Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US, Israel led record-breaking surge in military spending in 2024

Israel boosted its military spending by 65 percent, reaching 8.8 percent of its GDP, to finance genocide against Palestinians

The Cradle | April 28, 2025

Global military expenditure surged to a record $2.7 trillion in 2024, marking a 9.4 percent increase over the previous year – the steepest annual rise since the end of the Cold War, according to new data published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Military budgets rose across all regions, with especially sharp increases in Europe and West Asia, driven by the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

The five largest military spenders — the US, China, Russia, Germany, and India – accounted for 60 percent of total global spending. The US alone spent $997 billion, or 37 percent of the global total – dedicating a significant portion of its budget to modernizing its military capabilities and nuclear arsenal to maintain strategic superiority over Russia and China.

Europe saw a particularly dramatic rise, with military spending increasing by 17 percent to $693 billion. Germany’s military expenditure rose by 28 percent to $88.5 billion, making it the largest spender in Western Europe and the fourth-largest worldwide, thanks largely to a €100 billion (around $107 billion) special defense fund established in 2022. Poland and Sweden also posted significant increases, with spending up by 31 percent and 34 percent, respectively.

Ukraine had the highest military burden in the world in 2024, with military spending amounting to 34 percent of its GDP. All of Ukraine’s tax revenues were absorbed by defense needs, while social and economic spending relied entirely on foreign aid, including $7.7 billion from Germany.

In West Asia, military expenditure rose by 15 percent, reaching $243 billion. Israel led the regional increase, boosting its military spending by 65 percent to $46.5 billion amid its wars on Gaza and Lebanon. Israel’s military burden rose to 8.8 percent of GDP, the second highest in the world.

Lebanon, despite ongoing political and economic instability, raised its defense budget by 58 percent to $635 million.

Iran’s military spending fell by 10 percent in real terms to $7.9 billion in 2024 despite its support for regional allies resisting Israel, including Hezbollah and Yemen. The impact of sanctions on Iran severely limited its capacity to increase spending.

Elsewhere, China continued its large-scale military modernization, spending an estimated $314 billion in 2024, with developments in stealth aircraft, unmanned systems, and a rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal. Japan also raised its military budget by 21 percent to $55.3 billion, further heightening concerns of a potential arms race in the Asia-Pacific region.

SIPRI researchers warned that as governments prioritize military security, often at the expense of social and economic programs, societies could face significant long-term consequences. With over 100 countries increasing their military budgets, 2024 marked the tenth consecutive year of rising global military expenditure – a trend that analysts expect will persist amid ongoing geopolitical tensions.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Civic groups in Taiwan rally protest against DPP amid growing wave of opposition

By Shen Sheng | Global Times | April 26, 2025

Several civic groups on the island of Taiwan launched a protest event on Saturday, opposing the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and condemning Lai Ching-te for inciting hatred within Taiwan island and forcibly pushing the public toward the brink of war. They also denounced the DPP for damaging cross-Straits economic and trade exchanges, making it difficult for agricultural and fishery products from Taiwan to be exported.

The event comes as the Lai’s series of regressive actions have triggered a growing wave of denunciations from people across Taiwan Straits, who condemned his trampling of democracy and the rule of law, as well as its damage to the peace across the Straits.

Speakers at the event warned that if the DPP continues to rely on foreign powers and provoke confrontation with Chinese mainland, there will be no space left for peace in Taiwan island, and young people will face an unstable future. They called on the people of Taiwan to transcend ethnic and political divides and stand up against the DPP’s attempt to seek “Taiwan independence.” They urged all Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits to share a sense of historical responsibility and jointly resist forces driving them toward disaster, according to a press release sent to the Global Times on Saturday by the Labor Party.

Wang Chuan-pin, Vice Chairman of the Labor Party, emphasized at the event that the DPP is actively cooperating with the US to hollow out Taiwan’s industries. She emphasized the need to defend the rights of small and medium-sized enterprises and grassroots workers and urged everyone to courageously stand up against DPP’s harmful actions.

