The pig in the mud is saying, "Traitor...".
(Source)
Saturday, April 04, 2026
Russia and the USA pressure Ukraine together to cede land so that they would guarantee its territorial integrity once again
Ukrainian diplomat Valeriy Chaly in a Dec 27, 2025 interview to the Obozrevatel:
"Putin has a strong desire to demonstrate aggression. And, in my opinion, we see all the signs that China supports this intention to demonstrate Europe's weakness and subordination.
This now coincides with the Trump administration's desires: to subjugate the Europeans, to make them more "comfortable." The goal is to dominate trade issues in order to gain an advantage in these negotiations.
Things are shaping up so that China and America are at the table, and Russia wants to join them, although it has no other reason than two factors: nuclear weapons and the war in Ukraine. For Putin, war is a tool for maintaining his power in Russia and bargaining on the geopolitical stage; he still hopes to gain a foothold there. Furthermore, he's trying to keep the empire from completely disintegrating. I believe the collapse of the Soviet empire is still underway. The Soviet Union hasn't quite collapsed yet. There are still many republics in Russia that are looking for an exit, having failed to do so in 1991...
It is important that Ukrainian negotiators do not make the mistakes of Budapest, according to which nuclear disarmament actually took place.
The first point [in the current negotiations] was a ceasefire. That was Trump's position, and he pressured Zelensky. The Ukrainian president said it wasn't acceptable. Then we agreed. [Then Putin didn't want.] "While you're busy implementing peace agreements in parliament, I'll be fighting," says Russia. "And the longer you delay, the more I'll destroy you."
Now Russia and the United States are putting pressure on us together. For what purpose? So that we'll trade our unoccupied territories for guarantees of territorial integrity. It's no surprise that the countries that guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity are now forcing Ukraine to give up more territory in order to guarantee its territorial integrity again. This is nonsense...
This is a manifestation of the weakness of Ukraine's negotiating position, and they are pressuring us in the same way as they did to achieve Ukraine's nuclear disarmament: the US is acting together with Russia...
The American president says he's ready to provide a security guarantee at the level of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. That's one sentence. The second sentence: I'm against your membership in NATO... The third sentence: I want European countries to take responsibility for Ukraine and pay for it. Where's the logic? If you want security for Ukraine, why can't Ukraine immediately be a member of the Alliance, and America not take on some of the responsibility? There's no logic, it doesn't add up. And why? One of the statements is wrong. Which one? I think it's that America is ready to provide security guarantees.
The current negotiating track is a false start. Especially since we're now, it seems to me, at almost the highest point of escalation in the war on the ground: Ukraine is at its lowest point since 2022, and Russia is at its highest. Smart people don't negotiate under these conditions, and we're being pressured. However, there will be a window of opportunity, and it will open next year, when Ukraine's position will be stronger than it is today."
Released Israeli hostage tells horror stories about Palestinian rapists and murderers
From Novaya Gazeta Europe:
"Eli's Second Life
The story of an Israeli hostage who, on the day of his return from captivity, learned that his family had been murdered, survived hell, but found the strength to move on.
December 25, 2025 Mira Livadina
2025 was a difficult year for Israel. But still, it was a big positive. The war ended. The remaining hostages were returned alive. The bodies of almost all those killed were returned. Behind each return were human destinies, unfulfilled plans and dreams. And often, upon returning, the survivors learned the most terrible thing—that their families were no longer there. This happened to Yarden Bibas, the father of the little redheads. This happened to Eli Sharabi, who at first couldn't understand why his wife and two daughters didn't meet him from captivity. This happened to dozens of others. People who had survived two years in the tunnels of Gaza, hoping to be reunited with their loved ones, found themselves in an abyss—with all meaning completely lost. And this is the tragedy that Israel is left alone to face.
But even amidst immense grief and an ocean of despair, life cautiously triumphs over death. Not immediately—over time, through pain and emptiness. It brings miracles and hope, seemingly lost forever. "The melancholy grows stronger," wrote Elie Sharabi. "However, since my release, I choose every morning filled with life, action, and hope. We have suffered enough; we deserve a different reality. We want to begin healing."
The New Year is the perfect time to tell a story of renewed hope. This is the story of Eli Sharabi, who was able to start a new life.
"There are no children left in Be'eri..."
The action takes place on Kibbutz Be'eri in southern Israel, a model of the Soviet collective farms. It was founded by young Jewish workers in 1946, two years before Israel declared independence. All the wars with its neighbors ricocheted on the small kibbutz. Be'eri, although suffering from frequent gunfire, survived. This continued for almost 80 years—until October 7, 2023.
At that time, the kibbutz had a population of just over a thousand. On October 7, more than a hundred people—one in nine residents—were brutally murdered in Be'eri. Women and men, the elderly and children, infants.
