USA pressured Europeans into not giving Russian funds to Ukraine

From UNIAN:

"The US is urging EU countries to block the idea of ​​a reparations loan for Ukraine, according to Bloomberg 

Ilya Vedmedenko, 05.12.25 

The United States has called on some European Union countries to block plans to use frozen assets of the Russian Central Bank to secure a reparations loan for Ukraine. 

Bloomberg reports this, citing European diplomats. 

According to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, American officials convinced Europeans that these assets were necessary to secure a peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv. The Americans believe the assets "should not be used to continue the war." 

The US State Department press service did not respond to Bloomberg's request for comment...

The discussions come at a critical time for Ukraine, as the United States pressures Kyiv to agree to a peace deal with Moscow.

Previously, the Trump administration suspended most aid, shifting the burden to Europe. Ukraine therefore risks running out of funds as early as 2026. 

Washington is also reportedly considering Russian assets as part of its proposals to secure peace talks with Moscow and proposes using them for investment after the war."

***

Do you see how consistently the USA is trying to destroy Ukraine and give Russia dominance over all Europe?   

Europe's absurd situation

From Sky News:

"Ukraine has become Europe's war - so why doesn't it act like it?

John Sparks, 4 December 2025 

...Britain, France, Ireland, Germany and others have been issuing lofty declarations of the "we'll support Ukraine as long as it takes," variety.

But this time it is different. European leaders are going to have to treat Ukraine like the emergency it is - or face the consequences.

Presently, they occupy a position that many see as absurd.

Europe, including Britain, bankroll the Ukrainian government. Funding which was split down the middle with the Biden administration has been assumed by Europe in full. Furthermore, the Europeans pay for all American weaponry through a NATO facility called PURL.

Thus, Europe has got skin in the game - they are paying the bills. But where are they sitting at the negotiation table?

They are not there at all. The Russians do not want them, and the US does not seem particularly keen. When US secretary of state Marco Rubio met a Ukrainian delegation to discuss the peace plan in Geneva, he said he did not know anything about European counter-proposals

"It's extraordinary that Europe is picking up the bill but struggles to make itself heard," says Marc De Vore, of St Andrews University. "It shows the lack of vision, coordination and leadership across the continent."

The former foreign minister of Lithuania, Gabrielius Landsbergis, is utterly exasperated by Europe's ineffectiveness.

"If you are a European leader asking your team to book you on the next flight to Washington to go talk to daddy, please don't. Not without a plan, not cap in hand, not humiliating us all in front of the cameras at the Oval Office.

"Europe is our continent, our future is decided here, not there. We aren't poor, we have options, we can finally decide to assist Ukraine to the full extent…"

This frustration is shared by the Ukrainians, who have begun to use a different word to describe this relationship - betrayal.

Inna Sovsun is an MP in the Ukrainian parliament. Her husband, a combat medic, is serving at the front.

"People on the frontline feel really disappointed with the whole situation, and it does feel like betrayal.

"The challenge is much bigger than which village will be controlled by whom in Donbas. It is about, what does the future of civilisation look like? Does Russia's barbaric version win? If you are not willing to fight for that, those values aren't worth much, are they?""

Putin and his minions openly stating Russia's true goals

From the Institute for the Study of War:

"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 4, 2025

Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated his commitment to his original war aims from 2021 and 2022 and unwillingness to compromise during an interview with Indian media – likely as part of the Kremlin’s efforts to shape the international information space during the ongoing negotiations process. Putin gave an interview to India Today English-language news magazine ahead of his December 4 state visit to India.[1] Putin stated that Russia will end its war in Ukraine when it achieves the goals that Putin set forth at the start of the full-scale invasion. Putin stated that Ukraine must understand that the “best way” to solve the war is for Ukraine to agree to a peace settlement like the one Russia tried to impose on Ukraine in 2022 – referencing the 2022 Istanbul agreement that amounted to Ukraine’s full capitulation.[2] Putin responded to a question about what constitutes a victory for Russia, stating that Russia wants to “protect” ethnic Russians, the Russian language, and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Ukraine – justifications the Kremlin has often used for its demand for the removal of the current Ukrainian government and its replacement with a pro-Russian government.[3] Putin also demanded that NATO not expand further, essentially calling for a revocation of NATO’s Open Door Policy and return to NATO’s 1997 borders. ISW continues to assess that Putin, in part, launched his full-scale invasion in order to destroy NATO and seize control of all of Ukraine, and Putin’s original war demands notably include not only demands of Ukraine but of NATO and the West as well.[4]

Putin is attempting to falsely frame his war aims as solely geographically limited to Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Putin falsely claimed that Russia “had no choice” but to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DNR and LNR), that he offered Ukraine to withdraw its forces from all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts to avoid hostilities in 2022, and that Ukraine subsequently refused. Putin claimed that Russia will now either seize all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts through military means or Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the areas of the two oblasts that Ukraine still controls. Putin’s focus during the December 4 interview on Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts ignores the way that his full-scale invasion initially sought to capture far more territory than just those two regions, including Kyiv City, and to fully control Ukraine through a Kremlin-installed government. Russia had to rescope its strategy after its failure to take Kyiv City to focus instead on more limited operations in eastern Ukraine.

Putin attempted to obfuscate his rejection of the latest US peace proposal in the December 4 interview. Putin discussed the December 2 meeting with US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and former Senior Advisor to the US President Jared Kushner, claiming that the peace proposals from the US delegation were “in one way or another” based on the agreements from Putin’s previous meeting with US President Donald Trump in Alaska. Putin stated that there were points in the US-proposal to which Russia could not agree, but that he would not offer more specifics so as to not “disrupt” Trump’s peace process. ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin is purposely refraining from publicly discussing the December 2 meeting in order to obfuscate Russia’s rejection of the US-Ukrainian peace proposal that did not concede to all of Russia’s absolutist war demands.[5]

