"The Kremlin officially reiterated its claim that Ukraine has
no sovereignty, setting conditions for Moscow to claim that Ukraine has
no standing to negotiate with Russia or that any agreements reached with
Ukraine in the future are invalid. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry
Peskov claimed on February 16 that Russia has adjusted its approach to
potential talks with Ukraine because Ukraine allegedly has a "deficit"
of sovereignty.[23] Peskov claimed that Ukraine's decision to not sign
the peace agreement that Russia and Ukraine were discussing in Spring
2022 in Istanbul shows that Russia cannot trust Ukraine's word. Ukraine
and Russia had not finalized a peace deal in Istanbul in 2022.[24]
Kremlin officials have repeatedly claimed that the West forced Ukraine
to walk away from the Istanbul deal and that Ukraine thus lacks
sovereignty. Peskov also continued longstanding Kremlin efforts to place
the blame for Russia's full-scale invasion on Ukraine, claiming that
Ukraine would "be intact," that the Ukrainian government would not have
"abused" Russians in eastern Ukraine, that there would have been no
"civil war," and that Russians in eastern Ukraine would have had "no
desire...to separate from Ukraine" had Ukraine fulfilled the terms of
the Minsk agreements.[25] The Minsk agreements were notably extremely
favorable to Russia, placing no obligations on Moscow, yet Russian
proxies continually violated the accords with Russian support.[26]
Kremlin-controlled state media used a February 15 interview with
Kremlin-affiliated former Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada Deputy Viktor
Medvedchuk to reiterate the Kremlin's false narrative about Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky's illegitimacy.[27]
Medvedchuk's interview and Peskov's February 16 statements
continue to cast doubt on Moscow's willingness to negotiate in good
faith about a settlement of the war and set informational conditions for
Russia to violate any agreement reached on the grounds that the
Ukrainian government had no legal right to conclude it.[28]"
Munich, GermanyCNN
— US Vice President JD Vance
vented at European leaders Friday, telling them that the biggest threat
to their security was “from within,” rather than China and Russia.
Vance used his first major speech as vice president to
lambast European politicians, claiming they are suppressing free speech,
losing control of immigration and refusing to work with hard-right
parties in government.
The audience at the Munich Security Conference was expecting to hear about the Trump administration’s plans to end the war in Ukraine,
but instead were treated to a bombastic rejection of liberal
orthodoxies that have prevailed in Western Europe since the Second World
War, in a speech that downplayed the threats to the continent posed by
Russia and China.
“The threat that I worry most about vis-a-vis Europe is not
Russia, not China, it’s not any other external actor. What I worry about
is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most
fundamental values,” Vance told a stone-faced audience...
“If American democracy can survive 10 years of Greta Thunberg scolding,
you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk,” he said...
Trump’s early moves – including threats of retaliatory tariffs, a
pullback in international aid and an improbable overture to acquire
Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory – have increasingly concerned
America’s allies. Compounding tensions, Elon Musk, the tech billionaire
and prominent Trump ally, has amplified far-right movements across
Europe without facing public reproach from the White House...
Some
anticipated Vance to address the administration’s position on the path
to a Russia-Ukraine settlement. Instead, he delivered a jarring blow.
Vance listed a string of what he cast as an oppressive
European responses to political expression, from the United Kingdom
arresting a man for praying near an abortion clinic to Sweden convicting
an anti-Islam campaigner for burning Korans in public.
While many had expected the vice president to echo Hegseth’s
calls for European countries to hike their defense spending as a
precondition for continued American support, Vance’s message was
blunter: “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is
nothing America can do for you.”
Strikingly, Vance compared today’s democratically elected
European leaders to the tyrants that led swaths of the continent during
the Cold War.
He zeroed in on a decision by Romania’s constitutional court
to cancel the country’s presidential election last year, after its
intelligence service uncovered a campaign “coordinated by a state actor”
to help elect Calin Georgescu, an ultranationalist virtually unknown
before the election who unexpectedly won the first-round vote.
“When we see European courts canceling elections and senior
officials threatening to cancel others, we need to ask whether we’re
holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard,” Vance said.
Vance asked “what happened to some of the Cold War’s
winners,” suggesting they had abandoned the values that allied them to
prevail against “tyrannical forces” on the continent.
Notably, Vance did not criticize countries like Russia and Belarus,
which have been ruled by the same leaders for decades and allow only
stage-managed elections...
Asked to respond to Vance’s remarks later Friday, Trump said he believed they were “brilliant” and “well received.”
“And I think it’s true, in Europe, they’re losing their wonderful right of freedom of speech,” Trump said."
***
If these two weird fellows had any intelligence, common sense or compassion, they would know that, first, no one country can have a perfect democracy during a war that poses an existential threat, and second, that the cancel culture they are complaining of was imported to Europe from the USA, where it went to bizarre extremes until the American voters, driven by desperation, elected this off-the-wall tandem to deal with it.
The event marking the 1st anniversary of the murder of Russian opposition leader and freedom fighter Alexey Navalny took place today in front of the Russian embassy. Russian expatriates and Bulgarian sympathizers attended a 2-hour vigil in front of a makeshift memorial.
Trump says Ukraine "may be Russian someday," as he eyes mineral wealth
Frank Andrews, Anhelina Shamlii
President Trump has
suggested that Ukraine "may be Russian someday," in an interview aired
just days before Vice President JD Vance is set to meet Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at a security summit in Germany.
"They
may make a deal, they may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday,
or they may not be Russian someday," Mr. Trump, who repeatedly claimed
before taking office for his second term that he would quickly end the war launched almost three years ago by Russia. He made the remarks in a portion of an interview with Fox News that was broadcast on Monday.
