Trump is OK with Putin bombing US business

From the New Republic / Yahoo!News:

"Russia Bombed a U.S. Factory in Ukraine. Here’s How Trump Responded

Robert McCoy, August 22, 2025

If another country were to bomb an American-owned factory on foreign soil, one might expect—at the very least—harsh condemnation from the sitting U.S. president.

The anticipated response from a president who enjoys a reputation as both a champion of American business and a tough guy on the world stage would be even fiercer.

But President Donald Trump fell far short of such expectations on Friday, when he was asked about Russia’s strike on the Ukrainian branch of the American electronics manufacturer Flex.

The president mustered only five words—and none very forceful.

“I told [Putin], ‘I’m not happy about it,’” the president said, before immediately changing the subject. “I’m not happy about anything having to do with that war.”

Overnight, Russia hit the factory with two missiles, injuring at least 15, according to Ukraine. About 600 workers had reportedly been at work but took cover prior to impact as air raid sirens sounded. An estimated third of the plant burned down, per the Ukrainian military.

In a statement on X, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Russia had “practically burned down an American company producing electronics—home appliances, nothing military. The Russians knew exactly where they lobbed the missiles. We believe this was a deliberate attack against American property and investments in Ukraine.”

Andy Hunter, the president of the Ukrainian affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, described the strike as “not only an attack on Ukraine” but “an attack on American business,” which he said is being “destroy[ed] and humiliat[ed]” by Russia."

Politico: Trump believes Ukraine has to accept a deal on Russia’s terms

From the Politico:

"Russia-Ukraine summit talks become a ‘grind’

By Eli Stokols, Dasha Burns and Felicia Schwartz, 08/22/2025 

...In the West Wing, Trump is expressing confidence to associates that the talks are still on track, according to a White House official, who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. But there is a growing recognition that the talks — which Trump once publicly projected could result in a trilateral summit within a week — are a “grind,” a second White House official said...

The U.S. president, of course, has been negotiating in public for some time. And he remains, according to three people familiar with his thinking, reluctant to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin, convinced he has more leverage over Ukraine and European allies.

“He’s long believed that Russia has the upper hand in the war itself and needs to be coaxed into peace talks,” said one former administration official. “Ukraine, on the other hand, relies heavily on the U.S. for weapons and intelligence. So there are more pressure points to get them to accept a deal.”

That was the meaning behind Trump’s cryptic social media post on Thursday asserting, “It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country … There is no chance of winning!” According to a senior administration official, Trump wasn’t sending a warning to Putin that he’d consider heavily arming Ukraine if peace talks fail but explaining away Ukraine’s lack of leverage in negotiations as his predecessor’s fault.

Former President Joe Biden, whose administration was reluctant to send certain weapons to Ukraine and at times restricted their use, “would not let Ukraine FIGHT BACK, only DEFEND,” Trump wrote in his post. “How did that work out?”

Trump, the senior official continued, believes Ukraine is going to have to accept a deal largely on Russia’s terms to end the war.

In a private comment to French President Emmanuel Macron during Monday’s East Room summit that was picked up by a hot mic, Trump said he thinks Putin “wants to make a deal for me…as crazy as it sounds.” But Putin, who for months has ignored Trump’s push for peace while escalating attacks on Ukrainian civilian populations, has yet to show any sign that the president’s belief in him — and his interest in peace — is justified.

One of Russia’s heaviest bombardments since the war began occurred overnight Thursday with 574 drones hitting targets in western Ukraine, including an American electronics factory..."

 

 

 

 

Time for Trump to stand up to Putin

From the Hill / Yahoo!News:

"Opinion - It’s time Trump told Putin, ‘Nyet!’

Jonathan Sweet and Mark Toth, August 21, 2025

Although it was encouraging on Monday to see President Trump meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shoulder-to-shoulder, alongside key NATO and European Union leaders in the Oval Office, Russian President Vladimir Putin preemptively delivered an answer to them by launching another intentional attack against Ukrainian civilians.

This time it was in Kharkiv.  Seven people were killed including a 15-year-old boy and a one-year-old baby girl.

Putin’s words are fleeting. His actions and that of his regime are what counts. And if we listen to him, he is making it clear that he still intends to get all of Ukraine, one way or the other — either at the negotiating table or on the battlefield.

Team Trump must recognize that Putin is giving them the equivalent of the middle finger. Peace remains elusive in Ukraine. Putin continues to demand total possession of the Russian-occupied territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson while retaining Crimea. Zelensky and his European allies were quick to respond with a hard pass.