Other Kremlin officials continued to publicly display their commitment to Putin’s original war aims. Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee Chairperson Leonid Slutsky stated that Russia will not change its “basic” demands, including the prohibition of NATO membership for Ukraine and Ukraine’s demilitarization (Ukraine’s disarmament such that Ukraine cannot defend itself in the future) and denazification (a term the Kremlin uses to call for the removal of the current Ukrainian government).[6] Slutsky claimed that Russia can “entirely” achieve this “baseline” on the battlefield. State Duma Defense Committee Member Andrei Kolesnik claimed that Ukraine could lose its statehood, not just territory, such that it is “better” for Ukraine to reach a negotiated settlement before “things will get worse.”[7] ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin has been engaged in widespread cognitive warfare efforts in the lead up to and during the ongoing negotiations process that aims to paint a Russian victory on the battlefield as imminent and inevitable, such that Ukraine and the West should give in to Russia’s demands now.[8] Russian military victory is not imminent or inevitable, however, and the West maintains significant agency in how Russia’s war against Ukraine ends.[9]

The Kremlin is setting conditions to frame any future agreement to not attack and seize Odesa and Mykolaiv cities as an alleged Russian “concession” in peace negotiations, even though Russia is currently incapable of seizing these cities... ISW continues to assess that Putin remains committed to his goal of taking control of all of Ukraine, however. Any putative Kremlin “concession” agreeing to abandon efforts to seize Odesa and Mykolaiv cities would be a short-term negotiating tactic, not a shift in the Kremlin’s long-standing strategic goals..."

Trump's negotiators discuss with Russia conditions rejected by Ukraine

From the Dialog, Dec 4, 2025:

"The proposal to end Russia's war against Ukraine, discussed by the American delegation with the Russians, includes aspects that Ukraine has not approved, according to the Financial Times, citing an unnamed senior Ukrainian official. 

"They (the American side – ed.) have things that we refused to discuss, [...] things that we did not approve of, but which they want to discuss with the Russians," the source told journalists, commenting on the US-Russia talks that took place on December 2 in Moscow."

Putin's negotiation strategy

From the Dialog, citing the Times:

"...The Kremlin's strategy is as follows: 

- create the illusion of a possible deal by promising "something" through unofficial channels;  

- delay the process without changing the substance of the demands;  

- wait for Trump to blame Kyiv and the Europeans, rather than Moscow, for the lack of progress."

The Bulwark describes the situation in more detail: 

"...Putin has repeatedly made it clear that he has no intention of signing a peace agreement on any terms. Just last week, for instance, he opined that it would be “senseless” to sign any agreement with the current Ukrainian leadership because it lacks legitimacy due to Volodymyr Zelensky staying in office after his presidential term expired last May. (In reality, the extension of Zelensky’s term was mandated by the Ukrainian constitution’s ban on wartime elections—and that’s aside from the darkly comical chutzpah of such a claim from Putin, who repeatedly tinkered with Russia’s constitution to stay in power.) Putin claims that an agreement with the “illegitimate” Zelensky would not be internationally recognized as legally binding. Since Ukraine isn’t going to do insta-elections just to satisfy the Russian dictator’s supposed legal scruples, one might ask why the peace talks are even being held—other than to put on a show for Trump...

It’s a “peace process” that brings to mind the old Soviet joke about the Soviet Union’s alleged dedication to preventing war: “There will be such a struggle for peace that no stone will be left standing.” The joke acquires a grim reality when one looks at the remnants of Ukrainian cities “liberated” by Russia."

The Independent: Witkoff is Putin's useful idiot resembling Gollum

From the Independent, Dec 4, 2025:

"Putin doesn’t want peace – and Trump’s baffling error has made it easy for him

All hopes were on Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff’s trip to Moscow, but a breakthrough in peace talks was never going to happen with a man who has repeatedly taken Russia’s side, writes world affairs editor Sam Kiley

 

Whether by accident or design, Vladimir Putin has a useful idiot running America. International diplomacy has been turned on its head, enemies made friends, allies threatened, international laws defoliated.

Russian strategic policy, known as the Gerasimov doctrine, argues that chaos in the ranks of the enemy is victory and a path to greatness. By that standard, Putin should be stringing up bunting in the Kremlin.

He has achieved unimagined strategic effect by manipulating the Trump administration, which has contorted itself in its efforts to force a Russian victory on Ukraine and against Europe.

In the latest effort by the Oval Office to continue its cringing before the Russian throne, Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff – alongside business buddy and son-in-law of the president Jared Kushner – travelled to Moscow for talks.

After five hours with the Russian president, the talks ended with a blunt conclusion from the Kremlin that “we are no closer to resolving the crisis in Ukraine”.

Why the US taking the lead in these negotiations is being countenanced by its Nato “allies” is baffling, were it not for the fact that there is no leader in Europe prepared to say out loud what they must all, surely, know. That Trump is not a broker, he’s not even a dishonest broker when it comes to Ukraine – he is on the wrong side.

Witkoff used to be seen as staggeringly inept. He turns up in the Kremlin fawning like Gollum, takes no notes, uses a Kremlin translator, and emerges from meetings with Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel, brimming with admiration.

He described Putin in one Tucker Carlson interview as a “great guy”, “super smart”, “honest”, and “not a bad guy”. Descriptions that have disgusted the families of Putin’s dead critics like Alexei Navalny and every resident of the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine’s Donbas, where Putin’s troops have scorched the earth and killed mercilessly. 

Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes.

In one of the least surprising developments in the war, the Russian leader rejected the latest version of a ceasefire plan that was worked out with Ukraine and European leaders.

Because he wants to turn it all back to the earlier version negotiated with Witkoff by his envoy Kirill Dmitriev, in secret; Dmitriev is Witkoff’s escort in Moscow.

The same Witkoff that the Bloomberg agency revealed had coached Putin’s foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, on how to manipulate Trump. In what must have been an intelligence intercept of Witkoff’s unsecured personal mobile phone leaked to Bloomberg, he’s recorded explaining how Putin could get inside Trump’s head and affect an imminent visit to the White House by Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president. 

In Western intelligence circles, Trump’s envoy has been considered a fool and a liability for months – partly due to his misuse of a personal phone in countries that will always penetrate its contents.

European spies used to call him “Steve Witless”. Now he’s “Dim Philby”, suggesting that he’s too thick to realise he’s working for the wrong side. The original Kim Philby was a clever traitor, and he knew it.

Yet Witkoff is at the centre of the most important diplomatic activity on the planet.

Europe’s leaders, aside from Hungary and Slovakia, are united in saying that Russia poses a clear and present danger to Western security and democracy. Russia is also accused of assassinations, sabotage, and all manner of hybrid warfare as Gerasimov’s doctrine requires.

