Tag: russia

The Rise and Fall of Agent Zelensky

That Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s political fortunes have been on a downward trajectory over the course of the past year is undeniable. The accelerated collapse of Zelensky as a legitimate governing authority in Ukraine that has transpired over the course of the past few days was unimaginable. That Zelensky would double down by carrying out a personal attack against Donald Trump is unthinkable.

Back in the summer of 2023, I tried to warn the American people, and the world, about the illegitimacy and inherent instability of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. I helped write and produce a two-part exposé of the one-time comedian titled “Agent Zelensky.”

Part One was well received when I published it on YouTube.

Too well received.

The Ukrainian intelligence services, which had flagged me as a Russian disinformation agent and marked me for death by putting me on an infamous liquidation list, reached out to their FBI contacts in the Legal Attache office of the US Embassy in Kiev, and demanded that action be taken.

The appropriate authorities at YouTube were approached by the FBI, and soon the Agent Zelensky video was removed from the platform.

Part Two of Agent Zelensky suffered the same fate within hours of being published.

Then the Department of Justice tasked the FBI with eliminating the source of Agent Zelensky—me.

They targeted me for allegedly being an unregistered agent of the Russian government, trampling my status as an independent journalist whose speech was protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The FBI raided my home and seized my computers, all to intimidate me while the Department of Justice scrambled to make a case against me as an unregistered Russian agent.

They failed.

Keep reading

US official demands Zelenskyy return to talks over critical minerals deal

US President Donald Trump’s national security adviser has demanded that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy return to negotiations over a critical minerals deal with the US, amid a deepening rift between Washington and Kyiv.

Zelenskyy had on Wednesday rejected US plans to strike a deal for a share of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to repay Washington for wartime aid, saying the US offered no specific security guarantees in the agreement.

“He needs to come back to the table,” Mike Waltz said of Zelenskyy at a press briefing on Thursday.

“President Trump is obviously very frustrated right now with President Zelensky, the fact that he hasn’t come to the table, that he hasn’t been willing to take this opportunity that we have offered,” he said.

The comments came shortly after the US cancelled a planned news conference with Zelenskyy and a US envoy in Kyiv.

The Ukrainian leader had planned to address the media alongside Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, the US envoy for Ukraine, following talks in Kyiv on Thursday.

“At the request of the American side, the format of the meeting provides for protocol filming and does not include statements or questions,” Ukrainian presidential spokesperson Serhii Nikiforov told reporters.

Keep reading

US switches stance on Ukraine war, seeking $500bn in payback

Ukraine’s diplomatic situation was upended during the past week, as its main ally, the United States, reversed several positions.

US President Donald Trump announced on February 12 that he was beginning direct talks with Russia to end the war, overturning his predecessor’s promise that there would be “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”.

On the same day, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Russian diplomatic language invoking “realism”, when he told Ukraine Defence Contact Group partners in Brussels that “returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective,” and that “the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.”

Eventual NATO membership has been a US promise to Ukraine since 2008, and the US has, throughout the war, supported a restoration of the border Russia recognised with Ukraine in 1991.

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius called the one-sided concessions “clumsy” and “a mistake”.

Keep reading

Europe Sending Peacekeeper Troops to Ukraine ‘Unacceptable’, Says Kremlin

Britain is set to pitch a plan for thousands of European NATO members’ soldiers to be deployed to Ukraine as peacekeepers in the coming week, a notion Russia says may constitute a “direct threat”.

Moscow has attempted to pre-empt a European initiative to buttress security in the east of the continent by deterring further fighting after a putative future ceasefire in Ukraine. Russia specifically cited a report in the UK’s Daily Telegraph this week professing to reveal the plan for a European deployment to Ukraine after a ceasefire to keep the peace that would allegedly run to 30,000 troops.

Responding on Thursday morning from the Kremlin, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned “the deployment of NATO countries’ troops to Ukraine cannot be acceptable for Russia”.

Keep reading

Delighted Kremlin says it ‘absolutely agrees’ with Donald Trump as panic grips Europe over President’s attack on Zelensky and ‘plans to abandon NATO’

The Kremlin has said it ‘absolutely’ agrees with Donald Trump after the US president warned Volodymyr Zelensky to ‘move fast’ to end the conflict in Ukraine – as Europe has been left panicked at the prospect of Washington abandoning Kyiv.

‘[The Trump administration] talk about the need to establish peace as soon as possible and do it through negotiations,’ Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists. 

‘We have also already mentioned that this position is more favourable to us than the previous administration, and that here we absolutely agree with the American administration.’

Peskov went on to hit out at the Biden administration, claiming that the previous team in Washington ‘did not declare any goals to initiate a peace process’ and spoke ‘only about war.’

He also declared that any plan to send European troops to Ukraine as part of a potential peacekeeping mission would be unacceptable for Russia and that it was monitoring such proposals with concern. 

Moscow is likely feeling emboldened following Trump’s scathing attacks on Zelensky yesterday, in which he called the Ukrainian President a ‘terrible’ leader, ‘a modestly successful comedian’ and ‘a dictator without elections’.

