Russia pays tribute to the degenerate CIA offspring who died fighting for it

From the Insider:

"School in occupied Donetsk unveils monument to son of CIA deputy director who fought for Russia in Ukraine

The Insider, 10 December 2025

 

 

Monuments to Russian national Ivan Kokovin and U.S. citizen Michael Gloss, the son of high-ranking CIA official Juliane Gallina, were unveiled in front of a school in Russian-occupied Donetsk on Dec. 10. Photo: Alexei Kulemzin (@kulemzin_donetsk / Telegram)

A school in the Russian-occupied city of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine has unveiled monuments to two servicemen who were killed while fighting on Moscow’s side in the full-scale invasion: Russian national Ivan Kokovin and U.S. citizen Michael Gloss...

The mother of Michael Gloss, Juliane Gallina Gloss, is the CIA’s current Deputy Director for Digital Innovation. Michael’s father, Larry Gloss, a U.S. Navy veteran, heads Security Information Systems, a company that develops software for clients that include the Pentagon.

A plaque on Gloss’s monument reads: “A soldier is not a profession, but a calling. There is no foreign land for someone who fights for justice.” It also says he was killed “in fierce fighting for Chasiv Yar,” where he “assisted a wounded comrade.” The inscription ends with a line in English: “May the heroes be glorified!”

Gloss ended up in the Russian military in 2023 after several months of traveling. According to an investigation by the independent outlet Important Stories, he left the United States no later than the winter of 2023 after dropping out of college. He first lived in Italy, then went to Israel. After being deported from there, he spent several months in Turkey, where he attended the Rainbow Family “Balkan Gathering” and helped to clear debris after a Feb. 20, 2023 earthquake in Hatay Province.

mportant Stories’ reporting indicates that Gloss signed a contract with the Russian Defense Ministry later on in 2023 and was subsequently deployed to the front with Russian Airborne Troops (VDV). On social media, Gloss posted photos from Moscow’s Red Square, expressed support for Russia’s war in Ukraine, and criticized “Western propaganda.”

Gloss was killed on April 4, 2024, according to an obituary published by his family. His funeral took place in the United States on Dec. 21, 2024 — eight months after his death. Based on messages shared in Rainbow Family group chats, his relatives appear to have learned of his death approximately two months prior to the funeral.

This past August, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff delivered Russia’s Order of Courage, awarded by Vladimir Putin, to Gloss’s family.

On Dec. 9, the evening news on Russia’s Perviy Kanal (lit. “Channel One”) made mention of the unveiling in Donetsk. According to the Kremlin-controlled outlet, Gloss’s award was “handed over to the United States by Vladimir Putin and delivered by Donald Trump’s special envoy Steven Witkoff.”"

An earlier report by the same source gives more information about Gloss: 

"High-level CIA official’s 21-year-old son killed in Ukraine while fighting for Russian army

The Insider, 25 April 2025

 

 

Michael Gloss in a horizontally striped undershirt known as the “telnyashka” — a distinctive part of the uniform of Russia's Airborne Troops (VDV). Photo: Personal archive / IStories

Michael Gloss, a 21-year-old American citizen and the son of Juliane Gallina Gloss, the CIA’s current Deputy Director for Digital Innovation, was killed in the war in Ukraine while fighting on the side of the Russian army, according to a report by the independent exiled investigative outlet Important Stories (IStories).

IStories reported that Michael Gloss signed a contract with the Russian Ministry of Defense after traveling to Russia in 2023. Prior to that, he had studied at the private liberal arts College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine — at one point named “the greenest college in America.” While there, Gloss took part in anti-war protests and was an advocate for women’s rights and combating climate change.

In 2023, he dropped out of college and began traveling around the world. He joined the anarchist group Rainbow Family — which describes itself as “the largest best coordinated nonpolitical nondenominational non-organization of like-minded individuals on the planet” — and took part in humanitarian efforts to rebuild areas in Turkey devastated by earthquakes.

As iStories notes, Gloss’s views changed dramatically during his travels. He gave himself the nickname Hamza, expressed interest in the Palestinian cause, became engrossed in conspiracy theories, and adopted ideas of a “multipolar world” and resistance to “Western hegemony.” After arriving in Russia in the summer of 2023, he created a profile on the country’s domestic social network VK, subscribed to groups about Stalin and Lenin, and posted videos featuring Vladimir Putin.

Sources told IStories that Gloss voluntarily walked into a military recruitment office on Yablochkova Street in Moscow and signed a contract with the Ministry of Defense.

After two weeks of training, Gloss and his group — which largely consisted of Nepali citizens — were transported by bus to a military unit, IStories writes. Gloss was assigned to the 137th Guards Airborne Regiment (Unit No. 41450), based in Ryazan. A fellow soldier told the outlet that Gloss had “his own vision of how he could be useful at the front,” noting that he had studied construction and engineering in college and was focused on “inventions and innovations.” Gloss was deployed to the combat zone in December 2023. “If I’m not mistaken, after training he was assigned to an assault unit,” the soldier added. At the time, the 137th Regiment was active northwest of Soledar in Ukraine’s Donetsk Region.

Those interviewed by IStories include Gloss’s friends from the U.S., activists who traveled with him, and a fellow soldier. They recounted how the young American, who grew up in a family with military and intelligence backgrounds, transformed from a hippie and climate activist into a Russian soldier.

A fellow serviceman from his unit in Ryazan told the outlet that Gloss’s motivation for going to war was “easy to understand”: “He was a passionate supporter of Russia and loved the country. Once in Moscow, he decided for himself that he wanted to be useful in this special operation, but he didn’t intend to take up arms.”

Michael himself reportedly told Mert, a member of the Balkan Rainbow Gathering group, that his reason for enlisting in the army was to obtain a Russian passport — not to fight. He believed that Russian citizenship would help him achieve his “life’s purpose.”

Gloss described it as follows: “My life’s purpose is to build supercritical water oxidization infrastructure. In order to end ecological pollution and pollution related illness and death i.e: cancer, lymphoma, and all the hormonal problems related to microplastics and estrogenics in the water.”

Michael was killed on April 4, 2024, according to an obituary published by his family. His funeral took place in the United States on Dec. 21, 2024 — eight months after his death. Based on messages shared in Rainbow Family group chats, his relatives appear to have learned of his death approximately two months prior to the funeral.

