From the Politico:
"Donald Tusk trashes Budapest as possible Ukraine talks venue
“Maybe I’m superstitious, but this time I would try to find another place,” says Polish PM as he recalls 1994 memorandum.
Saturday, November 15, 2025
French workers unwilling to help Ukraine
From the Defense Express, Aug. 21
"Dispute Over Drone Production for Ukraine at Renault Exposes Russian Footprint in French Trade Unions
Dissatisfaction among French carmaker
Renault's workers over the production of drones for Ukraine raises
serious questions about russian influence on the country's trade unions
The French automaker Renault is preparing to begin manufacturing
drones for Ukraine. However, part of its workforce opposes the
initiative, claiming they "did not sign up to make weapons," and there
may be a russian trace behind this stance.
The issue was reported by bfmtv, citing one of the company's managers and trade union representatives. The General Confederation of Labour (Confédération Générale du Travail or CGT) has stated that workers are asking whether they can refuse to take on such an assignment...
Although the company has produced military equipment in the past, trade unions emphasize that this happened only when France itself was at war. This argument is not entirely accurate, since before the sale of ARQUUS, Renault Trucks Defense supplied chassis for the Caesar self-propelled howitzer. Still, the situation is not entirely bleak, as a partial solution may already be emerging.
One proposal is to launch drone production at Renault's plant in Slovenia, thus avoiding the involvement of French personnel. While the idea is interesting, it is unlikely that discontented workers will simply let the matter drop.The CGT, mentioned earlier, maintains close ties with major pro-russian
left-wing parties in France. In particular, this includes La France
Insoumise (LFI), known through its founder and presidential candidate
Jean-Luc Mélenchon.
This is not just a political dispute over differing views but a deliberate campaign unfolding under russian influence. Moreover, it is not the first time French trade unions have acted this way: back in 1939, they actively sabotaged defense production during the Soviet–Nazi cooperation period.
Overall, despite Renault's vague responses, the company is likely to move forward with defense production, as the French state is its largest shareholder. However, the situation highlights the dangerous factor of russian interference in French politics."
Questions to Trump
Translating from Faktor, Aug. 20:
"Thirty questions to Donald Trump
They cannot help but be asked after the insane meeting in Alaska between the American president and the Kremlin mass murderer
Svetla Dobreva
1. Who started the war in Ukraine?
2. Can you look a Ukrainian mother who lost her child to Putin in the eye and explain to her why you applauded the murderer of her child?
3. When you keep repeating that this war is not yours but Biden's, what do you think you are achieving?
4. You say that Ukraine can stop the war, which in fact means capitulating. As the President of the United States, how is it possible to call on an independent country to surrender to the aggressor and violate its own Constitution?
5. Do you really not realize that only Putin can stop the war in 24 hours?
6. How many times, during your repeated conversations with Putin, have you called on him to withdraw from the territory of Ukraine?
7. Why do you call the most mass murderer of our time "your friend"?
8. Why do you love the terrorist state Russia and keep it as your most precious possession?
9. Why do you hate Ukraine?
10. Why do you repeat Russian talking points, thus becoming a spokesman for Russian propaganda?
11. Why are you against Ukraine becoming a full member of NATO, given that this would relieve you of thus any efforts to think about security guarantees for it, especially that you would not be able to keep them?
12. By virtue of what experience so far do you believe Putin's word and signature?
13. Do you realize that Putin is mocking you, and the meeting in Alaska is a complete failure for you?
14. As the president of America, you are bound by all the treaties and agreements you have made over the years and are supposed to keep them. Why are you violating the Budapest Memorandum, in which the US made a commitment to Ukraine to protect its territorial integrity?
15. Why are you so afraid to visit Ukraine and see with your own eyes the atrocities that Russia is causing this suffering country?
16. Are you happy that you turned the MAGA movement into a run-of-the-mill cult?
17. Why are you so desperate to win the Nobel Peace Prize? How will that help your self-esteem?
18. Why are you missing the chance that fate has given you to go down in history as the president who helped the world fight Evil?
19. Why is money the most important thing to you and why do you make money by selling weapons at the expense of innocent people's lives?
20. Do you want to be a dictator like Putin?
21. What is the definition of “just peace” and how is it achieved?
22. Where does your confidence, like Putin’s, that you have the right to trample on international law with impunity come from?
23. A decent American president is supposed to keep his word and keep his promises. In this regard, why do you expose yourself with these repeated two-week deadlines that you set for yourself and then flinch from?