Wang Wu-lang, secretary-general of the Labor Party, noted that Lai Ching-te has damaged cross-Straits economic and trade exchanges, making it difficult for agricultural and fishery products in Taiwan island to be exported, while industrial goods are now subject to high US tariffs. These developments have severely harmed the interests of farmers and workers in the island.

People are now facing stagnant wages, soaring housing prices, and rising living costs, signaling that the DPP is ruining the lives of the people through its political agenda, said Wang.

Xu Mengxiang, Deputy Secretary-General of the Labor Party, stated that the DPP, under the pretext of “security,” is inciting hatred within the island of Taiwan and forcibly pushing the public toward the brink of war. This undermines the progressive values of democracy and leads the entire island down a dangerous path of historical regression.

Participants further stressed that the DPP’s “green terror” has already targeted mainland spouses and other political groups and may extend even further. They warned that if the public does not rise up, everyone could eventually become victims of this “green terror.” They invoked the memory of those who once stood against “white terror” in Taiwan’s history, calling on current and future generations to continue fighting against today’s oppression, and to defend democracy and the rule of law.

Addressing the livelihood issues that concern the public most, speakers at the event repeatedly pointed out that the DPP places ideology above people’s welfare. Its anti-China stance has crippled Taiwan’s economy and society, misallocating resources and distorting internal policies, thereby intensifying livelihood and economic crises.

They stressed that the Lai Ching-te administration is using an anti-China strategy as a cover for its governance failures, leading to worsening economic decline, rising energy risks, and widespread public hardship.

At the conclusion of the event, the civic groups issued an appeal to people in Taiwan, chanting slogans such as “both sides of the Taiwan Straits are of the same family” and “we are all Chinese,” which received strong and enthusiastic support from the public.

Meanwhile, the Kuomintang (KMT) party also held a protest against DPP on the same day, Taiwan-based outlet ETtoday reported. Ma Ying-jeou, former chairman of the Chinese Kuomintang party, attended the protest and delivered a speech. In his remarks, Ma expressed his dissatisfaction with DPP’s actions, and criticized Lai’s incompetence, stating that he cannot bear it anymore.

Taiwan-based media reported that Ma expressed concern that Lai’s recent words and actions could lead Taiwan to a rapid decline. He mentioned that while the US imposed heavy tariffs, Lai and DPP authorities are helpless.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

White House preparing for possible Trump-Kim talks – Axios

RT | April 28, 2025

US President Donald Trump’s team is considering a new strategy for North Korea, potentially mirroring the diplomatic engagement of his first term, according to sources cited by Axios.

Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in person multiple times, including in Singapore in 2018, Hanoi in 2019, and within the demilitarized zone on the Korean Peninsula later that same year. He is the first sitting US president ever to sit down at the negotiating table with his North Korean counterpart.

Trump has told his team that he wants to reconnect with Kim, potentially face-to-face, Axios reported on Sunday. The administration is “convening agencies to understand where the North Koreans are today,” said a senior official speaking on condition of anonymity. “A lot has changed in the last four years. We are evaluating, diagnosing and talking about potential avenues, including engagement.”

Currently, this initiative is not among the White House’s top priorities and involves consultations with external experts, including former officials and think tanks, the outlet said. Axios suggested that Washington holds less leverage over Pyongyang now than it did in the late 2010s, as North Korea has bolstered its military capabilities, including nuclear forces, and forged stronger ties with China and Russia.

Last year, North Korea and Russia signed a bilateral treaty that includes mutual defense provisions. Shortly thereafter, Ukraine started an offensive into Russia’s Kursk Region, aiming to gain leverage over Moscow in future negotiations.

North Korean troops were deployed to Russian territory to assist Moscow in repelling Ukrainian forces, culminating in the complete liberation of the region last week, according to Moscow. Over the weekend, President Vladimir Putin acknowledged the contribution of North Korean troops, commending their bravery and referring to them as brothers in arms.