Ukraine
and many of its European partners have worried that Mr. Trump could try
to make good on his vows by pressuring Zelenskyy into a ceasefire
agreement with Russia that allows Moscow to maintain control over some
of the roughly 25% of Ukrainian territory Vladimir Putin's forces have
occupied...
In response to Mr.
Trump's comments, the Kremlin said Tuesday that the situation in Ukraine
"largely corresponds to President Trump's words."
"The
fact that a significant part of Ukraine wants to become Russia, and has
already, is a fact," spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in an
apparent reference to Moscow's unilateral declaration in September 2022 that four occupied regions in southeast Ukraine had been annexed...
President Trump has suggested
that future American military aid to Ukraine could be dependent on Kyiv
committing to a trade agreement that grants U.S. access to its rare
earth minerals. He has framed the idea as a return on the U.S.
investment made in backing Ukraine's defensive efforts — aid which has
already amounted to more than $65 billion.
"We
are going to have all this money in there, and I say I want it back.
And I told them that I want the equivalent, like $500 billion worth of
rare earth," Mr. Trump said Monday. "They have essentially agreed to do
that, so at least we don't feel stupid.""
MUNICH, Germany (AP) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he directed his ministers not to sign off on a proposed agreement to give the United States access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals because the document was too focused on U.S. interests.
The proposal, which was a key part of Zelenskyy’s talks with U.S.
Vice President JD Vance on the sidelines of the Munich Security
Conference on Friday, did not offer any specific security guarantees in
return, according to one current and one former senior Ukrainian
official familiar with the talks.
Zelenskyy’s decision not to sign a deal, at least for now, was described as “short-sighted” by a senior White House official.
“I
didn’t let the ministers sign a relevant agreement because in my view
it is not ready to protect us, our interest,” Zelenskyy told The
Associated Press on Saturday in Munich.
The proposal focused on how the U.S. could use Kyiv’s rare earth minerals
“as compensation” for support already given to Ukraine by the Biden
administration and as payment for future aid, current and former senior
Ukrainian officials said, speaking anonymously so they could speak
freely.
Ukraine has vast reserves of critical minerals
that are used in the aerospace, defense and nuclear industries. The
Trump administration has indicated it is interested in accessing them to
reduce dependence on China but Zelenskyy said any exploitation would
need to be tied to security guarantees for Ukraine that would deter
future Russian aggression.
“For me is very important the connection between some kind of
security guarantees and some kind of investment,” the Ukrainian
president said.
Zelenskyy did not go into details about why he instructed his
officials not to sign the document, which was given to Ukrainian
officials on Wednesday by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bassent on a
visit to Kyiv.
“It’s a colonial agreement and Zelenskyy cannot sign it,” the former senior official said.
White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes did not
explicitly confirm the offer, but said in a statement that “President
Zelenskyy is being short-sighted about the excellent opportunity the
Trump administration has presented to Ukraine.”
The Trump
administration has grown weary of sending additional U.S. aid to Ukraine
and Hughes said a minerals deal would allow American taxpayers to
“recoup” money sent to Kyiv, while growing Ukraine’s economy.
Hughes
added that the White House believes “binding economic ties with the
United States will be the best guarantee against future aggression and
an integral part of lasting peace.” He added: “The U.S. recognizes this,
the Russians recognize this, and the Ukrainians must recognize this.”
U.S. officials in discussions with their Ukrainian counterparts in
Munich were commercially minded and largely concentrated on the
specifics of exploring the minerals and how to form a possible
partnership to do that with Ukraine, the senior official said.
The potential value of the deposits in Ukraine has not yet been discussed, with much unexplored or close to the front line.
The U.S. proposal apparently did not take into account how the
deposits would be secured in the event of continuing Russian aggression.
The official suggested the U.S. did not have “ready answers,” to that
question and that one of their takeaways from discussions in Munich will
be how to secure any mineral extraction operation in Ukraine involving
people and infrastructure.
Any deal must be in accordance with Ukrainian law and acceptable to the Ukrainian people, the senior Ukrainian official said.
“Subsoil
belongs to Ukrainians under the Constitution,” Kseniiia Orynchak,
founder of the National Association of Mining Industry of Ukraine,
previously told the AP, suggesting a deal would need popular support..."
"Putin has waited for this moment for 3 years, as Zelensky is left in the cold
Analysis by Nick Paton Walsh, CNN
...Zelensky... had hoped to meet US
President Donald Trump in person to discuss a wide-ranging vision of
peace, after the US president suggested Friday they might meet
imminently, and his team immediately set about trying to schedule it.
Instead he was presented with what Zelenksy called “serious people” –
and a largely financial deal handed over by Bessent, the US billionaire
turned money-man, which he didn’t sign.
It was during Bessent’s brief visit that news broke Trump had been busy elsewhere: holding perhaps his second phone call
in recent days with Russian President Vladimir Putin... This time, the exchange had been sweetened by the unexpected release Tuesday of American prisoner Marc Fogel
from Russian custody. Trump greeted the released 61-year-old wrapped in
the Stars and Stripes, providing a perfect televised moment of
rehabilitation for the Kremlin in the eyes of ordinary Americans. Why
not make a decent deal with Moscow if they’re just good guys sending our
guys home?...
We simply do not know the details of what Trump and Putin spoke about.
But we can be sure the Kremlin head has waited for this moment for three
years – yearning for the time when his grotesque tolerance of hundreds
of Russian daily dead can be converted into a crack in Western unity, or
NATO’s European members being told by their American guarantor they are
on their own.
