Tag: ukraine

Has He Gone Completely Insane? Zelensky Announces That There Is Not Going To Be Peace

If you listen long enough, people will eventually tell you exactly what they truly believe. Unfortunately, we have just learned what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky truly believes about the war with Russia, and it is not good news at all. Apparently Zelensky is convinced that there will not be a permanent state of peace until all of Donetsk, all of Luhansk and all of Crimea belong to his government. Needless to say, the Russians will never hand all of Donetsk, all of Luhansk and all of Crimea over to Ukraine willingly, and so they will need to be taken by force. Since the Ukrainians cannot do this alone, they will be seeking to enlist the help of others, and that is what should deeply alarm all of us.

The mainstream media’s fawning coverage of Zelensky’s Independence Day speech makes him sounds like some sort of a great peacemaker.  Here is just one example…

President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine would continue to fight for its freedom “while its calls for peace are not heard,” in a defiant address to the nation on its independence day.

“We need a just peace, a peace where our future will be decided only by us,” he said, adding that Ukraine was “not a victim, it is a fighter”.

He continued: “Ukraine has not yet won, but it has certainly not lost.”

That makes him sound so incredibly reasonable.

But the mainstream media did not report on any of the troubling parts of Zelensky’s speech.

I went and found a transcript of the speech, and it reveals Zelensky’s real goals…

And now, in a full-scale war for independence, it is here, on Maidan, that one can find such important symbols. Symbols of how we fight, what we fight for, and how we are overcoming this war.

These symbols are all around us. In this Independence Monument. Inside, it has a reinforced concrete frame and can literally withstand a hurricane. In the same way, our Ukraine has withstood the great calamity that Russia brought to our land. In this “Zero Kilometer” point. It is the starting point where distances to Ukrainian cities are written: to our Donetsk, our Luhansk, our Crimea. Today, these markers have a completely different meaning. They are no longer just about kilometers. They remind us that all of this is Ukraine. And there are our people, and no distance between us can change that, and no temporary occupation can change that. One day, the distance between Ukrainians will disappear, and we will be together again as one family, as one country. It is only a matter of time. And Ukraine believes it can achieve this — achieve peace, peace across all its land. Ukraine is capable of it.

This is what started the war in the first place.

Keep reading

Zelensky Wants $1 Billion Per Month From NATO Countries To Buy US Weapons

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Monday that he wants $1 billion per month from NATO countries to purchase US weapons, comments that come as a peace deal seems increasingly unlikely following the summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

NATO recently announced a new scheme under which member states commit to spending on US weapons to ship to Ukraine, known as the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative. So far, about $2 billion has been committed to the effort in pledges from the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Canada.

“Our goal is to fill this program with no less than $1 billion every month,” Zelensky said during a joint press conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store in Ukraine. “We also discussed our domestic drone production and joint opportunities with partners. Investments now can help not only physically but also force Russia to end this war.”

During his visit to Ukraine, Store pledged that Norway would provide Ukraine with $8.4 billion in aid for 2026, the same amount Norway provided this year. The Norwegian leader said the $8.4 billion will go toward “military and civilian support.”

Zelensky and Store also discussed the idea of security guarantees for Ukraine, an issue that could sink the peace process as Ukraine and its European backers are insisting on some type of arrangement that would involve Western troops deploying to Ukraine, an idea Moscow has made clear is unacceptable and a non-starter for negotiations.

Keep reading

Left-Populist German MP Demands Zelensky Testify on Nord Stream Sabotage

German politician Sahra Wagenknecht has urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide testimony regarding the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosions.

As leader of the left-wing Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), she insists on a parliamentary investigative committee to examine the incident. Her demands follow recent arrests that point to Ukrainian involvement in the sabotage.

The Nord Stream pipelines, which transported natural gas from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, were damaged by explosions in September 2022.

A 49-year-old Ukrainian national was arrested in Italy on August 21, 2025, following a European arrest warrant issued by Germany.

The suspect, identified as Serhii K. in some reports, faces charges of causing an explosion, anti-constitutional sabotage, and destruction of infrastructure. He was detained while vacationing with his family in the Rimini province and is awaiting extradition to Germany.

The arrest stems from evidence linking the man to a small team that allegedly used a yacht named Andromeda to place explosives on the pipelines.

Investigators believe he coordinated the operation, which involved Ukrainian divers operating from the vessel in the Baltic Sea. Reports indicate the suspect had served in Ukraine’s military, adding a layer to the ongoing probe.

This development follows an earlier warrant in June 2024 for another Ukrainian suspect, Volodymyr Z., who reportedly fled Poland to Ukraine after authorities there failed to act on the alert.