The Trump administration is seeking a compromise deal to end the Ukraine conflict. Trump has accused Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky of undermining his efforts by publicly challenging key aspects of what media outlets describe as his peace plan.

The two leaders met on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral in the Vatican on Saturday, with Zelensky pleading for more US weapons, according to Trump.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Kiev has escalated attacks on civilians – Moscow

RT | April 28, 2025

Kiev has reacted to diplomatic reengagement between Moscow and Washington by intensifying attacks against civilians, a senior Russian diplomat has claimed.

American and Russian officials have held multiple rounds of discussions aimed at restoring bilateral relations and resolving the conflict between Moscow and Kiev since US President Donald Trump’s second term in office started in January.

Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s ambassador-at-large overseeing investigations of war crimes, has accused Kiev of trying to derail the dialogue through military provocations. Since late March, the number of Ukrainian attacks against civilian targets has significantly increased, he said during a briefing on Monday.

”That was Kiev’s reaction to the start of the negotiations between Moscow and Washington,” Miroshnik claimed, noting that the number of Ukrainian attacks has risen by a quarter, compared to January and February.

Miroshnik stated that during the first three months of 2025, Ukrainian forces had fired more than 22,000 munitions at Russia’s civilian infrastructure.

”In the period from January 1 to March 31, Ukrainian military action has hurt at least 1,489 civilians,” Miroshnik reported. The casualties included 292 deaths and 1,197 who were wounded, according to the official. Five children were killed in the three months and 63 others were injured, he added.

Kiev is deliberately targeting non-combatants in order to terrorize the Russian population, the diplomat alleged, citing statements by Ukrainian officials and interviews with troops captured in Kursk Region.

One Ukrainian soldier claimed he had been ordered to “shoot all encountered civilians,” Miroshnic said, adding that the “political regime in Kiev is relaying to its units guarantees of impunity for their crimes secretly offered by Western sponsors.”

The Trump administration has changed the US approach to handling the crisis, which previously promised Kiev unwavering military support. Moscow is concerned that Kiev will resort to provocations in an attempt to influence American policy, Miroshnik said.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Fyodor Lukyanov: Forget land – this is Russia’s main demand from the West

By Fyodor Lukyanov | RT | April 28, 2025

Everyone is expecting news on a Ukrainian settlement this week. The diplomatic activity is real and intense, and the visible signs suggest something significant is underway. There is little point in trying to guess which of the leaked plans are genuine and which are misinformation. What is clear is that Russia is being offered a choice between “a bird in the hand and two in the bush.” The trouble is, the elements necessary for any sustainable agreement are still scattered among the various birds.

Currently, discussions naturally revolve around territory. This is a sensitive subject, particularly since the territories under consideration are already under Russian control. The bird’s wings are clipped, however: legal recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over these lands seems unrealistic, at least in the near term. De facto recognition, with a pledge not to attempt to return them by force, could be the achievable result. In today’s global atmosphere, it is naive to view any legal agreement as genuinely final.

Yet territory was not the true cause of this conflict. The deeper issue was decades of unresolved security contradictions. ‘Demilitarization’ – so prominently featured in Russia’s original demands – encompasses both Ukraine’s neutral status and the broader limitation of its military capabilities, whether through curtailing domestic production, cutting off external supplies, or reducing existing forces.

This demand is far from cosmetic. Fulfillment would overturn the international order that has reigned since the end of the Cold War – an order based on NATO’s unchecked expansion across Europe and Eurasia, without regard for Moscow’s objections. The military campaign thus became a way of exercising a “veto” that the West had long denied Russia. True demilitarization of Ukraine would, in effect, force international recognition of that veto. But many in the West remain unwilling to accept such a precedent.

As discussions have moved toward territorial issues, the central problem of military security seems to have been relegated to the background. Perhaps US President Donald Trump’s administration – more skeptical of NATO itself – views it as less fundamental. Or perhaps it simply finds it easier to force Ukraine to cede territory than to make Western Europe recognize Russia’s security rights. Nevertheless, for Moscow, military security remains a matter of principle. Even if Washington offers major concessions – lifting sanctions, formalizing territorial changes – Russia cannot abandon this core demand.