After the Be'eri massacre and the subsequent accusations of starting the war in Gaza, a sad phrase spread throughout Israel: "There's no water to wash children in Gaza. And in Be'eri, there are no more children to wash."
Eli Sharabi arrived at Kibbutz Be'eri at the age of 14, in 1986. He was born in Tel Aviv, to Jews returned from Yemen and Morocco. But when he became a teenager, his parents decided to send him and his older brother, Yossi, to study at the kibbutz, which also provided them with housing and food...
In Be'eri, Eli finished school and went into the army. After serving, he returned to the kibbutz. It was there, in 1995, that he met the love of his life. Her name was Lian Brisley, a beautiful 20-year-old British volunteer who had come to the kibbutz with a large group of young people from England. They fell in love instantly. After five years of an emotionally charged, on-again, off-again relationship, they married in the bride's hometown of Bristol, England. But the newlyweds decided to live in Be'eri, the town that had brought them together. There, in the following years, the couple had two daughters: Noya (in 2007) and Yael (in 2010).
After the army, Eli earned a first and then a second degree in economics from Be'er Sheva University. He achieved success on the kibbutz: first as treasurer, then as manager of the entire kibbutz economy. The girls grew up and went to school. Eli and his wife worked, traveled the world, celebrated holidays with the entire kibbutz, thought about their daughters' future education, and made plans. This was life before.
Arabic Lessons
At 6:29 a.m. on October 7, 2023, it shattered into pieces. Eli's family, like everyone else in the country, heard an alarm, followed by the sound of rockets. News of terrorists infiltrating the country spread instantly. Panic, confusion over the scale of the incident, the lack of details, and most importantly, the absence of an army, caused panic among residents of border kibbutzim and towns. The Sharabis decided not to resist or hide in a secure room. Around 10 a.m., about a dozen Hamas militants burst into their home. Lian showed the terrorists her British passport, hoping that her British citizenship would save her and her children. The militants grabbed her husband and took him away.
Eli remembered the last look his girls gave him as he was led away—their eyes were filled with terror. He only managed to shout to his wife and daughters: "No matter what they do to me, I'll come back!" For some reason, he was certain the women wouldn't be touched.
That Hamas only wanted men. But Eli would only learn all the details two years later.
As soon as the car carrying Eli and the other hostages drove away, the terrorists shot 48-year-old Lian, 13-year-old Yael, and 16-year-old Noya right there in their home. The British passport Lian showed the terrorists was of no help.
Eli's brother, Yossi Sharabi, was also taken to Gaza. He would be killed in captivity. But Eli would only learn of this two years later. The brothers were kept separate and were given no news.
As Eli Sharabi was being transported to Gaza, he heard a Hamas battalion commander say over the radio: no more Israeli women and children were to be brought into the Strip; they had no vehicles left to transport them, no places to hold them. Only men under 40 were to be taken. The rest were to be killed on sight.
He remembers how, upon arriving in Gaza, he and other Be'eri residents were led blindfolded to a mosque. Then they removed the blindfolds, forced them to strip down to their underwear, and one of the militants began interrogating them in Arabic. A specially hired man was assigned to translate the hostages' questions into Hebrew. When Eli began answering in Arabic, the terrorists hesitated. They suspected he was an Israeli counterintelligence agent. No, he wasn't. He was from a kibbutz on the southern border, where many had been friends for years with Arabs from neighboring Arab villages. His eldest daughter, Noya, was learning Arabic in school, and Eli often had to help her with her homework.
Eli Sharabi was one of the few hostages who understood what his captors were saying to each other. Sometimes, they weren't even aware that they were being understood. In his book, "Hostage," Sharabi recounts these everyday conversations: how they wanted to wipe Israel and all Jews off the face of the earth. Eli recalled that the militants would often play videos of the October 7 killings on television and proudly tell each other how many Jews each of them had killed and how many women and children they had raped..."
How Putin manipulates Trump
From UNIAN:
"Putin is using KGB neurolinguistic technologies to influence Trump, says General
Yuri Kobzar, 26.12.25
After talking with Putin, Trump experiences a complete switch in consciousness and begins to do the opposite of what he was doing before the conversation.
Russian intelligence agencies systematically employ psychological and neurolinguistic methods of influencing Western leaders, developed back in the days of the KGB. This allows them to influence, in particular, the behavior of US President Donald Trump. This was stated by Ukrainian Army General and former head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine Mykola Malomuzh in a comment to Kyiv24.
According to him, Putin's team is deliberately using Soviet practices during negotiations with Trump, modeling his behavior and adjusting his decisions. To do this, they first study the target's psychological profile, from their complete biography to their various phobias. Then, the Russians press on these "pain points," Malomuzh says.
"After our influence, when he (Trump) vowed support for Ukraine at the UN General Assembly with Zelenskyy and said he would provide all types of weapons, even Tomahawks, Putin spoke with Trump literally two days later, and he sided with Putin. That's the real influence of the intelligence services," the general cites as an example.