“His family was contacted by the Russian government,” wrote Michael’s Balkan Rainbow Family friend, who spoke to his sister. “It was announced that he died within the borders of Ukraine. We do not know whether he participated in the war. They did not provide any other detailed information.”"

***

I do not say that Gloss' mother is to blame for his crimes, but I think that she should be removed from her position. On the other hand, it would feel unjust to fire Ms. Gloss for it, given that both presidents of the USA in the last decade have degenerate sons who hate Ukraine. Biden has Hunter, and Trump has Donald Jr. The only difference is that the presidential scions have enough sanity to stay away from Russia, while Michael Gloss went right there and applied for the Darwin Award. I hope that he didn't kill anyone before biting the dust.

Lavrov: In Alaska, Trump agreed that Ukraine must cede four regions to Russia

From the Institute for the Study of War:

"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 11, 2025

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov effectively rejected seven points of the US-proposed 28-point peace plan on December 11, including the original plan’s points on territorial swaps based on the line of contact and the provision of reliable security guarantees for Ukraine. Lavrov effectively rejected the following provisions:

• Freezing the current line of contact in Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts;
• Restarting the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rather than Russia;
• Requiring NATO only to cease further enlargement rather than insisting on rolling NATO back to its pre-1997 borders;
• Permitting European fighter jets to be stationed in Poland;
• Providing reliable security guarantees to Ukraine;
• Confirming Ukraine’s sovereignty; and
• Accepting EU regulations on the protection of religious minorities as the required basis for Ukrainian laws on the subject.

Lavrov stated that the Russian Constitution recognized illegally annexed Crimea and Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts as “integral and equal subjects of the Russian Federation” and implied that Russia cannot give away territories enshrined in its constitution.[1] Lavrov also claimed that Russia and the United States reached an understanding at the Alaska Summit on August 15 based on the proposals that summarized Russian President Vladimir Putin’s June 14, 2024, speech — in which Putin demanded complete Ukrainian withdrawal from unoccupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts as one of the prerequisites for peace negotiations.[2] Lavrov’s reiteration of the Russian demand for Ukrainian withdrawal from unoccupied parts of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts contradicts the 21st point of the original peace plan, which states that Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts will be frozen along the line of contact and that both Ukraine and Russia would de facto recognize the line of contact.[3] Russia’s commitment to establishing full control of Zaporizhia Oblast also contradicts the 19th point of the original peace plan, which states that the ZNPP would restart its operations under the IAEA and would equally distribute electricity between Russia and Ukraine.

Lavrov effectively rejected the third, fifth, and ninth points of the original peace plan, which respectively required only that NATO would not expand further, that European jets would be stationed in Poland, and that Ukraine would receive “reliable” security guarantees.[4] Lavrov stated that Russia “cannot agree” to any security guarantees for Ukraine that it would see as preparations for “another attack” against Russia and demanded that Russia receive security guarantees. Lavrov threatened that Russia would deem any “peacekeepers” in Ukraine “legitimate military targets,” effectively ruling out any meaningful Western security guarantees that could plausibly deter or defend against a Russian reinvasion of Ukraine as provided for under the fifth point. Point 8 of the 28-point plan reads: “NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine,” but there is no discussion of a NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. The 28-point plan did not preclude the deployment of forces from individual NATO member states as part of a security guarantee force. The Russians’ choosing to read that point as precluding the deployment of forces to guarantee the security of Ukraine would constitute a revision of the plan and would render any security guarantee toothless.

Lavrov proposed the December 2021 ultimatums to the United States and NATO as the basis for security guarantees for Russia. The 2021 ultimatums notably demanded “security guarantees” from the United States and NATO that amounted to the destruction of the current NATO alliance — such as halting the deployment of forces or weapons systems to member-states that joined NATO after 1997.[5] The Kremlin also demanded in January 2022 (as part of the extended negotiations on the 2021 suite of demands) that NATO roll back to the borders it had in 1997 borders when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed.[6] Lavrov thus effectively insisted on a rollback of NATO forces rather than the freeze on further NATO expansion included in the 28 points. An agreement based on the 2021 ultimatums would preclude the deployment of European fighter jets to Poland as well, since Poland joined NATO after 1997.

Lavrov also effectively rejected the 1st point of the original peace plan, which would confirm Ukraine’s sovereignty.[7] Lavrov reiterated Russia’s demand that Ukraine “must return to a non-aligned, neutral, and non-nuclear status” and that these principles are the “foundation of its statehood.” Lavrov claimed that Russia’s original recognition of Ukraine in 1990 was conditional on Ukraine’s neutral and non-aligned status. He made clear that Russian recognition of Ukrainian sovereignty would be permanently conditional on Ukraine’s foreign policy.

Lavrov rejected the 20th point of the original peace plan, which would accept Ukraine’s adoption of “EU rules” on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities as sufficient to address Russia’s claimed concerns on the matter.[8] Lavrov explicitly stated that it is “unacceptable” for the 20th point to limit Ukraine’s obligations to just “EU rules” and that the “EU rules” on religious tolerance and protection of minorities are insufficient. Lavrov falsely implied on December 10 that the original 28-point peace plan did not feature the clause on “EU rules.”[9]

Lavrov’s December 11 statements indicate that the Kremlin is unwilling to accept the original 28-point peace plan but that Russia will instead demand further modifications should Ukraine agree to it. Lavrov’s effective rejection of key elements of the 28-point peace plan is consistent with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s November 27 statement that the 28-point plan could be the basis for future negotiations, but not a final agreement in itself.[10]

Senior Kremlin officials, including Putin, have similarly rejected key points of the 28-point plan in recent weeks. The Kremlin signaled that it would not be satisfied with Ukraine holding elections in 100 days after the signing of the deal, as specified by the 25th point of the original peace plan. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, and other lower-level Kremlin officials responded negatively on December 9 to Zelensky’s expressed willingness to hold elections as early as the next 60 to 90 days.[11] Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated on November 26 that “there can be no talk of any concessions or any surrender” of the “key aspects” of Russia’s objectives in Ukraine in response to the US peace plan.[12] Ryabkov stated Russia “is prepared to achieve its stated goals” in negotiations — referring to Russia’s long-held and oft-repeated demands, including demands that Russia gain control over all of Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts and force the Ukrainian government to capitulate — and noted that Russia will continue its war in Ukraine if there are “any setbacks” in negotiations.[13] Lavrov and lower-level Russian State Duma officials notably began setting informational conditions to reject reliable security guarantees for Ukraine on December 10, with Lavrov threatening Russian retaliation against the deployment of European military contingents to Ukraine.[14] The Kremlin’s position on peace negotiations and territorial swaps has not changed in 2025, with Putin stating in March 2025 that Russia does not intend to “give in to anyone” or “give” up illegally annexed territories.[15]