Trump and Putin set the
tone it seems, and Zelensky got the post-brief. Trump even gloated that
Putin had used his campaign slogan of “common sense,” suggesting the
Kremlin head continues to study his adversary carefully to flatter.
Trump ended his second post about his call with Zelensky with the
remarkable switcheroo of “God bless the people of Russia and Ukraine!”
Hours earlier, Zelensky’s hopes over the key tenets of a peace deal had been torn up by new US Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth.
Ukraine will not be part of NATO. Ukraine will never return to its 2014
borders. Any peacekeeping forces between Russia and Ukraine will not be
American, but European or non-European. Europe must look after itself... Zelensky had openly demanded... that Americans be involved with peacekeeping, as security guarantees
without America were “worthless.” Hegseth was swift to burst that
bubble, fanciful as the notion was that the US would insert its men and
women as prime targets in the most brutal battlefield on earth.
Instead, we are seeing the bones of a peace plan emerge in public that is close to one posited by retired Gen. Keith Kellogg back in April, when he was a private citizen and not presidential envoy to Ukraine and Russia. Kellogg suggested a peacekeeping force manned by Europeans. He said
Ukraine should give up on NATO membership. He proposed a ceasefire (and
has since in interviews suggested elections might then follow in
Ukraine). And importantly, he said Ukrainian aid should be turned into
loans that Kyiv would one day repay. Perhaps this formed part of
Bessent’s proposal to Zelensky on Wednesday.
Rare earth minerals were discussed in Kyiv on Wednesday too, although
this is not necessarily great news based on precedent. When Trump was
briefly enticed to support Afghanistan in 2017 because of its purported
trillion dollars’ worth of minerals, he regardless signed a deal with
the Taliban to let them take over just over two years later."
The quotes below are from journalists at the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Press Conference Following NATO Ministers of Defense Meeting in Brussels on Feb. 13. They are journalists' questions which are adequate. Hegseth's answers are long and meaningless, therefore I am not including them; you can find them in the source by following the above link, if you wish.
"Liz Frieden: Thank you, Secretary Hegseth. You have focused on what Ukraine is giving up. What concessions will Putin be asked to make?... Why not invoke article five then for the NATO peacekeeping forces that
could potentially be deployed? Like, how does that deter President
Putin?
Zach Basu: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Given the position you've now staked
out, what leverage exactly is Ukraine being left with, especially if the
US also plans to wind down its military aid? And then quickly, if a
NATO ally is attacked by Russia or any country, will the US
unequivocally uphold its obligations under article five regardless of
that country's —
Max Delaney: Thank you very much, Secretary of Defense. Can you — you've
spoken about trying to force both Putin and Zelenskyy to the table. Can
you give a guarantee that no deal will be forced on Ukraine that they do
not want to accept? And also, that you will include Europe in the
negotiations about their own — about an issue that concerns European
security? And can you tell us whether the US will continue to supply
arms to Ukraine during any negotiations?
Thomas Gutschker: Good afternoon.
Mr. Secretary, two questions, please. The first one regarding the new
Defense Investment Pledge. When you and President Trump speak about raising it to 5 percent, do
you mean European allies only, or do you mean the US as well, which is
currently at 3.4 percent according to NATO statistics? And if the latter
is true, when do you think the US could possibly reach the goal of
spending 5 percent on defense? That's number one. Number two, you said yesterday that Europeans need to take ownership
of their own conventional security. So, should Europeans expect that
ultimately the US would withdraw the bulk of their forces from Europe
and just leave in place what is necessary for nuclear deterrence?"
***
Other people have remained with the same grim impression from the press conference - that Hegseth just crumbled when asked whether Russia would have to make any concessions, or just Ukraine.
Below, I am translating from the Ukrainian site Dialog:
"...Washington already demanded from Kyiv to give up much of its territory, and the door of NATO is closed for Ukraine. However, somehow nobody has yet heard what concessions Kremlin will have to make.
Hegseth could not find an answer to this question, except repeat that all said above is no concession to Putin.
However, who will sent troops to Ukraine, who will pay reparations, who will stand trial for war crimes? Or for Washington, the great compromise is that Putin will take less of Ukraine than he initially planned?
The Secretary of Defense has one answer to all these questions: that each side of the conflict will have to make sacrifices in the negotiations.
However, it was just one country that invaded. If a criminal takes your home, and then offers to return only half of it, this is not a compromise but a hostage deal. When one of the sides is a victim, the peace agreement becomes capitulation."
Однако пресса напомнила
главе Пентагона, что Вашингтон уже потребовал от Киева отказаться от
ряда своих территорий и для Украины закрыты двери в НАТО. Однако
почему-то никто не слышал, на какие уступки должен пойти сам Кремль.
Даже на этот вопрос Хегсет не нашел ответа. Он только приводил свое
мнение, которое заключается в том, что все выше сказанное - это не
уступки Путину.
Однако репортеры не унимались. Они задались вопросом, а кто отправляет
войска в Украину, кто будет платить репарацию, кто предстанет перед
судом за военные преступления? Или для Вашингтона большой компромисс
заключается в том, что Путин возьмет меньше Украины, чем планировал
изначально?
На все эти вопросы глава Минобороны дал один ответ, что каждая сторона
конфликта в переговорном процессе станет жертвой.
Однако ответ прессы не заставил себя ждать. Полномасштабное вторжение
начала только одна страна. Если преступник отбирает ваш дом, а затем
предлагает вернуть только половину, то это не компромисс, а сделка
заложника.