24. Do you envy President Zelensky – his charisma, intelligence, courage and popularity?
25. Why do you attack every critic with insults instead of seeking psychotherapy to understand the cause of your sick ego?
26. What is the reason for turning the Oval Office in the White House into a cartoonish, gilded set from a bad parody movie?
27. Why do you spend so much time writing weird posts on your social media instead of doing the job you were elected to do?
28. What is the reason for you to slap so much orange foundation on your face?
29. Do you realize that the intelligent part of humanity is mocking you?
30. How will you explain to the free world that America under your rule is no longer its protector?"
Russia wants to give safety guarantees to Ukraine
Translating from the Dialog, Aug. 20:
Russia offered Ukraine its "security guarantees" – The Internet is laughing at Lavrov's statement
Lavrov proposed returning to "security guarantees," where Russia would have veto power over any aid to Kyiv.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated that Russia will not accept any security guarantees for Ukraine if they are developed without Moscow's participation. He proposed returning to the "Istanbul 2022 model"—a document in which Russia not only was listed as a guarantor but also granted veto power over any aid to Kyiv...
In other words, Russia attempted to push the idea that is should control who and how assists Ukraine in the event of further aggression. Kyiv, in response, did not even comment on these statements. In Ukrainian and Western circles, this position has long been perceived as empty talk.
Social media is mocking Lavrov's statement. "It's like Hitler becoming the guarantor of Jewish security," one online commenter joked...
Any model in which Moscow can veto international aid is no longer on the table, Kyiv says, especially given the 2022 scenario, when Russia first held talks in Istanbul and then continued military escalation."
Monday, November 03, 2025
List of treaties with Ukraine violated by Russia
From DonPress, Aug. 20:
"...Russia already had international treaties signed with Ukraine. It violated them all. How can we trust that Russia won't violate the treaties it signed again? For example, the 2003 border treaty was personally signed by Putin.
1. Budapest Memorandum (1994)
- Violation: annexation of Crimea (2014), full-scale invasion (2022).
2. Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership (1997)
- Violation: annexation of Crimea, war in Donbas (2014), invasion (2022).
3. Russian-Ukrainian Border Treaty (2003)
- Violation: violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity (2014, 2022).
4. Kharkiv Agreements (2010);
- Violation: annexation of Crimea (2014)
5. Minsk Agreements (2014, 2015)
- Violation: failure to observe the ceasefire, support for military operations in Donbas (2014), invasion (2022)."
ISW: Lavrov said a truth by stating that Russia insists on controlling all Ukraine
From the Institute for the Study of War:
"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, August 19, 2025
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accurately stated that the Kremlin’s objective in Ukraine is to politically control all of Ukraine rather than to seize select Ukrainian territories such as Donetsk Oblast. Lavrov claimed in a televised interview on August 19 that the Kremlin has “never talked about the need to seize any territories” from Ukraine and that Russia’s goal was not to seize Crimea, Donbas, or other areas of Ukraine.[1] The claim seems bizarre in the context of Russia’s repeated demands that Ukraine and the West recognize Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory, including territory Russian forces do not control. It reflects the deeper Russian aims in Ukraine, however, quite accurately. Lavrov reiterated that Russia’s war objectives concern “protecting” the people in Ukraine from the Ukrainian government, which the Kremlin falsely portrays as illegitimate and oppressive.[2] Lavrov’s description of the Kremlin’s aim to “protect” Ukrainians from their own government reflects the fact that the Kremlin seeks to remove the democratically elected Ukrainian government and replace it with a pro-Russian government that would allow the Kremlin to control Ukraine without needing to fight for physical control over territory or annex it. Lavrov notably made demands during the interview that reject Ukraine’s sovereignty including that Ukraine repeal laws regarding language and religion that are the proper concern only of the government of a sovereign state. Lavrov stated explicitly “there can be no talk of any long-term [peace] agreements” with Ukraine “without respect” for Russia’s security and the rights of Russian-speakers in Ukraine, as “these are the reasons that must be urgently eliminated in the context of a settlement.”[3] The Kremlin’s continued insistence on controlling Ukrainian domestic affairs reflects the arguments made by Russian President Vladimir Putin in his 2021 essay arguing that Ukraine should not exist independently of Russia.[4]
