From UNIAN:
"The US wanted compensation for security guarantees for Ukraine, says Zelenskyy
Nikita Shenderovsky, 24.12.25
The US plan to end the war in Ukraine included a clause compensating Washington for providing Kyiv with security guarantees, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters.
"It stated here: the US will receive compensation for security guarantees. We simply don't understand what that means, and we're raising this issue. Now it's been deleted," Zelenskyy said."
From UNIAN:
"The United States believes that Ukraine has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Minsk agreements, Zelenskyy said
Nikita Shenderovsky, December 24, 2025
Russia is questioning Ukraine's compliance with the peace agreement, believing Kyiv failed to fulfill its obligations under the Minsk agreements.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed this opinion during a conversation with journalists, a UNIAN correspondent reports.
"You have to understand the Americans, who have been in a months-long dialogue with the Russians, who tell them: yes, but what's the point of what they sign or don't sign? They signed the Minsk agreements, but they didn't implement them. It's the common opinion of Americans and Russians that Ukraine didn't implement them. We're not debating whether this is true or not. We must defend our interests," Zelenskyy said.
He added that although the agreement was signed, it was impossible to implement. Some of its provisions were deadlocked. And Russia failed to fulfill those obligations that could realistically be fulfilled.
"Now they're saying Ukraine didn't fulfill them. But the agreement was designed to be impossible to implement; it was drafted and concluded that way. It's a stalemate. No one can do it. Neither side. But it's assumed that Ukraine signed it, meaning they were expected to fulfill it. Often, a little more is required of Ukraine," Zelenskyy added.
As a reminder, in 2023, former Russian presidential aide Vladislav Surkov stated that when drafting the Minsk agreements, the Russian leadership assumed they would not be implemented.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy previously noted that in order to conclude an agreement to end the war, Kyiv must receive reliable security guarantees. He also noted that no one believes in the Budapest Memorandum, Minsk II, or Minsk III, as new security guarantees must be legally binding and approved by parliament."
From the Politico:
"Germany’s far-right AfD accused of gathering information for the Kremlin
Using the rights afforded to him as a lawmaker for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the parliament of the eastern German state of Thuringia — where the AfD is the strongest party — Mühlmann has repeatedly asked the regional government to disclose intricate details on subjects such as local drone defenses and Western arms transports to Ukraine.
“What information does the state government have about the extent of military transit transports through Thuringia since 2022 (broken down by year, type of transport [road, rail], number of transits, and known stops)?” Mühlmann asked in writing in September.
One day in June, Mühlmann — who denies he is doing Russia’s bidding — filed eight inquiries related to drones and the drone defense capabilities of the region’s police, who are responsible for detecting and fending off drones deemed a spy threat.
“What technical systems for drone defense are known to the Thuringian police (e.g., jammers, net launchers, electromagnetic pulse devices), and to what extent have these been tested for their usability in law enforcement?” Mühlmann asked.
Such questions from AfD lawmakers on the state and federal parliaments have led German centrists to accuse the far-right party’s lawmakers of using their seats to try to expose sensitive information that Moscow could use in its war on Ukraine and to help carry out its so-called “hybrid war” against Europe.
“One cannot help but get the impression that the AfD is working through a list of tasks assigned to it by the Kremlin with its inquiries,” Thuringian Interior Minister Georg Maier, a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), told German newspaper Handelsblatt.
“What struck me was an incredible interest in critical infrastructure and the security authorities here in Thuringia, especially how they deal with hybrid threats,” Maier subsequently told POLITICO. “Suddenly, geopolitical issues are playing a role in their questions, while we in the Thuringian state parliament are not responsible for foreign policy or defense policy.”...
Tino Chrupalla, one of the AfD’s national leaders, strongly pushed back against the allegations his party is attempting to reveal arms supply routes to benefit the Kremlin.
“Citizens have legitimate fears about what they see and experience on the highways every evening,” he said in a talk show last month when asked about Mühlmann’s inquiries. “These are all legitimate questions from a member of parliament who is concerned and who takes the concerns and needs of citizens seriously. You are making insinuations, which is quite perfidious; you are accusing us of things that you can never prove.”
Mühlmann, a former police officer, speaking to POLITICO, denied that he’s following an assignment list “in the direction of Russia.”
Government ministers, while obligated to answer each parliamentary inquiry, are not obliged to reveal sensitive or classified information that could endanger national security, Mühlmann also argued.
“It is not up to me to limit my questions, but up to the minister to provide the answers,” he said. “If at some point such an answer poses a danger or leads to espionage, then the espionage is not my fault, but the minister’s, because he has disclosed information that he should not have disclosed.”
Flood of parliamentary questions
Marc Henrichmann, a conservative lawmaker and the chairman of a special committee in Germany’s Bundestag that oversees the country’s intelligence services, said that while the government is not obliged to divulge classified or highly sensitive information in its answers to parliamentary questions, Russian intelligence services can still piece together valuable insights from the sheer volume and variety of AfD inquiries.