UNIAN previously reported how Putin effectively appointed Stephen Witkoff as Trump's top diplomat. Initially, after Trump's return to the White House, Witkoff was appointed special envoy to the Middle East, while Keith Kellogg was supposed to handle Russian-Ukrainian affairs. However, the Kremlin quickly reversed the roles: Kellogg was sidelined, and Witkoff focused on negotiations with Russia. This occurred against the backdrop of the collapse of the traditional American diplomatic system, which Trump distrusts.
Negotiations to transfer Witkoff to the "Ukrainian track" were conducted through Saudi Arabia with the participation of Kirill Dmitriev, and the release of American Mark Fogel from a Russian prison provided additional incentive. Putin attempted to shape Witkoff's favorable perception of Russia during personal meetings, after which Witkoff repeatedly echoed Russian narratives."
Sunday, March 29, 2026
Ukrainian Army officer: the USA becomes good for nothing
(Read also the previous interview with Merezhko.)
From UNIAN:
"In a ground war, the Americans would be destroyed in three seconds. They have nothing to fight the Russians with, says Igor Lutsenko
Tanya Polyakovskaya, 12/25/25
Discussions are currently underway on the basic document presented by Zelenskyy to end the war – a 20-point peace plan developed jointly by Ukraine and the United States. One of the points concerns the territorial issue, and several possible solutions are currently available. Deputy Commander of the Third Army Corps Maksym Zhorin emphasized that any attempts or even talk of officially transferring any part of Ukrainian territory to Russia are unacceptable. UNIAN spoke about this document with Igor Lutsenko, commander of the drone units and founder of the Aerial Reconnaissance Support Center.
- Doesn't the clause in the plan stating that if Ukraine invades Russia or opens fire on Russian territory without provocation, security guarantees will be considered null and void, while at the same time, if Russia opens fire on Ukraine, the security guarantees will come into effect, open up a wide field for manipulation and provocation?
Absolutely. We've already seen this with many documents that were supposed to be security guarantees but didn't work. Guarantees that rely on arbitrary interpretations can in no way be effective. Only the presence of troops or weapons can serve as guarantees.
I have a question: if something happens and guarantees need to be invoked, what will be invoked? Financial supplies? Will they send us some Abrams? The Abrams won't help us anymore, nothing will. Therefore, we need to have the entire infrastructure ready for defense or attack. And that's a guarantee. We see how much they deceive, how much they manipulate. I'm talking about the Trumpists and so on. They transfer nuclear weapons to us – okay, that's a guarantee, we launch them or don't launch them with America's permission. That's normal. Otherwise, nothing will work.
- Zelenskyy stated that the United States wants "compensation for security guarantees," but he himself said that Ukraine doesn't understand what that means. What exactly could the US want?
Money, profit. The current American administration doesn't believe that the destruction of Europe is a risk worth countering, investing in to prevent it. You just need to read Dugin and his plans: "We'll kill everyone," "We'll destroy Europe," and so on. They think they need to make money from this. They'll get their answer very quickly. But paid guarantees—let them find a price. Why guarantees? We'll just take more guarantees from them next time. That's how it works, right?
- And how realistic is an $800 billion investment fund?
I don't know where such funds would come from. You could even name the figure of $800 trillion. We're just taking the real deal, considering how much someone is willing to invest, and so on. These are all attempts to profit from brokerage. But there's no room for profit from brokerage, since Russia's position is very clear: "We have a Constitution, we have regions incorporated into Russia, Ukraine must leave." Until we leave, all this talk means nothing. Russia has never made its position clear, other than this.
- The US plan is that the US will somehow pressure Europe to lift sanctions against Russia, and similarly pressure Europe to accept Ukraine into the EU. How realistic is this, given the deterioration in US-EU relations over the past year?
Relations will deteriorate further. Because the US, under any administration—this is an obvious process—will continue to withdraw its troops from Europe, because that country is simply becoming incapable of anything. It still has some weapons, some financial resources, but they will leave Europe because they have nothing left to sustain themselves.
There's a ground war going on right now; the Americans would be destroyed in three seconds. They have nothing with which to fight the Russians. They understand this, and so they will simply leave.
- Zelenskyy said the referendum requires a 60-day ceasefire, otherwise it won't happen. Will Putin agree to such a step?
This means there will be no referendum. This is a very good move on Zelenskyy's part. Obviously, in order to conduct any ballot box operations, we need to stop bullets from flying, Shahids from flying, and so on. Of course, Putin won't agree to that.
