Tag: russia

Putin Says Curbing NATO Enlargement Crucial to Ukraine Peace Deal

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Sept. 1 that the issue of NATO’s eastward enlargement has to be tackled for there to be a sustainable peace deal in Ukraine.

Putin was speaking after talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meeting in Tianjin, China.

Putin said the crisis in Ukraine was partly due to “the West’s constant attempts to drag Ukraine into NATO,” which he said “poses a direct threat to Russia’s security.”

He said that the 2014 revolution in Ukraine was a “coup” in which “the country’s political leadership that opposed NATO membership was removed from power.”

“In order for a Ukrainian settlement to be sustainable and long-term, the root causes of the crisis, which I have just mentioned and which I have repeatedly mentioned before, must be eliminated,” he said.

Putin Calls for ‘Fair Balance’

Putin also called for “a fair balance in the security sphere” to be restored.

In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine—which has expressed interest in joining NATO—and its forces now control a fifth of the country, including Crimea and large swathes of the south and east of Ukraine.

Just days before the invasion, Putin delivered a speech describing the potential accession of Ukraine to NATO as “a direct threat to the security of Russia.”

In the wake of the Russian invasion, Finland and Sweden both waived policies of neutrality they had held for decades and joined NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively.

NATO now has 32 members, including a string of countries that were once part of the Soviet Union—such as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—or were part of the Moscow-dominated Warsaw Pact alliance during the Cold War—such as Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Apart from Ukraine, two other countries—Georgia and Bosnia-Herzegovina—have applied for NATO membership.

The alliance’s website states, “NATO’s door remains open to any European country in a position to undertake the commitments and obligations of membership, and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area.”

During NATO’s 2008 summit in Bucharest, alliance leaders said in a declaration: “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”

But after NATO’s summit in The Hague in June, there was no mention of Ukrainian membership in the declaration issued, which stated simply, “Allies reaffirm their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine, whose security contributes to ours.”

Keep reading

A Dark Theory: Russian Strategy In Ukraine

Let’s talk about Russian strategy in Ukraine…

Looking at developments lately, specifically:

(1) the Ukrainian casualty leak showing an astronomical 1.7M KIA/MIA; and

(2) the Ukrainian collapse north of Pokrovsk

I thought should revisit a dark thought I had a while ago, namely that, “maybe the killing itself is the point of all of this.”

I’ve said before that the Russians have fought an extraordinarily clean war in Ukraine, but it should be understood that there is a very legalistic shade on that assessment.

They’ve killed very few civilians, and Ukrainian propagandists are perpetually beclowning themselves trying to pretend that the usual single-digit handful of injured civilians that accompany the latest attack using hundreds of standoff weapons fired into city centers (producing secondary explosions visible from outer space as military targets hidden among civilian infrastructure are destroyed with surgical precision) somehow constitute gEnOCiDe rather than some of the most well-controlled warfighting in the history of the business.

There is another and far darker side to Russia’s “clean” war, however.

Let us consider the fate of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – legal combatants all, whom the Russians can and do target and kill without limit. I mentioned the casualty leak earlier, but I feel this needs to have a line drawn under it – one point seven million personnel killed or missing in action in the AFU, over the course of the war. 1.7 MILLION. Seven or eight percent of Ukraine’s prewar population, probably something like a quarter of the entire national cohort of military-aged males, dead or missing. Casualties on the scale of a genocide, sufficient to permanently cripple any postwar Ukrainian nation.

Casualties multiple times that which I assessed two years ago as sufficient to shatter the AFU based on the experience of Nazi Germany.

This brings me to the Ukrainian collapse north of Pokrovsk two weeks ago, in which a run-of-the-mill Russian attack walked through twenty kilometers of Ukrainian defensive belts and into open country.

The Ukrainian propagandists coped by whining about how the single most important front sector for the AFU had somehow “run out of infantry.”

But did the Russians throw in a mobile reserve to collapse the front and chase the AFU back to the Dniper, despite doubtless knowing full well what was going on? No, they did not – they consolidated in the breach and awaited the inevitable, panicked Ukrainian counterattack, in which they would have the opportunity to destroy Ukraine’s remaining elite troops.

Which brings me to my conclusion.

The Russians have had countless opportunities to make large advances in this war, especially recently – the Ukrainian front line is an absolute shambles and their “drone wall” tactic will falter against any serious attack. So ineffectual is the AFU that very few Russian moves at the front even face serious opposition these days, with most geolocations of Russian advances showing them already established in place and dealing with harassment by kill drones after having seized positions bloodlessly. The Russians have in fact consistently foregone breaking the front and taking swathes of ground in favor of killing the largest possible number of Ukrainian soldiers on the existing front line under the existing attritional combat dynamic.