Lavrov’s August 19 statement further emphasizes the Kremlin’s broader objective of obtaining full political control over Ukraine before Russia ends its war.[5] Considering Russia’s territorial demands separately from demands concealed by its references to “root causes” obscures the reality that the Kremlin views its war demands as indivisible – the Kremlin aims to accomplish all of these goals and has shown no willingness to compromise any of them or sacrifice some for others to facilitate or complete a peace process. The Kremlin has repeatedly defined its war aims as Ukrainian demilitarization, government change in favor of a pro-Russian proxy government, and Ukrainian commitments barring it from joining NATO and other international alliances.[6] Kremlin officials have consistently reiterated throughout the war and negotiations process that Russia will achieve these war aims either militarily or diplomatically in line with Lavrov’s August 19 statements.[7]
Russia launched the full-scale invasion in 2022 after failing to secure control over Ukraine by other means. Russia has long attempted to exert control over former Soviet states through continuing cognitive warfare efforts.[8] Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, in which the Ukrainian people protested for a transparent Western-style government, threatened effective Russian control over Ukraine and prompted the Kremlin to launch a series of cognitive warfare efforts in order to stop and reverse the loss of Russian influence in Ukraine.[9] Russian President Vladimir Putin accelerated his efforts to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty following the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution that drove out Ukraine’s Russia-friendly president, Viktor Yanukovych, and in favor of a democratically elected, pro-Western government.[10] Russia illegally occupied and annexed Crimea in response, accelerated hybrid operations, and backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.[11] Putin tried to force Ukraine to legitimize the Russia-invented Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) in the 2015 Minsk II accords that established the ceasefire that Russia broke fully in 2022. The Kremlin pressured Ukraine to extend the legal limited autonomy of the regions in December 2019 and to enshrine broader autonomy for Donbas as a constituent part of Ukraine into the Ukrainian Constitution so that the DNR and LNR could serve as conduits for Russian influence in and ultimately control over the government in Kyiv, but Ukraine rejected this effort.[12] The Kremlin ultimately launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 after this failure to bring Ukraine back under Russian control. Putin has long denied Ukrainian sovereignty and alleged that Ukrainians have always belonged to the Russian nation because of their shared “historical and spiritual space.”[13] Putin used these claims as part of his justification for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which was the culmination of eight years of failed efforts to regain control of Ukraine through hybrid warfare campaigns.
Russia similarly seeks to exert influence over the internal governance of other former Soviet countries, including NATO states, effectively denying their sovereignty and setting conditions to threaten their independent governance. Russian officials are setting informational conditions to justify exerting control over former Soviet states, including NATO members Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, by denying the legality of the collapse of the Soviet Union.[14] The Kremlin asserts its right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Baltic States by prosecuting officials who remove Soviet-era war monuments and citizens who graffiti them within these states’ sovereign territories in absentia under Russian law that does not apply to those states.[15] Russia notably launched one of the first ever cyberattacks against Estonia in response to the Estonian government’s decision to relocate a Soviet “Monument to the Liberators of Tallinn.”[16] Russian efforts to exert control over the Baltics has failed. Russia has been much more successful in establishing control over both Belarus and Georgia, however, by launching hybrid operations in both countries and backing pro-Russian governments that are loyal to the Kremlin.[17] The Kremlin now seeks to bring Belarus further into Russian control through the Union State framework and to eliminate the facade of an independent Belarus completely.
Lavrov implicitly rejected suggestions that Russia might accept Western security guarantees for Ukraine. Lavrov stated on August 19 that Russia and Ukraine cannot make any long-term agreements that do not take into account Russia’s “security interests,” very likely referring to Russia’s demand for Ukrainian “neutrality.”[18] Russian officials have long insisted on Ukrainian neutrality and non-alignment with NATO as a precondition to negotiations, and Russia is likely setting information space conditions to oppose Western security guarantees for Ukraine.[19] Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated on August 18 that Russia “categorical[ly] reject[s]… any scenario that envisages the appearance in Ukraine of a military contingent with the participation of NATO countries.”[20] The Kremlin’s demand ostensibly for Ukraine’s neutrality is in fact meant to isolate Ukraine from its allies and deny Ukraine its sovereign right to form alliances even as Russia insists on de facto control over Ukraine’s domestic internal affairs.[21]"
Igal Levin explains why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire
Translating an opinion by Israeli journalist Igal Levin in the Obozrevatel, Aug.19:
"Why Putin Opposed the Ceasefire: The Detail Everyone Missed
Why did Putin oppose a ceasefire at his meeting with Trump and propose an alternative in the form of signing a comprehensive agreement to end the war?
That is, a peace treaty.
