Nevzorov: Cannibalism is a principle of Russian politics

From Faktor, Dec 28, 2025 - Russian opposition journalist Alexander Nevzorov, now in Ukraine:

"...It is no secret that the best New Year's gift for the world under the Christmas tree would be a coffin with the body of the Russian Fuhrer. Simply because of the number of problems that would be solved at once with this coffin. His sudden or not so sudden death would be guaranteed to save the planet from a mass of problems and possible large-scale disasters. 

What would Putin's death change? A lot. Because even in the Kremlin's snake pit, where everyone presents themselves as frostbitten fanatics, there is no one who can compare with Putin in mania and cannibalism. All this entourage of his, even the most hysterical and bloody, are cardboard characters who will melt like smoke at the moment of his death. None of them is capable of continuing this infernal game, nor of taking it over. 

 Yes, Putin is undoubtedly what he is by all parameters - both medical and scientific - but his Nazguls are even more insignificant than their master. Of course, Putin's death will not solve the age-old problems of cannibalism as a fundamental principle of Russian politics. But nevertheless, the planet will still get a brief but valuable breath of air."

Russian oppositionary: If you have nuclear weapons, war brings dividends

From the Dialog, Dec 27, 2025:

"Gudkov explained how and when Ukraine will be able to retake the occupied territories: "The war won't end here" 

Russian opposition leader Gennady Gudkov offered a disappointing forecast for the war's end. 

Putin has no intention of stopping, so hoping for a ceasefire is pointless, said Gennady Gudkov. The Kremlin not only plans to continue fighting in Ukraine but also to attack other countries in the near future. Therefore, it can be concluded that Ukraine's most important priority now is to hold out, maintain control over its territories, and wait for a regime change in Russia.  

The former Russian State Duma deputy voiced his forecast for the war in Ukraine on the YouTube channel "And Graham Crashed." 

A Russian opposition figure outlined possible scenarios for the war's end: "Everything that's happening makes the outcome of the war disappointing. Although, of course, if Ukraine manages to defend its territories and not give in to Russia's capitulation demands, then this gives Ukraine a chance to become a European country, and it will regain the remaining territories through diplomatic and political means. But this will happen after a considerable period of time, when the Putin regime collapses. Given the war's undoubted disadvantage for Ukraine, it [i.e. Putin's regime] will receive an adrenaline rush and will seek a new way to wage war, since it turns out that war, with nuclear weapons, brings such dividends."..."

Hristo Grozev: The most important thing in the Epstein files is not the sexual aspect but the Russian connection

From Faktor, the original source is an interview to UA news:

"Hristo Grozev: Trump's feeling that Russian intelligence services know everything Epstein knew is enough

December 27, 2025 

— Hristo, do you believe that the Russian intelligence services were able to obtain compromising information against Trump precisely because of the case against Jeffrey Epstein? 

This is not necessarily the kind of compromising evidence that everyone has been thinking about for years. Some hope, others fear, that such compromising evidence will not emerge — namely, of a sexual nature. But what we see from the correspondence published yesterday speaks of something else. That Jeffrey Epstein himself offered his services to Russian intelligence, to the Russian state, so that they could better profile, create a psychological profile of Trump himself and understand what his weak points were as a personality, how to negotiate with him in a way that they could win. 

There are no specific references to compromising sexual material. But this, of course, is an extremely interesting topic, because it raises the question of why a person who was a billionaire, who had his own island and his own airline, who was involved in sex trafficking, including underage girls, wanted to communicate and under what circumstances did this communication take place with the Russian services? 

He himself claims in their letters that he met with a representative of Russia - with the then ambassador Churkin, who died in 2017. He was a key person who actually helped Trump gain legitimacy as an international factor even before he won the 2016 election. So the question arises - what was the topic of this communication? 

To me, this is obvious because Russian intelligence has always understood that there are rich people, wealthy people from the West, who, if we look at their motivation through Maslow's pyramid, have already accumulated more than enough money for several lifetimes. They consider themselves successful, but they need something more, something different - to be factors in the international, geopolitical plan. They have certain unfulfilled dreams that are not related to money. And this is neither the first nor the only case. 