Yet they left the talks about the future of the Western world to a man whose own intelligence services do not trust. France and Germany are frantically trying to mobilise more troops; Poland is raising its citizens into an army. The continent of Europe is on near red alert.

All hopes are on America, which has repeatedly accepted, as Trump and Witkoff have said, Putin’s demand that, ahead of any talks, Ukraine must agree to withdraw from the front lines it holds now and give up the defences it has prepared.

Trump has put a little pressure on Putin with sanctions against nations importing his oil. He has not threatened to arm Ukraine. He backed away from offering Zelensky Tomahawk cruise missiles to fight Russia after Witkoff’s coaching of the Kremlin.

He doesn’t care what happens to Europe. Along with Witkoff, who is intimately involved in the Trump business empire through members of his own family, Trump is after personal profit and craves the approval of Putin.

The US has no skin in Ukraine’s defence. The only leverage that the US has over Kyiv is the important intelligence feed it gets from Washington. Trump’s administration has threatened to cut this if Ukraine doesn’t agree to capitulate to Russian demands.

Fine. Non-American Nato partners are already setting up systems to cope with this. A final break between Europe and the US over Ukraine that puts the democratic West back in the driving seat of diplomacy is exactly what is needed."

Four EU countries boycott the Eurovision in a gesture of solidarity with Palestinian terrorists

From the BBC:

"Ireland among countries boycotting Eurovision after Israel allowed to compete

4 December 2025, Mark Savage

Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands and Slovenia will boycott the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest, after it was decided Israel could compete.

They were among a number of countries who had called for Israel to be excluded over the war in Gaza and accusations of unfair voting practices..."

***

Does anyone wonder how the Holocaust became possible? 

How Russia became a militant autocracy

From the Obozrevatel:

"How Russia turned Europe into a theater of hybrid warfare: from the destruction of Yukos to drug trafficking through North Africa

Leonid Nevzlin, December 4, 2025 

While European politicians debate new security models, Moscow has long been acting according to its own script—methodically, cold-bloodedly, and with virtually no resistance, destroying the Western order. Many still reduce Russian attacks to cyberattacks, propaganda, or sabotage. But the real picture is much broader and more dangerous.

For example, just recently, Swedish General Mikael Claesson, Chief of the General Staff, openly stated that Russia is overseeing the flow of drugs and illegal migrants into Europe via North Africa. And this isn't just criminal activity—it's part of a larger strategy to destabilize the EU and NATO. And this is yet another manifestation of the system Putin began building twenty years ago.

When the Kremlin destroyed Yukos in 2003, many perceived it as yet another internal Russian conflict. In reality, it was a turning point and a dress rehearsal for a dictatorship that would later extend far beyond the country's borders. The seized assets were incorporated into the mafia vertical built by Putin, ultimately merging business, security forces, and criminals into a single system. The logic then was established that remains in effect today: control over the economy, politics, and society as the foundation for preparation for war.

It was in 2003 that Putin and his gang experienced a sense of impunity. The West had a chance to stop the escalation, but it didn't: no sanctions, no political pressure, no real consequences—they continued to do business with the Kremlin and communicate with it on international platforms. Had Moscow received a tough response then, the world might have avoided the war in Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, and a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But Putin received the signal that he was free to do anything.

The destruction of Yukos was effectively the first shot of this war—not an artillery one, but a legal one. It was then that the destruction of independent businesses began, and the economy was put on a militarized path. From that moment on, Russia ceased to be a market state and began to transform into a war machine: mobilizing resources, total control of information, dismantling independence, and searching for mechanisms for illicit enrichment around the world.

In the book "Mafia State: How Russia Failed to Become Democratic," published under my editorship, I detail how mafia autocracy is impossible without a complete monopoly on financial flows. This is precisely why Putin destroyed or subjugated big business and replaced market processes with corrupt schemes. Today, the Kremlin equally easily finances the army, special operations, and propaganda, exerts influence through banks and companies in Europe, supports European politicians, and controls illicit flows—from weapons to drugs. It's a well-thought-out model.

Examples have been cited numerous times: Karin Kneissl, the former Austrian foreign minister who danced with Putin; Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho; Italian diplomat Cesare Ragalini; Berlusconi adviser Angelo Codignoni—the list is long. All these people were formally supposed to represent the interests of their countries, but after leaving their positions, they ended up in the "Kremlin personnel department."

The Swedish general's latest statements confirm what experts have been saying for years: Russia is using drug trafficking and illegal immigration as weapons. The Kremlin is collaborating with groups in North Africa, relying on criminal structures, creating artificial flows of migrants, and simultaneously fueling drug trafficking into Europe. Political chaos is exacerbated by populist forces, which Moscow actively supports. This is a direct continuation of the pattern that began with the Yukos affair: the mafia in power uses crime as an instrument of state policy.

Modern Europe is increasingly feeling the consequences of this strategy. Under the guise of energy projects and business investments, the Kremlin is penetrating critical infrastructure and the media space. Moscow-controlled networks are lobbying for political decisions that weaken European unity. Disinformation campaigns are undermining public trust, and cyberattacks are paralyzing important systems. Illegal migration and drug trafficking are becoming additional tools for pressuring states. All of this is creating a new reality: Europe has become a theater of hybrid warfare, where traditional security mechanisms no longer work. Failure to recognize the systemic nature of the threat and act collectively will have grave consequences.

Putin wasn't building a state, but a mafia-like structure with nuclear weapons. And this structure operates not only through the military, but also through crime, corruption, migration crises, drug trafficking, and political interference. Europe is already paying for this mistake—and will pay even more unless it acknowledges that Russia has been waging war against it for twenty years, and that this war has long since gone beyond the bounds of traditional politics.

The consequences of this strategy are already being felt by millions of Europeans—from economic instability to rising crime and social tension. Experts predict that without decisive, concerted action, this threat will only grow. The Kremlin's hybrid methods are becoming the norm, not the exception, undermining the very foundation of European security. Europe stands at a crossroads: either acknowledge the full scale of the threat or continue to pay for the mistakes of the past."        