Team Trump’s threats of harsh sanctions came and went after his Alaska Summit with Putin failed to produce a ceasefire agreement. Putin laughed off the B-2 bomber flyover and proceeded to plant his flag in Anchorage.

The former KGB foreign intelligence officer masterfully used the summit to bank propaganda wins at home, despite the White House’s best spin efforts. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov set the tone as he arrived in Alaska by wearing a gray sweatshirt emblazoned with “CCCP” — the Russian acronym for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Putin’s assault on the post-World War II order continued the following day when he arrived in the U.S. with an International Criminal Court arrest warrant on his head for war crimes in Ukraine. Yet instead of silver handcuffs, he was greeted with a red-carpet rollout on the tarmac, a limousine ride with Trump and was allowed to place flowers at the headstones of fallen Soviet World War II pilots at Fort Richardson National Cemetery.

Putin appeared to convince Trump — again — that it is Zelensky who does not want peace, because he won’t accept Moscow’s conditions for capitulation. Meanwhile, Putin’s army continues to bomb Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles and drones and his ground forces continue their slow grind of attrition warfare.

Russia keeps attacking — amassing over 1,072,700 casualties in the process. Ukraine keeps defending, and Trump’s frustrations mount. Unlike with the other six peace deals and ceasefires Trump has negotiated, neither Russia nor Ukraine are prepared to concede anything.

Trump is no closer to securing economic deals with Russia; his recourse has been to blame the victim, turning the screws on Zelensky. “President Zelensky of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight,” Trump recently posted. “Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE.”

Monday’s round two summit with Zelensky and the European leaders was by all accounts successful. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni joined Zelensky and the President around the Resolute Desk, which presented a united front to Putin and “yielded material outcomes on security guarantees.”

Yet we have seen this movie before. The promise of a one-on-one meeting that never materializes. The man known as Grandpa in his bunker in Russia ultimately walks back any promise of direct interaction with his nemesis, Zelensky. Putin’s Tuesday invitation to Zelensky to meet him in Moscow was disingenuous, and Ukraine promptly rejected it.

Nonetheless, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated Sunday on ABC News, “You’re not going to end a war between Russia and Ukraine without dealing with Putin.” That is true, but the problem is, no one will say “No” to Putin. The White House has become a Burger King drive-thru for Putin, where the Russian dictator seems to believe he can “have it his way.”

For Putin, peace requires Ukraine to withdraw from the Donbas — including abandoning its invaluable Fortress Belt that has thwarted Russian ground advances since the war began. If it does so, the White House believes Putin would accept a NATO-like Article Five U.S. security guarantees (perhaps watered-down) for Ukraine.

Yet such a peace would be fleeting. Trump’s Special Envoy Steven Witkoff is naively overvaluing Putin’s offer to enshrine “legislative language [in Russia’s constitution] that they would attest to not attempting to take any more land from Ukraine after a peace deal [and] where they would attest to not violate any European borders.”

Ukraine has already seen this one before. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. made security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for it signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The signatories agreed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” Furthermore, they “reaffirm[ed] their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons [would] ever be used against Ukraine.”

The Budapest guarantee failed on Feb. 24, 2022, when Putin invaded Ukraine. [Actually, in 2014 when Putin annexed Crimea and started the war in Donbass - M. M.] Needless to say, Ukraine is once bitten, twice shy. By “security guarantee,” they require a legally binding treaty that specifies ironclad commitments. As NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told Fox News, “All the details have to be hammered out.”

Trump has ruled out sending U.S. troops to Ukraine. The Kremlin rejects the presence of NATO forces on the ground. NATO will not swim in the deep end without the presence of a U.S. lifeguard.

And although Trump has suggested he will consider providing U.S. pilots and warplanes as part of the security guarantees, authorizing them to directly engage Russian aircraft — unless in self-defense — is unlikely.

As optimistic as many want to be about the potential for a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, nothing has changed. Even the most junior of intelligence analysts can see that the Kremlin is just angling for time. It needs time to reset, to gain tactical and strategic advantages, and set the conditions for a final push into Ukraine.

No security guarantee that Russia agrees on will stop its next invasion. Putin cannot and will not accept an independent Ukraine.

The war stops when Putin stops attacking. Getting Putin to that point is the solution. His cost calculus remains undetermined, but it is not measured in human lives.

It is time Trump told Putin “Nyet!”"