This creates a divergence in diplomatic tempo. Washington wants a quick deal; the Kremlin believes that haste will not produce a reliable settlement. Yet Moscow also knows that the political stars – especially in Washington – have aligned in a uniquely favorable way, and it does not want to miss the moment.

The outcome will be known soon enough. However, some important lessons from history should be remembered.

First, achieving political goals often takes more than one campaign. A pause in fighting is not necessarily a resolution.

Second, there is no such thing as an open-ended, unchangeable agreement. If a deal does not truly satisfy all parties, it will eventually collapse. The struggle will resume – though not necessarily through military means.

Third, Ukraine is only one piece of a much larger process of global transformation in which Russia intends to play a central role. These changes are already underway, and will continue to deepen. Reaching some degree of understanding with the United States is important. Interestingly, the NATO issue might resolve itself over time, not because of Russian pressure but due to the alliance’s own growing irrelevance.

But for now, that remains a matter for the future. In the immediate term, Russia faces a choice between the imperfect birds on offer – and must weigh carefully which to catch and which to let fly.

Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

North Korea and Russia Smash West’s Hopes

Sputnik – 28.04.2025

North Korean forces added significantly to liberating Russia’s Kursk region from Ukrainian units, Alexey Leonkov, a veteran Russian military analyst, tells Sputnik.

North Korea’s ground and special force troops acted in coordination with Russian command, tackling both Ukrainian militants and highly skilled foreign mercenaries who fought on Ukraine’s side.

Fighting in the Kursk region, North Korean soldiers received invaluable combat experience, which will contribute to the North Korean army’s defense capability.

North Korean forces were deployed to the Kursk region in line with the Russia-North Korea Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, which is seen by the North Korean side as a military alliance.

The document stipulates that if there are attempts by foreign countries to act against North Korea, Russia will help it with all its military might, including nuclear weapons.

The treaty will restrict the US’ push to expand its clout in the Asia-Pacific.

North Korean soldiers added to another defeat of the proxy army of Ukraine that the West uses to fight against Russia.

It also means a defeat for the West itself, which failed to achieve anything in the Kursk region except the destruction of Ukraine’s the most combat-ready units.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russians ‘are not our enemy’ – Trump adviser

RT | April 28, 2025

The White House crypto tsar has rejected the notion that Ukraine is aiding the United States against its enemies by fighting Russia.

Kiev has consistently asserted that it is “defending” Western nations from Russia. Vladimir Zelensky reiterated the point in a recent interview with conservative journalist Ben Shapiro, where he urged the US to act as an arms supplier rather than a diplomatic mediator and stating that Ukrainians “are fighting against your enemies, the Russians.”

“Russians are not our enemy. We shouldn’t be helping to kill them,” countered David Sacks, a venture entrepreneur and White House advisor on crypto and artificial intelligence, who responded on social media on Sunday to a clip from the interview. Sacks has long criticized US support for Kiev, characterizing it as an attempt to transform the Ukraine conflict into a “forever war.”

Zelensky has argued that modern Russia shares the same agenda as the former USSR and considers the US its “main enemy.” He accused Moscow of collaborating with Tehran and Pyongyang to undermine American interests.

Conversely, he stated that Kiev views the US as a “strategic partner” and “friend.” However, he cautioned that any attempts to pressure Ukrainians could “turn them around very quickly.”

US President Donald Trump has claimed that Zelensky has undermined his efforts to negotiate a peace deal between Kiev and Moscow by publicly dismissing his proposals. In their latest meeting, held on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral last Saturday, the Ukrainian leader requested more weapons, the US president told the media, adding that “he has been saying that for three years.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told CBS last week that Moscow is interested in a relationship with the US which is based on “an equal, mutually respectful dialogue heading to finding a balance of interest.” With that approach, “everything is possible,” he added.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 1 Comment

The Kellogg framework is a disaster for Trump

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 28, 2025

Political warfare in Washington is endemic. But the body count at the Pentagon has started to rise precipitously. Three of Secretary of Defence Hegseth’s top advisors were placed on leave, and then fired. The war continues, with the Secretary now in the firing line.