Russian State Duma deputies, whom the Kremlin uses to shape Russian public opinion, also made clear that Russia remains disinterested in signing any peace agreements, including the original 28-point peace plan. State Duma Defense Committee Member Andrei Kolesnik claimed on December 11 that he had not yet seen a single peace plan that “would be in line with [Russia’s] interests” and denounced any plans that involve freezing the frontline along the line of contact.[16] State Duma Defense Committee Deputy Chairperson Alexei Zhuravlyov stated on Russian state television on December 11 that any peace agreement that Russia signs will not guarantee “anything;” that physical force is more authoritative than law; and that Russia’s goal in Ukraine were not confined to seizing Donbas but was rather to ensure “global security” — likely a nod to the Russian 2021 demands for “security guarantees” for Russia from the United States and NATO.[17]..."

Russia keeps attacking and grabbing land in cycles, and is rewarded for it

From the Obozrevatel, 12.12.2025, by Olexander Levi-Ganapolsky:

"...There are two competing "peace" projects.

On one side is the American-Russian line: Ukraine cedes additional territory in the east, agrees to restrictions on its military, and postpones NATO membership. In exchange, Moscow makes vague promises not to attack again, and Washington gets the opportunity to declare that it "ended the war." Ukrainian land is viewed as a problematic asset, and NATO's future is turned into a bargaining chip. The formula is repeated time and again: move the borders on the map, sign the papers, and call it a "painful but necessary compromise."

On the other hand, there's the Ukrainian-European line: there's one aggressor and one victim. If the aggressor ultimately officially becomes larger and the victim smaller, the problem isn't solved; it merely demonstrates that aggression is an acceptable and profitable diplomatic model. For Central and Eastern Europe, this isn't just a theory. Throughout the 20th century, they've observed the same cycle: Russia attacks, bites off territory, freezes the situation, waits for the world to put up with it, and then repeats the process all over again. For them, consolidating Russia's gains is a down payment on the next war.  

There's also the issue of scale, which Washington prefers to ignore. Russia still has nuclear weapons and a large army; economically, it's a medium-sized country, dependent on oil and gas. Its influence has long relied almost entirely on a single resource: energy exports to Europe. By comparison, the economies of Guangdong and Jiangsu alone in China are each worth close to two trillion dollars; if they were separate states, they would rank among the world's largest economies. Meanwhile, Trump is effectively proposing to halt NATO expansion and rewrite the European security architecture for a country whose economic weight is comparable to that of a single Chinese coastal province, and then reward that country with additional territory. 

 This logic doesn't end with Europe—it directly applies to Taiwan. 

Taiwan's position is more vulnerable than Ukraine's in at least two ways. It lacks a land border equivalent to the European Union; it's an island, dependent on sea routes and air corridors. Its adversary isn't a declining raw materials power, but the world's second-largest economy and the United States' main systemic rival. Today, Washington and Tokyo are making confident statements: Taiwan will not be left alone. Ukraine has been described for years with very similar formulas. But when the real test began, aid arrived late, was fragmented, and severely limited. 

Beijing is watching the war in Ukraine as a living textbook. The lesson here is not only military but also political. If Russia can invade its neighbor, commit war crimes, survive sanctions, and ultimately obtain a Western-approved map that cements its territorial conquest, then China's path becomes clear: start a war, dig in its troops, endure several brutal years, wait for Washington and other capitals to tire—and then agree to a "historical compromise," in which the victim will be told to be "realistic" and accept reduced borders because it supposedly "has no cards in its hand" to continue the struggle..."

Trump's disconnect on Ukraine

From the Hill / Yahoo!News:

"Opinion - Trump’s jarring disconnect on Ukraine

Jonathan Sweet and Mark Toth, opinion contributors, December 11, 2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s talking points on ending the war in Ukraine are alarmingly being parroted by President Trump. It is clear from his interview with Politico’s Dasha Burns that he is buying into the Russian narrative.

Asked who has the stronger negotiating position, he answered “It’s Russia.” Pressed on whether Ukraine should hold elections — constitutionally prohibited during states of emergencies or martial law — Trump accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of “using war to not hold an election.”

That played into Putin’s false narrative that Zelensky is not a legitimate president and bolsters his goal of toppling him one way or another.

It is not useful for Trump to validate Kremlin positions, nor to remind us all again that this is not his war — “It wouldn’t have happened if I were president.”

It is his war now and has been for more than 10 months. On his watch, Russia has taken over 356,000 casualties, while record numbers of drones and ballistic missiles rain down upon Ukrainian cities and critical energy infrastructure. On Saturday, there were 704 missiles and drones in all. Ukraine successfully intercepted 87 percent of them, but 13 percent found their targets.

The killing will not stop until Russia stops attacking. Team Trump inexplicably fails to grasp this simple reality.

The man known for ‘the art of the deal’ is chasing ‘economic opportunities’ at the expense of Ukraine and NATO. The strategy is to make money, not war. Trump is overly invested in a single instrument of national power — economic.

Noticeably absent from his negotiations — his military advisors, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. Also absent are senior intelligence analysts from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, and career diplomats.

Instead of pressuring the Kremlin to stop attacking Ukraine, Trump Special Envoy Steven Witkoff and Jared Kushner offer ill-advised incentive packages to keep Russian President Vladimir Putin at the negotiation table.

Meanwhile, Trump keeps pressuring Zelensky to accept the 28-point peace deal authored by Kirill Dmitriev — Putin’s handpicked negotiator.

As the saying goes, “‘Want it bad, get it bad.” Trump wants it badly, and is he pressuring Zelensky to take a bad deal. But the one-point Zelensky absolutely refuses to compromise on — his red line – is ceding the Donbas to Russia.