 Jeffrey Epstein.... There have been such cases before - with Robert Maxwell in the UK. Or rather, a story that is close to me, because it also affected my life - the story of the German-Austrian businessman and former billionaire Jan Marsalek, who is now hiding in Moscow. 

The story of Epstein and Marsalek is quite similar, because both of them had a huge amount of compromising material — personal compromising material and knowledge of the psychological profiles of influential figures. Epstein — mainly on American political figures, including Trump, and Marsalek — on German and Austrian ones. And they openly traded this with the Russian special services in order to gain importance, recognition — to be perceived as “super spies,” as people who communicate with major countries and are a factor in geopolitical terms.

— Hristo, how do you think this compromising material is used at all, if it was actually obtained from Epstein or through Epstein by the Russian intelligence services? In what case could it go public and what would that look like? 

Compromising material of this nature only works when it is not made public. Imagine that Trump understood — and he certainly understood — that Epstein is a person who knows specific cases of sexual crimes that are also mentioned in other conversations. That Trump had meetings with girls, often possibly underage, and others not — but the very fact that Trump knows that Epstein knows it, and that Trump knows that Epstein communicated with representatives of the Russian government — this fact in itself will forever influence and shape Trump's behavior. 

After that, there is no need to publish anything anymore. And it should never be published. Because the feeling of caution, the feeling that the Russian intelligence services know everything that Epstein knows because they communicated with him — that is more than enough. 

So once again — and yesterday I was answering many questions from other journalists — what exactly the compromising material is is not that important. The mere feeling that "they know everything" is quite enough and should never come to light.  

— Is such compromising material often used in political negotiations — behind the scenes or between intelligence agencies? And how often is it reminded that one side has compromising material against the other? 

 

It doesn’t even need to be reminded. Sometimes it is done, but the very fact of understanding that such compromising material can exist — even without a precise definition of what it is — is more than enough. 

 

In the case of Jan Marsalek, whom I mentioned, he claims to have compromising material of a sexual nature against German politicians. And, of course, such hints — if they reached me, they certainly reached these politicians as well. And they will forever be much more attentive to the state that possesses such information. In this case, the German state will not insist on Marsalek’s return to Germany, because they are afraid that he might actually publish this compromising material...

 

— What do you think — is Putin afraid of the publication of compromising information against him, or has he already learned to deny everything? Because we see how many investigations have been conducted into corruption in Russia, into the rule of Vladimir Putin and his entourage. He always prefers to ignore them. How dangerous is this compromising information for the Russian government? 

 

I do not agree that he ignores it. He does it publicly, and then sends his poisoners and murderers. I mean that publicly, inside Russia, in front of Russian citizens, he prefers not to notice it. But it is clear that the repressive machine is working at full speed. 

 

It is important to understand that if the repressive machine is working, it means that it is affecting him. It is affecting him and he is afraid. His public behavior differs from what he is actually doing behind the scenes. 

 

After the war began, after the full-scale invasion, he began to care less about it. I recently read chats that became part of a criminal case against spies who were following me and Roman Dobrokhotov. In them, FSB representatives directly discuss that after the start of the war in 2022, they no longer care how they look abroad. The reputational cost that existed before has completely disappeared. 

 

Therefore, I can say that after the start of the war, they care much less about their public image and, accordingly, they are ready for much more terrible actions than before."

The USA should not mislead Ukraine with Article 5-like "guarantees"

From UNIAN:

"The US should abandon Article 5 guarantees to Ukraine, according to the Washington Post 

Yaroslav Konoshchuk, December 27, 2025 

The US proposal to provide Ukraine with security guarantees similar to NATO's Article 5, meaning entering into war with Russia in the event of further aggression, is potentially dangerous and empty. 

This opinion was expressed in a column for the Washington Post by Samuel Charap, professor of Russian and Eurasian politics at the Rand Institute, and Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities. 

The authors noted that the US has so far refused to send American troops to Ukraine, and there are reasons for this. 

"If it were necessary to deploy American troops to Ukraine to protect vital U.S. interests, they would have been there long ago," the authors noted. 