Deluded Trump thinks that Putin loves him as much as he loves Putin

From the People / Yahoo!News, Aug. 20:

"...In a whispered conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron at a summit with other European leaders on Aug. 18, the U.S. president seemingly shared that he thinks Russian President Vladimir Putin will agree to end the war in Ukraine in order to hand Trump a victory.

The comment was picked up via hot mic, Fox News reported.

"I think he [Putin] wants to make a deal. I think he wants to make a deal for me, you understand that?" he said. "As crazy as it sounds.""

***

Yes, it sound crazy because it is crazy. 

 

Peace in Ukraine must not be based on the 2022 Istanbul negotiations

From the Institute for the Study of War:

"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, August 21, 2025

The Kremlin continues to insist that the 2022 Istanbul negotiations are the only acceptable departure point for potential future negotiations on the war in Ukraine, thereby demanding that Russia and its allies reserve the right to veto any Western military assistance to Ukraine and that Ukraine be left neutered and defenseless against future Russian aggression. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated during a joint press conference with Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on August 21 that Russia will proceed on the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine based on its experience with the 2015 Minsk II agreement and 2022 Istanbul negotiations.[1] Lavrov claimed that the 2022 Istanbul negotiations were based on the concept of “eliminating the root causes” of the war in Ukraine, referencing the Kremlin’s oft-evoked accusation that the “root causes” of the war include NATO’s eastward expansion and Ukraine’s alleged discrimination against Russian speakers and the Moscow-linked Ukrainian Orthodox Church.[2] Lavrov claimed that the 2022 Istanbul negotiations would have ensured Ukraine’s security “honestly and collectively” via a group of guarantor countries including United Nations Security Council (UNSC) permanent members, Germany, and Turkey. Lavrov similarly stated on August 20 during a meeting with Jordanian officials that Russia was ready to sign on to an agreement based on the 2022 Istanbul negotiations and that those negotiations are a “good example” of a way to negotiate an end to the war.[3]

Lavrov’s recent statements lauding the 2022 Istanbul negotiations suggest that the Kremlin has selected Lavrov to be the predominant amplifier of the longstanding Russian narrative that the Istanbul negotiations are the necessary starting point for negotiations. An agreement based on the 2022 Istanbul negotiations would have crippled Ukraine by permanently banning it from joining NATO, imposing draconian limitations on the size of the Ukrainian military, and prohibiting Ukraine from receiving any Western military assistance.[4] The draft agreement also demanded that Russia and the UNSC, including the People’s Republic of China (PRC, a key Russian ally), be granted the status of guarantor states and that guarantor states must act in concert in the event of a violation of the agreement, which would allow Russia to veto Western military assistance for Ukraine.[5] The draft Istanbul agreement notably imposes no limitations on Russia’s military capabilities—effectively neutering Ukraine politically and militarily while protecting Russia’s ability to reinvade Ukraine in the future on much more favorable terms even than it faced in 2022. The Kremlin likely understands that the 2022 Istanbul framework is a non-starter for Kyiv and therefore continues to invoke it in an effort to paint Ukraine as unwilling to negotiate while Moscow continues to delay good-faith peacemaking efforts.

The Kremlin continues to categorically reject US-backed security guarantees for Ukraine and reveal its continued objectives of seizing control of all of Ukraine. Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev explicitly rejected US- and European-led efforts to provide Ukraine with reliable security guarantees by reiterating on his English-language X (formerly Twitter) account on August 20 that “[Russia has] explicitly stated: No NATO troops as peacekeepers” and that Russia will not accept such a security guarantee.[6] Medvedev claimed that Ukraine does not need such security guarantees, contrary to the Trump administration’s position on Ukraine’s need for robust security guarantees.[7] Russian State Duma Deputy Alexei Zhuravlev claimed on August 21 that Ukraine should emulate Finland’s negotiation model following World War II and become a neutral state and cede part of its territory and that negotiations will be based on battlefield dynamics.[8] State Duma Deputy Dmitry Belik echoed Zhuravlev’s sentiments by claiming that Ukraine’s attempts to alter its own territorial borders ignores the realities on the ground.[9] Kremlin officials often use the idea of “realities on the ground” to claim that Russia is in a superior position on the battlefield and to demand that Ukraine concede to Russia’s demands.[10] Chairperson of the Russian Federation Council Committee on International Affairs Grigory Karasin claimed on August 21 that stakeholders must understand that Russia is concerned about its strategic security vis a vis Europe and NATO and that this raises questions about the overall viability of the entire negotiation process.[11] Several Kremlin officials claimed that Russia is defending new territories that are enshrined in Russia’s Constitution and therefore international recognition of Russia’s annexation is unnecessary, obfuscating the fact that Russia’s occupation and annexation of Crimea and Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts is illegal under international law.[12] Kherson Oblast occupation governor Vladimir Saldo claimed that Donbas and Novorossiya – which Russian officials have defined as all of eastern and southern Ukraine – are original Russian lands and cannot be part of any territorial concession to Ukraine.[13] Russian reserve Colonel Viktor Baranets claimed on August 20 that Russia may allow European peacekeeping troops in Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine ceding all of its southern oblasts, including Odesa, Mykolaiv, and perhaps Kharkiv, to Russia.[14] Russia notably does not occupy any part of Odesa Oblast and occupies slivers of Kharkiv and Mykolaiv oblasts.