Why this matters is that the Hegseth attrition comes amid fierce internal debates in the Trump administration about Iran policy. Hawks want an definitive elimination of all Iran’s nuclear and weapons capabilities, whilst many ‘restrainers’ warn against military escalation; Hegseth reportedly was amongst those warning against an intervention in Iran.

The recent Pentagon dismissals have all been identified as restrainers. One of the latter, Dan Caldwell, formerly Hegseth’s Top Adviser and an army veteran, wrote a post slamming the ‘Iran Hawks’ – and subsequently was fired. He was later interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Notably, Caldwell describes in scathing terms America’s wars in Iraq and Syria (“criminal”). This adverse sentiment concerning America’s earlier wars is a rising theme, it seems, amongst U.S. Vets today.

The three Pentagon staffers essentially were fired, not as ‘leakers’, but for talking Hegseth out of supporting war on Iran, it would appear; the Israeli-Firsters, have not given up on that war.

The inflamed fault lines between hawks and traditionalist ‘Republicans’ bleed across into the Ukraine issue, even if the faction membership may alter a tad. Israeli-Firsters and U.S. hawks more generally, are behind both the war on Russia and the maximalist demands on Iran.

Conservative commentator Fred Bauer observes that when it comes to Trump’s own war impulses, they are conflicted:

“Influenced by the Vietnam War of his youth … Trump seems deeply averse to long-term military conflicts, yet, at the same time, Trump admires a politics of strength and swagger. That means taking out Iranian generals, launching airstrikes on the Houthis, and boosting the defence budget to $1 trillion”.

Hegseth’s potential exit – should the campaign for his removal succeed – could cause the struggle to grow fiercer. Its first casualty is already apparent – Trump’s hope to bring a quick end to the Ukraine conflict is over.

This week, the Trump team (including both warring factions, Rubio, Witkoff and General Kellogg) met in Paris with various European and Ukrainian representatives. At the meeting, a Russian-Ukrainian unilateral ceasefire proposal was mooted by the U.S. delegation.

After the meeting, at the airport, Rubio plainly said that the ceasefire plan was ‘a take-it-or-leave-it’ U.S. initiative. The various sides – Russia, Kiev and the European members of the ‘coalition of the willing’ – had only days to accept it, or else the U.S. was ‘out’, and would wash its hands of the conflict.

The framework presented, as reported, is almost (maybe 95%) unadulteratedly that previously proposed by General Kellogg: i.e. it is his plan, first aired in April 2024. It appears that the ‘Kellogg formula’ was adopted then as the Trump platform (Trump was at the time in mid-campaign, and unlikely to have been following the complicated minutiae of the Ukraine war too closely).

General Kellogg is also the likely source for Trump’s optimism that the ending to the Ukraine war could come with a click of Trump’s fingers – through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats on both belligerents by Trump – and with the timing decided in Washington.

In short, the plan represented a Beltway consensus that the U.S. could implement a negotiated end-state with terms aligned to U.S. and Ukrainian interests.

Kellogg’s implicit assumptions were that Russia is highly vulnerable to a sanctions threat (its economy perceived as being fragile); that it had suffered unsustainably high casualties; and that the war was at a stalemate.

Thus, Kellogg persuaded Trump that Russia would readily agree to the ceasefire terms proposed – albeit terms that were constructed around patently flawed underlying assumptions about Russia and its presumed weaknesses.

Kellogg’s influence and false premises were all too evident when Trump, in January, having stated that Russia had lost one million men (in the war) then went on to say that “Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal, adding (seemingly as an aside), that Putin may have already made up his mind ‘not to make a deal’”. He further claimed that Russia’s economy is in ‘ruins’, and most notably said that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia. In a subsequent Truth Social post, Trump writes, “I’m going to do Russia – whose Economy is failing – and President Putin, a very big FAVOR”.