“Apart from insignificant inquiries and sensitive inquiries, there is also a huge gray area,” Henrichmann said. “And what I have regularly heard from various ministries is that individual inquiries are not really the problem. But when you look at these individual inquiries side by side, you get a picture, for example, of travel routes, aid supplies, and military goods to or in the direction of Ukraine.”
Henrichmann said AfD parliamentary questions in the Bundestag on subjects such as authorities’ knowledge of Russian sabotage and hybrid activities in the Baltic Sea region as well as of the poisoning of the late Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny had caught his attention and raised concerns.
AfD factions in German state parliaments have submitted more than 7,000 security-related inquiries since the beginning of 2020, according to a data analysis by Spiegel — more than any other party and about one-third of all security-related inquiries combined.
In Thuringia — where state intelligence authorities have labelled the AfD an extremist group — the party has submitted nearly 70 percent (1,206 out of 1,738) of all questions filed this legislative period. In the Bundestag, the parties parliamentary questions account for more than 60 percent of all inquiries (636 out of 1,052).
The AfD’s strategic use of parliamentary questions is nothing new, experts say. Since entering the Bundestag in 2017, the party has deployed them to flood ministries and to gather information on perceived political adversaries, experts say.
“From the outset, the AfD has used parliamentary questions to obstruct, paralyze, and also to monitor political enemies,” said Anna-Sophie Heinze, a researcher at the University of Trier.
With regard to the flood of inquiries related to national security, the question of what is driving the AfD is largely irrelevant, said Jakub Wondreys, a researcher at the Hannah Arendt Institute for Totalitarianism Studies at the Technical University Dresden who studies the AfD’s Russia policy.
“It’s not impossible that they’re acting on behalf of Kremlin. It’s also possible that they are acting on behalf of themselves, because, of course, they are pro-Kremlin. But the end result is pretty much the same. These questions are a potential threat to national security.”"
From the Telegraph / Yahoo!News:
"I was 14 when Epstein recruited me. He demanded that girls show their school IDs
Jeffrey Epstein demanded that young girls show their school IDs to prove they were underage.
Marina Lacerda, who was abused by Epstein from the age of 14, said the paedophile was “furious” when an 18-year-old was brought to him, immediately sending her away.
Ms Lacerda, now 37, was forced to recruit other victims, and told The Telegraph that Epstein instructed her to only present him with girls who had a student school ID.
Brazilian-born Ms Lacerda said Epstein stopped abusing her when she was 16 or 17 because he thought she was too old and she was not bringing him girls who were young enough.
“I did bring him somebody at the age of 18, and he booted her out... He just looked at her and knew she wasn’t the age of 14, 15, or 16. And he really, he was like, ‘Get the f--- out’... he was aggressive,” Ms Lacerda said.
“He turned to me, and he was like, ‘I’m done.’ He’s like, ‘You need to start bringing me IDs when you bring girls here... I want school IDs.’”
After the partial release of the Epstein files, Ms Lacerda accused the government of orchestrating a “cover-up” by redacting swathes of documents and failing to release everything it held to “protect” powerful men.
The US justice department released thousands of files on Friday and Saturday, but hundreds of pages were heavily redacted, and a huge tranche of documents is yet to be released.
Ms Lacerda’s testimony about being subjected to years of abuse was critical in securing the 2019 charges against the paedophile months before he died in jail.
She is referred to as “Minor-Victim 1” in the 2019 indictment and spoke publicly for the first time in September to call for the release of the Epstein files.
She said she had looked through some of the recently released files and saw notes about Epstein demanding to see girls’ IDs, information that appeared to be from her interview with the FBI in 2019, two months before Epstein’s arrest.
On Saturday, she also said the paedophile would “brag” to his powerful friends that he was being massaged by a “beautiful girl” while on a call, and make her say hello to them.
“We did speak to a lot of people on the phone who were, you know, politicians, some were princes... [they] were very important people,” she told The Telegraph.
He would “make it clear that he knew everybody and he owned everybody... he manipulated us,” she said.
After lying down for a massage, Epstein would ring his contacts to “talk business and would always bring up the fact like, ‘oh, you know, I have this nice, young, beautiful girl giving me a massage.’”
He would hand her the phone and tell her to “just say hello”, Ms Lacerda said. She would tell the men something like “Hey, how are you?” but would not discuss anything “deep”.
Ms Lacerda said Epstein never explicitly told the powerful men that she was underage...
“There’s a reason why everything’s redacted,” Ms Lacerda said, adding that it was “100 per cent a total cover-up”.
“It’s almost like a joke, right? Like, we have to look at it as it’s like, this has to be a comedy show. Like, why did you even put out all these files?”
She added: “Who are we really trying to protect? Are we protecting survivors, or are we protecting these powerful men?... We’re tired of it. It’s gotten to the point where, you know, we’ve protected these powerful men for a long time.”
Ms Lacerda met Epstein in 2002 when she was recruited by a friend, who did not give her details other than that she could make money massaging someone.
Ms Lacerda, a Brazilian immigrant, was sharing a single bedroom with her mother and sister at the time and saw it as an opportunity to support her family.
“It got to the point where I think I got really desperate for money,” she said. However, she could not face working for him any more after being forced to recruit young girls.