US pressures Greece to buy weapons for Ukraine

From the Kathimerini:

"US presses Athens on Ukraine fund

Vassilis Nedos, 04.12.2025 

Washington is pressing Athens to contribute to the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), a fund gathering money to buy US weapons for Ukraine. Leading up to Wednesday’s NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels, US Embassy officials in Athens relayed Washington’s request that Greece join PURL, Greek sources said.

US diplomats reiterated appreciation for Greece’s “principled stance” on Ukraine and acknowledged fiscal constraints as the financial year nears its end, but they pressed Athens to announce participation. They urged Foreign Minister George Gerapetritis to declare participation at the NATO meeting and proposed that Greece sign the General Framework Agreement to signal commitment, leaving the contribution amount for later. Washington also advised Athens to avoid joining the minority of NATO states that do not contribute..."

***

What a pathetic bully America has become, backstabbing its ally Ukraine and robbing its other European allies!

Street in Kherson

 

This is a street in Kherson, Ukraine. The nets covering it are to provide (partial) protection against Russian drones that regularly target civilians in the so-called "human safari" (source).

Belgian Primi Minister: Russia will not lose, and it should not lose

From the New Voice of Ukraine, Dec 4, 2025:

"In an interview with Belgian daily La Libre, the PM spoke about “incredible pressure” from the EU to seize Russian assets that are frozen in Belgium’s clearing house Euroclear.

“It would be a nice story: taking money from the bad guy, [Russian dictator Vladimir] Putin, and giving it to the good guy, Ukraine,” De Wever said.

“But stealing frozen assets from another country, its sovereign wealth funds, has never been done before. This is money from the Central Bank of Russia.”

He then suggested that the usual approach is to use the frozen funds of a losing side in a war to compensate the victors. De Wever dismissed any possibility of a Russian defeat, before suggesting that it would not be “desirable” for a country with nuclear weapons to lose, since it would lead to instability.

“But who really believes that Russia will lose in Ukraine? It's a fable, a complete illusion,” the PM said.

“It's not even desirable for them to lose and for instability to take hold in a country that possesses nuclear weapons.”

De Wever explained that the Kremlin has warned Belgium and the PM personally, threatening some kind of retaliation if the assets are confiscated.

“Moscow has let us know that in the event of a seizure, Belgium and I personally will feel the effects ‘for eternity.’ That seems like a pretty long time,” he said."

***

What a pathetic excuse of a human being this statesman is! 

Belgium became Russian asset

From the Politico:

"How Belgium became Russia's most valuable asset

By TIM ROSS, GREGORIO SORGI, HANS VON DER BURCHARD and NICHOLAS VINOCUR 

December 4, 2025 

It became clear that something had gone wrong by the time the langoustines were served for lunch. 

The European Union’s leaders arrived on Oct. 23 for a summit in rain-soaked Brussels to welcome Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with a gift he sorely needed: a huge loan of some €140 billion backed by Russian assets frozen in a Belgian bank. It would be enough to keep his besieged country in the fight against Russia’s invading forces for at least the next two years. 

The assorted prime ministers and presidents were so convinced by their plan for the loan that they were already arguing among themselves over how the money should be spent. France wanted Ukraine to buy weapons made in Europe. Finland, among others, argued that Zelenskyy should be free to procure whatever kit he needed from wherever he could find it. 

ut when the discussion broke up for lunch without agreement on raiding the Russian cash, reality dawned: Modest Belgium, a country of 12 million people, was not going to allow the so-called reparations loan to happen at all. 

The fatal blow came from Bart De Wever. The bespectacled 54-year-old Belgian prime minister cuts an eccentric figure at the EU summit table, with his penchant for round-collared shirts, Roman history and witty one-liners. This time he was deadly serious, and dug in. 

He told his peers that the risk of retaliation by the Russians for expropriating their sovereign assets was too great to contemplate. In the event that Moscow won a legal challenge against Belgium or Euroclear, the Brussels depository holding the assets, they would be on the hook to repay the entire amount, on their own. “That’s completely insane,” he said. 

As afternoon stretched into evening, and dinner came and went, De Wever demanded the summit’s final conclusions be rewritten, repeatedly, to remove any mention of using Moscow’s assets to send cash to Kyiv. 

The Belgian blockade knocked the wind out of Ukraine’s European alliance at a critical moment. If the leaders had agreed to move ahead at speed with the loan plan at the October summit, it would have sent a powerful signal to Vladimir Putin about Ukraine’s long-term strength and Europe’s robust commitment to defend itself.

Instead, Zelenskyy and Europe were weakened by the divisions when Donald Trump, still hoping for a Nobel Peace Prize, reopened his push for peace talks with Putin allies...

“The Russians must be having the best time,” said one EU official close to negotiations...

So far the signs are not good. “I’m not impressed yet, let me put it that way,” De Wever said in televised remarks as the Commission released its draft legal texts on Wednesday. “We are not going to put risks involving hundreds of billions … on Belgian shoulders. Not today, not tomorrow, never.”...

In a letter to von der Leyen on Nov. 27, De Wever underlined his opposition, describing the reparations loan proposal as “fundamentally wrong.” 

“I am fully cognizant of the need to find ways to continue financial support to Ukraine,” De Wever wrote in his letter to von der Leyen. “My point has always been that there are alternative ways to put our money where our mouth is. When we talk about having skin in the game, we have to accept that it will be our skin in the game.” 

“Who would advise the prime minister to write such a letter?” one exasperated diplomat said, dismayed at De Wever’s apparent insensitivity. “He talks about having ‘skin in the game.’ What about Ukraine?”...

For the EU, one essential question remains — and it’s one that is always there, in every crisis that crosses the desks of the diplomats and officials working in Brussels: Can a union of 27 diverse, fractious, complex countries, each with its own domestic struggles, political rivalries and ambitious leaders, unite to meet the moment when it truly matters? 

In the words of one diplomat, “It’s anyone’s guess.”"

***

Another perspective on the topic gave Ukrainian economist Oleh Pendzin in the UNIAN on Nov 28, 2025: 

"Our European friends live between two great emotions: fear and greed. Depending on which emotion predominates, they make one or another decision... The European Union isn't ready to give [the Russian] money to Ukraine yet, but it certainly won't give it to the US. This won't happen because no European politician will agree to it... I think these are simply Trump's rosy dreams that will never come true. Europe will not give this money to either the US or Russia under any circumstances. Europe will do everything to hold on to these assets for as long as possible. Belgians live off this money, it's a huge amount. Who would give it away?"