There's a point here that, as I've pointed out, some are missing. A ceasefire can be arranged overnight; all that's needed is an order, and then it's up to the field commanders to comply. A ceasefire can end a war with the snap of a finger if senior and field commanders on both sides comply. Or, at the very least, minimize and reduce violence on the front to the bare minimum.
A peace agreement, however, is a complex and lengthy process that can take years or even decades. A few examples off the top of my head:
Egypt and Israel – ceasefire in 1973, peace treaty in 1979 – took 6 years.
Jordan and Israel – ceasefire in 1949, peace treaty in 1994 – took 45 years.
Armenia and Azerbaijan—a ceasefire in 2020, a peace treaty in 2025 – took five years.
North and South Korea—an armistice in 1953 (and that was through the UN, China, and North Korea; South Korea never signed anything), and there's still no peace treaty.
The list could go on, but the logic is clear: a peace treaty and ending a war isn't like buying a chicken at the market; it's a long process that could drag on for half a century.
And even "quick" signings would take five years or more.
Putin, rejecting the first stage – stopping the war itself, that is, a ceasefire—is proposing to skip all the stages and end the war immediately with peace.
And since this is a long process, that means sometime later, in 2030, for example, or perhaps even later. Until the "root causes of the Ukrainian crisis," for example, are resolved.
Putin's negotiating tactic in one sentence
Ukrainian diplomat Andriy Veselovsky in the Obozrevatel, Aug.19:
"...There are people who constantly push Trump toward the "Putin scenario." The logic there is simple: "We are negotiating to negotiate, and in the meantime, we are fighting and killing.""
Osechkin on the supposed land swap in Ukraine
In the Dialog, Aug. 18, Russian human rights activist Vladimir Osechkin commented the land swap suggested by Trump:
"What did Putin offer Trump? What can he offer Ukraine and Zelenskyy? Some kind of land swap. Is he ready to swap Kaliningrad for Crimea, for example? Of course not. This is not up for discussion. He has no intention of giving up Russian territory. They have seized about 20% of Ukraine's territory and are ready to exchange some of that territory for another part of Ukraine. Where is the legality in this from an international legal perspective? What does Ukraine gain from this?
What did Whitkoff say less than a day ago? That Putin's concession is that he won't seize all of Ukraine. If we translate this into everyday terms, it's like some thug comes along, breaks the leg of a normal, intelligent, well-mannered, law-abiding person, and then negotiators come along and say, "Listen, you negotiate with him on something. He, in turn, suggests you leave everything else intact." This, I think, is completely out of line.
Essentially, the world is following the lead of dictator Putin right now. That is, if you have nuclear weapons and the arrogance, you can move forward. It's hard to comment on all this live on air. "
Sunday, November 02, 2025
Nacke on Putin's "concession"
Russian opposition journalist Michael Nacke in the Dialog, Aug. 18:
"I won't recount all the information insanity that poured out yesterday. Let's quickly run through the main players. Let's start with Putin's stooge, Witkoff. He reiterated the concession Russia agreed to. According to him, this concession is not to seize all of Ukraine. A good concession, a great one. I could make a concession to Witkoff and, in exchange for Trump giving me 3-4 US states, sign a paper stating that I won't seize the rest of America. I hope they consider it soon.
I mentioned the piece of paper for a reason. Witkoff says that Ukraine's security guarantee will consist of (take a deep breath, as Zadornov would say) Putin writing into law that he will not attack Ukraine or Europe. Here, of course, the Kremlin is taking advantage of the fact that Trump and Witkoff are short-sighted people. I mean, Russia already gave written commitments not to attack Ukraine, and then gave a hundred thousand such verbal commitments. You know how it ended.
Moreover, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation currently contains Article 353, which reads as follows: "Planning, preparing, unleashing, or waging an aggressive war. First: planning, preparing, or unleashing an aggressive war is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 7 to 15 years. Second: waging an aggressive war is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10 to 20 years." So, as I've said many times, Putin and his comrades are criminals under Russian law, and any police officer has the right to detain them."
After Alaska, Trump laid the responsibility for continuing the war on Zelensky
Trump's Aug. 18 post on Truth Social:
"President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight. Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!"