She said: “I didn’t want to bring any more underage girls, being 17 and having some knowledge of what was really going on there.
“You had no choice but to bring him somebody because he’s so persistent and just he wanted to have, you know, a new face, a new girl.”"
From the Telegraph:
"‘Peace in Ukraine is impossible while Putin remains in power’
Roland Oliphant,
A deal between Russia and Ukraine to end their war with each
other is impossible while Vladimir Putin is alive and in power, a former
British ambassador to Moscow has said.
Sir Laurie Bristow, who
served as British ambassador to Russia between 2016 and 2020, said the
idea that Putin could be persuaded to stop fighting in exchange for
territorial concessions was a “fantasy”, and that Western leaders must
accept that Moscow’s position would not change as long as he is in
office.
Sir Laurie, who later headed the UK mission in Kabul
during the evacuation from Afghanistan, also said British and other
Western governments should face up to the scale of that disaster.
“Specifically on Russia, it is: understand the nature of the problem,” he told The Telegraph’s Battle Lines podcast when asked how he would advise the Prime Minister if he were still a diplomat.
“The
key to thinking about how the war might end is first of all do away
with fantasies. There is not a deal to be done with Russia where you
trade some Ukrainian land for some other Ukrainian land and somehow
Putin’s happy and goes home. That isn’t going to happen.
“What [Putin] wants to do here is essentially assert the rights as he sees them of a great power to a sphere of influence – essentially an empire in central and eastern Europe – and that cannot be reconciled with our interests.
“The second fantasy to do away with is that this conflict is resolvable while Putin is in office. By which I think I mean while Putin is alive. For the conflict itself to resolve, Russia has to fundamentally change and that will not happen [while Putin remains in post].”...
Sir Laurie, for his part, said Putin’s own public statements made clear that he was not interested in compromise.
European
leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, instead must accept they will have
to continue to arm Ukraine in order to deter Russia from pressing ahead
“not because we want the war to continue but because we want it to
stop”, he said.
“If the Americans decide their interests are
elsewhere, our interests are still in European security and there is no
escaping from that. This is fundamentally about the UK’s security,” Sir
Laurie added."
From the Telegraph / Yahoo!News:
"Putin’s army of influencers selling pipe dreams of a Russian Mariupol
Elizaveta Chervyakova poses in front of a high-rise building in occupied Mariupol that is being rebuilt into a block of luxury apartments.
She ignores the fact that the building was once home to hundreds of Ukrainians before it was obliterated by Russian bombs during Moscow’s three-month siege in 2022.
In videos that garner thousands of views, the 21-year-old blogger paints a rosy picture of the coastal city returning to life as part of a Putin-era mega project of “magical” new apartment complexes, shopping centres and neighbourhoods.
In an interview, Ms Chervyakova insists that the Russian-occupied city is not a “ghost town” and that she wants to “dispel any myths” that it is not a good place to live.
But a Telegraph investigation has found she is one of a growing number of social media influencers who are becoming increasingly key to a co-ordinated Kremlin-led propaganda campaign to promote the Russification of the city and of life flourishing under Russian rule.
Moscow’s 85-day offensive against the city on the Sea of Azov killed between 20,000 and 88,000 civilians and damaged or destroyed 90 per cent of the city’s residential buildings. Hundreds of thousands of people fled, leaving just 100,000 of its original residents.
Since then, Moscow has poured billions of roubles into remaking the city in a Russian mould by 2025, a plan significantly behind schedule as a result of the scale of devastation its military inflicted. The local influencers are key to pumping out positive updates and pro-Kremlin narratives.
Four influencers living in Mariupol explained how their aim was to show Vladimir Putin’s “amazing” development of the city and dismissed accusations of them being propagandists, instead presenting themselves as truth tellers.
It is unclear if all the influencers receive direct funding or guidance from Russian authorities. None of those interviewed would discuss such a link.
One blogger, Kirill Sazonov, is accused of selling properties that belong to Ukrainians who fled the war, a claim that he strongly denies. The houses he tries to sell are often older and found in poorer, run-down districts, clearly distinct from the new developments.
Mr Sazonov, 37, originally from Donetsk, said the real estate business was “good, growing gradually”. Shrugging off the criticism he receives online, he said: “If I’m making videos, if I’m popular, of course there’s hate.”
The influencers fail to mention why the city needs to be rebuilt or the dire conditions the residents living under Russian occupation face. The remaining Ukrainians suffer from a chronic housing shortage, a collapsed medical system, a persistent water crisis and the absence of critical workers.
In her videos, Ms Chervyakova is determinedly upbeat and admiring of the changes the new city administration is making.
“The city is developing,” she said. “It has its challenges, but so does every city…Yes, there are still some buildings that are still destroyed that spoil the view.”
As part of his mega project in Mariupol, Putin signed a decree in late November instructing officials to use “media and internet resources, including social networks, video hosting sites, instant messengers and blogs” to disseminate content aimed at “strengthening civil unity” in the occupied territories.
The new “blogging schools”, opening across occupied territories that have the clear patronage of Russian-installed administrations, appear to be a result of this.