In what appeared to be a thinly-veiled threat, and a shocking departure from US policy on Ukraine, the President went on to say that ‘Zelensky better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left.’

Keep reading

With just ONE HOUR to decide, Zelensky REJECTS U.S. proposal for rare earth minerals in exchange for military aid

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has firmly rejected a U.S. proposal to grant Washington access to Ukraine’s rare earth mineral reserves in exchange for military aid, upping the stakes in an already complex geopolitical tug-of-war. According to reports from The Economist, The Washington Post, and Reuters, the proposal was first presented to Zelensky during a visit by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week. Zelensky, however, has repeatedly deferred or outright rejected the deal, signaling a reluctance to cede control over Ukraine’s natural resources to foreign powers.

The proposed deal, which reportedly grants the U.S. rights to 50% of Ukraine’s mineral reserves, emerged during tense negotiations amid the ongoing conflict with Russia. U.S. President Donald Trump has openly stated that he wants Ukraine to “pay back” the estimated 300 billion in aid provided since 2022 by offering the equivalent of 500 billion worth of rare earth minerals. These minerals, which include lanthanum, cerium, and neodymium, are essential for technologies ranging from batteries and nuclear power to advanced weaponry.

Misaligned expectations and strategy

Zelensky’s refusal to sign the deal during the Munich Security Conference last weekend underscores a fundamental disconnect between Kyiv and Washington. While U.S. officials view the proposal as a means of recouping investments and securing long-term strategic interests, Zelensky is advocating for a more equitable partnership.

In October 2024, Zelensky unveiled his so-called “victory plan,” which included a proposal for joint use of Ukraine’s critical resources with the U.S., contingent on continued military assistance and strategic deterrence. However, at Munich, he emphasized that Ukraine was not yet ready to commit to such a deal, seeking better terms that align with the country’s sovereignty and economic interests.

“This is not about who gets what,” Zelensky reportedly told reporters at the conference. “It’s about creating a partnership that respects Ukraine’s independence and ensures a sustainable future for our people.”

Keep reading

Trump Blames Ukraine: What The New York Times Gets Right and What The New York Times Gets Wrong

On February 18, for the first time since the war in Ukraine began, high ranking U.S. and Russian officials met to begin talks on ending the war. The U.S. delegation included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s envoy to the Middle East and a favorite negotiator Steve Witkoff and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. The Russian delegation included Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Putin’s foreign policy advisor, Yury Ushakov.

Following the meeting, U.S. President Donald Trump stunned reporters at a press conference by blaming Ukraine, and not Russia, for the war in what The New York Times called “Trump’s Pivot Toward Putin’s Russia.” In its cross examination of Trump’s case, The Times gets some things very right. But they got some things very wrong.

As he walked out of the talks, Sergey Lavrov said, “We weren’t just listening to each other, but we heard each other. I have reason to believe that the American side started to better understand our positions.”

The position that the American side seems to have better understood is the Russian narrative that the war did not start on February 24, 2022 and that Russia did not start it. Russia has long insisted that the war began with the U.S. supported coup of 2014 and the failure to protect the linguistic, religious and cultural rights of the ethnic Russian Ukrainian citizens who felt abandoned and threatened by that coup.

Lavrov has consistently argued that Russia is not demanding preconditions but that they are demanding that the West fulfil its previous agreement not to expand NATO eastward to Russia’s border and its previous commitment to settle the crisis in Ukraine based on the UN Charter that stipulates the principle of equal rights and self-determination. The first was broken with the promise that Ukraine was on an irreversible path to NATO; the second was broken with Kiev’s “extermination of everything Russian, including language, mass media, culture, and even the use of the Russian language in everyday life.” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to this narrative that the Americans now “better understand,” was intended to prevent the first and protect the second.

So, The New York Times complains that “[a]s far as Mr. Trump is concerned, Russia is not responsible for the war that has devastated its neighbor. Instead, he suggests that Ukraine is to blame for Russia’s invasion of it.” Following the meeting of the American and Russian delegations, The Times complains that “American officials did not dwell on Russia’s violation of international law in attacking Ukraine.”

About this, The Times is right. Trump is wrong more for what he did not say than for what he did. “By contrast,” The Times says, “Mr. Trump uttered not one word of reproach for Mr. Putin or for Russia.” Putin is to blame for the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the discussions on ending the war must put this on the record and address it, at least in security guarantees for Ukraine.

Keep reading

Why It’s Crucial To Expose US Provocations in Ukraine

If you believe that Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked, you will likely compare Putin to Hitler and will likely oppose President Trump’s peace negotiations with Russia. After all, if Putin’s invasion was unprovoked, a settlement would reward naked aggression and would be akin to Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 appeasement with Hitler in Munich.

This is why it’s so crucial that people who know the truth about U.S. provocations in Ukraine and about America’s extreme hypocrisy to be fearlessly outspoken in proclaiming: the U.S. intentionally provoked the war, to weaken Russia, to wean Europe from Russian energy, and to make Europe more dependent on the U.S.