Reuters, citing three sources familiar with top-level Kremlin thinking, reported on August 21 that Putin continues to demand that Ukraine cede all of eastern Donbas, renounce ambitions to join NATO, establish itself as a neutral state, and refuse to host Western troops.[15] The sources added that Putin told US officials that he is willing to freeze Russian offensive operations in Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts in exchange, as well as return small, unspecified parts of Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts. The sources reported that Putin continues to demand that NATO fundamentally alter one of its core tenets and commit to a legally binding pledge not to expand eastward, a demand that would require the renegotiation and re-ratification of the NATO treaty by all NATO member states. Lavrov recently stated that the Kremlin’s objective is to politically control all of Ukraine rather than to seize select Ukrainian territories such as Donetsk Oblast, further demonstrating that Russia remains unwilling to accept any agreement that falls short of Ukraine’s full capitulation.[16] US President Donald Trump and US Vice President JD Vance have recently expressed the United States’ willingness to contribute to the safeguarding of measures to prevent Russia from resuming its war in Ukraine.[17]

Russia is expending considerable diplomatic effort to court India, suggesting that the Kremlin continues to fear the impact of secondary sanctions. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on August 21 to discuss Russian-Indian relations and expanding economic investment in energy, including the oil supply, hydrocarbons, and nuclear energy.[18] Russian Deputy Energy Minister Roman Marshavin met with Indian Deputy Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas Pankaj Jain on August 20 to discuss expanding cooperation in the energy trade.[19] Lavrov held a joint conference with Jaishankar after the meeting and announced that Putin would likely visit India before the end of 2025, and Jaishankar stated that India ”believe[s] that relations between India and Russia have been among the steadiest of the major relationships in the world after the Second World War.”[20] Putin and other high-ranking Russian officials are spending considerable amounts of time and energy to stabilize and strengthen relationships with India, indicating that Russia views India as a critical source of revenue. ISW continues to assess that secondary sanctions will likely further impact the Russian economy by undercutting Russian oil revenues, which are essential for the Kremlin’s financing of its war against Ukraine.[21] Intensive Russian outreach to India suggests that Moscow is attempting to ensure that New Delhi does not curtail energy purchases from Russia because of these potential secondary sanctions.

Russia launched the third largest strike of the war thus far against Ukraine on the night of August 20 to 21, targeting Western regions of Ukraine and causing significant damage to civilian infrastructure. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that overnight, Russian forces launched 574 Shahed-type and decoy drones from over Kursk, Oryol, and Bryansk cities, Millerovo, Rostov Oblast, Shatalovo, Smolensk Oblast, Primorsko Akhtarsk, Krasnodar Krai, and occupied Hvardiiske, Crimea; four Kh-47 Kinzhal aeroballistic missiles from over Lipetsk and Voronezh oblasts; two Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles from over Voronezh Oblast; 19 Kh-101 cruise missiles from over Saratov Oblast; 14 Kalibr cruise missiles from over the Black Sea; and one unidentified missile from over occupied Crimea.[22] Ukrainian forces reportedly downed 546 drones, one Kh-47 Kinzhal aeroballistic missile, 18 Kh-101 cruise missiles, and 12 Kalibr cruise missiles.[23] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that drones and missiles struck 11 locations throughout Ukraine.[24] Ukrainian officials reported that Russian drones and missiles struck infrastructure in Lviv City; Lutsk, Volyn Oblast; Rivne Oblast; and Zakarpattia Oblast, causing civilian injuries and deaths.[25] Russia’s August 20-21 strike notably targeted several areas in Ukraine’s far-western oblasts that border Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland. Russia launched a cruise missile at Mukachevo, Zakarpattia Oblast, striking the “Flex” US electronics manufacturing company and causing a massive fire and injuring at least 19 employees.[26] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that “Flex” was a US-owned civilian enterprise that manufactured household goods such as coffee machines.[27] Russia likely struck the “Flex” enterprise to discourage the United States and Ukraine’s European allies from investing in Ukraine or opening businesses within Ukraine.