This “tactical directive” held true even during the Battle of Sudzha-Korenevo, fought in prewar Russia. Rather than counterattacking aggressively to evict the AFU, the Russians saw the opportunity to kill gigantic numbers of Ukrainians in a trap the enemy wouldn’t be able to extract themselves from for ideological reasons, and they took it. That battle ended up being nine months of hideously lopsided butchery that broke the back of the AFU.

All of this makes observing the war more than a little maddening, but it’s a consistent pattern of behavior that begs for explanation.

Keep reading

Director Woody Allen and Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh Included in Ukraine’s Mirotvorets ‘Kill List’

Hersh and Allen are now targeted by Zelensky and his goons.

It seems that Americans have become fair game to the extremists embedded in or allied to Kiev regime.

The Mirotvorets ‘kill list’ has long been controversial, and at one point, Volodymyr Zelensky and his team have once been careful not to antagonize the US administration – but no more.

Over the years, many US citizens have been included, such as Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, Henry Kissinger, Scott Ritter, Glenn Greenwald, Jeffrey Sachs…

The Mirotvorets website lists individuals deemed ‘enemies of Ukraine’, and it’s often labeled a ‘kill list’ due to its publication of personal information and instances where listed individuals were later assassinated.

This week, even as Ukraine’s defenses are crumbling on the frontlines, the goons at the Kiev regime are still including new names, such as Hollywood director Woody Allen and investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

“American filmmaker and screenwriter Woody Allen has been added to the database of Ukraine’s Mirotvorets extremist website, TASS has learnt.”

Allen was reportedly included in the list for appearing via video link in the Moscow film festival.

Keep reading

JD Vance Accuses Politico of ‘Journalistic Malpractice’ Over New Report: ‘It’s a Foreign Influence Operation’

Vice President JD Vance has taken a blistering shot at one of the White House’s most notorious rivals: the media.

On Friday, Politico released a critical report that took aim at one key member of President Donald Trump’s administration — and Vance wasn’t standing for it.

Alongside the blaring headline of “‘His inexperience shines through’: Steve Witkoff struggles to manage Russia as Trump peace envoy,” Politico spilled quite a bit of digital ink calling out the alleged inefficacy of Trump’s special envoy for Peace Missions.

Specifically, Politico’s Felicia Schwartz chronicled the struggles that Witkoff was purportedly having while trying to bring about an amicable end to the Russia-Ukraine war.

“Some frustrated U.S., Ukrainian and European officials say part of the problem is the go-it-alone style of Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy for peace missions and go-to negotiator on Ukraine,” Schwartz reports. “He has refused to consult with experts and allies, leaving him uninformed at times and unprepared at others, according to seven people familiar with internal discussions.”

The report added, “Two said he misses the mark by viewing the conflict through a real estate lens, like a land dispute.”

Enter: Vance.

The vice president took to X shortly after the report’s publication and did not mince words when it came to what he thought of the Washington, D.C.-based outlet — and Schwartz.

“This story from Politico is journalistic malpractice,” Vance posted Friday. “But it’s more than that: it’s a foreign influence operation meant to hurt the administration and one of our most effective members.

“Notice how all of the people attacking Steve are on background? That means it’s two or three deep staters who are angry that Witkoff has succeeded where they’ve failed.

“You know what this ‘reporter’ left out to make room for anonymous quotes? The full quote from the sitting vice president, on the record. A quote from the secretary of the state, on the record. A quote from Jared Kushner, on the record.

“The full quote from the UK’s Jonathan Powell, one of the most respected national security people in the Western World, who defended Steve vigorously from these malicious smears.”

Keep reading

Prominent Ukrainian Politician Assassinated In Broad Daylight On Streets Of Lviv

Former Ukrainian parliamentary speaker Andriy Parubiy – a prominent voice on the hardline Ukrainian right – was shot and killed in the western city of Lviv on Saturday, grabbing headlines in Ukraine and internationally, and resulting in an urgent manhunt for the assailant. He had been walking casually near his home on a sidewalk when he was executed in the street.

The country’s Prosecutor General’s Office described Parubiy was fatally shot multiple times by an unidentified gunman who quickly fled the scene. It appeared to be a professional hit or assassination, given authorities described a gunman dressed as a courier on an e-bike as the killer. The assassin never removes his helmet during the attack from behind.

The 54-year old Parubiy served as speaker of Ukraine’s parliament from April 2016 to August 2019 and was a prominent figure and organizer of 2014 Euromaidan protests (or Maidan coup) and anti-Russian/pro-EU coup events which ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, and in many ways led to the current Russia-Ukraine war.

He had also held the position of secretary of the National Security and Defense Council in early 2014, during the events of the civil/proxy war in the Donbass, as well as when Russia declared full sovereignty over Crimea.