ISW: No promises by Putin should be trusted
From the Institute for the Study of War:
"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, August 17, 2025
...Russian President Vladimir Putin’s insistence that any peace agreement must address Russia’s perceived “root causes” of the war will make it difficult to reach a peace agreement as rapidly as Trump desires, given the complexity of the “root causes.” Putin reiterated his ongoing demand that any peace agreement must eliminate the “root causes” of the war during the joint press conference at the Alaska summit on August 15.[21]... Marco Rubio responded to a question regarding Putin’s demands at the Alaska summit during an interview with Face the Nation on August 17, stating that Putin’s demands to address the alleged “root causes” allude to long historical complaints that the Kremlin has repeatedly invoked.[25] Rubio stated that the United States is not going to focus on the “root causes” but rather on halting the fighting.
Russia’s “root causes” extend beyond Ukraine, and eliminating them would require substantial negotiations with NATO. Russian officials have defined one of the “root causes” of the war as NATO’s alleged violation of commitments not to expand into eastern Europe and along Russia’s borders in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s.[26] Russia issued a broad set of ultimatums to the United States in December 2021 demanding that NATO commit to not accepting Ukraine or any other countries as new members; not deploy any military forces to states that became NATO members after May 1997; refrain from military activity in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; and refrain from deploying intermediate-range missiles within range of Russian territory.[27]... Russia’s demands about the “root causes” are demands for massive NATO concessions that would jeopardize NATO’s integrity and European and US security more broadly.
Putin’s offer of a Russian law forbidding a future invasion of Ukraine is not credible because Russia has already twice broken previous binding international commitments not to invade and because Putin has shown that he can freely change Russian law as he desires. US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff stated on August 17 that Putin agreed during the Alaska summit that Russia would “legislatively enshrine” promises that Russia would not invade any other territory in Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe – likely referring to the creation of new Russian legislation or amendments to the Russian Constitution.[28] Putin has extensively disregarded and amended the Russian Constitution to support his political objectives, as evidenced by the Kremlin’s manipulation of the 2020 vote for a constitutional amendment to allow Putin to run for president again in 2024 and potentially remain in power until 2036.[29] Putin’s two invasions of Ukraine also broke Russia’s obligations under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum to respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine within Ukraine’s borders at the time.[30] Russia has continually violated international agreements prohibiting aggression against Ukraine, including the Minsk agreements.[31] Putin’s promise to codify Russian promises against future aggression into Russian legislation or the Russian Constitution is neither credible nor a concession, and there is no evidence to suggest that Putin would abide by any such law forbidding a renewed invasion of Ukraine after concluding a peace agreement.
The details about Ukrainian security guarantees to which Putin may have agreed remain unclear at this time, but the Kremlin may be attempting to resurrect its demands about security guarantors from April 2022 that would have neutered such guarantees. Axios stated on August 16 that sources briefed on Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders after the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska stated that Putin said he was willing to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine and mentioned the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as one of the possible guarantors.[32] Witkoff stated on August 17 that Trump and Putin came to an agreement that the United States and Europe could “effectively offer Article 5-like language” as a security guarantee for Ukraine against future renewed Russian aggression – referring to NATO’s collective defense clause.[33] Putin’s reported suggestion that the PRC could be a security guarantor mirrors Russia’s proposed peace settlement in Istanbul in April 2022. The April 2022 proposed treaty listed the PRC, several Western states, and Russia as the security guarantors for Ukraine.[34] Russia demanded in the proposal that guarantor states provide Ukraine with aid in the event of a future attack only after all guarantor states had agreed to such a decision. The PRC is a close Russian ally that has significantly helped the Russian war effort and defense industrial base (DIB), and the PRC would not be a neutral guarantor.[35] Russia’s involvement in the guarantee would make it meaningless. The parameters of the security guarantees for Ukraine that Putin is reportedly willing to accept are unclear. Any future peace settlement that includes stipulations similar to the demands that Russia made in April 2022 requiring unity among guarantor states would enable the PRC (or Russia, if Russia is one of them) to veto any decisions to help Ukraine in the event of another Russian invasion..."
America is no longer the beacon of democracy
Translating from the Factor:
"The United States is no longer the "shining city on the hill" to the world, but rather the madman with the machine gun
By Iliana Slavova, Aug. 18, 2025
On Friday, the world witnessed the most ridiculous political play involving an American president ever enacted. The leader of the greatest (until recently) democracy and the dictator of the most despised satrapy met on the red carpet. They shook hands, patted each other, touched each other, gesticulated with a grin, curtsied to each other for the cameras… And all this while the war instigated by Putin continues to sow death and claim innocent victims in Ukraine.
Then they got into the same car without their translators, like schoolgirls running away from class. Let them make noise to their heart’s content. Except this isn’t about school mischief, it’s about war crimes. Whatever they secretly said to each other on the way from the Anchorage airport to the meeting place affects the fate of the world and the lives of millions of people.