I don't understand at all what the Americans are counting on. Did anyone ever tell them they'd stop? No one did. Right now, Putin and company are optimistic about military action. They'll continue, they believe they'll win the war, that they have the advantage on the battlefield. And so they'll continue fighting. How many times has he taken Kupyansk already? He's doing just fine. Whether he's nuts or not is a different matter, but the fact is, he has no intention of stopping. And he has no legal, political, or military grounds for stopping.
- And in this plan, there's a clause that both countries commit to implementing educational programs in schools. It's about promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice.
I can't imagine Russia changing anything in its programs. That's unrealistic for some parts of Russia. I think this clause is aimed at a domestic American agenda. It's meant to show that the Ukrainians tried, were willing to make some culturally anti-Russian compromises, but it didn't work out. I think this clause is simply trolling.
Russia went to this war to restore its power. How can they allow, in this context, the rewriting of some textbooks in Russia? On the contrary, they went to this war to prescribe whatever they wanted in everyone's textbooks.
- What's the next step? Will there be any agreement on a plan anytime soon?
There will be no cessation of hostilities; fighting will continue. This is the starting point. Everything else follows from this fundamental fact: as long as Russia can feel it can advance.
Everything now points to it gaining a better position, meaning expanding territory and increasing the damage to Ukraine. I'm currently looking at how they're programming their "Shahed" strikes—to destroy industrial capacity, civilians. In other words, they're determined to work toward destroying Ukraine's economic potential over the next few years. Because funding for Ukraine will be increasingly scarce, they need to destroy the Ukrainian economy so that Ukrainians can't provide for themselves. That's their long-term plan.
All these plans are simply window dressing by the American administration, promising bribes like "we'll give you 100 billion." Their plan doesn't provide for an end to hostilities, so, accordingly, there will be no referendums."
Putin talked that Ukraine is / must be part of Russia as early as 2001
From UNIAN:
"Putin claimed "rights to Ukraine" 20 years ago: The US declassified his conversation with Bush
Bogdan Frolov, 25.12.25
The US National Security Archive has released a transcript of a 2001 meeting.
Even in the early years of his presidency, Kremlin dictator Vladimir Putin claimed that Ukraine was part of Russia, surrendered by the Soviet Union's party leaders. This is evidenced by a transcript of a conversation between him and 43rd President of the United States George W. Bush, published by the US National Security Archive."
Here is the quote:
"Putin prefers to talk about the need to combat terrorism and security threats. He is assertive and dominates the conversation, deflecting Bush’s question on press restrictions. He gives Bush a brief history lecture on (his interpretation) of the breakup of the Soviet Union: “What really happened? Soviet good will changed the world, voluntarily. And Russians gave up thousands of square kilometers of territory, voluntarily. Unheard of. Ukraine, part of Russia for centuries, given away. Kazakhstan, given away. The Caucasus, too. Hard to imagine, and done by party bosses.” Putin raises a question of Russian NATO membership and says Russia feels “left out.”"
Here is how Heorhii Tykhyi from the Ukrainian foreign ministry comments on X:
Putin denied Ukraine’s right to exist in 2001.
21 years before full-scale invasion and 13 years before the Revolution of Dignity, which he often blames as the “root cause” for the war.
The root cause has always been and remains the imperial tumor in his and other Russian heads."
Saturday, March 28, 2026
China reportedly helps Russian bombings with satellite data
From Ukrinform:
"Chinese satellite imaging of Ukraine links with Russian strikes on energy facilities - Zelensky
President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that a link
has been observed between Chinese satellites imaging Ukrainian
territory and Russian strikes on energy infrastructure facilities.
Zelensky reported this on Telegram following a briefing by Oleh Ivashchenko, head of Ukraine’s Foreign Intelligence Service, Ukrinform reports.
"In particular, we are recording increased ties between Russia and entities in China that may be providing space-based intelligence data. Unfortunately, there have been correlations between Chinese satellite imaging of Ukrainian territory and Russian strikes on the corresponding energy infrastructure facilities," Zelensky said.
He noted that he views such cases as activities that enable Russia to prolong the war..."
Degenerate Hunter Biden badmouths his victim Ukraine
From the New York Post:
"Hunter Biden blames ‘distasteful’ Obama team for his foreign influence peddling — including ‘viper’s den’ of Ukraine
Ukrainian lawmaker: Putin will accept no peace plan that would prevent the destruction of Ukraine
From UNIAN:
"Putin will not be satisfied with any peace plan that prevents him from destroying Ukraine, says Merezhko
Tanya Polyakovskaya, December 24, 2025
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy outlined the 20-point peace plan that Ukraine developed jointly with the United States... UNIAN spoke about this plan with Oleksandr Merezhko, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Foreign Policy and Interparliamentary Cooperation.
- Does the "framework" plan, as outlined by Zelenskyy, have a chance of being adopted in Russia? What points will Putin definitely disagree with?