President Volodymyr Zelensky within hours after confirmed the assassination and condemned it as a “horrific murder” and said “all necessary forces and means” would be used to uncover the plot and assailant. 

“Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Klymenko and Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko have just reported on the first known circumstances of a horrific murder in Lviv. Andriy Parubiy has been killed,” Zelensky solemnly announced on social media. The shooting happened at around noon local time.

Parubiy is already being hailed as a national hero and “patriot” – including by Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, who said he “belongs in the history books”. According to more:

National police said the shooting in Lviv was reported at around noon. Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadovyi said finding the killer and establishing the circumstances of the attack was of outmost importance.

“This is a matter of security in a country at war, where, as we can see, there are no completely safe places,” he wrote on Telegram.

Tributes poured in from colleagues in parliament and the government, praising Parubiy’s contribution to Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty and independence as one of the leaders of what became known as the Euromaidan protests in 2013-14.

CCTV footage was quickly released of the killing, in hopes of finding a suspect…

Keep reading

Russia Launches Mass Drone and Missile Strike on Southern Ukraine

Russia launched a mass attack on southern Ukraine, local officials said, two days after a rare airstrike on central Kyiv killed 23 and damaged European Union diplomatic offices as U.S.-led efforts to end Moscow’s three-year war on its neighbor staggered.

The assault overnight into Saturday killed at least one civilian and wounded 28 people, including children, in the Zaporizhzhia region, Gov. Ivan Fedorov reported, where a five-storey residential building was struck.

Russia launched 537 strike drones and decoys, as well as 45 missiles, according to Ukraine’s Air Force. Ukrainian forces shot down or neutralized 510 drones and decoys, and 38 missiles, the force reported.

The Kremlin on Thursday said Russia remained interested in continuing peace talks, despite the air attack on Kyiv that day that was one of the largest and deadliest since Moscow’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Keep reading

EU Trying for Regime Change in Hungary Using Zelensky

Viktor Orbán has been a thorn in the paw of the European dictatorship masquerading as a democracy when the people have no right to vote for any leader, and the Parliament, which they do vote for, has no complete democratic control over other EU institutions, especially the European Commission. It can hold hearings, ask questions, and set up committees of inquiry. Most dramatically, it has the power to pass a motion of censure and force the entire European Commission to resign.  It cannot pass laws alone. It can reject proposed legislation entirely, killing the bill. It has done this on numerous occasions, forcing the Commission to go back to the drawing board. However, it has the power to reject the entire annual EU budget. It has no power to alter laws or the budget. It is always an all-or-nothing role.

The European Union has not stripped Hungary of its voting rights over issues related to migrants or Ukraine, but is dying to do so and is now behind closed doors telling Zelensky to create a confrontation with Orban to force Hungary to exit the EU and enter war with Ukraine. On Ukraine’s Independence Day, Zelensky gave Hungary an ultimatum: “You must make a choice.” 

Keep reading

US Announces Plan To Arm Ukraine With Thousands of Long-Range Cruise Missiles

The Trump administration has announced that it approved an $825 million weapons deal that will arm Ukraine with thousands of Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) air-launched missiles, which can hit targets up to 280 miles away, a significantly further range than other missiles that the US has sent into the proxy war.

The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said the deal will provide Ukraine with 3,350 ERAM missiles, 3,350 Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Systems, and other related equipment.

The arms sale will be funded in part by Foreign Military Financing (FMF), a State Department program that provides foreign governments with money to buy US-made weapons. Other funding for the deal will come from Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on Saturday that the Trump administration had approved the deal and that the missiles would start arriving in Ukraine within six weeks. The report also said that the administration had been quietly blocking Ukraine from using US-provided missiles in attacks on Russian territory, but the provision of the ERAMs suggests that might change.

Keep reading

Zelensky’s reckless missile gamble: Ukraine’s new 3,000km weapon risks all-out war

  • Ukraine unveils new 3,000km-range Flamingo missile capable of striking Moscow to bypass U.S. restrictions on deep strikes into Russia.
  • Zelensky’s defiance risks catastrophic Russian retaliation, including cyberattacks, deeper NATO strikes, or even tactical nukes.
  • Ukraine’s dwindling resources, manpower, and Western support make the Flamingo a desperate last gamble rather than a war-winning strategy.
  • Russia’s military and economic superiority ensures Ukraine’s long-range strikes won’t shift the war’s outcome but could trigger uncontrolled escalation.
  • Zelensky’s provocative move signals weakness, not strength, as NATO fractures and Ukraine’s collapse becomes increasingly inevitable.