Хегсет на все это ответил, что пришло время дипломатии. Но и здесь СМИ
ему ответили, что дипломатия - это когда обе стороны хотят мира. "Но
когда одна сторона просто хочет "паузы" для перезарядки, это не
дипломатия, а подготовка к следующему вторжению", - заявила пресса.
А на слова Хегсета о том, что, как говорит пресса, лучше и дальше вести
войну, ему снова был дан достойный ответ. Мирное соглашение, когда одна
из сторон конфликта является жертвой, - это капитуляция.
читайте подробнее на сайте "Диалог.UA": https://www.dialog.ua/world/309446_1739501481
"Ukraine’s
president has warned the days of guaranteed US support for Europe are
over, as he urged the continent to band together to create a united army
and foreign policy.
Volodymyr Zelensky spoke in a week when a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US counterpart Donald Trump
raised fears in Kyiv that it was being frozen out of negotiations, with
the White House also downplaying the prospects of Ukraine joining NATO.
“A few days ago, President Trump told me about his
conversation with Putin. Not once did he mention that America needs
Europe at that table. That says a lot,” Zelensky said in a robust speech
at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday...
“Yesterday here in Munich, the US vice president made it clear – decades
of the old relationship between Europe and America are ending. From now
on, things will be different, and Europe needs to adjust to that,”
Zelensky said...
Later in his speech, Zelensky accused Putin of playing a
“game” by pursuing one-on-one talks with Trump and leaving Ukraine out
of negotiations.
“Next Putin will try to get the US president standing on Red
Square on May 9 this year, not as a respected leader, but as a prop in
his own performance, we don’t need that,” he said.
The Ukrainian president added that Putin appears to be the biggest influence on NATO and reiterated that peace talks on ending the conflict could not go ahead without Kyiv’s involvement.
“Right now, the most influential member of NATO seems to be
Putin – because his whims have the power to block NATO decisions,”
Zelensky said."
13 February 2025, Kirill Martynov, editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta Europe
A single phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has drawn a
symbolic line under the post-war consensus. While the West may have won
two world wars, popularised the concept of universal human rights, and
outlived its chief opponent on the global stage, Soviet communism, that
legacy was destroyed once and for all on Wednesday in the name of
“striving for peace”.
Putin, a dictator responsible for unleashing the largest war in Europe since 1945, has now been rewarded for doing so with a phone call from the leader of the free world, despite the fact that ballistic missiles continue to rain down on Ukrainian cities and bloody battles rage unabated in eastern Ukraine and the Russian military loses 1,000 servicemen a day.
According to Trump, Putin is now seeking peace, despite the fact that the Russian dictator hasn’t made a single concession as a goodwill gesture to show his genuine interest in resolving the war. Any Putin-Trump peace deal likely to be brokered may result in peace for Trump and Putin, but it will not result in peace for Ukraine.
Trump’s message was clear. If you are sufficiently forceful and consistent in your desire to commit war crimes and redraw the world map, then your perseverance will ultimately be rewarded, and you’ll be granted a direct dialogue with the US, while your victims will be shut out and ignored, alongside Washington’s traditional allies. Other dictatorships around the world, principally China, which will have been monitoring the situation closely, will now feel far more at ease pressing ahead with their own neo-imperialist plans.
Any
Putin-Trump peace deal likely to be brokered may result in peace for
Trump and Putin, but it will not result in peace for Ukraine.
While detailed proposals being made in any peace negotiations have not been forthcoming, the strategy is clear. Ukraine will not receive clear security guarantees and, most importantly, will not be granted NATO membership. The great powers see no need for somebody representing Ukraine to be present as they begin carving up the country, ultimately laying the groundwork for a new world order, something that has long been Putin’s ultimate objective. For the first time in recent history, not only has the US neglected its moral obligations to an ally such as Ukraine, it has signalled its readiness to abandon the rest of Europe, leaving it to square off against Russian aggression on its own.
Putin’s accurate reading of Trump’s indifference to human rights abuses and his prioritising of personal connections between cynical businessmen over moral qualms is now paying off. Those who lost their homes or loved ones in the war, as well as anybody who fought to defend Ukraine’s right to exist for three years, will have inevitably hoped that when peace came, it would look very different. Likewise, as staunch supporters of the post-war consensus who had dared to hope that the use of brute force, the annexation of territory, and mass deportations were a thing of the past, Europeans also dared to hope for an honourable peace...
Instead of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, we are at present drifting towards a 21st century Yalta Conference where instead of being held to account for their crimes, autocrats will be invited to carve up Europe as they see fit. As such, Europe must act to guarantee Ukrainian independence in general, and its political stability in particular, and do so independently of its erstwhile US “ally”, which now effectively shares the Kremlin’s imperialist worldview.
Of course, once the initial euphoria generated by the phone call dies down — and there’s only so long Trump and Putin can wax lyrical about their two countries’ shared World War II histories — and peace negotiations finally get underway in earnest, they will inevitably hit a stumbling block, as even this US administration is unlikely to hand the Kremlin everything it wants on a plate...
Trump’s willingness to totally bypass his European allies by beginning negotiations with Moscow without preconditions, combined with the revolutionary atmosphere in the US itself, may be taken by Putin to be a sign that he can get whatever he wants: from swallowing up four annexed Ukrainian regions in addition to Crimea to a militarily hobbled Ukraine at risk of being engulfed in domestic political instability, at which point Russia may swoop in and swallow the country whole before turning its attention to the remaining European targets of its revanchist fantasies.