Italy is OK with killing of Ukrainians, as long as there are "peace talks"

From RBC-Ukraine:

"Italy stops participation in military aid program for Ukraine

Author: Daryna Vialko

Italy has unexpectedly suspended its participation in NATO's weapons procurement program for Ukraine, citing ongoing talks about a possible ceasefire, Bloomberg reports.

Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said that amid discussions on a potential peace deal, supplying weapons may no longer be needed.

According to him, if fighting were to stop, Kyiv would primarily need security guarantees rather than new batches of US-made weapons.

"If we reach an agreement and fighting ceases, weapons won’t be needed anymore. Other things, such as security guarantees, will be needed," Tajani told journalists in Brussels...

Italy has effectively become the first EU country to openly express reluctance to supply additional weapons to Kyiv during sensitive diplomatic negotiations..."

Any ceding of territories by Ukraine would violate US law

From the Dialog, Dec 4, 2025:

"Shvets gave Ukraine a "trump card" in the war-ending negotiations that no one can "beat": "This stops..." 

Former intelligence officer Yuriy Shvets spoke about the American law that will prevent Ukraine from giving up its territories 

U.S. Law 3364, signed by Trump in 2017, affirms support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and condemns Russia's actions regarding the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of territories in eastern Ukraine, reported Yuriy Shvets. The law also stipulates that the U.S. president has no right to lift sanctions against Russia or even ease them without a resolution from Congress, meaning Ukraine can put an end to proposals to surrender its territories by passing a resolution citing this law.

Yuriy Shvets shared this important information for Ukrainians on his YouTube channel. 

A military expert advised Ukraine's political leadership on how to resolve the demand to cede its own territories: "Any document that is signed is illegitimate. This all needs to be formulated and a statement made. We need to raise the issue: either a representative of the Zelenskyy administration makes the statement, or Zelenskyy himself makes the statement. The point is simple. There's no need to blame anyone, by the way. That's just how it happened. They overlooked it. We need to say that we discovered a law that says this can't be done. We really want peace, but we have no right to sign a document with the participation of Americans that contradicts American laws. We need everything to be legal, so let's bring the peace settlement project for Ukraine into line with American laws." 

"There's such a resolution in America. It's a resolution expressing understanding of the situation, or the opinion of the US Congress. Once such a resolution is adopted, that's it: it stops all these behind-the-scenes maneuvers, the negotiations between Whitkoff and Ushakov and Dmitriev. All these behind-the-scenes games collapse when a law is passed. This all needs to be done from Kyiv. Either the presidential administration does it, or two, or even one, competent member of the Verkhovna Rada must be found who will announce all this to the world," Shvets explained."

The two faces of Steve Witkoff

Christopher Miller, X:

"Steve Witkoff sitting across from the Ukrainians in Miami: Unshaven and scruffy. Serious, avoiding eye contact and unsmiling. 

Steve Witkoff sitting across from Putin: Grinning with teeth, clean shaven, attentive. He says he had a "beautiful walk" through Moscow, which he told Putin is "a magnificent city."" 

 Photo from the Dialog.

The Time about why peace talks failed

From the Time:

"Why the U.S.-Russia Ukraine Talks Failed

By Daniel Fried, December 3, 2025

"So far, no compromise version of a peace settlement has been found,” was how Yuri Ushakov, an advisor to Vladimir Putin, summed up the five-hour meeting between the Russian President and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Tuesday. That’s no surprise: Putin has never negotiated in good faith since his first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Instead, he has consistently demanded maximalist aims to secure Ukrainian territory and erase its sovereignty.
 
While details of the Kremlin talks are only beginning to emerge, it appears Putin again offered nothing on the key issue of territory, meaning the location of a cease-fire line, and security for Ukraine. After much diplomatic drama, U.S. negotiators are leaving the Kremlin with little.

How did we get here and what’s next?

Since the start of his second term, President Donald Trump has tried to mediate an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine. After false starts—like the unproductive summit in Anchorage in August or the proposed Budapest Summit in October that was cancelled days after being announced—the U.S., Ukraine, and Europe reportedly hammered out elements of a possible deal to end the fighting. It was this plan, worked on in Geneva two weekends ago and refined in Florida this past weekend, that Witkoff, accompanied by Trump’s son-in-law and diplomatic troubleshooter Jared Kushner, was expected to present to Putin.

Trump is right to push for a peace deal... But the Administration’s approach has been haphazard and its negotiating tactics poor. Witkoff put together an initial 28-point plan that had heavy Russian input if not authorship. That gave his Russian counterpart, Kirill Dmitriev, two bites at the negotiating apple: at the outset and in the actual talks, a tactical mistake. Worse, divisions within the Trump Administration between those more supportive of Ukraine and those less so have been visible and lines of authority uncertain. Is Secretary of State Marco Rubio in charge of the U.S. position? He was in the lead in Geneva and during the Florida talks. But he was not in Moscow for the critical talks with Putin.

The Administration has been negotiating in public and with itself, with occasional tensions with Ukraine on display and infighting not hard to spot. The Kremlin has been in the happy position of sitting back, maintaining its maximalist demands, and waiting for new concessions. These are standard Kremlin negotiating tactics and it seems Putin followed them with Witkoff...

The Trump Administration must now decide how to respond to the Kremlin’s stonewalling. To end the war, the U.S. will have to stop trying to find concessions that will satisfy Putin. Instead, it needs to strengthen its negotiating hand by imposing and sustaining new pressure on Russia. Otherwise, Putin will continue to stall, obfuscate, and bluster, all the time killing Ukrainian civilians and slowly escalating his hybrid attacks on Europe to intimidate and sow doubt.

The U.S. has plenty of options to do so: the recent oil sanctions have hit Russia’s economy and, with vigorous enforcement, could hit it further. The Europeans could finally agree to use €140 billion of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. The U.S. and Europeans could work together on security back-up for Ukraine and consider new and more weapons—sending a message to Moscow that stalling on talks will not improve their position. And, especially, the Trump Administration could stop careening between pressure on Ukraine and, less frequently, pressure on Russia. Putin started the war and is the principal obstacle to ending it.