Polish prosecutors cited issues with the suspect’s address not being registered and deferred to their internal security service. All known suspects are now believed to be in Ukraine, complicating extradition efforts.

Wagenknecht argues that the operation likely involved state backing from Ukraine and possibly the U.S. under the Biden administration.

Wagenknecht references investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s reports, which allege U.S. complicity in the sabotage.

Keep reading

Direct NATO Intervention In Ukraine Might Soon Dangerously Turn Into A Fait Accompli

Trump’s negotiating strategy is to “escalate to-de-escalate” in a very risky attempt to coerce concessions, which he might soon apply against Putin after being emboldened by its success with Iran.

The White House Summit between Trump, Zelensky, and a handful of European leaders officially concerned “security guarantees” for Ukraine, which is an ultra-sensitive issue for Russia. It was therefore alarming from its perspective that Trump subsequently said that the proposed deployment of French and British troops to Ukraine “will not create problems for Russia.” To make it even worse, he also spoke about helping them “by air”, while another report claimed that 10 countries are willing to send troops.

While it hasn’t been confirmed, this sequence of events suggests that Trump’s envisaged endgame in Ukraine is the deployment of NATO troops (even if not under the bloc’s banner), which may include a US-enforced (partial?) no-fly zone and/or promises of US air support if they’re attacked. All three – NATO troops in Ukraine, a no-fly zone, and the de facto extension of Article 5 mutual defense commitments to allies’ troops there (contrary to Hegseth’s declaration in February) – go against Russia’s security interests.

Nevertheless, it’s hypothetically possible that Putin might agree to at least some of the above, but only in exchange for far-reaching Ukrainian and/or Western concessions elsewhere. To be clear, neither he nor any officials below him have even hinted at anything of the sort, instead always opposing these plans and threatening that they might even use force to stop them. Having said that, “diplomacy is the art of the possible” as some have said, and these three briefings would contextualize any such quid pro quo:

* 7 August: “What’s Responsible For The Upcoming Putin-Trump Summit?”

* 16 August: “What’s Standing In The Way Of A Grand Compromise On Ukraine?”

* 21 August: “Which Western Security Guarantees For Ukraine Might Be Acceptable To Putin?”

In sum, Trump’s carrots and sticks might convince Putin that it’s better to accept this scenario than oppose it, but it might also be presented as a fait accompli for pressuring him into accepting it as part of a peace deal if he still opposes it instead of risking an escalation if it unfolds during active hostilities. After all, the US, UK, and the EU are all actively coordinating on the “security guarantees” that they’ll soon present to Russia, and this could dangerously include plans to directly intervene in the conflict.

Keep reading

Friedrich Merz, Are You Nuts?

Do you know what German Chancellor Merz did?

Amidst serious negotiations to end the bloody and destructive Ukraine war, this guy’s putting up a veritable roadblock right in front of progress.

Here’s what it is: Merz was in Washington along with several other European leaders for a Ukraine meeting with President Trump. When it came Merz’s turn to talk he expressed, “I can’t imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire.”

Clearly no one in the world with a heart would like to see the fighting go on. So at first glance a ceasefire seems like a quick fix. But Merz’s strongly spoken statement had strings. Pointedly, he wants to delay peace talks until a ceasefire takes hold.

There’s one enormous obstacle to that. There’s a strong reason why Russian President Putin would be very reluctant to accept Merz’s condition. It’s simple to understand:

Earlier in Ukraine hostilities both Germany and France achieved Putin’s agreement to a ceasefire while a negotiated a peace agreement was underway. The efforts were called the Minsk Accords.

Doesn’t that sound like what Merz is proposing now? But it turned out in an unexpected way.

After a period of ceasefire and negotiating, the German and French leaders publically admitted they had tricked Putin into the ceasefire. They confessed their real objective was not peace. It was to buy time to better equip Ukraine to fight Russia.

You may have heard the idiom, “once fooled, twice shy.” It’s a modern version of the Old English translation from Aesop’s Fables that goes, “He that hath ben ones begyled by somme other ought to kepe hym wel fro[m] the same.” That’s a position that Putin might well take with regard to Germany’s current leader. Why should he be trusted, particularly when it comes to a ceasefire?

Certainly Merz must know the background of this. He would be remiss not to understand that a ceasefire without a peace agreement might be as unattainable as the end of a rainbow. That’s what leads me to suspect that Merz must be deliberately sabotaging the peace process, as would be any other European leader who joins him in his emphatic request.

It is time to address the significant real obstacles that must be faced if a settlement of territory is to take place.