That the next major meeting of world leaders is due to take place at this weekend’s Munich Security Conference is an irony lost on nobody, ominously mirroring as it does the ignominious and ultimately futile attempts to appease Hitler made in 1938. The very idea that a US president could decide the fate of Europe in cahoots with a Russian dictator without Europe’s involvement risks putting the world back on a path to world war."
"Trump Appears Set To Reward Russia For Its Brutal Invasion Of Ukraine
S.V. Date
After three years of
trying to invade and conquer Ukraine, and three years of failing,
Russian dictator Vladimir Putin may soon see his fortunes change, thanks
to Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
Comments
by Trump and his defense secretary, former Fox News weekend host Pete
Hegseth, have roiled the Munich Security Conference, where European
allies who were rallied to Ukraine’s cause by former President Joe Biden
in 2022 are expressing betrayal.
“It’s
appeasement. It has never worked,” Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s
High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, told
reporters Thursday. “If there is an agreement made behind our backs, it
simply will not work.”
Trump in a social media post
Wednesday explained in detail his long conversation with Putin about
Ukraine ― without first having spoken with Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelenskyy or American’s European allies who, contrary to Trump’s lies,
have been bearing most of the financial burden of helping Ukraine. Trump
also described the invasion as a war that “happened” rather than naming
Russia as the aggressor.
Later,
in comments in the Oval Office, he suggested that Russia deserved to
keep parts of Ukraine: “They fought for that land, and they lost a lot
of soldiers.” And that Ukraine, somehow, had brought Russia’s invasion
and near daily attacks against civilians on itself.
“I think they have to make peace,” he said. “That was not a good war to go into.”
Within days of Russia’s invasion in 2022, Trump described
it as “genius” and “savvy” on Putin’s part. The dictator has since then
regularly hit residential areas with missiles while his troops have
murdered and raped noncombatants in what experts describe as war crimes.
Hegseth, meanwhile, found himself Trump’s highly unpopular mouthpiece in
Europe, surrounded by military and elected leaders of countries where
Putin is seen far more negatively than he is by Hegseth’s boss.
Hegseth, who had no
experience managing a large enterprise prior to his nomination by Trump
because of his television show, on Wednesday delivered Trump’s position
on Ukraine during a visit to Brussels, the headquarters of NATO: “The
United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a
realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement,” he said.
The
remark drew criticism not just from allies in Europe, but also from
establishment, anti-Russia Republicans in Washington. “I’d prefer we
don’t give away negotiating positions before we actually get started,” said Mississippi’s Roger Wicker, the Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Hegseth appeared to try to walk the Russia-friendly comments back Thursday.
“Everything is on the
table. In his conversations with Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy, what he
decides to allow or not allow, is at the purview of the leader of the
free world ― President Trump,” he told reporters. “So I’m not going to
stand at this podium and declare what President Trump will do or won’t
do, what will be in or what will be out, what concessions will be made
or what concessions are not made.”
Whether
that can have any effect, given Trump’s continued deference to Putin,
is unclear, said John Bolton, one of Trump’s first-term national
security advisers who has since become a harsh critic.
“It’s pretty well
fixed. It’s hard to walk it back when it’s that public, and I’m really
more afraid now it’s going to get worse,” Bolton told HuffPost Thursday.
“I mean, when you start from that as the going-in position, you know,
who knows what comes next?”
He added the policy shift will also hurt Americans, not just Ukrainians fighting for their freedom.
“It was a bad day
yesterday for Ukraine, but a bad day yesterday for the United States,”
he said. “We’ve got a serious national security interest in peace and
stability in Europe, and not having borders changed by unprovoked
aggression, and a whole host of other things that I just don’t think
Trump understands.”
In
any case, Trump himself on Thursday showed no interest in walking
anything back. “I thought his comments yesterday were pretty accurate,”
he said of Hegseth’s Wednesday remarks.
He
then went on to repeat Putin’s talking points that he was forced to
invade to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. “I don’t see any way that a
country in Russia’s position could allow them to allow,” Trump told
reporters. “I believe that’s why the war started. Because Biden went out
and said that they could join NATO.”"
***
This is the US President and leader of the free world, ladies and gentlemen. The time when America was the land of the free and home of the brave feels like distant, half-forgotten past.
"Laughing Kremlin Insiders Say Trump Has Given Putin Greenlight to Expand the War
Julia Davis
U.S. President Donald J. Trump stunned the world by offering unprecedented concessions to Russia in its ongoing invasion of Ukraine on Wednesday—seemingly without getting anything in return. Before the formal peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin
even started, Trump and members of his administration dismissed the
idea that Ukraine could reclaim its territories that Russia currently
occupies, slammed the door shut for Kyiv’s hope of NATO membership, and
refused to acknowledge Ukraine as an equal member in the peace process.
While
Ukrainians and their allies were left in disbelief, Russian state TV
and radio stations were full of elated propagandists, who grinned ear to
ear and periodically broke out into uproarious laughter.
During Wednesday’s broadcast of the state TV program 60 Minutes,
host Olga Skabeeva described the events as “unthinkable” and
“unimaginable.” She asked Mikhail Antonov, the network’s correspondent
in Europe, “What does it all mean? Ukraine is left without NATO? Ukraine
is left without money?” Antonov said that the era of American dominance
had ended and surmised that Europe wouldn’t be able to compete with the
volume of military assistance America used to provide. Throughout his
commentary, Skabeeva smiled broadly and couldn’t hide her glee.
Co-host of 60 Minutes Evgeny Popov marveled at the fact thatTrump is doing Moscow’s job by destroying Western alliances and “sawing” Europe into pieces—something that the Kremlin dreamt of doing all along.