Chasing the Kremlin with new proposals without muscle to push through Kremlin rejectionism has been tried by the U.S. many times. It doesn’t work. But if the U.S., working with Europe, deploys its assets, Trump could end the war and get his victory lap. The winners would be Ukraine, Europe, the U.S., and the whole free world." 

US foreign policy machinery is collapsing in front of our eyes

From the Obozrevatel:

"The US Foreign Policy Machinery Is Disintegrating Before Our Eyes

Alexander Levi-Ganapolsky, December 3, 2025

The point of this photograph isn't whether Kushner and Witkoff sold out Ukraine in some back room, but rather that it shows how the American foreign policy machinery is crumbling before our eyes. Two unelected envoys with no formal mandate, no proper oversight, and no obligation to leave any kind of paper trail sit opposite the Chinese Foreign Minister, while Europeans, who will then have to live with the consequences, are not even allowed into the room. The image itself is the argument: Europe's future is being sketched out by people whose only real "qualification" is their closeness to Donald Trump and whose presence suits Moscow and Beijing perfectly.

So it turns out that a superpower is entering the largest European war since 1945 with a "peace plan" cobbled together by relatives and courtiers, rather than any coherent understanding of US national interests. The Kremlin doesn't need to "infiltrate" Washington when Washington itself outsources the most sensitive diplomacy to freelancers who can be thrust into the ceremonial hall at any moment precisely because they have no institutions, no interdepartmental machinery, and no legal obligation to consult with allies. The absence of bureaucracy, friction, and coordination here is not a drawback, but a major advantage... When Wang Yi smiles in this photo, he's not celebrating a clever move, but rather a simple reality: there's no longer a fixed American position, only a rotating troupe of eunuchs, each with their own channel to the master, and each individually available for "processing" by the foreign capital.

The contrast only deepens when you look at competence. Moscow is leading its part through a rigid vertical, staffed by people who have been calculating exactly this scenario for decades. Washington is improvising on the fly through developers and political strategists who perceive a five-hour meeting with Putin as a slightly larger real estate deal through escrow. Europeans are watching all this live and drawing the only sensible conclusion: if the US is going to outsource their future to people who treat the Kremlin like a common development commission, Europe will have to urgently build its own deterrent. I'd like to believe they understand this.

So the danger isn't that Kushner or Witkoff secretly dream of a "Greater Eurasia." The danger is that the world's most powerful country is beginning to conduct its grand strategy the same way a family office handles a hotel deal: informally, opaquely, with personal loyalty as the only guarantee of quality. When this Kremlin photo is revisited in ten years, it will be read not as "the moment America betrayed Ukraine," but as the moment it became clear: the American century ended in a room where no one present was truly accountable to American voters."   

Ukrainian disabled defender: Ukraine has given enough

From CBS / Yahoo!News:

""How much more can we give?" asks one wounded Ukrainian warrior

Duarte Dias, December 2, 2025

Ukrainian soldier Pavlo Martsenyuk has lost count of the friends and comrades he's lost since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of his country almost four years ago. The 34-year-old says he does his best to keep alive the memories of the men he fought alongside.

Speaking from a rehabilitation center in the western city of Lviv called "Unbroken Hospital," he told CBS News about the long, painful process of recovering from the impact of an anti-tank mine explosion that robbed him of his sight in both eyes.

"I couldn't calm myself down and control my stream of thoughts," Martsenyuk said. "Everything was buzzing, until I started working actively with my mental health."

A year on, doctors have reconstructed his face and he's adapting to what he calls "an entirely new life."

Martsenyuk says his priority now is to carry on as a civilian and serve as an example to his children. He's also a living example of the human costs of Russia's ongoing invasion, and he believes many people outside Ukraine don't really understand his country's sacrifice, or the broader importance of its fight.

President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff were due to meet Russia's Vladimir Putin on Tuesday in Moscow to discuss a U.S.-backed proposal to end the war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, meanwhile, is holding meetings with various European leaders in the hope of shoring up continued support for his country's defense.

Details from the high-level discussions remain vague, but one key obstacle to a deal that has emerged is Ukraine's resistance to a Trump administration proposal for it to accept ceding some territory to Russia in exchange for peace.

Mr. Trump argued over the weekend that his peace proposal did include Russia "making concessions."

"They're big concessions," he told reporters. "They stop fighting, and they don't take any more land."

Zelenskyy and some of his European supporters have spoken out against this approach, arguing that granting Russia dominion over any currently occupied Ukrainian land would set a dangerous precedent, effectively rewarding Putin for a unilateral, unprovoked invasion.

For Martsenyuk, who bears the scars of this long conflict, it's a difficult question.

"We have already given up territory — we have given part of ourselves. How much more can we give?" he asks.

European leaders, including Poland's, have recently alluded to the risks highlighted by Europe's 20th century history of appeasing the unilateral landgrabs of autocrats.

"Can't we analyze history? It all smells like something done before," Martsenyuk said.

In late October, with President Trump pushing hard for Ukraine to make concessions to get a peace deal done — though without any clear requests for Russia to bend on its key demands — Polish Minister Donald Tusk warned: "None of us should put pressure on Zelenskyy when it comes to territorial concessions."

"We should all put pressure on Russia to stop its aggression. Appeasement never was a road to a just and lasting peace," said the social media post by Tusk — whose nation was occupied by Nazi Germany during World War II.

But Martsenyuk is also keenly aware that with the high cost being paid by his country every day, Ukraine will need help to continue withstanding Russia's onslaught, let alone repel it.

Ukrainian authorities have not released official numbers of soldiers killed in combat since the start of the invasion, but an investigation released in June by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that between 60,000 and 100,000 of the country's troops have died.

"Pity is not needed," he said. "Understanding is needed. There is very little understanding.""

Vance's versus Trump's love to Russia

From MS Now / Yahoo!News:

"Why JD Vance keeps trying to help Russia win the war with Ukraine

Nicholas Grossman, December 2, 2025

Marco Rubio is the only American other than Henry Kissinger to serve as secretary of state and national security advisor at the same time, but he was mostly absent from high-stakes diplomacy over Ukraine.