The Donbass Media Center (DMC) opened a blogging school in Mariupol in September 2024, following similar schemes in the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk and later Melitopol. It offers free two-week courses for those aged 16-25 on how to build an audience on Russian platforms. Ms Chervyakova is a graduate.
One of its instructors is Pavel Karbovsky, 24, who is known as “Donbas Cosmonaut” online. He has racked up millions of views online encouraging people to visit the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, portraying Mariupol as a beach, food and clubbing destination.
Mr Karbovsky, who grew up in Donetsk region, said his aim was to show the city’s “amazing” development. He unequivocally states in his videos that Mariupol and Donetsk are part of Russia.
Through his work at the DMC, “a lot of talented kids have emerged thanks to us… we taught them how to film, how to create great content”, he told The Telegraph.
Mr Karbovsky said he did not know whether it was funded by the Russian government – but it would be “cool” if it was. His name appears on Ukraine’s unofficial database of “enemies” of the state accused of colluding with Moscow.
The organisation that runs the DMC is partnered with “Russia – Land of Opportunities”, a Kremlin-funded presidential programme that invests in bloggers throughout Russia and the “new regions”.
Its 2025 winner was Irina Mishina, a pro-Russia blogger from occupied Luhansk, who said her goal was to “show real life of our republic: not through politics or conflicts, but through people’s stories, through the revival of our cities, and through the eyes of our youth”.
Mr Sazonov, who also has ties to the DMC, has tens of thousands of followers and posts about reconstruction efforts in Mariupol and encourages Russians to invest in real estate.
He posted videos from inside and outside a property believed to have belonged to Ukrainians who fled during their siege. Their belongings, including paintings on the walls and furniture, remain.
The United Nations estimates that out of 38,000 homes identified as abandoned in the occupied territories, nearly 12,800 are in Mariupol. Experts argue that the overall goal is to seize the homes in order to facilitate the transfer of Russian citizens to the captured cities and towns.
But behind the Potemkin facade, exiled city officials and human rights groups argue that just like the fake villages once built to impress Catherine the Great, it is little more than a propaganda exercise.
Elina Beketova, a fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), whose research focuses on occupied territories, said: “All the bloggers appear to have been given the same task – to emphasise the redevelopment work Russia is doing.
“The same information circulates on social media channels and it looks like the same co-ordinated effort to show how much better it is to live under Russian control than Ukrainian.”
Petro Andriushchenko, a former adviser to the Ukrainian mayor of Mariupol and the head of the Centre for the Study of the Occupation, said the overwhelming “culture of surveillance” in the occupied territories meant “it is impossible to tell the truth in public”.
“People think they are seeing independent opinions from bloggers on social media channels, but it’s impossible to be independent,” he told The Telegraph.
“Every single person making content, blogs, vlogs, from the occupied territories is somebody under Russian control,” he added, arguing that if they were not, they would be quickly detained or brought to heel.
According to Yulia Gorbunova, a senior Ukraine researcher at Human Rights Watch, the social media campaign “is part-and-parcel of Russian propaganda efforts to erase Ukraine’s history, replace its art, language and historical landmarks, and influence the young”.
Streets have been renamed, monuments removed, the tricolour flag drapes from buildings, only Russian-speaking television is shown, number plates have been changed and the Russian curriculum imposed on schools.
On top of that, there is a “whole range of occupation-related abuses”, Ms Gorbunova said, including illegal home seizures, unlawful conscription of civilians into the Russian military, coercing remaining residents to obtain a Russian passport and the indoctrination, militarisation and deportation of children.
Several months after capturing the city, Moscow produced a “master plan” for the city, which was widely discovered to be plagiarised from an outdated Ukrainian plan for 2016 and ignored the city-wide destruction caused by the Russian bombardment.
Critics argued that it focused on just regeneration in the historic city centre and the Azovstal steelworks, instead of the levelled residential districts, where most lost their homes.
“Literally everything in the city is being updated – from the master plan to the dog shelter, from transportation to bus stops, from the theatre to city parks and beaches,” the statement said.
“Literally everything in the city is being updated – from the master plan to the dog shelter, from transportation to bus stops, from the theatre to city parks and beaches,” the statement said.
Analysts have argued that this is not a long-term development plan but something more sinister: an attempt to pave over essential evidence of alleged war crimes.
In 2024, a Human Rights Watch report said Russia’s refusal to allow independent investigators into the city before demolishing large swaths of it “effectively erased the physical evidence at hundreds of potential crime scenes across the city”.
‘Dancing on the bones of murdered people’
But there are other long-term goals at play, indicated by the endless billboards advertising the city as a relocation destination and the incentives of cheap mortgage rates and higher salaries for Russian citizens.
So far, analysts believe more than 50,000 Russians have relocated there, with the aim of pushing out Ukrainian residents.
As Christmas approaches, many of the social media influencers have been showing redeveloped parts of the city lit up by festive displays. A 14-metre tree, drenched in lights, stands outside the new Mariupol Drama Theatre.
They do not mention that it was rebuilt after being destroyed by two Russian bombs in 2022, killing an estimated 600 sheltering civilians. It remains one of – if not the worst – single atrocity of the entire war.