Proponents of expanding security guarantees for Ukraine along the lines of Article 5 argue that the lack of treaty obligations is what deters the U.S. government from deploying troops, but historical evidence suggests otherwise. 

"The United States has never hesitated to deploy its military forces abroad," the authors noted, emphasizing that the U.S. reluctance to fight for Ukraine impacts any future commitment to do so...

"Ukraine will need security guarantees under any agreement that ends the war. But the Trump administration should prioritize narrow but credible commitments—more like what the US and its allies have been willing to do for Ukraine over the past four years—over broad commitments that appear generous but are ultimately empty and potentially dangerous," the authors concluded."

***

If Ukraine had been given only such "narrow but credible commitments" in 1994, I don't think it would have surrendered its nuclear arsenal.  

Security expert: For Trump, Ukraine is an obstacle

From 112.ua, Dec. 12, 2025:

"Zelensky to Meet Trump at Mar-a-Lago: What the Leaders Will Discuss

Peter Neumann, a security expert, expresses doubts about the possibility of a breakthrough for Kyiv, as he believes Trump’s geopolitical priorities lie elsewhere.

"For Trump, Ukraine is rather an obstacle to normalizing relations with Russia, which is his main geopolitical interest," Neumann stated.

He believes that a success will be if Zelensky can convince Trump of Ukraine's readiness for compromises."

 

 

What's wrong with US-proposed "peace plans"

From an interview of Ukrainian diplomat Oleh Shamshur in the Obozrevatel:

"The amended plan, slapped with spaghetti on the Ukrainians' ears, remained a reward for Putin. Why a personal meeting between Zelensky and Trump won't change anything

27.12.2025  

- For the first time, the Ukrainian President has officially announced 20 points of the so-called peace plan. Some observers believe this is a definite positive shift for Ukraine, given what we started with several weeks ago. Others, however, say that the statement that, theoretically, we could somehow retain control of the part of Donbas is essentially a reduction in our "red lines." What do you think we have today?

Looking at the philosophy of this document, there are two key points. First, it's a process of "improving on a bad thing." That is, if we look at what has become known and what has been approved by the president, we see that there have indeed been some changes, and some formulations have disappeared. In particular, it's striking that the detailed plan for building a "beautiful future" between the US and Russia—with its economic and political reintegration—has disappeared. But we understand perfectly well that this will in no way prevent such scenarios from being implemented bilaterally. And Ukraine doesn't need any consent for this, not even formal.  

Secondly, the document's philosophy from the very beginning, ever since Trump's initiatives emerged and were first discussed, has been a plan to reward Russia for its aggression. And, accordingly, this entails a series of extremely painful, existential concessions on Ukraine's part. In this sense, nothing has changed. And, unfortunately, it is precisely on this basis that the United States is prepared to negotiate. And, in fact, the Europeans also agree with this, despite occasional statements to the contrary.

Even if we imagine the best-case scenario, a hypothetical "freeze"—and right now it looks like a freeze of the situation on the demarcation line—this would amount to a territorial division of Ukraine with very dim prospects for a return...

- Regarding security guarantees, the Ukrainian President and the head of the negotiating team, Rustem Umerov, have been making some fairly positive statements lately. They say the Americans understand us, are accommodating, and perhaps something will even be approved by Congress. But what do we actually have, it's hard to understand, other than the fact that the first shot from Ukraine destroys all guarantees?

For this document to have any value, it needed to clearly spell out the guarantees. Previously, the logic was that partners would provide Ukraine with security guarantees, or at least discuss them. Now it turns out that these guarantees must also be approved by Russia. And even as they are currently written, they are not spelled out at all...

The document's overall philosophy only heightens doubts about the United States' readiness to assume a genuine leadership role in Ukraine's defense, despite all the US President's statements. If all of this is once again made contingent on Russia's consent, this, firstly, opens the door for Russia to torpedo both the agreement itself and the ceasefire.

Let's be frank: we need a ceasefire. What kind of "territorial agreement" could there possibly be with the Russians? It's absurd. So yes, I have serious reservations about the philosophy of this document, especially about the security guarantees. They must be concrete and backed by commitments from the US and Europeans now – before or alongside the signing of any agreements. If that doesn't happen, everything will again boil down to "assurances." And we already know what these "assurances" look like. It's the same old "spaghetti on the ears."  