For years,Russian state TV experts predicted
that Trump’s return to the Oval Office would mean cutting off American
aid to Ukraine, which would, in turn, change the odds in their favor.
However, even the Kremlin’s talking heads are surprised by the speed of
Trump’s gallop towards Moscow—and amazed that the leader of the
mightiest nation in the world is treating war criminal Putin as his
equal.
During Wednesday’s broadcast of The Evening With Vladimir Solovyov,
Director General of Mosfilm Karen Shakhnazarov said that regardless of
what happens in the future, Wednesday’s revelations can be described as
Russia’s “big success.” He said, “The president of the United States
called the president of Russia. That alone is already a major success!”
Shakhnazarov explained, “The blockade has been broken. It means a lot to
all of them that the president of the United States, the mightiest
nation in the West, as great as the Roman Empire, made this call. It’s
as if Julius Caesar himself telephoned a barbarian, a chieftain of some
German tribe.”
Solovyov rejoiced about
an assertion by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that the United States
intended to disregard NATO’s Article 5 in the event Europe militarily
engaged with Russia. Political scientist Sergey Mikheyev said, “In this
situation, we should make it clear for the Europeans: now we can really
strike Brussels, London or Paris, because we can forget about Article 5.
You can forget the notion that Americans would step in on your behalf.”
Solovyov chimed in to add, “I like the way you think.”
During Thursday’s radio show, Full Contact,
Solovyov approvingly read commentary by the network’s correspondent in
the U.S., Valentin Bogdanov, who wrote, “During negotiations, the
victors are the ones dictating conditions. This is the foundation of
diplomacy—and the entirety of what is being dictated should be said in
the Russian language.”
Solovyov added that the
telephone conversation between Trump and Putin “has caused a total
collapse of Zelensky’s world,” and Europe is “insanely panicked.” He
said that Trump’s approach follows the logic of Putin’s ultimatum in
December 2021, when he claimed that “NATO expansion” was a core reason
for the invasion. While gloating about the Trump administration
repeatedly reiterating its belief that Ukraine must concede certain
territories to Russia, Solovyov sternly asserted that Russia does not
intend to relinquish any of its conquests.
The
same view reverberated across Russia’s state media, with experts urging
the military to advance quickly and take as much Ukrainian land as
possible. After Putin’s negotiations with Trump, they fully anticipate
being able to keep the spoils and evade the consequences."
A former national security advisor during Donald Trump's first administration chided his old boss Wednesday evening on CNN — and said the Kremlin is drinking vodka "straight from the bottle" in celebration of Trump's recent negotiations.
When asked about his expectations for Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Bolton said he has no expectations anymore.
"I think we know exactly what's going to happen," he said. "President Trump has effectively surrendered to Putin before the negotiations have even begun."
Bolton
said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's comments in Belgium "constitute
the terms of a settlement that could've been written in the Kremlin."
"Maybe they were written in the Kremlin and got out in propaganda channels," he surmised.
Bolton noted that the Trump administration reversed multiple U.S. foreign policy positions, including that Ukraine be returned to full sovereignty and territorial integrity.
"That's gone," he said.
Any notion that Ukraine could join NATO also looks to be over, he said.
"Putin has scored a whole series of victories today. It's hard to encompass them all," said Bolton.
Putin wants to negotiate with Trump over Zelensky, thinking he'll get
more out of it, Bolton railed, noting there's "no country" better than Russia at "pocketing" concessions.
Bolton said Trump fell victim to Putin's "flattery campaign" after
the Russian president released hostage Marc Fogel and made Trump look
like "the center of attention."
"Putin hasn't forgotten his lessons as a KGB agent, maneuvering an operative around," he said.
Bolton
continued laying into the Trump administration for "blowing up" NATO's
position on Ukraine as well as a decades-old agreement that broke up the
Soviet Union.
"This is a palpable harm to American national security," he said, and
leaves every other former republic in the Soviet Union "vulnerable."
To boot, China's watching closely at how the U.S. navigates Ukraine, given its own interests in Taiwan, Bolton said.
When asked if he feels the U.S.'s concessions could end the war in
Ukraine, Bolton said it'll be successful for Russia, particularly given
the failures of the Biden administration in arming Ukraine.
"The surrender's going to be signed by Donald Trump," he said.
Bolton concluded that former Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard,
confirmed Wednesday as Trump's director of national intelligence — and
who has been accused of parroting Russia propaganda in the past —
couldn't make Putin "happier." She'll prove "harmful" for national
security and allies will think twice before passing along intelligence
to the United States, he said.
"They're drinking vodka straight out of the bottle in the Kremlin tonight. It was a great day for Moscow," he said."
Donald Trump did not end the Russian war against Ukraine within 24
hours, as he had promised during his presidential campaign. Then again,
as usual, we probably weren’t supposed to take him literally (or was it
seriously?). Now, though, he seems to be gearing up to get the job done.
But he is about to crash into a contradiction of his own making. It’s a
dilemma that may doom his efforts...
Talks
about turning bloodshed into truce are always fraught and harrowing —
the negotiations to end the Korean war (culminating in an armistice
rather than a peace treaty) took well over a year, during which the killing continued. In the Russo-Ukrainian conflict the list of sticking points seems endless. It starts with the clash of irreconcilable narratives: The Russians keep doubling down on Putin’s fable
that Ukrainians are really Russians who, misled by their “Nazi”
leaders, forgot where they properly belong. The Ukrainians, backed by
international law and world opinion, point out that they are a sovereign
nation which Russia invaded and brutalized without provocation.