Zelensky stated Ukraine would not make territorial concessions to Russia, adding, “Under our laws, under international law, and under moral law, we have no right to give anything away. That is what we are fighting for.”

According to Newsweek, Trump has issued a new deadline for Zelensky, giving the Ukrainian president “just days to decide whether to accept the U.S. plan,” which requires Ukraine to cede territory to Russia in exchange for unspecified security guarantees.

What part of Ukraine’s “no” did Trump not understand?

Militarily, Zelensky understands the strategic importance of the region. The pathway to Kyiv and Odesa runs through the Donbas, and together with Russian demands for a smaller standing Ukrainian military, restrictions on munitions and weapon systems, and denying NATO forces to be stationed in Ukraine, sets the conditions for another invasion. Ukraine is mindful of what happened to Chechnya in the 1990s and is determined to not let history repeat itself at their expense.

Zelensky needs binding security guarantees codified in a treaty, not another Budapest Memorandum. He knows that the only security guarantee the Kremlin will honor — one that will prevent another invasion — is the physical presence of NATO troops in Ukraine.

Putin may talk of war with NATO, but he knows the consequences. It is not a line he is prepared to cross.

There was a time when Trump supported Ukrainian sovereignty. Specifically, when he signed Public Law 115–44 into law on Aug. 2, 2017. Section 257 of the law, entitled Ukrainian Energy Security, states that it is the policy of the U.S. to “to support the Government of Ukraine in restoring its sovereign and territorial integrity; to condemn and oppose all of the destabilizing efforts by the Government of the Russian Federation in Ukraine in violation of its obligations and international commitments; to never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Government of the Russian Federation or the separation of any portion of Ukrainian territory through the use of military force; and to deter the Government of the Russian Federation from further destabilizing and invading Ukraine.”

That was then. Trump 45 and Trump 47 no longer share the same vision.

Trump 47 is out of sync with the American public and Congress as well. According to a 2025 Reagan National Defense Survey, the “majority of Americans — 62 percent, say they want Ukraine to prevail in the war with Russia.” Sixty-four percent support sending U.S. weapons to Ukraine, and 70 percent do not trust Russia to honor any peace agreement with Ukraine.

Forty-five percent support “backing Ukraine’s defense of its full territorial sovereignty until all Russian-occupied territory is liberated.” Just 23 percent support Ukraine ceding territory for peace and security guarantees. Yet Trump presses on.

The same survey reported that 68 percent of Americans support NATO, an alliance the Trump administration is increasingly pulling away from. On Sunday, Congressional leaders released the text of their 2026 National Defense Authorization Act that keeps the White House in check concerning continued support to NATO and funding for Ukraine...

As Europe comes to grips with the release of the Trump Administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy, they realize the security of Ukraine and Europe is increasingly their problem. And much to Trump’s dissatisfaction – they choose to stand with Zelensky.

Meanwhile, the U.S. increasingly stands alone."

What is offered to Ukraine is not "Korean scenario" because, unlike Korea, there will be no US troops

From the Dialog, Dec 11, 2025:

"A Korean scenario without guarantees: what's wrong with the "high-tech" demilitarized zone offered to Ukraine – FT

Ukrainian authorities warn that the American plan to create a demilitarized zone is creating a pause for a new war by Russia.  

The US peace plan for Ukraine calls for the creation of a "high-tech" demilitarized zone, but does not include US peacekeepers or long-term guarantees similar to those in place on the Korean Peninsula. Experts warn that without these conditions, the plan remains extremely risky for Ukraine, according to an article in the Financial Times.  

According to the publication, the first version of the US administration's plan includes a provision for the creation of a demilitarized zone in Ukraine, which would separate Ukrainian and Russian troops, similar to the model used after the Korean War. However, unlike the Korean War precedent, where large-scale US forces have ensured South Korea's security for 70 years, Washington's proposed plan lacks critical guarantees. 

According to Ukrainian and European negotiators, US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who was dispatched to Kyiv by Trump to persuade the Ukrainian authorities to accept the plan, spoke in detail about the aforementioned zone.  

According to European diplomats present at the meeting, Driscoll asserted that the Trump administration would create "the most powerful and high-tech demilitarized zone" in the world in eastern Ukraine. However, the US offered Kyiv neither the size of a potential peacekeeping contingent, nor a protection mechanism, nor the terms of response to Moscow's violations. Even the "coalition of the willing," led by Great Britain and France, is discussing the possible deployment of peacekeepers only in the central and western regions of Ukraine, that is, far from the front line. 

The main problem, Ukrainian negotiators emphasize, is the lack of equivalents to the key element of the Korean model—American troops. There are currently 28,500 US troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula, including units from all branches of the armed forces and the Special Operations Command. Their presence has remained unchanged for over 15 years, and it is precisely this presence that makes the Korean scenario viable. In Ukraine, however, the US has refused to deploy its own peacekeepers.  

Ukraine views the proposed demilitarization not as a path to sustainable peace, but as a mechanism for freezing the conflict. According to the Ukrainian leadership, this format would allow Moscow to recuperate, regroup, and prepare for a new offensive."

Trump's "new" "peace plan" rejected by Ukraine as wholly pro-Russian

From the Dialog, Dec 11, 2025:

"Kyiv rejects Trump's new "peace plan": Media finds out what the US wants  

In its updated peace plan, the US no longer demands Russia withdraw its troops from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, but insists that the Ukrainian army withdraw and leave a demilitarized zone there. 

According to Europeiska Pravda, citing the Financial Times, and an analysis by ZN.UA, the latest version of the American plan contains a key detail: the US does not demand that Russia withdraw its troops from those territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions proposed to be included in the eastern part of the demilitarized zone. However, Ukraine is supposed to withdraw from its own positions in the Donetsk region. 

A high-ranking Ukrainian source familiar with the documents states bluntly: the demilitarized zone in Donbas is being built at the expense not of Russian troops, but only of Ukrainian ones. This is a model "like that between North and South Korea," that is, a de facto freezing of the conflict on the terms of the stronger party, which this package effectively recognizes as Russia.  