Mariupol’s exiled city council said Russia was trying to “restore the imaginary ‘normality’ of life through attention to the holidays”.
It accused the occupying authorities of “dancing and singing on the bones of the murdered people of Mariupol” in a statement on Telegram.
“However, local Mariupol residents remember the truth,” it added.
Additional reporting by Lily Shanagher"
From the Dialog, Dec 21, 2025:
"A loan that enraged the Kremlin: why the EU decision was a bigger blow than sanctions
By allocating $90 billion to Ukraine, the European Union eliminated Kyiv's key financial risk and bet on a war of attrition that Russia will find increasingly difficult to sustain.
Anders Nielsen, a military analyst at the Royal Danish Defence College, shared his opinion on the EU's $90 billion loan to Ukraine.
Yigal Levin has compiled a summary of the expert's key points.
European media have greatly underestimated the significance of this step. For some reason, it's portrayed as a sign of weakness, as if European countries couldn't agree on the seizure of frozen Russian assets. In practice, there's little difference: the loan implies that it will be repaid by the Russians through post-war reparations, not by the Ukrainians.
The allocation of funds was critical for Ukraine: Kyiv was facing enormous problems balancing its budget for the following year. It's quite likely that Ukraine would have lost within six months. However, Ukraine now has the financial reserves to continue the war of attrition.
It's worth noting that the American leadership was also upset by this decision. They, too, have started talking again about European warmongers who are hindering peace. However, this means that Europe is acting in its own interests, and no matter how upsetting this may be to other "great powers," it forces them to consider it as an equal."
From the Dialog, Dec 19, 2025:
"Portnikov explained why the Ukrainian Armed Forces' advance to the 1991 borders will not end the war
Journalist Vitaly Portnikov rejected the possibility of a ceasefire in the foreseeable future and provided arguments to support his belief.
"I don't think there would have been any peaceful dialogue even in the first year of the war. This is another illusion. I don't think there will be any peaceful dialogue if Ukrainian troops succeed in counterattacking on Russian positions," Vitaly Portnikov confidently stated.
The political analyst voiced his position on the NTA television channel's YouTube channel.
"I keep explaining: even if Ukrainian troops theoretically managed to reach the 1991 state border, that wouldn't be the end of the war. It would mean moving the front line to the Russian-Ukrainian border, with continued Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and the transformation of Ukraine itself into uninhabitable territory," the publicist warned Ukrainians.
Portnikov also emphasized an important nuance: "In this situation, the front line doesn't matter if we know the Russians' desire to render the entire territory of Ukraine unviable. Therefore, the only real condition that would force Putin, historically speaking, to abandon the continuation of the war with Ukraine is the exhaustion of Russia's financial and demographic resources, creating threats to the very existence of its repressive regime itself."
"If such exhaustion doesn't occur and there are no threats, the war will continue for as many years as Putin needs, especially since the majority of Russians fully support the war's central idea, so to speak, 'returning historical lands to Moscow's control.' I have no doubt that Russians would like the war to end, but they understand the idea of this war perfectly well," the journalist concluded."
In another interview - for the CEO Club Ukraine YouTube channel, Portnikov stated: "I hope that Ukraine will survive as an independent sovereign state. I don't know with what territory or population, but I believe that Russia still lacks the strength to conquer all of Ukraine, and the West has no desire to hand over all of Ukraine to Putin, because that would be a defeat for the West. The main thing is to wait until Russia no longer has the ability to continue destroying this country and its people... I never thought it would be easy. If you think I'm deeply disappointed, no, I'm not. I knew perfectly well how difficult it would be, because I've always understood the Russians' intentions perfectly. I worked in Russia for twenty years, and there were no secrets to me about what would happen. I knew that as soon as Ukraine separated itself from Moscow, what happened would happen, and there was one day in my life in 2014 when I realized it had begun. When I realized the annexation of Crimea was beginning, that Russian troops were entering, I realized a global conflict had begun. It was a difficult day for me, because I saw everything that would happen."
From the To Be Or blog, Dec 19, 2025:
""Between 5 and 10 million Ukrainian citizens with the right to vote live in Russia, and if elections are held, we have the right to demand that they be granted the right to vote in the Russian Federation," Putin said.
Firstly, you have no right to demand anything.
Secondly, naturally, there are no 5-10 million Ukrainian citizens in Russia.
According to the 2021 census, 884,000 Ukrainians lived in Russia.
Also, after the Russian invasion, 1.97 million Ukrainians (including 19,500 deported children) left or were deported from Russia, but calculating the actual number is very difficult because many left through Russia in transit, and many were forcibly Russified.
Putin is also obviously referring to Ukrainians living in the occupied territories, who by hook or by crook hold on to their Ukrainian passports, and who were forced at gunpoint to vote in the "referendums" of the fall of 2022.
Therefore, if they want to fabricate 5-10 million ballots, it won't be difficult for them.
Naturally, voting on enemy territory is as legally nonsensical as "referendums" in territories Putin hasn't yet seized.