On it goes: Should Russia get to keep the land it has conquered? Trade
some of it in return for the Russian territory that Ukraine currently
holds? And what about the many Ukrainian children whom the Russians have
abducted
(a crime for which the International Criminal Court wants Putin
arrested). Not least, there must be some reckoning for Russian
atrocities committed since 2022.
The
biggest obstacle to a deal, though, is the geopolitical identity of
Ukraine after the war. Ukraine may officially be on track to join the
European Union one day; that destiny offers cultural and economic
benefits but few military advantages. As for NATO membership, the Trump
administration, along with several other allies, has for now ruled out Ukraine’s accession.
That
leaves open the biggest question: What security guarantee, short of
NATO membership, can the West give Ukraine to deter Putin from attacking
again a few years later? It must be credible, not only to keep the
Kremlin at bay but also to reassure Ukrainians, who are still
traumatized by the empty assurances given in 1994 by the US, UK and
Russia, in return for which Ukraine gave up its Soviet-era nukes.
This is where Trump has boxed himself in. His entire foreign-policy
shtick, besides a nebulous claim to “strength,” is that he will end or
prevent foreign wars and bring American troops and dollars home rather
than sending more of either abroad. But without putting American “boots
on the ground,” or at least providing the firepower and whizzbang
ordnance that America has and its allies lack, no security guarantee
will be believable.
Here are some options that would exclude American boots on the ground,
from least to most convincing. Western Europe could station lightly
armed “peacekeeping” troops in Ukraine, under the aegis of the United
Nations, say. That would at most amuse Putin, a man who thinks nothing
of rattling his nuclear saber. (A similar
effort under the auspices of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, between Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and
the invasion of 2022, made no impression on him at all.)
Alternatively, the Europeans could make their deployment somewhat more
martial, deploying thousands of troops from various countries and some
hardware... The problem with an all-European deterrence force is one of quantity as well as quality... Credible deterrence by denial without the US is impossible. That’s why Poland, for example, has said it won’t send troops to Ukraine without American backing.
Hence
Trump’s dilemma. He probably could pacify the conflict, but that would
involve a huge American commitment and the manifest readiness to get
drawn into another war, which is the opposite of what he’s promised
Americans. Even his most zealous MAGA stans would rebel.
Or
he could twist European arms to do the pacifying, which would lack
credibility. Ukraine would be hampered in rebuilding, war might break
out again and more people would die and suffer. The Nobel Peace Prize
that Trump craves so badly would stay out of reach.
It’s good that negotiations will begin at last. But talks are just that.
The greatest worry remains Putin. But the second-biggest is Trump, who
may not have understood the dilemma he faces. Worse, he may yet be
tempted, for the sake of a deal-making “win,” to sell Ukraine out. As he
said
just this week, the Ukrainians “may be Russian someday, or they may not
be Russian someday.” That’s not what I want an American president to
think, much less express, when he sits down to confront an adversary
like Putin."
"Pete Hegseth Gives Russia Alarming Win on Ukraine War
Hafiz Rashid
The Trump administration’s Ukraine policy is off to a poor start.
Secretary
of Defense Pete Hegseth is visiting Europe, and met with the Ukraine
Defense Contact Group Wednesday in London, immediately telling U.S. allies that liberating all of Russia’s occupied Ukrainian territory “is an unrealistic objective.”
Then
it got even worse, with Hegseth telling the alliance of 57 countries,
including all 32 members of NATO, that “the United States does not
believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a
negotiated settlement.
“Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops,” Hegseth added.
Hegseth
seems to have given up two main points to Russian President Vladimir
Putin, including a key piece of leverage in future negotiations to end
the war between Ukraine and Russia. One of Putin’s major complaints
about Ukraine has been the prospect of the country joining NATO along with the rest of Eastern Europe...
Hegseth’s remarks suggest the new administration will prioritize
better relations with Putin over defending Ukrainian sovereignty...
While campaigning for president, Trump boasted that he could end the war in Ukraine within “24 hours.” Shortly after Trump’s election, Russia shot down that idea, and even boosted its troop numbers days later. The president’s choice for special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, has in the past suggested withholding aid for Ukraine in order to force negotiations with Russia, something Trump did just days into his presidency.
In the past few weeks, Trump has said he will use tariffs as leverage against Russia and shaken down Ukraine for its natural resources
in exchange for continued support. All of this doesn’t bode well for
the future of Ukraine, which seeks not only to end Russian occupation of
its land but also better relations with the U.S. and Europe instead of a
subservient relationship with Russia. Trump seems more concerned with
keeping Putin happy and getting a payoff."
"Hegseth rules out NATO membership for Ukraine and says Europe must be responsible for country’s security
Natasha Bertrand, Clare Sebastian and Haley Britzky, CNN
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth
said on Wednesday that the war between Ukraine and Russia “must end,”
that Kyiv joining NATO is unrealistic and that the US will no longer
prioritize European and Ukrainian security as the Trump administration
shifts its attention to securing the US’ own borders and deterring war
with China.
In
remarks before a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, Hegseth
also said that European troops should be the primary force securing a
post-war Ukraine—something US troops will not be involved in, he added.
“The
United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a
realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement,” Hegseth said. And he
added that any security guarantees offered to Ukraine “must be backed by
capable European and non-European troops.”
“To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine,” he said.
Hegseth
also said that a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders, before Russia
invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine, “is an unrealistic objective.”
Many
NATO allies would actually agree with Hegseth that getting Crimea back
from Russia is not realistic, and not even Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky has insisted on that as a precursor to peace talks. One NATO
official said it would have been more concerning if Hegseth had said
that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2022 borders was unrealistic...