Trump envoy Steve Witkoff negotiated the recent, Russia-friendly 28-point plan to end the war, and its main advocate in the White House was Vice President JD Vance. Working to help Russia win aligns with Vance’s far-right worldview, and with Trump an aging president who has never prioritized policy, the VP’s views will remain influential.

Witkoff basically repackaged a Russia-written plan, even coaching the Russians on how to talk to Trump and undermine upcoming U.S. meetings with Zelensky.

Trump officials reportedly timed this effort to a domestic corruption scandal in Ukraine, thinking it would force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to swallow unfavorable terms. But instead of sending Rubio or another State Department official, the Trump administration had U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, Vance’s friend and classmate at Yale Law, deliver the plan to Ukraine as an ultimatum.

It didn’t work. When the details came out, European countries were appalled, and with their support, Ukraine responded with a reasonable counteroffer that Russia unsurprisingly rejected because Putin seeks conquest, not peace. Rubio reportedly scrambled to say it was a Russian wishlist the U.S. was factoring in, not an American proposal, before getting roped back in and saying it was a U.S. plan after all. Evidence emerged that Witkoff basically repackaged a Russia-written plan, even coaching the Russians on how to talk to Trump and undermine upcoming U.S. meetings with Zelensky, and the effort fell apart.

But Vance will likely keep searching for ways to get Ukraine to surrender because that’s always been his approach to the war. His online commentary continuously shows sympathy for Russia’s cause, such as by asserting that Russian victory is inevitable no matter what the U.S. does. Sometimes he uses blatant lies, such as claiming that Ukraine-supporting Americans’ position is “Let’s send your kids to die in Russia” (no U.S. troops have been deployed to fight in the war, and virtually no American advocates sending them). 

In a late February meeting with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office that was supposed to announce a U.S.-Ukraine mineral mining arrangement, Trump and Vance ambushed the Ukrainian president, with the VP absurdly blaming Zelenskyy for the war Russia started and perpetuates, chastising the Ukrainians as “ungrateful.”

Vance marinates his brain in the far-right slop of X (née Twitter), the website Elon Musk turned into a swamp of misinformation and propaganda, and engages with the no-longer-fringe users driving it. He follows a little more than 1,000 accounts — a fairly standard amount for active users — and at various times, several of them have been outright supporters of Nazism and fascism...

The online right pushes a white nationalist conspiracy theory called the “Great Replacement”... Musk also pushes that extremist theory, and manipulates X’s algorithm to promote it. Vance has pushed variations on it for years, including as vice president, trying to put an intellectual spin on paranoid gutter racism. While Trump fuels and uses the online right, Vance is actually one of them. 

And the online right loves Russia, seeing Putin as a culture war champion. To them, Russia’s “manly” military just has to defeat Ukraine’s “they/them” military backed by the “woke” West, both to advance the far-right cause and to validate their worldview.

Trump has always looked positively at Putin and Russia, and shown sympathy for Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. When Russia invaded in 2022, Trump publicly gushed that it was “savvy” and “genius.” After becoming president again, he shifted U.S. policy in a Russia-friendly direction, cutting military aid to Ukraine, aping Russian propaganda and telling Ukraine to make concessions. But while Trump clearly admires and envies Putin, and prefers a world in which bullies get what they want, his evident top priority is ending the war quickly to get praise and financial benefits.

Taking his information diet and public behavior seriously, Vance’s Russia sympathies appear deeper.

Trump authorized additional arms sales to Europe knowing the weapons would go to Ukraine, has made noise about sanctioning Russia — though never really follows through — and hasn’t taken the more drastic step of directly assisting Russia’s military effort, such as with intelligence sharing on targets in Ukraine.

Vance might. Taking his information diet and public behavior seriously, Vance’s Russia sympathies appear deeper. Trump’s authoritarianism is personalist, centered around a cult of personality, focused on attention, power and money for himself. Vance appears to be a genuine far-right ideologue. He cites aggressively anti-democracy billionaire Peter Thiel, “neo-monarchist” Curtis Yarvin and various self-identified “post-liberals” as intellectual influences. Like the extremes of the online right he hangs out with, the VP defines “us” not as the United States and its allies against authoritarian adversaries like Putin’s Russia, but as a transnational white Christian nationalism against democracy, wokeness and the broadly defined left in their own countries and around the world. It’s a sort of Fascist Internationale.

The most logical explanation for why Vance keeps trying to help Russia win is because he sees Putin as on his “team,” with Ukraine, the European Union, pro-democracy Americans and an international order that values freedom on the other side.

This article was originally published on ms.now."

***

I cannot understand today's white American racists. They approve the killings of fellow white Americans (including young women) who have different views, and they admire the psychopath Putin who has killed tens of thousands of white people and has even brought North Koreans to Europe to kill white Europeans. What self-respecting racist could adhere to such nonsense? These are not true racists, just generic evil scum! 

Europe must seek security guarantees

Ukrainian military expert Ivan Stupak in the Obozrevatel:

"Following Putin's remarks today, Europe must consider security guarantees for itself

December 2, 2025 

Three big "IFs" from the Russian dictator today: 

1. "If Europe suddenly wants to fight us and starts, we are ready right now." 

2. "If Europe itself decides to start a war with Russia, a situation could quickly arise in which we will have no one to negotiate with." 

3. "If this continues, we will consider the possibility of retaliatory measures against the ships of those countries that are helping Ukraine commit these piracy acts." 

It is at this stage that EU countries should actively offer and consider security guarantees. But not for Ukraine, quite the opposite. Ukraine itself can become the guarantor of security for that beautiful and vibrant Disneyland called the European Union. 

It is currently extremely difficult for the EU to carry out military reforms in its countries, and even more difficult (for political reasons) to increase the size of its own armed forces. 

One option (but not the only one) for such guarantees could be an agreement between Ukraine and the EU on the provision of security services for the EU's eastern borders, for a period of 5-10 years. 

Under the agreement, the EU funds the upkeep of the Ukrainian Armed Forces at a rate of 500-800,000 (or as agreed) and based on salaries, for example, as in Poland: 

Private - €1,037 

Sergeant - €1,187 

Officer - €1,452. P.S. 

Considering what Putin said today on behalf of the rusty country, paying in cash would be the cheapest and easiest option for the EU."