- It looks like Trump and his representatives need the war to end as soon as possible. And what happens next, in a few months, seems to be of no interest to them at all.

This is essentially Trump's method. He needs to end the war, report to the world, and most importantly, to his own electorate, that "the job is done." If you look at all his previous mediation initiatives in other conflicts, the logic is the same. The ceasefire lasts a few days, and then problems arise that were clear from the start. After that, he'll tell everyone that he's already helped conclude nine agreements, and he'll once again demand the Nobel Peace Prize. It sounds ridiculous, but for Trump, this is truly an extremely important issue. This is precisely why Witkoff and Kushner were brought in at this stage: to push through this deal, to push through the way their boss, Donald Trump, sees it...

- We can discuss individual points as much as we want now, but the entire structure, thanks to Trump, is designed in such a way that everything depends on Russia's consent. And Moscow has already said: yes, we are ready to work with this document, but only as a basis for starting negotiations.

Until Russia is stopped through concerted efforts—sanctions, weapons, and pressure—Putin will try to dictate his will and his vision of the agreements. A ceasefire will only be possible under conditions acceptable to him. Incidentally, this must be discussed frankly with the public. Instead of talking about some kind of "progress," "consensus," or "if it's not good, it's not so bad." We must state frankly: under any circumstances, this scenario is bad for Ukraine. And everyone must prepare for a future continuation of the war. Avoid saying this just because Trump or his envoys might dislike it; this is the very issue of real sovereignty that is so pompously outlined in the first paragraph of the document..."

The USA wants to use an occupied Ukrainian nuclear power plant together with Russia

From the Street / Yahoo!News:

"U.S. reportedly seeks crypto mining access to Russia-occupied nuclear site

Pooja Rajkumari, December 26, 202

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the United States has expressed interest in establishing cryptocurrency mining operations at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP).

The statement came during a recent meeting between Putin and Russian business leaders, where he discussed ongoing negotiations over the plant’s future, according to a report from Russian outlet Kommersant on Dec. 25.

Located in southeastern Ukraine, the ZNPP is Europe’s largest nuclear facility and once played a central role in Ukraine’s electricity supply and grid stability. Since being occupied by Russian forces in 2022, the site has become a recurring flashpoint in diplomatic discussions.

The report claims that Washington aims to use a proposed stake in the ZNPP for crypto mining as part of wider U.S.-Russia talks. Moscow and Washington are reportedly discussing a joint management plan for the plant that would exclude Ukraine.

However, according to the BBC, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky presented an updated peace plan, which included a proposal from the U.S. for a tripartite arrangement for the facility. In the arrangement, Russia, Ukraine, and the U.S. will hold equal stakes in the facility.

Control over the ZNPP has major geopolitical and security implications, as whoever manages the plant effectively controls a key source of electricity for southern Ukraine and a stabilizing component of the wider regional grid..."

Cartoon about Russian psyche

 The pig in the mud is saying, "Traitor...".

(Source) 

 

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."

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: 

"Heorhii Tykhyi 

@SpoxUkraineMFA

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." 

China reportedly helps Russian bombings with satellite data

From Ukrinform:

"Chinese satellite imaging of Ukraine links with Russian strikes on energy facilities - Zelensky

24.12.2025

 

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

BySteven Nelson and Ariel Zilber, Dec. 23, 2025

WASHINGTON — Former first son Hunter Biden is blaming the “really distasteful” “hypocrites” who worked for then-President Barack Obama for setting in motion his most controversial foreign business dealings during his father Joe Biden’s eight-year vice presidency.

Hunter, now 55, blamed Obama’s staff for forcing him to start back at “square one” because they were concerned about conflicts of interest in his domestic lobbying work, using a new 5 ½-hour podcast with “The Shawn Ryan Show” to blast former associates and powerful Democrats.

“Obama picked him to be vice president. And in so doing, he had a group of people that I find to be really distasteful and hypocrites, but they said that I needed to give up my [domestic lobbying work],” he said.