Hours after Hegseth spoke, President Donald Trump announced he’d spoken with
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday morning. Trump said the
two agreed to work “very closely” together and begin negotiations
“immediately” on ending the war in Ukraine.
“[W]e will begin by calling President Zelensky, of Ukraine, to inform him of the conversation,” Trump said.
Trump spoke with Zelensky shortly after getting off the phone with Putin.
Later on Wednesday afternoon, Trump said he agrees with Hegseth and does not “think it’s practical” to have Ukraine join NATO.
Ukraine may be Russian one day, says Trump as he hints at rare earth minerals deal
Kieran Kelly
Donald Trump has said
Ukraine “may be Russian someday” as senior figures in his administration
prepare to meet with Volodymyr Zelensky this week.
Speaking as talk of a peace deal ramps up, the US president also said Ukraine had agreed to give the US $500 billion worth of rare earth minerals.
“They
may make a deal, they may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday,
or they may not be Russian someday,” he told Fox News.
“I told them that I want the equivalent of like $500 billion worth of rare earth (minerals), and they’ve essentially agreed to do that, so at least we don’t feel stupid,” he added...
“We’re going to have
all this money in [Ukraine] and I say, I want it back,” the president
said, suggesting that he is looking for compensation from Kyiv for the aid given to Ukraine by the US.
After Mr Trump’s remarks, the Kremlin said a “significant part” of Ukraine already is Russian.
“The fact that a significant part of Ukraine wants to become Russia, and
has already, is a fact,” said Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman,
referring to Moscow’s annexation of four Ukrainian regions in 2022..."
***
Back in 1994, the USA bullied Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal to its Russian arch-enemies, falsely promising to defend it in return. Then the USA systematically betrayed Ukraine. Now, Trump wants Ukraine to pay for the cruel imitation of aid his predecessor gave to it, though it was carefully calculated to achieve nothing. Someone must explain to the demented psycho occupying the White House that if Ukraine becomes Russia, US companies will get no minerals.
Trump made the incendiary comments in a pre-taped interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity that aired Thursday on Hannity’s program.
After Hannity asked about Trump’s threat to impose tariffs as
a penalty on Russia if the Ukrainian war continues much longer, Trump
responded that Zelensky “has had enough” and “wants to settle” with
Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Zelensky, he said, is
“no angel” and “shouldn’t have allowed this war to happen,” even though
it was Russia that invaded Ukraine.
“First
of all, he’s fighting a much bigger entity, okay, much bigger. When he
was, you know, talking so brave... Zelensky was fighting a much bigger
entity, much bigger, much more powerful. He shouldn’t have done that,
because we could have made a deal, and it would have been a deal that
would have been, it would have been a nothing deal,” Trump claimed.
He added that had he
been in Zelensky’s position he could have “made that deal so easily.” He
claimed that it was the Ukrainian leader who decided on hostilities
even though it was Putin who ordered the invasion of Ukraine that
violated a 1994 agreement [i.e. the Budapest Memorandum - M. M.]. Russia and the United States agreed then to
guarantee Kyiv’s security in exchange for Ukraine’s government giving up
Soviet-era nuclear weapons that had been stored there before the 1991
breakup of the Soviet Union.
“I could have made that deal so easily. And Zelensky decided: ‘I want to fight,’” he baselessly claimed.
The president’s contention that Zelensky, with whom he has a checkered history dating back to his first four years in the White House, decided to initiate hostilities against Russia is absolutely false.
Russian forces have occupied parts of Ukrainian territory since 2014 when they seized the Crimean Peninsula on Putin’s orders.
In February 2022, Putin
announced what he described as a “special military operation” against
Ukraine, which he described as an illegitimate state governed by
neo-Nazis. He insisted at the time that the goal of the invasion by
Russian troops was to “demilitarize and denazify” Ukraine, even though
Ukraine’s government has nothing to do with Nazism, and Zelensky himself
is Jewish..."
"Why
do the far left in the UK believe Margaret Thatcher was the most
disliked prime minister when she won three elections on the trot, and
Keir Starmer is clearly more unpopular and unlikely to see out one term?"
"When Margaret Thatcher died, there were actually parties here in London.
The ones I saw were mostly attended by people who were either small children or not even born when Thatcher was Prime Minister.
I had a discussion with such a person (a friend of mine) upon their return from the party in Trafalgar Square.
It went something like this….
Her: Hey Edwyn, did you go to Trafalgar Square? It was epic.
Me: No, not really one for celebrating the death of an old lady while her family is grieving.
Her: Seriously? I'm glad the witch is dead. She was a nasty bitch.
Me: Why do you say that?
Her: Look at what she did to the north.
Me: What did she do?
Her: She closed down the coal mines.
Me: Isn't that good thing? I thought you supported net zero.
Her: I do, but she destroyed communities when she closed down the mines.
Me: The Labour Governments closed down far more mines than she did.
Her: That's not the same.
Me: Why?
Her: Because Maggie didn't help the communities after she closed down the mines.
Me: Did Labour help the communities after they closed down their mines?
Her: I think so.
Me:
Can you name some of the former mining towns which are thriving today
as a direct result of Labour helping them after Labour closed down their
coal mines?
Her: Um, um, no, I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Me: Just one?
Her: Look, what's your problem? Ffs, everyone knows Maggie Thatcher was an evil old witch.
Me: Do they?
Her: Yeah, only nasty f*cking right-wingers like Thatcher. Not cool!!!!
Me: Oh.
That's pretty much how every discussion went with my friends who partied when Thatcher died.
Absolutely clueless.
For many young Londoners, hating Thatcher is just part of the left-wing “scene"."