Unless the truth about U.S. provocations is exposed, there will be continued opposition to a peace deal for Ukraine, in both the U.S. and the EU. There is a chance that hawks in D.C. will force Trump to back down from negotiating a peace deal and that the U.S. will send U.S. troops, as Vice President Vance has threatened. And there is a chance that EU countries will try to extend the war without help from the U.S.

So far, EU nations have been willing to sacrifice their economies and social democratic safety nets for the sake of conflict with Russia. Likewise, EU governments have been cowardly about challenging U.S. support for Israel’s destruction of Gaza and of the West Bank. Moreover, there is pressure now from Trump for EU nations to increase their military budgets, to up to 5% of nations’ GDP. If people in Europe knew the cynical truth about U.S. provocations, they’d likely change their hawkish policies, which enrich U.S. military contractors.

Another, perhaps more important, reason to expose U.S. provocations in Ukraine is to undermine public support in the U.S. for the MICIMATT in general, and for the planned war with China, in particular. Many of the Trump administration advisors who want to stop the war in Ukraine are eager to prepare for war with China. Avoidable disastrous wars need to be stopped. The bloated Pentagon budget needs to be cut. The empire of overseas bases need to be unraveled. Regime change operations need to be curtailed. The culture of secrecy needs to be ended.

Keep reading

Ukrainian Whistleblower: ‘How the SBU Robbed and Killed a U.S. Citizen’

One of Ukraine’s most important whistleblowers, former Parliamentarian and People’s Deputy, Oleksandr Dubinsky, currently imprisoned by President Zelensky, has released a stunning video testimony this week – which exposes an egregious crime committed by his country’s Secret Service (SBU) against a U.S. citizen who was residing in Ukraine.

Presently, Dubinsky is being held in a secure facility where his is currently awaiting trial, after the state after a criminal case had been initiated against him for the crime of high treason. 

In his video below, Dubinsky reveals more crucial details about the death of Gonzalo Lira, a popular American video blogger and independent journalist, who reportedly died under unusual circumstanced while held in custody for criticizing the Zelensky government’s performance in the war, as well as criticism of Kiev regime’s repression of religious freedom in Ukraine.

The following is an English translation of Dubinsky’s recent video, interspersed with statements made by Vasily Nebenzya, the current Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations:

Dubinsky: Friends, hello, everyone. I am glad to see and hear you all. Another important statement that came from the representative of the aggressor State, the representative of the Russian Federation in the UN Security Council, Nebenzya. This is a statement that a US citizen, Gonzalo Lira, died in the SBU concentration camps, in the so-called ‘torture and secret prisons.’

Nebenzya: And listen to what the escaped deputy of the Rada (Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine) Artem Dmytruk told. How he was tortured by SBU officers in 2022, trying to extract testimony and confession of treason. The main claim against him was that he spoke in defense of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). Here are excerpts from his gruesome account published on the internet. I quote: “I was thrown on the cold and wet floor, somewhere nearby I heard the screams and groans of my friends. A little further away were the screams and groans of other people and the horrible sounds of torture. They were beating me terribly, trying to gouge out my eyes. I lost consciousness several times and fell from the chair, came to my senses and was tortured again.” End quote. He was threatened to be shot or disabled. After that he was transported to the gym of the Odessa SBU office, where he was forced to say loudly and clearly on camera that he would never again criticize Vladimir Zelensky and the head of his office, Andrei Yermak. In addition, he was forced to be an SBU agent to fight the opposition to Zelensky. Dmytruk is not the only politician who stated about the existence of SBU concentration camps in Kiev. Another Rada deputy, Oleksandr Dubynskyy, in particular, previously reported about the existence of such camps in Kiev. He claims that more than 300 people were tortured through it in order to extract testimony against now-elected US President Donald Trump for use in the electoral struggle in the United States. Interesting confessions, aren’t they? From them you can get an impression of what the American journalist Gonzalo Lira, arrested in August 2023, tortured to death and died in the SBU walls on January 12, 2024, had to go through. And what 70-year-old human rights activist Olena Berezhnaya, who was sentenced to 14 years in prison a month ago after months of torture in SBU custody, who was never broken by the Zelensky clique, had to face because she went to the United Nations and spoke out about human rights violations by the Kiev regime.

Keep reading

Zelensky Could Be Ousted As Trump Demands Ukraine Election

There are concerns that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could be ousted from office after President Donald Trump said that Kyiv should hold elections, according to British newspaper The Telegraph.

Newsweek has reached out to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine for comment via email.

Why It Matters

Zelensky was made Time Magazine’s person of the year in 2022 for his “success as a wartime leader” and has been lauded as the face of Ukrainian resistance to Russia’s invasion. His exit from office could drastically change the outcome of the war and the achievement of security guarantees for Ukraine.

Ukraine hosting an election also raises the concern that Russia could interfere in the poll and install a pro-Kremlin leader who would be more amenable to Moscow’s terms to end the war.

Keep reading