For instance, Ukrainian President Zelensky claims that his constitution is a roadblock to such a settlement. But he is only partly right.

It is true that the Ukrainian constitution does not allow him to divide territory. He also offered another roadblock in that even changing the constitution would not be a simple matter. It would require an extensive public referendum he says.

He is right on both points. But he is wrong to represent them as ultimate roadblocks or even something that would result in much delay. In the past, Ukraine, in the view of its leaders, successfully negotiated a way to deal with problematic constitutional provisions that stood in its way.

This happened when leaders found it cumbersome to remove the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych from the presidency. Some reports claimed he was impeached. But the votes weren’t there to do that according to the constitution. Other reports claimed that he removed himself by abandoning his office when he fled for his life amidst immediate threats. But the constitution wasn’t followed there either. Nonetheless, they got rid of Yanukovych.

Here’s how they did it. The Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, simply passed a resolution. It said that the current circumstance was threatening to Ukraine, a mass violation of citizens’ rights and freedom, and a circumstance of extreme urgency. As a result they removed Yanukovych while not observing the constitution.

Now, all Ukraine has to do is to repeat that technique. Is not the current circumstance threatening to Ukraine, a mass violation of citizens’ rights and freedom, and a circumstance of extreme urgency, too?

Keep reading

Russian Nuclear Power Plant Damaged In Ukrainian Drone Attack, IAEA Monitors Radiation

In another dangerous escalation, Russia has accused Ukraine of launching a drone strike on the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant, which sparked a fire and damaged an auxiliary transformer, resulting in a 50% reduction in the output of reactor number three.

Several other energy facilities were also reportedly targeted during the overnight strikes, involving likely hundreds of drones. Russia’s military said that it intercepted nearly one hundred of them across various locations in the south.

Kursk Nuclear Power Plant’s news service reported that the fire was quickly brought under control and with no injuries. Radiation levels remained normal, according to local reports.

However, the press service also noted that two other reactors are currently not generating power, though one of them is undergoing scheduled maintenance. Reuters additionally details, “Ukraine launched a drone attack on Russia on Sunday, forcing a sharp fall in the capacity of a reactor at one of Russia’s biggest nuclear power plants and sparking a huge blaze at the major Ust-Luga fuel export terminal, Russian officials said.”

Kursk region’s acting governor, Alexander Khinshtein, swiftly condemned the “threat to nuclear safety and a violation of all international conventions.” The site lies some 40 miles from the Ukrainian border.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) weighed in on the Sunday attack, saying the agency is monitoring the situation and that radiation levels around the Kursk plant remain normal.

The IAEA statement, however, did not mention expressly that the damage was due to a Ukrainian drone attack. It only said it “is aware of media reports that a transformer at the Kursk NPP in Russia has caught fire due to military activity. While the IAEA has no independent confirmation of these reports, [Director General] Rafael Grossi stresses that ‘every nuclear facility must be protected at all times.'”

In a separate incident, a fire broke out at the port of Ust-Luga in Russia’s Leningrad region, where a major fuel export terminal is located – after some 10 Ukrainian drones that were shot down in the area, resulting in dangerous falling debris.

Keep reading

Trump Administration Blocks Ukraine From Using US-Provided Long-Range Missiles on Strikes in Russian Territory: REPORT

Did the US pull the plug on Ukrainian strikes in Russian territory using the US-provided missiles?

After the historic summit between Donald J. Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska, it was stipulated that Russia and Ukraine would negotiate the next meeting of Putin with Kiev leader Volodymyr Zelensky.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, Zelensky and his Euro-Globalist mentors have muddied the waters considerably – while Russia is putting its foot down and insisting on their long-known demands.

From a distance, Trump has decried the lack of progress, and said that in two weeks he may impose sanctions and tariffs (on Russia), or else he may pull back from the peace process and let it play out.

Then, yesterday, the Kiev regime attacked the Druzhba pipeline for the third time, cutting the flow of Russian crude oil to Hungary and Slovakia, endangering their energy security.

Trump responded to a complaint by his long-time ally Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán saying that he was ‘very angry about it’.

Keep reading

Systemic Corruption Doesn’t Give A Chance For Peace In Ukraine

Another huge scandal linked to embezzlement of budget funds in government procurement has broken out in Ukraine recently. On August 2, Ukrainian anti-corruption agencies the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) exposed an organized criminal group created by “Servant of the People” party’s deputy Oleksii Kuznietsov and head of the State Administration of the Mukachevo District Serhiy Haidai. The group have been organizing purchases of overpriced FPV drones and electronic warfare systems for the National Guard of Ukraine.