But the question here is how good Trump will think this is. Ukraine and Europe will have the added headache of explaining to the American president why this is impossible.
This is simply another manipulation to complicate the elections and thereby pit Trump against Zelensky again or create preconditions for their own non-recognition.
A manipulation that would not have been possible in principle if the White House hadn't fallen for it.
P.S. Putin also added that he is ready to cease long-range strikes on election day, but this will absolutely not allow the elections to be held, since troops on the front lines won't be able to vote. Only a complete ceasefire for the ENTIRE election campaign."
From the Washington Post:
"What’s really behind Zelensky’s caution
Ukraine has learned that frozen lines mean little without enforcement.
There is a temptation in every ceasefire negotiation to treat geography as the main variable. Diplomats sweat over where the front line freezes, which towns change hands and which lands are labeled “temporarily occupied.” Yet the central question in these talks is not simply whether Ukraine might give up a portion of Donbas, the ravaged region on the nation’s eastern border with Russia, under a negotiated formula. It is what comes next. What prevents Russia from turning a “ceasefire” into a means of finishing the job?
This is not merely a theoretical question. Ukraine learned some hard lessons in 2015 that have left it understandably cautious.
That year, the second Minsk agreement was signed to stop the war in eastern Ukraine. The ceasefire was set to begin on Feb. 15. As the diplomatic ink dried, officials spoke hopefully of de-escalation. But on the ground, the fighting did not stop. Russian forces and their proxies continued their assault on Debaltseve, a key rail and road junction. Only after the city fell and Ukrainian troops were forced to withdraw on Feb. 18 did the ceasefire truly take hold. In practice, the ceasefire served as diplomatic cover for Russia to seize what it wanted before the line froze.
Worse, despite the fact that Russian forces continued to violate the ceasefire, Germany and France insisted on talking about compliance. Rather than declaring the effort dead, they leaned hard on Ukraine, which was largely reacting to Russia’s provocations, to keep up its side of the deal. This was not due to naiveté. It was due to the gravitational pull of process when enforcement is weak. The side that violates the terms creates new facts on the ground; the side that complies is pressed to keep complying — to “save the deal” and to avoid being blamed for collapse.
Ukraine rightly fears a repeat of this dynamic. If Ukrainian forces withdraw from certain areas, what physically prevents Russia from moving into the newly vacated territory under whatever pretense they come up with? Even if the United States and Europe threaten consequences for such breaches, everyone understands the grim asymmetry: Sanctions can be reimposed, weapons deliveries can be accelerated, diplomatic isolation can deepen, and statements of condemnation can be issued. But no Western army is going to storm a town in eastern Ukraine to evict Russian troops after the fact.
A durable ceasefire now hangs on two questions.
First, will Russia accept an agreement in which many of its demands are satisfied only nominally — on paper, partially or conditionally? It might, if cornered. President Vladimir Putin’s speech on Wednesday suggests his full goals remain unchanged. But Moscow has long treated incremental concessions at negotiations as partial wins to pocket. A ceasefire that reduces Russia’s immediate costs while preserving the option to escalate later is not a concession for Putin; it is his strategy.
Second, how will compliance be enforced in a way that actively blocks opportunistic advances rather than merely punishes them after the fact? If the answer is only “we will respond,” then Ukraine is being asked to trade territory for promises — and to trust that Russia will not test those promises. Ukraine has no trust left to give.
This is precisely what worries Zelensky and holds him back — and why his caution is not stubbornness but responsibility. A ceasefire that simply shifts the battlefield into a slower, dirtier gear — with ongoing Russian provocations, creeping annexation, acts of sabotage and attempts at political destabilization — is not a meaningful ceasefire at all...
In negotiations like these, you can traverse nearly the entire distance and still be forced to stop at the final step. Because it’s at the final step that risk concentrates and illusions collapse."
From the Telegraph:
"Russia is spying on Nato. We can’t do anything to stop it
Putin exploits weak maritime laws as West threatened by surveillance and sabotage
At one level, European defence officials insist, the case against the crew of the Eagle S was unimpeachable.
For more than six hours on Christmas Day last year, the ramshackle oil tanker deviated from established sea lanes and dragged its anchor along the seabed for more than 50 miles, severely damaging five cables carrying power and data across the Gulf of Finland.
When Finnish special forces boarded and seized the vessel, believed to be part of Russia’s shadow fleet, the crew responded with wide-eyed innocence.
It was mere coincidence, they swore, that the ship had altered course to pass over a narrow corridor of critical undersea infrastructure clearly marked on nautical charts.
And it was simply a misunderstanding that, when challenged, they claimed their anchor was secured and they had failed to notice the drag that slowed the vessel to a crawl.
Personnel aboard the Eagle S have form when it comes to wounded bewilderment. During earlier inspections in Danish waters, crew members were reportedly at a loss to explain the presence of suitcases containing specialised equipment capable of monitoring Nato ships and warplanes – or the identity of a mysterious, unlisted passenger with no apparent knowledge of seafaring.
It remains unclear whether suspicions that the vessel had also been deploying seabed sensors in the English Channel – to spy on British submarines and map the UK’s critical undersea infrastructure – were ever put to the crew. It is, however, a safe bet that they would have denied it.