The sight was more than just ridiculous. It was disgusting and sad, as the former Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Valery Chaly, put it. It was cynical. It was a slap in the face of Ukraine, which is paying with its blood for Putin's imperial madness. It was also a slap in the face of the entire democratic world, whose leader Trump could have been if he had not chosen to collude with the war criminal from the Kremlin. To roll out the red carpet for him for killing hundreds of thousands of people, torturing prisoners of war and civilians, kidnapping children, committing genocide. Oh, yes, he gave him a letter from his wife, who is concerned about the kidnapped Ukrainian children. But that is no reason to ruin his relationship with Putin, which he describes as "fantastic."
When it comes to Putin, everything is fantastic for him. And his meeting is a "ten out of ten", even though it fell short of his expectations. On the way to Alaska, he arrogantly announced that he "would not be happy" if he returned without a ceasefire agreement. After Alaska, he solemnly repeated Putin's thesis that instead of a truce, a comprehensive peace agreement should be concluded, when it happens, if it happens. Until then, the Russians can freely pour their bombs on hospitals and playgrounds. He arrived with his concept, and returned with that of Putin, whom he was supposedly going to convince.
The Kremlin stole the show from him. The Russian autocrat received his honors and vindication after three years of isolation – he was once again recognized as a global factor, and the overthrown Russia as a great power. Without giving up an iota of his claims and goals. The world media wrote that Putin had received what he dreamed of – to be accepted as an equal by the leader of the number one power in the world. In fact, he received more than that. And much more than imposing his negotiating positions. He was left to deploy a hybrid campaign to push through an imperial strategy.
It is no coincidence that the meeting took place in Alaska, which was once Russian. There is no doubt that this was Putin's wish. They may have let Trump think that the decision was his. Or maybe not. The Russians have a long tradition of manipulation and altering reality. If we sum up Putin's cry that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy, with the dreams of his guru Dugin to revive the Russian empire and his speech at the joint press conference with Trump - eloquently explaining Alaska's Russian past and the continuing Orthodox traditions of the local population - there is no room for doubt about the Kremlin's long-term plans. And these plans are not new. Back in 2015, the BBC (strangely enough) published a touching article about the preserved Orthodox heritage in Alaska. After some time, the media fired practically its entire Russian-language editorial staff and appointed a new team. There was clearly a reason for this, but that is a separate topic.
Rubio tries to gaslight the world about Trump's bullying of Zelensky on Feb. 28
From the CBS:
"Full transcript: Secretary of State Marco Rubio on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," Aug. 17, 2025
The following is the full transcript of an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on Aug. 17, 2025.
...
MARGARET BRENNAN: Vladimir Putin did not give President Trump the ceasefire he sought. And now Putin says the root causes of the conflict have to be resolved in a peace agreement. Isn't the root cause the fact that Russia invaded in the first place?
SEC. RUBIO: Well, ultimately, yeah. But I mean, what he means by root causes is this long historical complaints that we've heard repeatedly. This is not a new argument, he's been making this for a long time, and it's the argument that it's Western encroachment. I don't want to get into- it's just so long. But the bottom line is that all of- you know, we're not going to focus on all of that stuff. We're going to focus on this: are they going to stop fighting or not? And what it's going to take to stop the fighting. And what it's going to take to stop the fighting, if we're being honest and serious here, is both sides are going to have to give, and both sides should expect to get something from this. And that's a very difficult thing to do. It's very difficult because Ukraine obviously feels, you know, harmed, and rightfully so, because they were invaded. And the Russian side, because they feel like they got momentum in the battlefield, and frankly, don't care, don't seem to care very much about how many Russian soldiers die in this endeavor. They just churn through it. So I think what the President deserves a lot of credit for is the amount of time and energy that his administration is placing on reaching a peace agreement for a war that's not a war that started under him. It's half, you know, it's on the other side of the world. That said, I mean, it's relevant to us. But there are a lot of other issues he could be focused on. So tomorrow, we'll be meeting with President Zelenskyy. We'll be meeting with European leaders. We just met with Putin. He's dedicated a lot of time and energy because he has made it a priority of his administration to stop or end war- stop wars or prevent them. And right now, this is the biggest war going on in the world. It's the biggest war in Europe since World War Two. We're going to continue to do everything we can to reach an agreement that ends the dying and the killing and the suffering that's going on right now.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You know this well, how long these kind of diplomatic negotiations often take. President Trump was telling European leaders what was discussed was Putin demanding control of Donetsk, a region in the east that his forces do not fully hold, and the UK estimates that taking that full area could be as long as another four years. Putin also is demanding Russian be an official language in Ukraine, and something regarding Russian Orthodox churches. Did the U.S. accept all of what Putin laid out at that table?