Trump's "new" plan: a rehash of an old document with the same spirit

Formally, the American package now consists of four documents: a basic 20-point agreement between Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and so-called "Europe," framework "assurances" on security, a separate text on NATO, and a bilateral US-Russian deal. But, in essence, as ZN.UA emphasizes, these are slightly reworked versions of Trump's famous "28 points," which initially had a distinctly pro-Russian flavor and are now simply scattered across different documents and dressed up in new packaging. 

Of the truly toxic provisions, only the general amnesty "for all parties to the conflict" has disappeared. Everything else—territorial concessions, restrictions on Ukraine's maneuverability, a soft stance toward Russia—has been retained in one form or another.  

Territories: Russia maintains its grip, Ukraine loses its right to force

The most pressing issue is the territorial issue. In one of the key documents, the US proposes recognizing Russia's control over Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk Oblasts, with the possibility of "changing their status only through diplomatic means" and without the use of force. For the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts, the current frontline is established as a de facto freeze line. 

Russia is required to withdraw only from those Ukrainian territories it controls outside these five regions. After this, Kyiv and Moscow must commit not to changing borders by force. In other words, the aggressor gains legal control over foreign territories, while the victim is prohibited from fighting for their return.  

Demilitarized zone and "gray zones" for Russian special services

A special topic is the demilitarized zone in the Donetsk region. The new text clarifies its size, stating that Ukrainian and Russian troops will be withdrawn behind the administrative line and will not enter this "buffer." However, it does not say anywhere that Russian special services, the FSB, and their "civilian" structures will not be present there. For the Kremlin, this is an ideal platform for pressure, sabotage, and control without official tanks and artillery. 

NATO: The Door Hasn't Been Formally Closed

A clear downside of the previous version was the direct demand to formalize Ukraine's withdrawal from NATO. Now the wording has been softened; the text no longer includes the clause prohibiting accession or requiring the Alliance to "once and for all" renounce Ukraine.  

However, in a separate document, the US promises that NATO "will not expand" and will not invite Ukraine to join. This is effectively a personal American veto, written in a separate document and duplicated in the US-Russian agreement. Thus, the door to NATO is formally left painted on the wall, but Washington promises to hand over the key to Moscow.

Security "Guarantees" 

A separate section concerns security. Public rhetoric includes promises of "guarantees similar to NATO's Article 5." However, the texts focus primarily on "assurances" and "assurances," which are not legally binding and do not require parliamentary ratification. This resembles more an expanded Budapest Memorandum than genuine collective defense.  

The American side reserves maximum latitude in interpreting when exactly a Russian attack is considered "significant, deliberate, and sustained," and therefore worthy of a response. This opens up enormous scope for delays, consultations, and political gamesmanship, while Ukraine already has experience with how such "guarantees" on paper often end.  

Ukraine's army is limited, Russia's is not

A separate cynical point is the limitation on the size of the Ukrainian army. The new version raises the ceiling from 600,000 to 800,000, which is presented as a concession to Kyiv. But the logic of the document remains absurd: a sovereign state that has become a victim of aggression is obliged to limit its armed forces, while the aggressor is not subject to any restrictions.  

After World War II, Germany and Japan were subject to army reductions as the perpetrators of the war. Now, however, the proposal is to de facto limit the defense capability of the victim, leaving Russia free to act. 

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and Money

The American package also includes the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest in Europe. Its launch is expected to be under the control of a new US owner, rather than the IAEA. Ukraine is promised only 50% of the generated electricity, with the fate of the remaining percentages vaguely omitted.  

Regarding restoration, the US and Europe want to create a large equity fund worth hundreds of billions of dollars and actively utilize frozen Russian assets. However, the details of the US-Russian deal stipulate that Washington intends to invest only a portion of these assets (approximately $100 billion) in the restoration of Ukraine, expecting to reap half the profits, and to channel the remaining funds into joint US-Russian projects. This means that the country, devastated by the Russian army, risks becoming a raw materials and infrastructure appendage of the new Anglo-Russian "business" to boot.

Who's bound, and who's not

The most alarming thing Ukrainian analysts are noting is that of the entire package, only the document imposing obligations on Ukraine is planned to be made legally binding. The remaining texts, including those on NATO and security guarantees, remain more vague.  

A "Peace Council" chaired by Donald Trump is to oversee compliance with Ukraine's obligations. Furthermore, there's no stipulation on what will happen if Trump ceases to be US President, nor are there any real sanctions for violators. Russia, meanwhile, receives recognition of its gains, lenient conditions for "reintegration" into the global economy, and a vague commitment "not to attack its neighbors," without any real enforcement mechanisms. 

A plan that rewards the aggressor and weakens the victim

A comprehensive analysis of the "new" peace plan reveals one thing: in spirit, it remains a document that enshrines the consequences of Russian aggression, legitimizes some of the seizures, closes Ukraine's real path to NATO membership, imposes weak "assurances" instead of firm guarantees, and gives the US and Russia the opportunity to profit from Ukraine's recovery.  

In this scenario, Russia gains a legitimized foothold in Ukrainian regions and the chance to launch a new attack; Ukraine risks being left without some territory, a fully functional security system, and control over key resources; and the global system sets a dangerous precedent where the aggressor is rewarded and the victim is asked to submit. 

Against this backdrop, the conclusion of Ukrainian diplomats is particularly stark: if such documents are signed, it will open a Pandora's box for other major predators accustomed to thinking simply: "I'm stronger, therefore you're food." "

Russia's claim that it would recognize neutral Ukraine is a lie

From UNIAN:

""The Other" Ukraine 

Tetiana Urbanskaya, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of UNIAN, 11.12.25 

Amid a new wave of Russian-sponsored "peace" initiatives that the United States is trying to impose on Ukrainians, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has appeared publicly outlining the conditions under which the Kremlin is supposedly prepared to "recognize" Ukraine's independence. 

According to him, Russia has prepared "additional proposals for collective security guarantees," and Ukraine "must again become a non-aligned, neutral, and non-nuclear state." After all, Russia "recognized a different Ukraine," and this, he claimed, was enshrined in its Declaration of Independence.

But I'd like to remind Lavrov and other cronies of the international criminal Putin of an inconvenient fact: in 2014, when the Russian Federation annexed Ukrainian Crimea and sent its troops into the Ukrainian Donbas, Ukraine was, in fact, "non-aligned, neutral, and non-nuclear." Simply put, all the conditions for "recognition of independence," which Lavrov now pompously touts, were met. And this in no way prevented Russia from violating international law and occupying foreign territory.