All of Kellogg’s underlying assumptions lacked any basis in reality. Yet Trump seemingly took them on trust. And despite Steve Witkoff’s subsequent three lengthy personal meetings with President Putin, in which Putin repeatedly stated that he would not accept any ceasefire until a political framework had been first agreed, the Kellogg contingent continued to blandly assume that Russia would be forced to accept Kellogg’s détente because of the claimed serious ‘setbacks’ Russia had suffered in Ukraine.

Given this history, unsurprisingly, the ceasefire framework terms outlined by Rubio this week in Paris reflected those more suited to a party at the point of capitulation, rather than that of a state anticipating achieving its objectives – by military means.

In essence, the Kellogg Plan looked to bring a U.S. ‘win’ on terms aligned to a desire to keep open the option for continuing attritional war on Russia.

So, what is the Kellogg Plan? At base, it seeks to establish a ‘frozen conflict’ – frozen along the ‘Line of Conflict’; with no definitive ban on NATO membership for Ukraine, (but rather, envisaging a NATO membership that is deferred well into the future); it places no limits on the size of a future Ukrainian army and no restrictions on the type or quantity of armaments held by the Ukrainian forces. (It foresees, contrarily, that after the ceasefire, the U.S. might re-arm, train and militarily support a future force) – i.e. back to the post-Maidan era of 2014.

In addition, no territory would be ceded by Ukraine to Russia, save for Crimea which alone would be recognised by the U.S. as Russian (the unique sop to Witkoff?), and Russia would only ‘exercise control’ over the four Oblasts that it currently claims, yet only up to the Line of Conflict; territory beyond this line would remain under Ukrainian control (see here for the ‘Kellogg map’). The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant would be neutral territory to be held, and managed, by the U.S. There is no mention made of the cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson that have been constitutionally incorporated into Russia, but lie beyond the contact line.

Nothing about a political solution apparently was outlined in the plan, and the plan leaves Ukraine free to pursue its claim to all Ukraine’s former territories – save for only Crimea.

Ukrainian territory west of the Dnieper River however, would be divided into three zones of responsibility: British, French and German zones (i.e. which NATO forces would manage). Finally, no American security guarantees were offered.

Rubio subsequently passed details of the plan to Russian FM Lavrov, who calmly stated that any ceasefire plan should resolve the underlying causes to the conflict in Ukraine as its first task.

Witkoff flies to Moscow this week to present this ‘pig’s ear’ of a plan to Putin – seeking his consent. The Europeans and Ukrainians are set to meet next Wednesday in London to give their riposte to Trump.

What’s next? Most obviously, the Kellogg Plan will not ‘fly’. Russia will not accept it, and likely Zelensky will not either, (though the Europeans will work to persuade him – hoping to ‘wrong-foot Moscow’ by presenting Russia as the essential ‘spoiler’). Reportedly, Zelensky already has rejected the Crimea provision.

For the Europeans, the lack of security guarantees or backstop by the U.S. may prove to be a killer for their aspiration to deploy a tripwire troop deployment to Ukraine, in the context of a ceasefire.

Is Trump really going to wash his hands of Ukraine? Doubtful, given that the U.S. neo-conservative institutional leadership will tell Trump that to do so, would weaken America’s ‘peace through strength’ narrative. Trump may adopt supporting Ukraine ‘on a low flame’ posture, whilst declaring the ‘war was never his’ – as he seeks a ‘win’ on the business front with Russia.

The bottom line is that Kellogg has not well-served his patron. The U.S. needs effective working relations with Russia. The Kellogg contingent has contributed to Trump’s egregious misreading of Russia. Putin is a serious actor, who says what he means, and means what he says.