SEC. RUBIO: The United States is not in a position to accept anything or reject anything, because ultimately, it's up to the Ukrainians. They're the ones that Russia has to make peace with, Ukraine with Russia--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --Well, the President said he did come to some agreement--
SEC. RUBIO: --It's up to the Ukrainians to make these conditions... We'll be discussing all of these things, because ultimately, we do need to find areas where we're making progress and try to begin to narrow the gap between the two sides. But there's a reason why this war has been going on for three and a half years, and that is, when it comes to the big issues here, there are still some big differences between both sides. Let's see how much progress we can continue to make. It's- it's- it's not been easy, but it's something the President's made a priority. Peace. And he deserves a lot of credit for that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But ultimately, if- if Vladimir Putin is going to be offered land that he has not seized yet, but negotiates his way into, doesn't this set a dangerous precedent that the United States now accepts this concept that it is okay to seize land by force?
SEC. RUBIO: Well, Putin has already seized land by force, and that, in and of itself, is not a positive precedent. This whole war is a negative precedent--
MARGARET BRENNAN: -- Are you demanding withdrawal?--
SEC. RUBIO: --precedent. Well, again, here's the- in order to have a deal here to end- to reach the end of this conflict, both sides are going to have to make concessions. That's just the facts--
[CROSSTALK]
MARGARET BRENNAN: But does that mean accepting--
SEC. RUBIO: --in any negotiation--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --where Russian forces are now?
SEC. RUBIO: No, no, but, if- But this is not about acceptance. This is about what Ukraine can accept. And what Russia can accept... Territories will have to be discussed...
MARGARET BRENNAN: I understand you, you can't get into specifics in a public conversation, but we're looking at Russian troops and strikes intensifying. Did you hear anything from Vladimir Putin that indicated he is willing to make a single concession?
SEC. RUBIO: Well, I think there are a couple. I mean, there were- not enough for Ukraine, if not we would be announcing a peace deal this morning, right? But- but certainly, there are some things we notice changes... This is a war. It's going to get worse. It's not going to get better, and that's why the President is investing so much time in bringing this to an end. And, by the way, everyone is begging us to be involved in this. The Europeans want us involved. The Ukrainians want us involved. Obviously, the Russians want us involved because the President is the only leader in the world- if this is possible, he's the only one that can help make it happen.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, he's got the leverage over Vladimir Putin if he wanted to crush his economy or at least do more damage to it, but you have held off on those secondary sanctions. President Trump told Fox News his advice to President Zelenskyy is make a deal, Russia's a very big power and they're not. You know there is concern from the Europeans that President Zelenskyy is going to be bullied into signing something away. That's why you have these European leaders coming as back up tomorrow. Can you reassure them?
SEC. RUBIO: No, it isn't. That's not why they're coming as back- that's not true. No but that's not, why, that's not true. They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelenskyy from being bullied. They're not coming- in fact --
[CROSSTALK]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well that February Oval Office meeting in front of television cameras, where President Zelenskyy was dressed down --
SEC. RUBIO: -- Do you know how many meetings we've had since then?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Oh, no, I know. And I was just up in Alaska --
SEC. RUBIO: Yeah, but we've had a bunch of meetings since then.
MARGARET BRENNAN: -- watching the one with Vladimir Putin where a red carpet was rolled out for the Russian leader. It was very different--
SEC. RUBIO: -- No, but it wasn't Zelenskyy. We've had more meetings, we've had, we've had, we've had one meeting with Putin and like a dozen meetings with Zelenskyy. So that, but that's not true. They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelenskyy from being bullied. They're coming here tomorrow because we've been working with the Europeans. We talked to them last week. There were meetings in the UK over the following, the previous weekend --
MARGARET BRENNAN: -- And they said the President Trump was going to demand a ceasefire --
SEC. RUBIO: -- The President's talked to these leaders as early as Thursday. No, no, but you said that they're coming here tomorrow to keep Zelenskyy from being bullied. They're not coming here tomorrow- this is such a stupid media narrative that they're coming here tomorrow because the- Trump is going to bully Zelenskyy into a bad deal. We've been working with these people for weeks, for weeks on this stuff. They're coming here tomorrow because they chose to come here tomorrow. We invited them to come. We invited them to come. The President invited them to come.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But the President told those European leaders last week that he wanted a cease fire. The President went on television, said he would walk out of the meeting if Vladimir Putin didn't agree with him. He said there would be severe consequences if he didn't agree to one. He said he'd walk out in two minutes. He spent three hours talking to Vladimir Putin, and he did not get one, so--
SEC. RUBIO: --Because obviously something, things happen during that meeting..."
