From the Kyiv Independent:
"Exclusive: Finnish president warns Europe that US likely talked with Russia while negotiating with Ukraine
Monday, February 23, 2026
Russia's strategy is to negotiate under fire
From the Faktor:
"Negotiations Under Fire: Russia's Strategy from Chechnya to Ukraine
December 5, 2025
Evgeny Atanasov
For decades, Russia has demonstrated a specific model of waging wars that it has declared itself. It conducts “negotiations” but simultaneously escalates the situation with bombings, ground offensives, or hybrid attacks. This behavior is not chaotic - it is part of a sustainable model built on a combination of diplomacy, force, disinformation, and the creation of controlled zones of instability. This model can be clearly traced in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and even in the energy and cyber pressure on Europe.
A tried-and-true formula: “I negotiate while I attack”
Russian strategy follows several consistent principles. A common tactic is to provoke escalation before and during negotiations. This means that military or political tension is first created, which puts the enemy on the defensive. Negotiations are used not for compromise, but for tactical pauses, reconnaissance and pressure to legitimize territorial or political gains. Even signed agreements are often violated when the Kremlin considers that the balance of power allows it to escalate again. These principles are present in all major conflicts that Russia has started since the collapse of the USSR.
Chechnya: The Prototype of the Model
During the first Chechen war (1994–1996), Russia began negotiations with Chechen leaders repeatedly, but in parallel carried out massive bombing. The strategy included sieges of cities (Grozny was almost completely destroyed), parallel diplomatic requests, information operations presenting Chechens as terrorists. The negotiations in Khasavyurt in 1996 came precisely after a period of Russian military defeats, that is, as a way to pause, not for a lasting solution.
During the second Chechen war (1999–2009), Moscow expanded its strategy. After a series of attacks in Russia, which the Kremlin blamed on Chechen groups (and which some researchers have linked to Russian intelligence services), Moscow launched a new offensive. The pattern is characterized by negotiations with “loyal” Chechen clans, mass deportations, bombing during “dialogue,” and the imposition of pro-Russian power. Chechnya is a key example of how Russia uses war and “negotiations” to impose a puppet regime.
Georgia: Blitzkrieg under the guise of peacekeeping
Before the 2008 war in Georgia, Russia maintained “peacekeeping” contingents that effectively armed separatist forces. Negotiations with Tbilisi took place in conditions in which Moscow distributed Russian passports in the occupied territories, provoked clashes, and claimed to “protect Russian-speakers.”
The Prelude: South Ossetia and Abkhazia
During the fighting, Russia accepted international mediators, but continued its offensive deep into Georgian territory while formally negotiating a ceasefire. After the signing of the EU-sponsored agreement, Russian troops did not fully withdraw. They effectively consolidated control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia and used the agreement as a tool to legitimize the occupation.
Ukraine: The Evolution of the Model into a Large-Scale War
Russia has been implementing the same model in several stages – first in 2014 in Crimea and Donbas. During the annexation of Crimea, Moscow “negotiated” with Kiev and the West while organizing a referendum at gunpoint. On the other hand, in Donbas, the Minsk agreements serve to freeze the front and pressure Ukraine to make political concessions.
Full-scale invasion 2022 and beyond
In the first weeks of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia formally participated in peace talks in Belarus and Turkey while bombing Kiev, Kharkiv, and Mariupol, preparing propaganda narratives of “demilitarization” and “denazification.” This is the most striking example of the strategic fusion of diplomacy with force.
Why does Russia use this strategy?
In Russian military doctrine, compromise is a form of weakness, and strength is the main language of international communication. It is good for Western countries to take an example from this strategy and try to achieve lasting peace through intransigence to provocations.
Control through fear
Fear creates a negotiation asymmetry - small countries are inclined to make concessions in order to avoid a full-scale war. At the same time, Russia uses diplomacy as a tactical pause. Negotiations give time to transfer units, replenish military resources and scout the enemy.
Creation of “frozen conflicts”
Frozen conflicts are permanent tools for influence - the examples are many and almost identical - Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh.
Russian aggression is not limited to tanks. It is accompanied by “auxiliary” actions such as disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks on key sites, energy dependence as a tool for pressure, corruption of political elites, financing of radical parties in Europe. These tactics often work in conjunction with military actions.
Russian strategy is consistent, not chaotic
Whether it is Grozny, Tskhinvali, Donetsk or Mariupol, the pattern is the same - pressure through force, negotiations without concessions, occupation or maintenance of chaos and use of peace as a tool for influence. As long as the Kremlin perceives international relations as a game of supremacy, the strategy of “negotiate while you bomb” will remain a core element of Russian foreign policy.
Through such rapprochement, Moscow also tries to divide coalitions of powerful states, create divisions, or weaken external support for the third country. This allows it to lobby for easing sanctions, reducing military aid, or politically destabilizing opponents. At the same time, the tactic gives Russia a time window to strategically strengthen positions, transfer troops, and prepare infrastructure for future operations. A classic example of this is the Minsk agreements of 2014–2015, when Moscow formally engaged in dialogue with the EU and the US while simultaneously occupying territories in Donbas.
Rapprochement has a psychological and propaganda effect: Russia presents itself as a “reasonable country” ready for negotiations, which provides it with legitimacy in the international community and can confuse the adversary about its true intentions. Thus, rapprochement with a powerful adversary is used as a tactical step to extract strategic, political, and military dividends without implying an intention for real compromise.
Why Ukraine Doesn’t Trust Russia?
Ukraine has seen too much of the same to believe this time. Kiev is aware that despite the formal dialogue, Russian forces will continue the offensive, sieges, and destruction. This systematic violation of agreements and the use of diplomatic talks as a tool for military and political dividends is the reason for the deep distrust of the Ukrainian side.
For Kiev, every new “diplomatic” gesture from Moscow is perceived as part of a long-term strategy to weaken Ukraine, legitimize the occupation, and undermine international support. In the context of this model, faith in real peace or good-faith negotiations with the Kremlin seems unreasonably risky."
Sunday, February 22, 2026
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?
Saturday, February 21, 2026
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
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
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
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."
Thursday, February 19, 2026
Ukrainian disabled defender: Ukraine has given enough
From CBS / Yahoo!News:
""How much more can we give?" asks one wounded Ukrainian warrior
Duarte Dias
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.""
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)