Incidentally, the aforementioned Declaration of Independence of Ukraine clearly states that the territory of Ukraine "within its existing borders is inviolable and cannot be changed or used without its consent," that the country "has the right to its own Armed Forces," and that relations with its neighbors will be built on the basis of "equality, mutual respect, and non-interference in internal affairs."

Apparently, Lavrov and his boss have no "inconsistencies" between the Ukraine they officially "recognized" in their documents and the one they're talking about now? Is that how it's supposed to be understood?

The botox-addled minds of Russian officials will come up with any nonsense to justify the abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum and the onset of open aggression against Ukraine. After all, on the one hand, all these people remember perfectly well and have spent hours recounting to the Americans the details of their "shared" history with Ukraine, dating back to the time of the Pechenegs. On the other hand, they "suddenly" forget a more recent history: that both Russia and the United States were among the countries guarantoring security for Ukraine, which renounced the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal... Finally, Ukraine continues to be non-nuclear (nothing has changed here in 30 years) and is attempting to negotiate with both of the aforementioned nuclear countries, while one of them has seized a massive nuclear facility—the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant—and is behaving there like a true terrorist.

The lies about Ukraine's hypothetical NATO accession "threats" to Russia simply don't hold up to scrutiny. After eleven years of Russian aggression and nearly four years of full-scale war, Ukraine still isn't a member of any military bloc. And public declarations of a desire to join the North Atlantic Alliance were provoked precisely by the Russian invasion. And who wouldn't want to defend themselves against an aggressor that has already attacked several times? Who wouldn't seek reliable alliances?

All this talk about a "different Ukraine," which Russia once "recognized" and is ready to do so again, is cynical manipulation. Every claim is easily verified by facts, and these facts expose the lie every time."       

Russian professor sentenced to prison for publishing Ukrainian lyrics in social media

From DonPress, Dec 11, 2025:

"A university teacher in Russia faces prison time for Ukrainian songs: he allegedly "incited hatred" 

In Russia, Alexander Nesterenko, an associate professor at the Bauman Moscow State Technical University's philosophy department, is on trial for Ukrainian songs posted on his VKontakte page, ASTRA reports. This was reported by Novosti Donbassa. 

The charges include the songs "We Are Growing" by the band "Vopli Vidoplyasova," "We Were Born in the Great Year," and "Our Father Bandera." 

The prosecutor admitted that the charge of "incitement to hatred" was applied "unnecessarily," but demanded a four-year prison sentence for Nesterenko under the charge of "calls to extremism." 

The professor acknowledged publishing the songs but denied the charges. 

"You've been bombarding Ukrainians for three years and inciting hatred in them, but I haven't incited any hatred," he stated in court."

I have just checked the outcome of the trial. Novaya Gazeta Europe reports that 62-yr-old Nesterenko was sentenced to three years in prison. The report is titled I fully admit my guilt in the fact that in order to maintain your power you will commit any crime. The photo below, from the same source, shows him during the sentencing.

 

Russia gives assets to the USA and Trump in return pressures Ukraine to accept Russian demands

From the Obozrevatel:

"Trump's ultimatum to Zelensky: will Ukraine survive and what factor will be able to put everything in its place. Interview with Bessmertny 

Roman Pryadun, 11.12.2025 

...Donald Trump's peace plan, touted in Washington as "the only chance to stop the war," increasingly resembles an ultimatum to Kyiv. According to Axios and the Financial Times, the US is increasingly demanding that Volodymyr Zelenskyy agree to terms that include significant territorial concessions, primarily in the Donbas... Trump publicly expresses dissatisfaction with Zelensky, declaring that "the Russians agree, but the Ukrainian president hasn't even read the proposal." A new line of pressure is being added to the demands regarding Donbas: holding elections amidst war. The main question hangs in the air: will Ukraine withstand the pressure if the White House finally decides to make "fast peace" its main foreign policy achievement? Ukrainian diplomat and politician Roman Bessmertny shared his thoughts on these and other issues in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA.

- After several weeks of intensive diplomatic negotiations, Ukrainians still believe that some aspects of the current US plan favor Moscow, while the US is exerting significant pressure on Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Witkoff and Kushner actually wanted the Ukrainian president to agree to surrender Donbas over the phone. The Financial Times reports that Trump gave Volodymyr Zelenskyy "several days" to agree to the peace plan. Let's start with this "American peace invasion": why is Trump fussing and issuing such orders?

He's fussing for a simple reason: whenever there's any dialogue between Moscow and Washington, there are always some perks for Russia. And the latest, which for some reason is being kept almost silent, is that, as part of that "28-point game," Moscow paid off its assets in Kazakhstan. This was only noticed when the Americans had already begun to take over the administrative management of these assets. This is a very significant thing. There hasn't been a dialogue after which Moscow hasn't taken some step: the transfer of shares, assets, the release of seizure orders, the transfer of balance sheets. As we predicted before the last round, the discussion turned to Nord Stream, Turkish Stream, and assets in Kazakhstan, some of which were transferred. This is what's pushing Trump to take action. He has no other motives. All his talk about being "sorry that people are dying" is empty. Trump masks his true nature behind endless maxims.

 

What is Russia doing? Note the phrase from the Kremlin: "We are awaiting the results of the conversation between Washington and Kyiv." This translates simply as: to what extent will Trump "pass the test" and pay for the payment Russia has made? All of Putin's emotional threats, all this "we will get what we want" pathos, are empty. This war has been going on for a long time, Europeans have accepted it, and they understand both the prospects and the reality perfectly well. The reality is this: if Europe takes a position with Ukraine—and it's already clear that they will, after the leaked phone conversations and all these US national security strategies—Trump's arguments will crumble by the hour. 

Therefore, anything will be signed only when Ukraine deems it possible. Under the current circumstances, that's unacceptable. And the main argument here isn't Ukraine's position, but that Russia's options include no ceasefire, no reconciliation, no agreement, not even a desire to negotiate anything. Kyiv, Brussels, and European capitals understand this perfectly well.

 

- Don't Americans understand this? Or are they simply unwilling to acknowledge the obvious?