Putin's victory lap in Alaska
From the Daily Beast / Yahoo!News:
"Putin Takes Victory Lap Following Trump’s Ceasefire Summit Flop
Jack Revell
Russian state media and Kremlin officials are gloating about the warm reception Vladimir Putin received after landing on U.S. soil for the first time in a decade to meet with President Donald Trump on Friday.
Trump’s red-carpet rollout, excited clapping, friendly handshakes, and joint ride in “The Beast” limousine are being cited as proof by Putin allies that the Russian president is no longer the pariah the West has been painting him to be since his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“Western media are in a state of derangement verging on complete insanity: For three years they told about Russia’s isolation, and today they saw a red carpet rolled out for the Russian President in the U.S.,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote on Telegram in response to Putin’s Alaska summit with Trump.
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a close ally of Putin who now serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, suggested that the meeting was a tacit acceptance of one of Putin’s key demands: the continuation of Russian attacks on Ukraine while diplomatic talks occur.
Trump has long maintained that a ceasefire is a precondition for diplomacy, yet he has reportedly backed away from that demand following Friday’s summit.
“Important: the meeting proved that negotiations are possible without preconditions and simultaneously with the continuation of the Special Military Operation,” Medvedev wrote on Telegram.
According to Medvedev, both Putin and Trump now appear to agree that Ukraine and Europe, not Russia, bear responsibility for ending the war—another key Russian diktat.
“The main point: Both sides directly placed responsibility for achieving future results in negotiations on ending hostilities on Kyiv and Europe,” Medvedev wrote.
In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity following the meeting on Friday, Trump did shift responsibility for peace to Ukraine, saying that “now it’s really up to President Zelensky to get it done.”
“I would also say the European nations… have to get involved a little bit. But it’s up to President Zelensky,” Trump continued...
Yuri Podolyaka, an extremely influential Ukrainian-born, pro-Russian military blogger, told his 3 million followers on Telegram that the meeting was a “master class in how to wrest a total victory from a difficult starting position.”
“We will now watch the results that should follow. They will come, but not the ones expected in Kyiv, London, or Brussels. They certainly won’t like the outcome,” Podolyaka wrote.
Podolyaka further celebrated the notion that sanctions appear to be completely off the table as Russian influence over the outcome of the war grows.
Ivor Bennett, Sky News’ Moscow correspondent, echoed Podolyaka’s sentiment by reporting that the reaction in Russia to Putin’s meeting with Trump is “nothing short of triumphant.”
CNN senior international correspondent Frederik Pleitgen further noted that “the Russians are pretty happy with the way that the Trump-Putin summit went down.”
In the U.S., Trump administration officials have largely echoed the president’s sentiment that the meeting was “very productive” and “great progress.” That said, it has been alleged that behind the scenes, the reaction from Trump’s inner circle has not been as enthusiastic.
The president’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton told CNN that Putin “clearly won” after leaving the meeting with everything he hoped to achieve.
Trump, for his part, released a groveling video praising the Russian leader in the wake of their talks, thanking him multiple times for his attendance.
“There were many, many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say,” Trump noted in the video."
Ukraine and Europe were betrayed in Alaska
From the KyivPost:
"OPINION: The Flashy Trump-Putin Summit Without Ukraine Was a Rehearsal for Betrayal
Preliminary conclusions about what the stagecraft in Alaska produced, or rather failed to deliver
The lesson is urgent: Ukraine must never again be a guest in discussions about its own survival. Every summit without Kyiv and representatives of its genuine European supporters is not a path to peace, but a rehearsal for betrayal. And that is why this war will not end with Putin’s nostalgia or Trump’s theatrics.
It will end with valiant and undefeated Ukraine setting the terms, and not external bullies."
Translating the statements of J.D. Vance: he and Trump harbor pathological hatred to Europeans
From the KyivPost:
"OPINION: Translating JD Vance – Making Sense of Gibberish
To know what the Trump administration’s plan for Europe is, it would be wise to pay attention to what they say about Ukraine – and read between the lines.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)