Marc Champion explains why the EU is the wrong player for Ukraine

From UNIAN:

"The EU cannot become a geopolitical player that will resolve the Ukrainian issue, Bloomberg says 

Karina Bovsunovskaya, 02.12.25 

In late summer 1939, Soviet and German foreign ministers Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop signed the infamous non-aggression pact, which divided Eastern Europe between their countries and allowed Hitler to invade Poland just days later. Meanwhile, the proposed US-Russian plan to end the war in Ukraine suggests that the major military powers have once again conspired to divide the continent to their advantage, according to Bloomberg columnist Mark Champion. 

"This should have been clear a long time ago. I've been saying since at least February that the Trump administration was interested not so much in concluding a peace agreement for Ukraine as in resetting relations between the US and Russia at the expense of Kyiv and its European allies. The publication of the 28-point US-Russian proposal made this impossible to ignore," the author noted.

According to Champion, now that European leaders have finally acknowledged that they are left alone on the Ukraine issue, the question arises: can the European Union become a geopolitical player capable of standing up to Russia, China, and its nominal ally, the United States? The observer believes the honest answer to this question is "no."

"This would require a significant demonstration of force, and that simply isn't in the bloc's DNA. The European project was designed to ensure that its members would never again fight among themselves, as they did during two catastrophic conflicts and for centuries before that. The EU accomplished this so well that it won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012. But when it comes to defending against external threats, the path to the modern EU is littered with failed cooperative security projects, dating back to the Western European Union of 1954, if not earlier. That task was quickly handed over to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, i.e., the United States, and remains so to this day," the author explained.

In particular, Kiran Klaus Patel, head of the department of modern history at Germany's Ludwig Maximilian University, noted that asking the EU to demonstrate hard power is like "telling a professional footballer that from now on he will play rugby."

According to Champion, the EU's unpreparedness for a world of "geopolitical rugby" has no clear institutional solution. However, Europe has no choice but to bridge the gap if it doesn't want to be "torn to pieces." 

"The key is to make Europe—not the EU—the driving force behind diplomacy and the projection of hard power. A hard foreign policy should be pursued outside the EU, preferably within NATO, and if that's not possible, through specially created coalitions," the commentator wrote...   

Champion added that this may also be the only way for Europe to act effectively, as too many geopolitically important players in the region, including NATO members Norway, the United Kingdom, and Turkey, are not part of the EU. 

"As is often said, Europe is returning to history after several decades of utopian respite, so its first priority is rearmament. But Europe has always united against external threats only when they were perceived as common and extreme, obvious examples of which are the Soviet Union during the Cold War and the Ottoman Empire in the late 17th century," the observer recalled. 

 Champion also concluded: "Finding a way to do both—preserve peace at home while projecting strength abroad—may be the most significant challenge European leaders have faced since the fateful Russian-German 'peace' agreement of 1939." "

Russia's nuclear deterence is aggressive, aimed at scaring other forces into abandoning aggression victims

From the Telegraph / Yahoo!News:

"Putin’s Satan II missile explodes on take-off

Antonia Langford, December 1, 2025 

Russia’s “Satan II” intercontinental ballistic missile exploded after crashing back to earth in yet another failed test.

The nuclear-capable hypersonic missile, dubbed the “world’s deadliest weapon”, was launched from the Yasny test site in Russia’s Orenburg region.

Just seconds after lift-off, the Sarmat RS-28 rocket veered off course emitting black plumes of smoke, before the fiery wreck plummeted to the ground.

The missile landed near the launchpad in a huge fireball, emitting a purple cloud of smoke into the sky.

During a previous test launch the munition exploded at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome 500 miles north of Moscow in September 2024, leaving a huge crater at its launch site.

Despite this, Vladimir Putin expressed hopes weeks ago that the Sarmat would be ready next year, saying: “This year, we will put [the Sarmat] through combat trials, and next year, deploy it on combat duty.”...

Vyacheslav Volodin, a member of Russia’s security council, previously claimed it could hit the European Parliament in Strasbourg in under four minutes...

Etienne Marcuz, an associate fellow at France’s Foundation for Strategic Research think tank, said: “This would be the fifth failure in a row for this strategic missile, presented as the new flagship of Russian nuclear deterrence. Its submarine-launched counterpart, the Bulava [SLBM], does not seem to be in much better shape.

“Yet it is precisely this nuclear deterrence that allows Russia to engage in what is called ‘aggressive sanctuarisation’, that is, to wage wars of aggression like the invasion of Ukraine while threatening any potential supporters of the aggressed countries with nuclear retaliation.”"

The real danger of any limitation of Ukrainian army

From UNIAN:

"This won't be the main problem: expert identifies key threat of limiting the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces 

Nikita Shenderovsky, 01.12.25 

Ukraine won't be able to maintain an army of 800,000 after the war, according to Ivan Stupak 

Any restrictions on the Ukrainian Armed Forces during peace talks will have consequences for Ukraine, regardless of their numbers. Ivan Stupak, a former Security Service of Ukraine officer and military expert, expressed this opinion on Channel 24. 

"We must understand that what's being implied is that special groups will be created to control the numbers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. This isn't just about personnel; there will also be restrictions on aircraft and missiles. And there's a 95% chance that representatives of the Russian Federation will be present in these groups... This is a completely unacceptable option for Ukraine," Stupak said. 

He also responded to the statement by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas that if the Ukrainian Armed Forces are limited, Russia should also reduce its own army. According to the expert, Russia is unlikely to reduce its current 1.5 million troops.

"This is a huge army. For comparison, Poland has 200,000. Ukraine, before a full-scale invasion, has 250,000. The German army, with a population of 80 million, has 180,000. Numbers aren't an issue, even for us. Even if there's a limit of 800,000, it won't be a big problem. The problem is what we can sustain, what numbers. 800,000 is a lot; we simply can't handle such an army on our own," the analyst stated. 

He explained that after the end of hostilities, the size of the Ukrainian army will be reduced to what funding allows. At the same time, according to the expert, Ukraine can cooperate with the EU in this regard. Stupak added:  

"If the Europeans want to see us as a country that defends the Alliance's eastern borders and they're willing to pay for it, then no problem. We can maintain a million-strong army to defend the Europeans, but they'll pay for it. In my opinion, that would be a fantastic agreement. The downside to all these restrictions is in the details."" 

(Emphasis mine - M. M.)