Absolutely not. The fact is that they (Russia, - ed.) stupidly and stubbornly repeat their demands, which, in essence, amount to Ukraine's capitulation. That is, they demand, first of all, the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donetsk region. Recently, they've even started hinting at a "Novorossiya." This means their appetites could expand, and, accordingly, their demands.
Secondly, they demand a "neutral status for Ukraine," which is unacceptable to us. It's impossible, both legally and politically, from the standpoint of the state's survival—giving up the prospect of NATO membership.
Thirdly, restrictions on our armed forces, so-called demilitarization, or holding elections, for example. Some of Russia's demands are aimed at weakening our defenses as much as possible, so that they can be seized in the future. Others are aimed at destroying us from within.
In other words, all their demands have one goal: to destroy Ukraine, to subjugate and destroy Ukrainian statehood. And we must understand that everything else is just words, a political game. Putin has not abandoned this primary goal: the destruction of Ukraine.
Therefore, he will not be satisfied with any option, any plan that does not give him the opportunity to destroy us. This must be understood very clearly. Of course, we must negotiate so that Trump sees that we are committed to peace, that the issue is not about us. This is to prevent Putin from shifting responsibility onto us, as he is trying to do through Vitkoff.
Now the project will be presented to Russia. Putin won't even read it. He will repeat: "It's not a bad plan, but fulfill our demands." He formulated what he demands from the West: "We need to be respected, our interests." What are they? Very simple ones: a sphere of influence. "Give us Ukraine, our sphere of influence. Stop supporting Ukraine so that we can destroy its statehood." This is Putin's main demand. He is not refusing and is unlikely to refuse. Only when the pressure is so great that he has no other choice. Therefore, the plan is correct, but we should not expect it to produce results.
- Doesn't the clause: "If Ukraine invades Russia or opens fire on Russian territory without provocation, security guarantees will be considered null and void. If Russia opens fire on Ukraine, security guarantees will come into effect" open wide scope for manipulation and provocation?
Of course. We remember the Minsk agreements. There were constant provocations, the Russians were constantly shelling us. They will continue to do so; let's have no illusions.
What are security guarantees?
When you read this draft, you see that there are only abstract formulations, from which it's unclear what exactly is meant by a security guarantee.
The only thing that can guarantee security is something that will deter Putin. And what can deter him? Only Ukraine's membership in NATO. Kissinger said that Ukraine absolutely must become a NATO member, but only within the territories currently under NATO control. Kissinger believed that this would guarantee that Ukraine would not begin to liberate these territories by armed force without NATO's consent. That was his plan. It's a highly questionable plan, of course. But at least Kissinger understood that this was the only guarantee of security for Ukraine, even though he was not at all favorable to Ukraine.
- Zelenskyy stated that the US wants "compensation for security guarantees," but Zelenskyy himself said Ukraine doesn't understand what that means. What exactly could the US want?
First, tell us, what exactly do you mean by security guarantees? If you're against NATO for Ukraine, then give us the security guarantees you gave to Japan and South Korea: a reciprocal bilateral security agreement that clearly states that if Russia attacks Ukraine, the United States will consider it an attack on itself. With corresponding consequences involving the use of armed force. Then I understand. This isn't NATO, but at least let's talk about it. Accordingly, if you agree to this, then it makes sense to discuss the economic aspects.
- And how realistic is an $800 billion investment fund?
We've already signed the Minerals Agreement. It talks about creating such a fund through the extraction of minerals and rare earth metals. But to develop and extract all this, we need peaceful conditions. Because business is unlikely to operate under fire or in occupied territory. So let's first have peace and guarantees, and then start extracting.
- The US plan suggests that the United States will somehow pressure Europe to lift sanctions against Russia, and similarly pressure Europe to admit Ukraine to the European Union. How realistic is this, given the deterioration in US-EU relations over the past year?
The US cannot force Europe to make such decisions. Europe and the EU have their own procedures, and they decide. Trump doesn't understand how EU law operates, how the procedural issues of joining the EU and EU membership work. This is a naive view. Every EU member state must express its consent. This is a rather complex process. There are key states that support Ukraine's membership in the EU, but the United States cannot tell Germany, "Do it." That could be counterproductive. The populations of these countries may not accept attempts to dictate this to them. I would respect the sovereignty of every country that is a member of the European Union. The United States cannot guarantee that Ukraine will become an EU member tomorrow, or next year, or the year after that. That depends on the EU, on its member states...
- What, in your opinion, could be the most problematic aspect of all this, and what could provoke rejection and resistance from society and the military?
There are "red lines." First, the limitation of state sovereignty. It is unacceptable for someone to dictate to us whether or not to join another international organization: NATO or any other. We are not dictating Russia's withdrawal from the CSTO. Then there is the issue of territorial concessions, that is, the violation of territorial integrity. This is absolutely unacceptable. In any form. For Ukrainian society, parliament, and the president.