 

The problem is that the money motive trumps everything else. Profiting from these schemes is what matters to Trump. He doesn't think in terms of values, but in terms of interests. And those interests amount to billions...

 

Moscow, however, is trying to stop the process: through Russian assets in Kazakhstan, they have effectively blocked the transfer of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. Trump is now expressing dissatisfaction that the assets are insufficient compensation for the missiles not being transferred to Ukraine. Ukraine and Europe should have responded more quickly, but it's important not to offer frozen assets or raw materials. Everyone saw how the topic of the US-Ukraine rare earths agreement quickly disappeared from the radar..."

Listening to the West was Ukraine's fatal mistake

From the Obozrevatel:

"If we had always listened to our partners, we would still be part of the USSR

Andriy Ilienko, December 10, 2025 

If we had always listened to what our esteemed partners told us, we would still be happily developing democracy within the USSR. Because that's exactly what President George H.W. Bush demanded of us in Kyiv in July 1991, a month before declaring independence. 

Similarly, Yanukovych would still be living in Mezhyhirya, and we would be living in Malorossiya with Moscow garrisons all over the country. Because the main thing that our partners worried about during the Maidan was that we obediently wait for the elections (they were also honest, a guarantee) and not touch the legitimate president. 

 

Once we did listen to our esteemed partners. And we gave up nuclear weapons for reinforced concrete security guarantees that we still enjoy. 

 

We respect and love our partners, and are even ready to thank them (sincerely) for their support once again, but in order to thank them in the future, we must survive as a nation and a state. 

 

Because otherwise who will thank them?"

Politics: real vs virtual world

From the Obozrevatel:

"Reality, Trump's Virtual World, and the Useful Idiots Manipulated by Putin

Igor Eisenberg, Blogger, Professor of Computer Science  

12/10/202 

We all live in the real world, where what really happens happens...  

 

In the real world, there is a war going on. Russia is striving to destroy Ukraine. It has already lost many of its draconian heads in this pursuit, broken all its imperial teeth in the remaining draconian heads in this pursuit, but is still growing new ones. 

 

In the real world, a free Ukraine is standing up to draconian tyranny, defending itself and, in reality, defending the entire liberal democratic civilization, which, if Ukraine fails, faces catastrophe.

In the real world, the former leader of that part of this world that is a liberal democratic civilization has declared a rejection of the values ​​of that civilization, a refusal to defend it, and is demanding that free Ukraine let itself be swallowed by the dragon...

In the real world, responsible politicians and government officials understand that stopping Putin and ending the war can only be achieved by significantly increasing military and financial aid to Ukraine and significantly increasing economic pressure on Russia...

In the real world, the 47th US President and his family are making billions of dollars selling cryptocurrency bubbles, receiving blatant bribes in the form of planes from Qatar, and funding the construction of Trump Towers and Trump Golf Clubs in various countries. 

In the real world, the 47th President falls asleep in cabinet meetings, and his ministers tell him how brilliant he is. 

And much more is happening in the real world around us. 

Everyone can have their own virtual world. Everyone is free to invent something for themselves. Many people, who prefer to live in reality and think about how to improve reality if it is, to put it mildly, very far from ideal, may not have a virtual world at all. 

A lot is happening in the virtual world of the 47th President of the United States. He generally prefers the virtual world to the real one. He even makes money from it by selling his virtual cryptocurrencies in the real world. 

In the virtual world, he stopped eight wars (when giving interviews, he pulls out a piece of paper with a list from his pocket, because without the paper, he'd have stopped wars between Azerbaijan and Albania, Armenia and Cambodia), defeated inflation (but in the real world, he delays the release of official economic data so no one knows that prices are rising, but people are shopping in stores located in the real world, and prices in that real world are rising). In his virtual world, he prevented hurricanes and forced foreign countries to pay customs duties to the American treasury (though in the real world, American consumers pay them).

In the virtual world, the 47th president stops the war between Russia and Ukraine, saying that the "peace plan" drawn up by Ushakov is his "peace plan," that Putin agrees with him and wants to stop the war, but he's disappointed in Zelenskyy, who hasn't read his "peace plan," and, in his opinion, Ukraine isn't a democracy because it doesn't hold elections.

In the virtual world, many state leaders, so as not to spoil relations with the United States, participate in this virtual peacekeeping of his. He sends his friend and his son-in-law on a real-life visit to Moscow to listen to lectures on virtual history from Putin and virtual stories about the virtual billions they will earn once they start doing business with Russia.

And in the real world, three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman published an article in the New York Times on December 4th titled America's Useful Idiots Manipulated Like Puppets by Putin.

In it, he wrote that... President Trump and his emissaries to Russia, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, sincerely want to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine, but they are failing and will continue to fail as long as they cling to the naive belief that this is just a big real estate deal and that their real estate experience gives them an advantage... Yes, you could say that Vladimir Putin is involved in real estate in Ukraine, but not in the same way as Trump, Vitkoff, or Kushner. Putin is involved in real estate in Ukraine the same way Hitler was involved in real estate in Poland... So what has Trump done...? He cut off all American funding for American weapons to Ukraine, denied it access to critical weapons like Tomahawk cruise missiles that could have inflicted serious damage on Putin's own soil—and for which the Europeans would have paid—and brazenly lied, claiming that Ukraine, not Russia, started the war and that the Ukrainian leader, not the Russian one, is an illegitimate dictator. He also openly told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that "you have no cards" in the fight against Russia without American help. What if Trump had behaved like a worthy American president, acting in America's interests and in accordance with American values? He wouldn't have told the brave Ukrainians they had no cards; he would have handed them cards to maximize their influence, while loudly declaring to the Russian people that they had no future because Vladimir Putin had stolen all their cards... The job of the American president and vice president—if they understand what they're doing—is not to tell the Ukrainian president he has no "trump cards." Their job is to increase the pressure on Putin, including by telling the Russian people every day that their leader is stealing all their cards, their entire future, and the future of their children. This is precisely how we can increase our leverage to reach an acceptable, rather than a dirty, deal..."

WSJ slams the new US national security strategy

From UNIAN:

"Trump's new national security strategy will upset US allies but delight China and Russia, according to the WSJ 

Karina Bovsunovskaya, 12/09/25 

Instead of outlining real threats, Trump's strategy is to lash out at allies.