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced this week that his military no longer needs U.S. permission to strike deep inside Russia, he wasn’t just boasting — he was rolling the dice on a conflict that could spiral into global catastrophe. The revelation came after reports that the Pentagon has quietly blocked Ukraine from using American-supplied ATACMS missiles to hit Russian territory since late spring. Now, Zelensky claims Ukraine’s new domestically produced Flamingo cruise missile, with a staggering 3,000km range, will let him bypass Washington’s restrictions entirely.

Speaking alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Zelensky declared, “At the moment, we are using our long-range domestically produced weapons, and we haven’t been discussing such matters with the U.S. lately.”

His timing is no coincidence. Just days earlier, he unveiled the Flamingo, a missile capable of reaching Moscow, boasting that mass production could begin as early as February. “The missile has undergone successful tests. It is currently our most successful missile,” he told reporters.

But here’s the problem: This isn’t just another weapon. It’s a provocation that could force Russia’s hand in ways Zelensky clearly hasn’t thought through.

Keep reading

When the Russia ‘Experts’ Get It Wrong

The Western punditariat’s commentary on Russia is spectacularly ill-informed. This should be expected from mainstream journalists whose employment relies on the very ignorance they so readily espouse, but there is no excuse for those who promote themselves as “experts” and use this alleged expertise to help craft Western policy towards Russia.

A case in point is Michael McFaul, the Stanford Professor whose claim to fame is serving as Obama’s ambassador to Moscow. In a recent post on his Twitter account, McFaul linked to a Foreign Affairs article he penned in December of last year, outlining how he believed the incoming Trump administration could end the war in Ukraine. As is no surprise, the ambassador and NATO enthusiast recommended the suicidal strategy of admitting Ukraine into the alliance. Yet this is far from the most egregious misstep McFaul made in this piece, as he committed several factual errors that are inexcusable for someone of his experience and purported expertise.

It has become an article of faith in the West that Ukraine made a catastrophic folly in the mid-1990s by surrendering its nuclear weapons stockpile in exchange for security guarantees in the form of the Budapest Memorandum. McFaul repeats this conventional wisdom, stating that “the United States offered Ukraine security assurances in exchange for Kyiv’s handing over its nuclear arsenal to Moscow.”

There is, however, just one problem with this piece of commentary: it isn’t true. Kiev couldn’t hand over its nuclear arsenal to Moscow because it didn’t have a nuclear arsenal to begin with. Ukraine’s much-vaunted nuclear deterrent was, in actual fact, Soviet nuclear weapons that happened to be stationed on Ukrainian soil. Even post-independence, Moscow retained full control of these systems. Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal, then, was as much Ukrainian as American nuclear systems stationed throughout Europe are European. All debates about whether Kiev could have deterred the Russian invasion had it not signed the Budapest Memorandum are, therefore, redundant. As someone who’s bragged about making close to a million dollars a year for his supposed insights on Russia, McFaul should know better than to entertain these debates.

In fairness to McFaul, he did at least get one thing right when he said Washington offered Ukraine security assurances. Often used synonymously with guarantees, the word assurances was very carefully and deliberately selected language by Washington to ensure they would not be legally-bound to come to Ukraine’s defense, as the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer has explained:

“American officials decided the assurances would have to be packaged in a document that was not legally-binding. Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations wanted a legal treaty that would have to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. State Department lawyers thus took careful interest in the actual language, in order to keep the commitments of a political nature. U.S. officials also continually used the term “assurances” instead of “guarantees,” as the latter implied a deeper, even legally-binding commitment of the kind that the United States extended to its NATO allies”

So, when former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said on a recent appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored that the U.S. is essentially “giving up” on the Budapest Memorandum by failing to come to Ukraine’s aid, he is demonstrating quite a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the agreement. Clark additionally fails to mention that Washington had made their desire to “give up” on the Budapest Memorandum very clear long before the 2022 invasion. A key component of the memorandum is for the signatories of Russia, the U.S., and U.K. to refrain from exercising “economic coercion” against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan (the latter two also had Soviet nuclear weapons that they agreed to transfer, and signed their own separate versions of the memorandum to do so).

As early as 2006, the United States and its British partners acted in complete defiance of this commitment, sanctioning the government of Belarus. Washington placed further sanctions on Minsk in 2013, justifying this on the grounds that their pledges in the Budapest Memorandum were “not legally binding.” Feeling liberated from any legal constraints, Washington also imposed sanctions against the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, which complemented their blatant interference in the country’s internal affairs during the Maidan revolution. Such a move was a clear violation of  the Budapest pledge to respect Ukraine’s “independence and sovereignty.”

Clark may profit from studying this and much else of the post-Soviet record. In addition to peddling mainstream dogma about the Budapest Memorandum, the general also repeated the Western media favourite that Putin wants to reconstitute the borders of the Soviet Union. As he put it, “From the time Vladimir Putin became prime minister and later president, he wanted to restore the Soviet Union’s space and territory.”

Keep reading