“I was working for these universities, but I was assisting them both in the legal and the policy perspective and lobbying to help them get money… I was a lobbyist and so I voluntarily, but with a lot of pressure from them, none from my dad, had to give up that business.”

Hunter said in his woe-be-me account that he had been earning money from “like 14, 15 Jesuit universities. And that was my entire practice and I was really proud of it.”

“And so I basically started back in square one,” he said.

“And I started a consulting firm because I also stepped down from the board of Amtrak because they said that that was a conflict of interest and they were concerned that it was a conflict of interest,” the disgraced former first son said.

“I had to rebuild and I didn’t have any savings — had three girls, all in private school at the time, and, you know, don’t have any money.”

Hunter said that he initially worked with new domestic clients, including a “large Midwestern infrastructure firm” after his dad became vice president in 2009, before joining in 2014 the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings, which famously paid him $1 million per year despite no industry experience.

“I was very, very naive about what a viper’s den Ukraine is. What an absolute, like, talk about a, like, a level of corruption that [is] still staggering,” said Hunter, whose dad led the Obama administration’s Ukraine portfolio when he was raking in millions there.

“It was absolutely a mistake,” he said of the Burisma job, “not because of anything that I did that I am embarrassed about or in anyway whatsoever feel conflicted about as it relates to what I did for Burisma. But because of the political position that it put us all in.”

He brushed past his dealing with two Chinese government-linked entities, which paid him additional millions — including after he wrote in a 2017 text message that he was sitting with his dad and expecting payment — and laughed off concern about his art career later during his dad’s presidency.

“I was on the cover of the New York Post more times in one year than anybody in the history of the paper going back to like 1780. And none of it was good,” he complained — misstating The Post’s 1801 establishment by founding father Alexander Hamilton.

Hunter repeated his claim that an infamous 2017 email penciling in a 10% cut for his father — the “big guy” — as part of a Chinese energy venture was written by a business partner without any reflection of reality.

“What f—ing foreign business are you talking about? I had a partner who was Chinese, who was part of a private equity company, and we were gonna invest in natural gas in the United States in an industry that I knew of. And it fell apart and it didn’t happen,” Hunter blustered.

“And I worked for, on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, and as a lawyer, I represented a guy that was from Romania for a three month period of time. There’s my foreign business. I never had any business with any foreign government ever, ever.”

He blasted his former “best friend in business” Devon Archer, whom President Trump pardoned in March for defrauding an American Indian tribe, for gaining his clemency after he “literally stuck his lips around the ass of [first sons] Don Jr. and Eric [Trump].”

Hunter Biden said he’s roughly $15 million in debt with no plan to pay it off after federal prosecutions and congressional investigations throughout his dad’s four-year term of office.

He didn’t mention specific debtors, presumably including Hollywood attorney Kevin Morris, who spent at least $6.5 million to bankroll Hunter’s defense and  Los Angeles lifestyle, including covering his $17,500 monthly rent...

One Democratic source jokingly referred to the book-length interview as “the podcast from Hell” — a reference to Hunter’s infamous laptop containing embarrassing photos and documents linking his dad to foreign patrons across the globe.

A former Biden aide, who admitted they hadn’t listened to the sprawling soliloquy, said Hunter is entitled to his own views, and that his sniping at Obama’s aides was understandable because “they hated his dad from the beginning and were actively mean and dismissive.”

Hunter also sought to turn the tables on the Trump administration on tape, arguing he had more experience to justify his foreign work than businessman Steve Witkoff has to serve as Trump’s special envoy to the Mideast and Russia.

“Witkoff… has zero experience. Everybody says that I don’t have experience. I was a f–king adjunct professor at Georgetown University School of Foreign F–king Service,” he exclaimed.

He insisted that his tax fraud, for which his dad last pardoned him after he pleaded guilty, stemmed from his addiction to crack cocaine and the fact that his accountant died, and argued that his illegal gun-possession conviction, for which he also was pardoned, won’t be a constitutionally valid rap for long due to a pending court case.

Hunter Biden served no prison time for either set of crimes after his father’s pardon last December — despite similarly situated offenders often being put behind bars..."

***

Democrats, needless to say, are notoriously silent about what Hunter Biden was doing in 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?"