Russia likely prepared for this strike for several weeks, stockpiling drones and missiles over the backdrop of ongoing US-Russian negotiations and the August 15 Alaska summit.[28] ISW observed that Russia was launching much smaller strike packages in the weeks leading up to the Alaska summit in order to posture itself to the United States as a good-faith negotiator, and assessed that Russia was likely to leverage the smaller-scale strikes to stockpile drones and missiles for renewed massive strikes on Ukraine following the summit.[29] The size and composition of the August 20-21 strike package suggest that Russia successfully stockpiled significant numbers of both drones and missiles in the lead-up to the Alaska summit. Russian forces most recently launched Kalibr cruise missiles on July 21 and Kinzhals on August 4, suggesting that efforts to stockpile these munitions allowed Russia to use them in greater quantities during the August 20-21 strike series.[30]"

 

 

Trump's peace initiatives do not stop North Korean missiles falling over Ukraine

Ukrainian writer Yan Valetov in the Obozrevatel, Aug. 21:

"Trump's peace initiatives: No matter what Washington decides, North Korean shells and missiles are falling on our heads

I envy those who believe in the reality of Trump's peace initiatives. 

The goal of achieving peace is noble, no doubt. But trying to stop a freight train hurtling full speed by stepping onto the tracks in front of a diesel locomotive, frankly, is a rather poor tactic. Especially since we're the ones being allowed onto the tracks. And they're watching from the sidelines.

Russia used war to rev up the economy. Yes, it's Keynesian economics, so what? It works. And the idea that guns can't be spread on bread is the wisdom of the coming years. For now, everything is working and rolling along. The regime is growing fat on blood, and attempts to open its veins with the lancet of sanctions are highly questionable in their effectiveness.

Does anyone see any reason for Putin not to fight anymore? Does he feel sorry for his dead? Don't be ridiculous! She drowned... and a crooked grin on her worm-thin lips... [This is a hint at Putin's reaction to the demise of the Russia submarine Kursk - M. M.]   

He doesn't feel sorry for anyone. The more people die, the less trouble he'll have with the population. 

Will he be afraid of Trump? Really? Why would he be afraid? He has thousands of warheads! Why do we need a world without Russia? Into nuclear ashes! 

Do you think it's customary to keep one's word? 

What words and agreements haven't we had since 1991? What other memoranda were we missing? We were guaranteed inviolability, inviolability, recognition of borders, and eternal friendship. By all participants in the ballet, on all sides. Some guarantors tore us apart, while others pretended they weren't even there. Normal international practice. It's a shame we've forgotten about this. 

The best guarantee of peace and mutual respect is a couple of thousand tactical missiles with nuclear warheads between the parties that intend to respect each other. Otherwise... the results are obvious."

What "guarantees" for Ukraine Russia can agree to

From the Institute for the Study of War:

"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, August 20, 2025

The Kremlin is demanding that Russia have a veto over any Western security guarantees for Ukraine in an effort to undermine ongoing US, European, and Ukrainian efforts to establish conditions for lasting peace in Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on August 20 that any serious discussions on Western security guarantees for Ukraine without Russian input are a “road to nowhere” and that Russia “cannot agree” that now-proposed “collective security issues” can be resolved without Russia, effectively demanding a Russian veto over Western security guarantees for Ukraine.[1] Lavrov also threatened that Russia will take “firm and harsh” action to ensure that Russia’s “legitimate interests” are a part of any postwar security arrangement for Ukraine. 

The Kremlin is likely trying to inject its demands into the ongoing US, European, and Ukrainian joint effort to create a security structure that will serve as a safeguard against a future Russian re-invasion in the event of a peace settlement.[2] Granting Russia veto power over Western security guarantees would enable the Kremlin to dictate conditions that will weaken Ukraine’s ability to resist another Russian invasion by preventing Ukraine from forming binding bilateral or multilateral security agreements such as are now being discussed, increasing and modernizing its military, and receiving support from Ukraine’s partners. Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova recently said that Russia could not tolerate the presence of troops from NATO member states in Ukraine as part of any security guarantees.[3]

European leaders recently released a joint statement reaffirming that no peace agreement should place limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries nor can Russia have veto power over Ukraine’s pathway to joining the European Union (EU) or NATO.[4] European Commission Vice President Kaja Kallas stated on August 19 that Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot be trusted to honor any promises or commitments to permanently cease military activity against Ukraine and that any security guarantees must be robust and credible to deter the Russian military command does not re-group and launch a future invasion of Ukraine.