According to investigation data, beside Kuznietsov and Haidai, a head of one of the Military-Civil Administrations, a unit commander of the National Guard, and representatives of company manufacturing drones were also involved in the huge corruption scheme. During 2024-2025, the criminals embezzled about $80 000 of money allocated for purchasing of defense goods. 30% from every government contract settled in their pockets. Now, all key persons of interest are taken into custody with the possibility of being out on bail. The head of the state Volodymyr Zelenskyy commented on the situation eloquently calling the fraud “absolutely immoral” and promised a “full and fair accountability” for the criminals. However, neither high-profile exposure of corrupt officials, nor passionate speeches of the president of the country haven’t been able to dispel the tension, that has accumulated over last several weeks, and exonerate the Kyiv authorities for Ukrainians and international public.

Keep reading

Czech president calls for peace: ‘The surrender of territory would reflect the situation on the battlefield and represent the lesser evil’

In order to reach an agreement to end the war, Ukraine will probably have to give up territory, even if that would violate international law, said Czech President Petr Pavel in an interview published by the CTK news agency on Thursday.

“The surrender of territory would reflect the situation on the battlefield and represent the lesser evil, as opposed to continuing the war, which would result in numerous new casualties and material losses,” said the Czech leader.

He also acknowledged this may only end up being a temporary agreement.

“If peacekeeping forces were to be deployed to Ukraine under such a “temporary” agreement, the Czech Republic should also participate, because it has been an active participant in the peace process from the beginning,” he added.

“This would be more or less an acknowledgement of reality, because Russia has some regions firmly under its control. If we recognize that they are temporarily occupied, then we should call them that, and not Russian territories,” Pavel added.

According to the Czech president, any agreement regarding possible territorial changes is solely the right of Ukraine and Russia.

“I don’t dare to give an opinion on what the agreement on the territories should look like, this is really only a matter for Ukraine and Russia. It would not be good to give advice on what to hand over and what to leave. This is clearly outside our jurisdiction and competence,” the president explained.

Pavel believes that Western sanctions against Russia should have been more decisive and stronger from the beginning, which would have helped Ukraine defend itself more effectively, reducing human and material losses.

Keep reading

Which Western Security Guarantees For Ukraine Might Be Acceptable To Putin?

He might hypothetically agree that the resumption of NATO’s present support for Ukraine (arms, intelligence, logistics, etc.) in the event of another conflict wouldn’t cross Russia’s red lines but he’s unlikely to compromise on the issue of Western troops in Ukraine once the present conflict ends.

Steve Witkoff’s claim that Putin allegedly agreed to the US offering Ukraine “Article 5-like protection” during the Anchorage Summit, which Trump repeated during his White House Summit with Zelensky and a handful of European leaders, raises the question of what form this could hypothetically take if true. Assuming for the sake of analysis that he did indeed agree to this, it’s important to clarify exactly what Article 5 entails. For starters, it doesn’t obligate allies to dispatch troops if one of them is attacked.

Per the North Atlantic Treaty, each member only has to take “such action as it deems necessary”, which could include “the use of armed forces” but doesn’t have to. As was explained earlier this year here, “Ukraine has arguably enjoyed the benefits of this principle for the past three years despite not being a NATO member since it’s received everything other than troops from the alliance.” Arms, intelligence, logistical, and other forms of support have already been provided to Ukraine in the spirit of Article 5.

It might therefore be the case that Putin agreed that such “Article 5-like protection” could be resumed in the event of another conflict without crossing Russia’s red lines. Although Russia objects to Ukraine’s remilitarization after the present conflict ends, it’s possible that it could agree to this too as part of a grand compromise in exchange for some of its other goals being met as explained here. What Russia doesn’t agree to, however, is the dispatch of Western troops to Ukraine after the present conflict ends.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova declared on the day of the White House Summit that “We reiterate our long-standing position of unequivocally rejecting any scenarios involving the deployment of NATO military contingents in Ukraine”. This position isn’t expected to change since one of the reasons behind the special operation is to stop NATO’s expansion inside Ukraine. Western boots on the ground there afterwards would therefore amount to the perceived failure of Russia’s primary goal.

This would especially be the case if they’re deployed along the Line of Contact, but their deployment west of the Dnieper in parallel with the creation of a demilitarized “Trans-Dnieper” region controlled by non-Western peacekeepers as proposed here could hypothetically be a compromise. That said, Russia would prefer for there to only be non-Western peacekeepers, if any at all. The deployment of foreign military forces, regardless of the country, could embolden Ukraine to stage false-flag provocations.

Keep reading