920 war against Soviet Russia.

It was presented to the Genoa Conference in April 1922.

The “unspoken” 1918-20 war against Russia (barely acknowledged by historians) was launched two months after the November 7, 1917 Revolution on January 12 1918.

It was an outright “NATO style” invasion consisting of  the deployment of more than 200,000 troops of which 11,000 were from the US, 59,000 from the UK. 15,000 from France.  Japan which was an Ally of Britain and America during World War I  dispatched 70,000 troops. 

The article below entitled Genoa Revisted: Russia and Coexistence was written by my late father Evgeny Chossudovsky in April 1972 (in commemoration of the Genoa 1922 Conference). It was published by Foreign Affairs.

“Half a century ago, on April 10, 1922, Luigi Facta, Prime Minister of Italy, solemnly opened the International Economic Conference at Genoa.Lloyd George, the prime mover of the Conference, was among the first speakers. He called it “the greatest gathering of European nations which has ever assembled,” aimed at seeking in common “the best methods of restoring the shattered prosperity of this continent.” (See text below)

At the height of the Cold War, the Foreign Affairs article was the object of a “constructive debate” in the corridors of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  According to the NYT:

“Mr. [Evgeny] Chossudovsky wants a United Nations Decade of Peaceful Coexistence, a new Treaty Organization for European Security and Cooperation which would embrace all Europe, and comprehensive bilateral and multilateral cooperation in everything from production and trade to protection of health and environment and “strengthening of common cultural values.” …

Skeptics, of course, can point out that Mr. Chossudovsky’s argument; has lots of holes in it, not least in his strained efforts to prove that peaceful coexistence has always been Soviet policy. Nevertheless, he has made such a refreshing and needed contribution to the East‐West dialogue that it would be neither gracious nor appropriate to answer him with traditional types of debating ploys.

Unquestionably, East‐West cooperation in all the fields he mentions is very desirable, and so is East‐West cooperation in other fields he doesn’t mention such as space. And he is pushing an open door when he laments the colossal burdens of the arms race. (Harry Schwarz, The Chossudovsky Plan,  New York Times, March 20, 1972, emphasis added)

Keep reading