Tag: russia

Russia lays out demands for talks with US on Ukraine, sources say

Russia has presented the U.S. with a list of demands for a deal to end its war against Ukraine and reset relations with Washington, according to two people familiar with the matter.

It is not clear what exactly Moscow included on its list or whether it is willing to engage in peace talks with Kyiv prior to their acceptance. Russian and American officials discussed the terms during in-person and virtual conversations over the last three weeks, the people said.

They described the Kremlin’s terms as broad and similar to demands it previously has presented to Ukraine, the U.S. and NATO.

Those earlier terms included no NATO membership for Kyiv, an agreement not to deploy foreign troops in Ukraine and international recognition of President Vladimir Putin’s claim that Crimea and four provinces belong to Russia.

Russia, in recent years, also has demanded the U.S. and NATO address what it has called the “root causes” of the war, including NATO’s eastward expansion.

U.S. President Donald Trump is awaiting word from Putin on whether he will agree to a 30-day truce that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Tuesday he would accept as a first step toward peace talks.

Keep reading

EU Accuses Trump of ‘Blackmailing’ Zelensky!

Yesterday’s pacifists are today’s Rambos, it seems: 442 lawmakers in the 720-seat European Parliament just agreed to a joint declaration that “strongly deplores any attempts at blackmailing Ukraine’s leadership into surrender to the Russian aggressor for the sole purpose of announcing a so-called ‘peace deal.’”

It passed via landslide: 61%.

Not all EU politicians supported the measure:

Melonian Nicola Procaccini, co-chair of the Conservatives (ECR), had tried to delay the vote arguing that a strong stance by the chamber would risk undermining the delicate ongoing discussion between the United States and Russia on the conditions of the ceasefire that were agreed yesterday in Jeddah — on which the Kremlin has yet to officially comment — casting a negative light on the efforts of the star-studded administration.

But the parliament rejected his request, and thus the joint resolution submitted by EPP, S&D, ECR, Renew and Greens (which followed a debate last February) passed with 442 votes in favor, 98 against and 126 abstentions.

Which means, less than 14% of our “friends” in the EU had the testicular fortitude to oppose this brazenly anti-American statement. Thanks, guys.

But perhaps we’re being unfair. Perhaps the EU genuinely, sincerely opposes browbeating a democratic nation — especially one that was just invaded and attacked! — into accepting a permanent, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire. Perhaps this isn’t another example of our European “friends” acting selfishly and cowardly, but a heartfelt moral position.

Nah:

Fun Fact: Just one year ago, this is the same European Parliament that demanded Israel commit to a ceasefire in Gaza!

Keep reading

Moral Bankruptcy: Justifying the Ukraine War as Good for the US Economy

Supporters of the U.S.-NATO proxy war in Ukraine employ a range of dubious justifications.  One is a refurbished version of the old domino theory used during the Cold War – if the United States and its allies don’t help Ukraine expel Russian occupation forces, the victorious Kremlin will then launch offensives against other European countries and eventually dominate the Continent. Another popular rationale is that what might appear to be a mundane struggle between two authoritarian regimes is actually an existential conflict between democracy and autocracy, with Ukraine representing the former and Russia the latter.

Both cases are fallacious. The neo-domino theory wildly overrates Russia’s geostrategic prowess. A military that has encountered trouble subduing Ukraine poses no credible threat to larger, more powerful potential adversaries, such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, or even smaller powers such as Poland, Italy, or Turkey. Likewise, the attempt to portray the fighting in Ukraine as a crucial struggle between democracy and authoritarianism falls flat. Ukraine is not a democracy, even if the most expansive, generous definition is used.

Still another frequent argument that American proponents of backing Ukraine use is that sending arms to Kyiv is good for the U.S. economy, not a multi-billion dollar financial drain on taxpayers.  Officials in Joe Biden’s administration, including the president himself, increasingly resorted to that justification as domestic discontent mounted regarding Washington’s Ukraine policy. Administration policymakers proudly insisted that most of the aid money ended up remaining in the United States.

During a February 20, 2024, speech at a new General Dynamics factory outside Dallas Texas, Biden made the alleged “economic benefits” argument explicitly. A supplemental spending measure pending in Congress at the time contained a total of $95 billion in foreign aid, including money for Ukraine, Israel, and other countries. Of the $60.7 billion for Ukraine, $38.8 billion would go to U.S. factories that made missiles, munitions and other gear. “While this bill sends military equipment to Ukraine,” Biden emphasized, “it spends the money right here in the United States of America in places like Arizona, where the Patriot missiles are built; and Alabama, where the Javelin missiles are built; and Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, where artillery shells are made.”

Republican pro-Ukraine hawks embraced similar “logic” about why billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine were not only necessary from the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy, but also beneficial to the U.S. economy.  Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “repeatedly implored his colleagues to understand that the funds from the package are for historic investments “’right here in America.’”

“This is about rebuilding the arsenal of democracy,” McConnell said in a floor speech during the long days of debate, “and demonstrating to our allies and adversaries alike that we’re serious about exercising American strength.”