Colonel Macgregor sums it up thus:

“Trump tends to view the world through the lens of dealmaking. [Ending the Ukraine war] is not about dealmaking. This is about the life and death of nations and peoples. There’s no interest in some sort of short-fused deal that is going to elevate Trump or his administration to greatness. There will be no win for Donald Trump personally in any of this. That was never going to be the case”.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Europe’s Downfall

Col. Jacques Baud & Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | April 27, 2025

Colonel Jacques Baud is a former military intelligence analyst in the Swiss Army and the author of many books. Colonel Baud argues that Europe no longer has a strategy in terms of grand objectives to achieve that correspond with its means. Europe is without direction, which results in destructive policies, self-harm, fragmentation, and eventually its downfall.

April 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump made no overtures to Russia over Europe’s largest nuclear plant – Lavrov

RT | April 27, 2025

The US has made no offer to Russia regarding the future of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has told CBS. The diplomat’s remarks followed media reports about Washington’s alleged plans vis-a-vis the installation.

The energy facility, which is Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, has been under Russian control since March 2022. Later that year, Zaporozhye Region’s residents voted to join Russia in a referendum, which Ukraine dismissed as a sham.

When asked during an interview with CBS on Sunday whether US President Donald Trump had approached Moscow over the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, Lavrov said that “we never received such an offer.” He added that “if we do, we would explain that the power station… is run by the Russian Federation state corporation called Rosatom.”

“It is in very good hands,” the diplomat added, noting that the facility is “being monitored by IAEA personnel permanently stationed at the site.”

“If not for the Ukrainian regular attempts to attack the power plant, and to create a nuclear disaster for Europe and for Ukraine as well, the safety requirements are fully implemented,” Lavrov asserted.

Moscow ready to seek ‘balance of interests’ with Ukraine and US — LavrovREAD MORE: Moscow ready to seek ‘balance of interests’ with Ukraine and US — Lavrov
When further pressed on the issue, the minister reiterated that “I don’t think any change [to the facility’s status] is conceivable.”

“We cannot speculate on something which is really not being mentioned during the negotiations,” he concluded.

On Tuesday, Axios, citing unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the discussions, reported that American officials had presented Kiev’s representatives with President Trump’s “final offer” to end the Ukraine conflict during talks in Paris last week.

According to the outlet, the proposal includes designating the area around the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant as neutral territory under US administration.

Last Sunday, the Wall Street Journal carried a similar report, citing anonymous sources.

In March, Trump claimed that Vladimir Zelensky had proposed that the US assume ownership of his country’s nuclear power plants. The Ukrainian leader, however, refuted this assertion, stating that he and Trump had only discussed potential US investments in the Zaporozhye NPP.

April 27, 2025 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 1 Comment

Lavrov discusses Ukraine concessions, Crimea, Trump and nuclear weapons

RT | April 27, 2025

In an interview with CBS, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has rebuked the network for suggesting Moscow is not ready to make concessions to end the Ukraine conflict. He stressed that Russia is committed to seeking a “balance of interests” with the US and Ukraine. Lavrov added that Russia is always ready for “serious and respectful” negotiations, unlike Kiev, which he accused of “talking through the media.”

The top diplomat said talks with Washington are “moving in the right direction” because US president Donald Trump had recognized NATO’s mistakes and the violation of Russian rights in Ukraine.

He welcomed Trump’s ceasefire plan but demanded firm guarantees Ukraine would not use it to rebuild its military.

Responding to US accusations that Moscow has space-based weapons, Lavrov rejected the claims as false. He said that Russia has long promoted a UN treaty to ban nuclear weapons in outer space, which the US has refused to support.

Lavrov called Crimea being part of Russia a “done deal” and praised Trump for acknowledging it.

Here is the CBS interview in full:

Question: Good morning, Minister Lavrov. I want to ask you about what happened in Kiev. There was a large Russian attack on that capital city about 1 o’clock in the morning. President Trump has said publicly the Russian strikes are not necessary and very bad timing. “Vladimir, stop”, was his quote. What made it worth killing civilians when Ukraine says it’s ready for a ceasefire?