Limiting the size of the army. There's a very simple principle underlying international law: the sovereign equality of states. So, if someone raises the question that Ukraine, the victim of aggression, should limit its defense, then the question arises: why doesn't the the perpetrator of aggression do the same?"
Kasparov: No hope for peace in Europe because Putin cannot bring his army home
From the Dialog, Dec 23, 2025:
"Kasparov voiced the only way to end the war: "Putin understands well..."
Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov stated that the Ukrainians can only end the war by military means.
There is no diplomatic way to end the war in Ukraine, so peace talks will lead nowhere, Garry Kasparov said. He also emphasized that next year could prove decisive in many ways, as the strategic picture will finally take shape.
Kasparov expressed his views on peace talks on the Delfi Lithuania YouTube show.
"Life makes its own adjustments. The war continues because for Putin, war has become a way to maintain power. Even in the highly unlikely scenario of a pause in Ukraine (I believe the likelihood of this is close to zero), Putin's army, which numbers almost 1 million people, will go elsewhere precisely because under no circumstances will this million, I believe, deranged people ready to kill, be returned to Russia," the opposition politician opined.
Kasparov also pointed out an important nuance: "The return of these people to Russia will create a situation in which the emergence of a new Prigozhin will only be a matter of time, and Putin understands this well. Therefore, the war will continue in all its forms (both hybrid and real on the ground). 2026, in my opinion, will truly be a turning point, because this is the year when the strategic picture must be determined. There is no other option for ending the war other than the defeat of Putin's military machine. Everything else is just wishful thinking or attempts to profit from it, either politically or financially.""
The USA wanted to be paid in order to offer Ukraine security guarantees
From UNIAN:
"The US wanted compensation for security guarantees for Ukraine, says Zelenskyy
Nikita Shenderovsky, 24.12.25
The US plan to end the war in Ukraine included a clause compensating Washington for providing Kyiv with security guarantees, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters.
"It stated here: the US will receive compensation for security guarantees. We simply don't understand what that means, and we're raising this issue. Now it's been deleted," Zelenskyy said."
Russians claim that Ukraine did not fulfill the Minsk agreements, and Americans believe every word
From UNIAN:
"The United States believes that Ukraine has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Minsk agreements, Zelenskyy said
Nikita Shenderovsky, December 24, 2025
Russia is questioning Ukraine's compliance with the peace agreement, believing Kyiv failed to fulfill its obligations under the Minsk agreements.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed this opinion during a conversation with journalists, a UNIAN correspondent reports.
"You have to understand the Americans, who have been in a months-long dialogue with the Russians, who tell them: yes, but what's the point of what they sign or don't sign? They signed the Minsk agreements, but they didn't implement them. It's the common opinion of Americans and Russians that Ukraine didn't implement them. We're not debating whether this is true or not. We must defend our interests," Zelenskyy said.
He added that although the agreement was signed, it was impossible to implement. Some of its provisions were deadlocked. And Russia failed to fulfill those obligations that could realistically be fulfilled.
"Now they're saying Ukraine didn't fulfill them. But the agreement was designed to be impossible to implement; it was drafted and concluded that way. It's a stalemate. No one can do it. Neither side. But it's assumed that Ukraine signed it, meaning they were expected to fulfill it. Often, a little more is required of Ukraine," Zelenskyy added.
As a reminder, in 2023, former Russian presidential aide Vladislav Surkov stated that when drafting the Minsk agreements, the Russian leadership assumed they would not be implemented.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy previously noted that in order to conclude an agreement to end the war, Kyiv must receive reliable security guarantees. He also noted that no one believes in the Budapest Memorandum, Minsk II, or Minsk III, as new security guarantees must be legally binding and approved by parliament."
Saturday, March 21, 2026
German AfD lawmakers collect sensitive information for Russia
From the Politico:
"Germany’s far-right AfD accused of gathering information for the Kremlin
Using the rights afforded to him as a lawmaker for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the parliament of the eastern German state of Thuringia — where the AfD is the strongest party — Mühlmann has repeatedly asked the regional government to disclose intricate details on subjects such as local drone defenses and Western arms transports to Ukraine.
“What information does the state government have about the extent of military transit transports through Thuringia since 2022 (broken down by year, type of transport [road, rail], number of transits, and known stops)?” Mühlmann asked in writing in September.
One day in June, Mühlmann — who denies he is doing Russia’s bidding — filed eight inquiries related to drones and the drone defense capabilities of the region’s police, who are responsible for detecting and fending off drones deemed a spy threat.
“What technical systems for drone defense are known to the Thuringian police (e.g., jammers, net launchers, electromagnetic pulse devices), and to what extent have these been tested for their usability in law enforcement?” Mühlmann asked.