Keep reading

Once Again, Zelensky Shows He’s Not Serious – Says Ukraine Will Not Recognize ANY Territory Occupied by Russia

Once again, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky proved on Tuesday that he is the obstacle to peace for Ukraine and Russia.

Zelensky said he would agree to a ceasefire but he would NEVER ceed territory to Russia.

Someone needs to tell him, he’s not the one holding the cards right now.

When you lose a war, have marched hundreds of thousands of young men to their death, and have lost battle after battle to the opposing forces, you don’t get to call the shots.

President Zelensky: As far as red lines, I as president, and Ukrainians as citizens of their country, will not violate their constitution. And will accept our sovereignty and independence. Protecting people and our land. It’s not easy for us to accept fighting such an enemy. This is understandable. But today we are fighting for our independence. Therefore we will not recognize any occupied territories by the Russian Federation.

This is a fact. Our people fought for it. Our heroes died for it. How many wounded. How much has passed. That’s why no one will forget about it. And when I say no one will forget about it, this is the most important red line. We will not let anyone forget about this crime against Ukraine.

Here is another translation from a different source.

President Zelensky: We don’t accept any occupation of Russia. We don’t accept. It’s a fact. Our people were killed for it. Our heroes were killed. How many of my country, will not violate their Constitution, but will defend our sovereignty, our independence, protecting our people and our land.

It’s not easy to fight such an enemy, that’s clear, but today we are fighting for our independence, and therefore, to recognize any occupied territory of the Russian were killed? How many of them were killed? So no one will ever forget about it. When I say no one will ever forget about it, it’s not going to be. This is the main point. We will not let anyone forget this crime against Ukraine.

Keep reading

Remember Kerensky: The Failure of Reformist Regimes

The Trump administration assumed power in the thick of public fury, following five years of brutal despotism, economic decline, and many years, if not decades, of declining trust. The intensity of the public mood is rarely reported by legacy media without condemnation. The denials of regime failure by the entire establishment in every sector has only caused incredulity to grow and spread.

No matter how much you think people are angry, you are likely underestimating the level of public disgust with the regime, not just in the US but all over the industrialized world.

In 2024, it reached such a fevered pitch that the seemingly impossible happened with the election of a former president who had been subject to nonstop media demonization, lawfare without precedent, and even assassination attempts. 

The attacks only helped him. Trump’s party was swept into power. That includes control of a  Congress with many members who seem to be unaware of the urgency of the moment. 

Under such conditions, this cannot be the end of the story. There is a long history of reformist governments failing to act fast enough to quell public demand for change. It is typical that such governments underestimate the fire behind the historical forces at work. They come to believe that the problem is fixed by a personnel change, whereas the real issue is systemic and comprehensive. 

The classic case is Russia, 1917.

The government of Alexander Kerensky (1881-1970) ruled Russia for only eight months, following the toppling of the Romanov monarchy and before the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917. It was supposed to be an agent of calm reform; it ended as a parenthesis between the old regime and the new. 

Kerensky was a lawyer, a reformer, and a non-communist supporter of labor-led social democracy. Active in anti-government protests and denunciations for years, Kerensky seemed like the right man for the job. He had one foot in the old world and one in the new.

On taking power, he found himself in the position of making judgments about the pace and path of reform efforts. He had to deal with a collapsing economy, revolutionary fervor among the workers and peasants, and grave suspicion toward the whole of the ruling classes, the military in particular. 

He proclaimed Russia to be a Republic of the Western variety and had every intention of holding elections and shepherding into being a new type of ruling regime in Russia. The war would end, land would go to the peasants, inflation would stop, and people would find their voice in government. 

Just not yet. It had to be orderly, in Kerensky’s view. 

His mistake was in thinking that he was in charge of the motion of history. He made a fateful judgment in thinking it was all about him and not the movement that gave rise to his position. He decided to continue the war and make one final push for victory. That included an intensification of conscription in the midst of inflation. That decision ended in disaster. 

Keep reading

Western media trying to explain Ukraine’s failure in Kursk

Western media seems desperate to explain the failure of the Ukrainian army in Kursk. For months, Western propaganda claimed that the Kursk front was an important Ukrainian military achievement, which was supposedly vital to strengthening Kiev’s position at the negotiating table. Now, however, reality has made it clear that, after intense hostilities, the neo-Nazi regime is suffering a devastating defeat in the region, which refutes the media narratives.

In recent days, Ukrainian troops participating in the invasion of the Russian Kursk region have found themselves in a very difficult situation. Russian advances on the ground have left the enemy besieged, with a large number of casualties and surrenders. It seems only a matter of time before Kiev is forced to withdraw completely from the internationally recognized Russian territory, which shows the absolute failure of the neo-Nazi incursion into the region.

For those who have been following the Kursk news since the beginning of the invasion, this does not seem surprising. The Ukrainian military operation was poorly planned, with technical and logistical errors that prevented the incursion from being successful. The Russians have maintained an overwhelming advantage on this front since the beginning of the battle, and it was fully expected that the Ukrainian efforts would collapse at some point.