The Kremlin appears to be demanding that any security guarantees be based on those proposed in the Istanbul 2022 framework, which would grant Russia and its allies the right to veto Western military assistance to Ukraine and leave Ukraine helpless in the face of future Russian threats. Lavrov stated on August 20 that Russia is in favor of collective security guarantees that are “truly reliable” and that a good example of such guarantees was evident in the 2022 Istanbul Ukraine-Russia negotiations, which would have permanently prohibited Ukraine from joining NATO, imposed limitations on the Ukrainian military, and banned Ukraine from receiving Western military assistance without any imposing restrictions on the size or capability of Russian forces.[5] The security guarantees proposed in the draft 2022 Istanbul Protocol treated Russia as a neutral security “guarantor state” of Ukraine along with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, failing to identify Russia as a belligerent in the war. The outlined security guarantees would give China and Russia veto power over any action the guarantors could take in response to a renewed Russian attack by granting the UN Security Council the authority to take “measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”[6] Such “security guarantees” would allow the Kremlin and its allies to dictate the means and tools that Ukraine could use to defend itself against Russia and restrict the ability of other guarantor states to come to Ukraine’s assistance."

 

Why Ukraine must not retreat from any territory it holds

Translating from the Dialog, Aug. 20:

"Lapin warned that the next battle would be for Poltava, Dnieper, and Kyiv if Ukraine made a fatal mistake 

Igor Lapin expressed outrage at Putin's attempts to outsmart everyone by taking our territories without a fight 

Igor Lapin expressed outrage at Russia's demands for the so-called territorial exchange: "I'm afraid I'm getting the numbers wrong. Let's say they're missing one and a half times more in Donbas than they can give us back in Sumy and Kharkiv. I'm saying this so as not to get too hung up on the number of kilometers. Now, frankly, what's the point of the exchange? Will they give us Belgorod Oblast? We give something from Ukraine, and we get something from Russia, or not? The word 'exchange' isn't appropriate here. I can't even understand who first started using that word, or when."...

A Ukrainian Armed Forces major expressed his opinion on the situation: "This isn't a territorial exchange—it's the additional seizure of additional territory, and in more advantageous positions. Remember the withdrawal of troops near Stanytsia Luhanska? I looked at the map of the fighting (I fought there, I liberated all of that in 2014) and said, 'It feels like they're deliberately wanting to maintain these positions now, to have a springboard for further offensive development.'"

"They told me, 'Lapin, what offensive? We're withdrawing our troops. Everything will be fine. No one will attack us because we have guarantees.' What guarantees? It was precisely this withdrawal of troops during a full-scale invasion that played a very cruel joke on Ukraine. The Russians rushed forward so fast, took off so fast, that we didn't even have time to blow up the bridge, which was actually several dozen kilometers away," the experienced soldier recalled.

"When the Russians want this fortress belt today, they don't just want the cities of Kramatorsk, Slavyansk, Konstantinovka, and so on. They also want a place to live, sleep, spend the winter, and prosper, while we have to retreat to the fields. The next battle will probably be for Poltava, the Dnieper, and Kyiv... We absolutely must not do this," Igor Lapin warned Ukrainians of the new danger."    

Russian propaganda film exposes Russian war crimes

From the Militarnyi, Aug. 20:

"Russians Expose Their Own War Crimes in Propaganda Film About Mariupol

Russian propagandists produced a film about the assault on Mariupol, in which they effectively documented war crimes committed by Russian soldiers.

Journalist Denys Kazanskyi drew attention to this.

The film, titled “At the Edge of the Abyss”, shows deliberate attacks on civilians.

In particular, one scene shows Russian soldiers firing on a civilian vehicle carrying elderly Ukrainians and children.

“I’ve long said that no anti-Russian propaganda is needed. No one can produce such Russophobia as the Russians themselves,” Kazanskyi commented.

On April 20th, it was reported that the Russian Uralvagonzavod had sent what was likely the only T-72B3M tank equipped with the Arena-M active protection system to take part in the filming of a propaganda movie.

This very tank, with its improvised ‘grill’ armor removed, was used in the filming taking place in temporarily occupied Mariupol.