Such questions from AfD lawmakers on the state and federal parliaments have led German centrists to accuse the far-right party’s lawmakers of using their seats to try to expose sensitive information that Moscow could use in its war on Ukraine and to help carry out its so-called “hybrid war” against Europe.
“One cannot help but get the impression that the AfD is working through a list of tasks assigned to it by the Kremlin with its inquiries,” Thuringian Interior Minister Georg Maier, a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), told German newspaper Handelsblatt.
“What struck me was an incredible interest in critical infrastructure and the security authorities here in Thuringia, especially how they deal with hybrid threats,” Maier subsequently told POLITICO. “Suddenly, geopolitical issues are playing a role in their questions, while we in the Thuringian state parliament are not responsible for foreign policy or defense policy.”...
Tino Chrupalla, one of the AfD’s national leaders, strongly pushed back against the allegations his party is attempting to reveal arms supply routes to benefit the Kremlin.
“Citizens have legitimate fears about what they see and experience on the highways every evening,” he said in a talk show last month when asked about Mühlmann’s inquiries. “These are all legitimate questions from a member of parliament who is concerned and who takes the concerns and needs of citizens seriously. You are making insinuations, which is quite perfidious; you are accusing us of things that you can never prove.”
Mühlmann, a former police officer, speaking to POLITICO, denied that he’s following an assignment list “in the direction of Russia.”
Government ministers, while obligated to answer each parliamentary inquiry, are not obliged to reveal sensitive or classified information that could endanger national security, Mühlmann also argued.
“It is not up to me to limit my questions, but up to the minister to provide the answers,” he said. “If at some point such an answer poses a danger or leads to espionage, then the espionage is not my fault, but the minister’s, because he has disclosed information that he should not have disclosed.”
Flood of parliamentary questions
Marc Henrichmann, a conservative lawmaker and the chairman of a special committee in Germany’s Bundestag that oversees the country’s intelligence services, said that while the government is not obliged to divulge classified or highly sensitive information in its answers to parliamentary questions, Russian intelligence services can still piece together valuable insights from the sheer volume and variety of AfD inquiries.
“Apart from insignificant inquiries and sensitive inquiries, there is also a huge gray area,” Henrichmann said. “And what I have regularly heard from various ministries is that individual inquiries are not really the problem. But when you look at these individual inquiries side by side, you get a picture, for example, of travel routes, aid supplies, and military goods to or in the direction of Ukraine.”
Henrichmann said AfD parliamentary questions in the Bundestag on subjects such as authorities’ knowledge of Russian sabotage and hybrid activities in the Baltic Sea region as well as of the poisoning of the late Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny had caught his attention and raised concerns.
AfD factions in German state parliaments have submitted more than 7,000 security-related inquiries since the beginning of 2020, according to a data analysis by Spiegel — more than any other party and about one-third of all security-related inquiries combined.
In Thuringia — where state intelligence authorities have labelled the AfD an extremist group — the party has submitted nearly 70 percent (1,206 out of 1,738) of all questions filed this legislative period. In the Bundestag, the parties parliamentary questions account for more than 60 percent of all inquiries (636 out of 1,052).
The AfD’s strategic use of parliamentary questions is nothing new, experts say. Since entering the Bundestag in 2017, the party has deployed them to flood ministries and to gather information on perceived political adversaries, experts say.
“From the outset, the AfD has used parliamentary questions to obstruct, paralyze, and also to monitor political enemies,” said Anna-Sophie Heinze, a researcher at the University of Trier.
With regard to the flood of inquiries related to national security, the question of what is driving the AfD is largely irrelevant, said Jakub Wondreys, a researcher at the Hannah Arendt Institute for Totalitarianism Studies at the Technical University Dresden who studies the AfD’s Russia policy.
“It’s not impossible that they’re acting on behalf of Kremlin. It’s also possible that they are acting on behalf of themselves, because, of course, they are pro-Kremlin. But the end result is pretty much the same. These questions are a potential threat to national security.”"
Victim: 18-yr-olds were too old for Epstein
From the Telegraph / Yahoo!News:
"I was 14 when Epstein recruited me. He demanded that girls show their school IDs
Susie Coen
Jeffrey Epstein demanded that young girls show their school IDs to prove they were underage.
Marina Lacerda, who was abused by Epstein from the age of 14, said the paedophile was “furious” when an 18-year-old was brought to him, immediately sending her away.
Ms Lacerda, now 37, was forced to recruit other victims, and told The Telegraph that Epstein instructed her to only present him with girls who had a student school ID.
Brazilian-born Ms Lacerda said Epstein stopped abusing her when she was 16 or 17 because he thought she was too old and she was not bringing him girls who were young enough.
“I did bring him somebody at the age of 18, and he booted her out... He just looked at her and knew she wasn’t the age of 14, 15, or 16. And he really, he was like, ‘Get the f--- out’... he was aggressive,” Ms Lacerda said.