During his first term, US President Donald Trump outlined a national security strategy that acknowledged the existence of a new world of great-power competition. However, the new strategy unveiled by the American leader last week is a clear departure from this competition, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

As the publication notes, this strategy will please China and Russia, but will upset US allies...

"Most importantly, the strategy prioritizes the Western Hemisphere, downplaying the rest of the world. This makes geographic sense, but not strategically, since the greatest threats to US security are not Brazil, Colombia, or even Cuba. The strategy usefully emphasizes the importance of eliminating malign interests from the hemisphere, although it doesn't mention Russia, China, or Cuba as such influences. It also points out that migration and drugs are the two most serious threats to America," the article adds.

The publication believes that the greatest threat to the United States is a country on the other side of the Pacific Ocean that has tripled its nuclear arsenal in five years: China. However, the document describes trade as the "most important stake" in the Pacific region, and views trade imbalances as a greater threat to US prosperity than Beijing's military buildup.

"China is also the main sponsor of Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine, and it is precisely against Russia that the strategy loses its effectiveness. The document advocates 'strategic stability' with a state that has invaded Eastern Europe and is using nuclear blackmail against the US and NATO. Congratulations on making it more difficult to end the war in Ukraine. Putin uses this strategy as proof that NATO expansion and European degradation justify his imperialism," the publication noted.

At the same time, this strategy attacks America's friends across the Atlantic. As the WSJ points out, the Trump administration is right about Europe's declining self-confidence and decades of ignoring hard power. However, the US president is also lecturing Europe about freedom of speech, emphasizing that we should ignore how the world's dictatorships govern themselves.

"The strategy is riddled with other contradictions. It offers a shortened (and false) story of US decline before Trump's presidency, while simultaneously claiming the US has the best economy in the world. It argues that we should unite allies in a joint effort to counter Chinese mercantilism, but it welcomes the imposition of tariffs on these allies, which reduces the likelihood of their trust in the US," the publication adds.

The WSJ emphasizes that one can be sure that America's enemies are reading this document and see a country consumed by internal conflicts and unwilling to honestly acknowledge the real threats posed by China and Russia. 

"Americans elected Trump in 2016 in part because they disliked Barack Obama's naiveté about our adversaries and his retreat from U.S. leadership. The mystery is why Trump is reviving much of this failed grand strategy in his second term," the article concluded."       

CNN: Trump's conflict with Europe is a gift to Putin

From the CNN:

"The widening rift between Trump and Europe is a gift to Putin

Analysis by Nathan Hodge, Dec 9, 2025

US President Donald Trump’s emissaries to the Kremlin may have been spinning their wheels during talks last week in Moscow on a possible Ukraine peace deal, but the Russians can now press a new advantage: The deepening divisions between Washington and Europe.

On Tuesday, Trump doubled down on his administration’s criticism of Europe, saying in a newly published interview with Politico that European nations were “weak” and “decaying” because of their immigration policies.

He also argued that Russia has the “upper hand” in its war on Ukraine and that it was time for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “start accepting things” when it comes to efforts to end the conflict. “He’s going to have to get on the ball and start accepting things, you know, when you’re losing,” Trump said.

The US president’s remarks followed the release last week of a new national security strategy that aimed a broadside at European governments for their support for Ukraine, blaming “European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war” for standing in the way of a peace deal.

“A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes,” the document asserts.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pushed back against that strategy document Tuesday, saying in a news conference that... European nations do not need help from the United States to “save democracy” in Europe.

But the Trump administration’s formulation – casting Europe as an anti-democratic obstacle to stable relations with Russia – has been a godsend for Russian officialdom.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov welcomed the release of the document, saying Sunday that it was “consistent with our vision.”

In remarks Monday, Peskov elaborated further, saying: “The nuance we see in the new concept certainly appeals to us. It speaks of the need for dialogue and building constructive, good relations.”

Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and a key intermediary in the recent diplomatic back-and-forth between Washington and the Kremlin, has also seized on the moment. In a series of posts on X, Dmitriev celebrated Trump’s castigation of European countries, particularly Trump’s warning that “Europe has to be very careful” and that it “is going in some bad directions … very bad for the people.”

Trump’s remarks were in response to a question about X being hit with a $140 million fine by EU regulators Friday for breaching European online content rules. 

Elon Musk, the owner of X, responded with posts calling for the abolition of the EU. But it’s a bit rich for Russian officials to amplify the Trump administration’s accusations of democratic backsliding by Europe: Russian President Vladimir Putin has all but eliminated political competition and erased media freedom over the course of a quarter-century in power. What’s more, Russia effectively blocks access to social media such as Facebook and X, although that doesn’t stop well-connected Russian officials such as Dmitriev from using such tech platforms to broadcast their talking points in English...

We’ve been here before: The fallout in Europe over the release of the Trump administration’s new national security strategy resembles the shock felt by Europeans after US Vice President JD Vance delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February. And the jubilation likely expressed in Moscow over Washington’s put-downs of Europe is reminiscent of the glee over Trump and Vance’s public scolding of Zelensky in the Oval Office later that month.

Zelensky has been making the rounds in Europe this week, conferring with the leaders of Britain, France and Germany in London and meeting officials of NATO and the European Union in Brussels to shore up support for Ukraine. But in parallel, Russian messaging about – and warnings to – Europe have increased in volume.

In an interview on Russian state television, hardline Russian political scientist Sergey Karaganov said Russia was “at war with Europe, not with a miserable, pitiful, misled Ukraine.” 

Karaganov added that he does not speak for Putin, so he can give his unvarnished opinion: “This war will not end until we smash Europe, morally and politically.”

But even if Karaganov was not speaking on behalf of the Russian government, it was clear he is channeling threats made by Putin himself. 

On the eve of his meeting with Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner in Moscow last week, Putin warned that Russia was “ready right now” for war with Europe – even though it’s not planning to start one. 

“We are not planning to go to war with Europe. I have already spoken about this a hundred times, but if Europe suddenly wants to go to war with us and starts, we are ready right now,” he said last Tuesday.

But the audience for that kind of saber-rattling is clear, and the Kremlin wants to make sure that Europeans are rattled by the rhetoric that is shaking trans-Atlantic ties to their foundation."