In October, however, the Helsinki District Court dismissed criminal charges against the crew – two Georgians and an Indian – in a ruling that has unsettled European governments, who fear it amounts to an open invitation for Russia to unleash anarchy at sea.
The judges ruled less on the merits of the case than on jurisdiction. The suspected sabotage had taken place not in Finland’s territorial waters but in its exclusive economic zone.
Under international maritime law, they held, the crew should therefore be tried not in Finland but by the state under whose flag the Eagle S sailed: the Cook Islands.
A sparsely inhabited archipelago in the South Pacific, the Cook Islands are better known for coconut palms and turquoise lagoons than for waging hybrid warfare against Nato.
The Polynesian state had merely – if controversially – lent its flag to a vessel suspected of being part of Russia’s sanctions-busting shadow fleet, used to transport energy exports and wage a “grey-zone war” of espionage, sabotage and intimidation against the West.
Russia, Western officials argue, has been able to exploit weak and outdated maritime laws to threaten and undermine Europe. Moscow could now escalate its campaign following the collapse of the Eagle S case, emboldening shadow fleet vessels to ignore orders to enter territorial waters for inspection.
“It sends a rather chilling effect to coastal state authorities,” said Alexander Lott, a specialist in the law of the sea at the Arctic University of Norway.
“Next time we have an anchor-dragging ship making its way through a maritime area which is full of critical underwater infrastructure, it may simply refuse to comply and continue in its way and continue dragging its anchor.”
Law is ‘really, really weak’
For decades, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has underpinned international maritime order, protecting freedom of navigation on the high seas and guaranteeing transit through choke points and territorial waters.
Russia is now accused of turning those protections into a shield. When vessels operate outside territorial waters, UNCLOS – which is notoriously difficult to amend – gives Nato limited power to intervene, even if ships are spying on undersea infrastructure, sabotaging cables or launching drones at the behest of a hostile state.
“The legal frameworks we have to be able to board ships on the high seas are really, really weak,” Adml Sir Keith Blount, the alliance’s deputy supreme commander Europe, told the IISS Manama Dialogue security conference last month. “In ports it’s easy. In territorial waters it’s easier. But on the high seas it becomes very, very difficult … as the Finns found out.”..."
***
Apparently the correct move is not to arrest but to submerge these vessels - and I would not mind if no efforts are wasted in rescuing their super innocent crews.
Two articles in the Obozrevatel cite Ukrainian historian Yaroslav Hrytsak:
Anastasia Ryabokon, December 18, 2025
The ongoing peace talks are a diplomatic game. Yaroslav Hrytsak, a historian and professor at the Ukrainian Catholic University, explained its purpose in an interview with Telegraf.
"The conditions at the beginning of this year and at the end are different. In words, the parties agree to certain concessions. This, of course, doesn't mean there will be a ceasefire, because the distance between the two sides is too great. As diplomats say, this is the so-called corridor strategy, in which Trump wants to force Ukraine and Russia into a narrow corridor where they will converge," he said.
However, Gritsak emphasized, for this to happen, Trump must be more demanding of Russia. This isn't happening yet. He explains that the Trump administration wants to separate Russia from China. This is precisely why Trump's stance toward Russia is "much softer than toward Ukraine." Furthermore, Trump, who respects only force, believes that "Russia has force, and Ukraine hasn't."
"Peace is impossible as long as Putin exists. I often use the analogy of the Korean War: negotiations began in 1949 and ended only after Stalin's death. That is, the condition [for the completion of negotiations] was the death of Stalin himself," he recalled.
He also analyzed China's actions, which, in his view, is interested in continuing the war, which weakens the West. Trump, however, isn't "hindering, but rather helping."
"Trump's calculations are naive. And Russia has its own interests, even more pressing than China's: to weaken the West as much as possible," the historian said.
He added that the West's weakening could be predicated on Ukraine's defeat and NATO's disunity. Moreover, judging by the new US national security strategy, Russia has "almost succeeded" in the latter.
"But where Putin is struggling is in Ukraine. It is Ukraine that is preventing the implementation of Putin's plan, nor the Chinese, nor the American ones," Gritsak emphasized.
He explained that Putin, for several reasons, refuses to accept Trump's terms for Russia's withdrawal from the war. First, he is "not a rational politician":
"His position on Ukraine is particularly irrational. It can be described in one word: obsession. He simply cannot tolerate the existence of a separate Ukrainian state, a separate nation. He wants to do everything to ensure that it either ceases to exist or is weakened to such an extent that it becomes of no use to anyone, not even Ukrainians."
The second reason Putin refuses Trump's terms is that he will wage war throughout his life in power. He noted that peace with Putin is impossible. "A truce with Putin would be possible if he felt his position was weakening. Does he feel weak now? Unlikely. He thinks it's not he who's weak, but the West, and that he'll push them to the limit," he said.
As the interviewers recalled, Hrytsak had long stated that Ukraine's partners would pressure it to conclude a ceasefire with Russia. He also warned of the "risk of civil war" that proponents of such a plan could provoke. He added that he hoped for common sense in Ukrainian society..."