“He turned to me, and he was like, ‘I’m done.’ He’s like, ‘You need to start bringing me IDs when you bring girls here... I want school IDs.’”
After the partial release of the Epstein files, Ms Lacerda accused the government of orchestrating a “cover-up” by redacting swathes of documents and failing to release everything it held to “protect” powerful men.
The US justice department released thousands of files on Friday and Saturday, but hundreds of pages were heavily redacted, and a huge tranche of documents is yet to be released.
Ms Lacerda’s testimony about being subjected to years of abuse was critical in securing the 2019 charges against the paedophile months before he died in jail.
She is referred to as “Minor-Victim 1” in the 2019 indictment and spoke publicly for the first time in September to call for the release of the Epstein files.
She said she had looked through some of the recently released files and saw notes about Epstein demanding to see girls’ IDs, information that appeared to be from her interview with the FBI in 2019, two months before Epstein’s arrest.
On Saturday, she also said the paedophile would “brag” to his powerful friends that he was being massaged by a “beautiful girl” while on a call, and make her say hello to them.
“We did speak to a lot of people on the phone who were, you know, politicians, some were princes... [they] were very important people,” she told The Telegraph.
He would “make it clear that he knew everybody and he owned everybody... he manipulated us,” she said.
After lying down for a massage, Epstein would ring his contacts to “talk business and would always bring up the fact like, ‘oh, you know, I have this nice, young, beautiful girl giving me a massage.’”
He would hand her the phone and tell her to “just say hello”, Ms Lacerda said. She would tell the men something like “Hey, how are you?” but would not discuss anything “deep”.
Ms Lacerda said Epstein never explicitly told the powerful men that she was underage...
“There’s a reason why everything’s redacted,” Ms Lacerda said, adding that it was “100 per cent a total cover-up”.
“It’s almost like a joke, right? Like, we have to look at it as it’s like, this has to be a comedy show. Like, why did you even put out all these files?”
She added: “Who are we really trying to protect? Are we protecting survivors, or are we protecting these powerful men?... We’re tired of it. It’s gotten to the point where, you know, we’ve protected these powerful men for a long time.”
Ms Lacerda met Epstein in 2002 when she was recruited by a friend, who did not give her details other than that she could make money massaging someone.
Ms Lacerda, a Brazilian immigrant, was sharing a single bedroom with her mother and sister at the time and saw it as an opportunity to support her family.
“It got to the point where I think I got really desperate for money,” she said. However, she could not face working for him any more after being forced to recruit young girls.
She said: “I didn’t want to bring any more underage girls, being 17 and having some knowledge of what was really going on there.
“You had no choice but to bring him somebody because he’s so persistent and just he wanted to have, you know, a new face, a new girl.”"
As long as Putin is in power, peace is a fantasy
From the Telegraph:
"‘Peace in Ukraine is impossible while Putin remains in power’
Roland Oliphant,
Speaking to The Telegraph’s Battle Lines podcast, Sir Laurie Bristow
said Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical ambitions ‘cannot be reconciled with
our interests’
A deal between Russia and Ukraine to end their war with each
other is impossible while Vladimir Putin is alive and in power, a former
British ambassador to Moscow has said.
Sir Laurie Bristow, who
served as British ambassador to Russia between 2016 and 2020, said the
idea that Putin could be persuaded to stop fighting in exchange for
territorial concessions was a “fantasy”, and that Western leaders must
accept that Moscow’s position would not change as long as he is in
office.
Sir Laurie, who later headed the UK mission in Kabul
during the evacuation from Afghanistan, also said British and other
Western governments should face up to the scale of that disaster.
“Specifically on Russia, it is: understand the nature of the problem,” he told The Telegraph’s Battle Lines podcast when asked how he would advise the Prime Minister if he were still a diplomat.
“The
key to thinking about how the war might end is first of all do away
with fantasies. There is not a deal to be done with Russia where you
trade some Ukrainian land for some other Ukrainian land and somehow
Putin’s happy and goes home. That isn’t going to happen.
“What [Putin] wants to do here is essentially assert the rights as he sees them of a great power to a sphere of influence – essentially an empire in central and eastern Europe – and that cannot be reconciled with our interests.
“The second fantasy to do away with is that this conflict is resolvable while Putin is in office. By which I think I mean while Putin is alive. For the conflict itself to resolve, Russia has to fundamentally change and that will not happen [while Putin remains in post].”...
Sir Laurie, for his part, said Putin’s own public statements made clear that he was not interested in compromise.
European
leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, instead must accept they will have
to continue to arm Ukraine in order to deter Russia from pressing ahead
“not because we want the war to continue but because we want it to
stop”, he said.
“If the Americans decide their interests are
elsewhere, our interests are still in European security and there is no
escaping from that. This is fundamentally about the UK’s security,” Sir
Laurie added."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)