Keep reading

Will Zelensky Make It To Lunch This Time?

Ukraine has agreed to the terms of a 30 day ceasefire, and President Trump has invited Volodymyr Zelensky back to the White House.

The development comes after Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with a Ukrainian delegation in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia this week, engaging in several hours of negotiations

“Ukraine expressed readiness to accept the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, and which is subject to acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation,” the U.S. and Ukraine said in a joint statement released by the State Department.

The U.S. will also “immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine.”

“The United States will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace,” the statement added.

In comments to the media, President Trump said he expects to speak to Vladimir Putin later this week and hopes Moscow will also agree to the terms.

“Ceasefire… Ukraine has agreed to it, and hopefully Russia will agree to it,” Trump said, adding he expects it to take effect “over the next few days” but that it “takes two to tango,” referring to Putin.

Keep reading

Negotiating a Lasting Peace in Ukraine

There should be little doubt about how a lasting peace can be established in Ukraine. In April 2022, Russia and Ukraine were on the verge of signing a peace agreement in Istanbul, with the Turkish Government acting as mediator. The U.S. and U.K. talked Ukraine out of signing the agreement, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have since died or been seriously injured. Yet the framework of the Istanbul Process still provides the basis of peace today.

The draft peace agreement (dated April 15, 2022) and the Istanbul Communique (dated March 29, 2022) on which it was based, offered a sensible and straightforward way to end the conflict. It’s true that three years after Ukraine broke off the negotiations, during which time Ukraine has incurred major losses, Ukraine will eventually cede more territory than it would have in April 2022 — yet it will gain the essentials: sovereignty, international security arrangements, and peace.

In the 2022 negotiations, the agreed issues were Ukraine’s permanent neutrality and international security guarantees for Ukraine. The final disposition of the contested territories was to be decided over time, based on negotiations between the parties, during which both sides committed to refrain from using force to change boundaries. Given the current realities, Ukraine will cede Crimea and parts of southern and eastern Ukraine, reflecting the battlefield outcomes of the past three years.

Such an agreement can be signed almost immediately and in fact is likely to be signed in the coming months. As the U.S. is no longer going to underwrite the war, in which Ukraine would suffer yet more casualties, destruction, and loss of territory, Zelensky is recognizing that it’s time to negotiate. In his address to Congress, President Donald Trump quoted Zelensky as saying “Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer.”

Keep reading

Ukrainians Flee Kursk, Russia Before Encirclement, CIA Talks With Russia

Ukraine’s most combat-ready brigades have withdrawn from Russia’s Kursk region. This essentially ends Russia’s proxy adversary’s attempts to force Russian forces to cease their advance in Donbass. Now the full might of Russian power can advance further into Ukraine is Putin so chooses.

“My friends managed to leave Kursk and avoid encirclement. It’s unfortunate that it came to this, but that’s the reality,” one soldier said.

The city of Sudzha in Kursk has been liberated by the Russians. Looks like the crazy underground pipe operation was a success after all. (@stillgray)

Russia’s foreign intelligence chief, Sergei Naryshkin, held a phone call on Tuesday with the director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, the Interfax news agency reported. This comes on the heels of the U.S. securing a commitment from Ukraine to implement a 30 day ceasefire.

Kremlin: No need to rush Russia’s response to 30-day ceasefire proposal in Ukraine.

Keep reading

Will the US Push Zelensky Out?

The strife and war in Ukraine started with a U.S. supported coup eleven years ago. It might end, ironically, with a U.S. supported coup eleven years later. There is an embryonic chance that, if Vladimir Putin signs an agreement to end the war, it will not be Volodymyr Zelensky’s signature on the line beside it.

Being the leader to negotiate an end to the war was always going to be a struggle for Zelensky. He may have been the perfect president to lead Ukraine through the war with Russia. But he may not be the perfect president to lead them out.

Negotiating an end to the war with Russia could be challenging for Zelensky for three reasons. The first is that Ukrainians were nourished throughout the war on Zelensky’s promises of maximalist results. To rally both Ukrainians and Ukraine’s partners, Zelensky promised that Ukraine would reconquer lost territory and redraw the borders of Ukraine to include, not only the Donbas, but Crimea. After all the suffering and loss of life, to negotiate an end to the war, having not gained back territory, but having lost even more would be a difficult sell for Zelensky. Especially given that the concession will certainly come without the compensation of membership in NATO.

The second is that, having insisted that Putin should not and cannot be negotiated with, Zelensky would have to rescind his decree that Ukraine would not negotiate with Putin.

The third is that Zelensky would face solid, and potentially lethal, opposition from the same ultra-right nationalists who persuaded him to abandon his campaign promise to negotiate a peace with Russia when he was elected in 2019. Even then, Zelensky faced a backlash and defiance from ultranationalist leaders who even threatened his life. How much worse would the resistance be were Zelensky to lead Ukrainians back to those negotiations with the loss of the Donbas that then could have been theirs and with the hundreds of thousands of people who died or were wounded for nothing?

Keep reading