***
"A historian identified the main problem facing Ukraine and Europe in their confrontation with Russia
Irina Nesterova, December 18, 2025
Ukraine is currently effectively defending Europe from Russia, but neither Kyiv nor Brussels has a clear strategy for victory, which is effectively a long and slow path to defeat. This opinion was expressed by historian and professor at the Ukrainian Catholic University Yaroslav Hrytsak in an interview with Telegraf.
He disagreed with the widespread thesis that Europe currently benefits from a protracted war in Ukraine. He argued that "Europe is rather helpless," having become "scared" of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, albeit briefly.
"There was an initial shock, but European governments survived it. Moreover, the resistance of Ukrainian society helped. Many people in Europe said, 'Well, okay, the Ukrainians are holding out, there's no threat,'" the historian explained.
According to him, US President Donald Trump "really scared" Europe by saying that he was no longer interested in it.
"This means that Europe is deprived of protection, and in this situation, oddly enough, Ukraine is Europe's greatest defense right now because it holds the eastern front. Ukraine is buying time for Europe. The only question is whether this time will be enough for Europe to restructure itself and make some radical changes," the professor asserts.
At the same time, he says, this doesn't mean Europe will stop helping us. He says, "The problem is rather that neither Europe nor Ukraine has a strategy for victory": "And the absence of such a strategy, as the textbooks tell us, is a long and slow path to defeat.""
From UNIAN:
"Zelenskyy explained why Ukraine doesn't need to change the Constitution regarding NATO
Vitaliy Saenko, 12/18/25
The President believes that Ukraine deserves security guarantees such as membership in the Alliance.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy believes that the Ukrainian people should decide what changes to make to the Constitution. However, regarding the issue of seeking NATO membership, the Constitution should not be amended simply because Russia opposes Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration. According to a UNIAN correspondent, Zelenskyy stated this at a press conference in Brussels, where a summit of EU leaders is taking place today.
Specifically, the president was asked whether it was correct to understand that Ukraine was abandoning its aspirations for NATO membership, and whether the corresponding amendments would be made to the Ukrainian Constitution.
"I don't know how my words were interpreted," Zelenskyy said.
He recalled that, from the very first days of his interaction with former US President Joe Biden, he asked whether Ukraine could gain membership in the Alliance. Because Ukraine aspired to it and understood that it would provide real security guarantees.
"This was before the [full-scale] war. President Biden told me, 'No, you won't be in NATO.' I approached this issue every time, and it's already elicited smiles from someone in the White House, along with all sorts of reactions. They always said I was tough. I don't know why. And frankly, I don't understand it when a country says, 'We're not against it, but you won't be there.' I believe you won't be there because someone is against it. And we need to be frank about who's against it, and then resolve these issues, or not resolve them," Zelenskyy noted.
"Frankly, I don't think we need to change our country's Constitution. First of all, it's the Constitution of Ukraine, and let the Ukrainian people decide what to do with our Constitution, not someone else. Certainly not because of calls from the Russian Federation or anyone else. This is our Constitution. And this is our course. We wanted these security guarantees. We believe we deserve them," the Ukrainian leader emphasized.
At the same time, he said, US policy is consistent and unchanged regarding Ukraine's prospects for NATO membership. The president added:
"They don't see us there. For now. Look, it's all part of our lives for now. Maybe in the future, the position will change. Maybe someone will realize that a strong Ukrainian army strengthens NATO, and not vice versa. It's a matter of politics. The world changes. Some live, some die. That's life. And we are fighting for security guarantees. Today, they are the ones we are discussing."
He believes his words cannot be interpreted any other way.
The President reiterated that he is not the one deciding the NATO membership issue, and that this matter is solely within the purview of the Alliance's member countries.
"Their desire to see us there, or their reluctance. Their agreements with Russia—or rather, not agreements—are a little different. Our position remains unchanged—we deserve it. We would like to have such security guarantees. And the position of our partners, for now, remains unchanged. And let them be responsible for these changes, or lack thereof. In my view, this is fair," Zelenskyy asserted.
As UNIAN reported, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that Hungary, the United States, Slovakia, and possibly several other countries do not support Ukraine's membership in the Alliance.
The first draft of the "peace plan," which the United States handed over to Ukraine in November, included a clause requiring Ukraine to enshrine its refusal to join NATO in its Constitution."
From the Obozrevatel:
"This week, a decision is being made: is the world heading toward global war or will it finally find the will to stop it? Interview with Bessmertny
Roman Pryadun, December 18, 2025
The Berlin talks revealed the central dilemma of the moment: the West wants a quick result, Ukraine wants a high-quality and irreversible one, and Russia wants further war. Ukrainian diplomat and politician Roman Bessmertny shared his thoughts on these and other issues in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA.
– Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted: "We have not agreed to any territorial concessions." Meanwhile, the Americans are officially demanding the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops in exchange for security guarantees. American media, citing the White House, report that the Ukrainians have been given time to go home to "discuss proposals," and are expected in Miami at the end of the week. Another meeting is possible.