Sergey Lavrov: We only target military goals or civilian sites used by the military. President Putin expressed this for so many times, and this is not different this time as well. We never consciously target civilian sites, unlike the Zelensky regime.

Question: So was this an intentional attack then, not a mistake?

Sergey Lavrov: If this was a target used by the Ukrainian military, the Ministry of Defense, the commanders in the field have the right to attack them.

Question: So just to be clear, when the President of the United States says, “Vladimir, stop,” is this a rejection of that request, or was the assessment that because of what you say regarding the concerns that this loss of civilian life made it worth it?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, I can assure you that the target attacked was not something absolutely civilian like a TV center in Belgrade in 1999. This was an intentional attack against civilian target.

In our case, we only target those sites which are used by the military. And regarding the ceasefire and regarding the call to stop, President Putin immediately supported President Trump’s proposal a few weeks ago to establish a 30-day ceasefire provided we do not repeat mistakes of the last 10 years when deals were signed, and then Ukraine would violate those deals with the support and with encouragement from Biden administration and from European countries.

This was the fate of the deal of February 2014. Then this was the fate of the Minsk agreements, and this was the fate of the deal reached on the basis of Ukrainian proposals in Istanbul in April 2022.

So President Putin said, “Ceasefire, yes, but we want the guarantees that the ceasefire would not be used again to beef up Ukrainian military, and that the supplies of arms should stop.”

Question: Ukraine accepted on March 11th that idea of a US-brokered ceasefire without preconditions. You’re saying the preconditions are a negotiation to end something else?

Sergey Lavrov: No, it is not a precondition. It’s the lessons learned after at least three times. The deals, similar to the one which we are discussing now, were broken by the Ukrainian regime with the strong support from European capitals and Biden administration.

If you want a ceasefire just to continue supply arms to Ukraine, so what is your purpose? You know what Kaja Kallas and Mark Rutte said about the ceasefire and the settlement? They bluntly stated that they can support only the deal which at the end of the day will make Ukraine stronger, would make Ukraine a victor. So if this is the purpose of the ceasefire, I don’t think this is what President Trump wants. This is what Europeans, together with Zelensky, want to make out of President Trump’s initiative.

Question: Will Russia continue targeting Kiev despite President Trump saying, “Vladimir, stop?”

Sergey Lavrov: You’re not listening to me. We will continue to target the sites used by the military of Ukraine by some mercenaries from foreign countries and by instructors whom the Europeans officially sent to help target Russian civilian sites.

If you take a look at the situation in the Kursk region of Russia, for example, there is no single military target for the last six months which the Ukrainians would fire at.

And there was also a proposal by President Trump immediately supported by President Putin to have a one-month moratorium on the attacks on energy infrastructure. We never violated this commitment of President Putin. And Ukrainians violated what Zelensky seemed to support several hundred times. And I sent to Marco Rubio and to the United Nations the list of those attacks. It’s really very, very telling and eloquent.

Question: Ukraine disputes that, but putting that aside, I want to ask you about what President Trump said on Wednesday. The President of the United States says he thinks the US and Russia have a deal, let’s get it done. Does President Putin agree?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, the President of the United States believes, and I think rightly so, that we are moving in the right direction. The statement by the President mentions a deal, and we are ready to reach a deal, but there are still some specific points, elements of this deal which need to be fine-tuned, and we are busy with this exact process. And the President of the United States did not spell out the elements of the deal, so it is not appropriate for me to do this.

Question:  But he did say there was a deal, and that he was sending his envoy, Steve Witkoff, to meet with Vladimir Putin Friday in Russia. Is that meeting still happening, and should we expect a deal this week?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, you don’t trust the word of the President of the United States?

Question: I was asking your President’s word. What will he tell the US envoy?

Sergey Lavrov: We continue our contacts with the American side on the situation in Ukraine. There are several signs that we are moving in the right direction, first of all, because President Trump is probably the only leader on Earth who recognized the need to address the root causes of this situation. When he said that it was a huge mistake to pull Ukraine into NATO, and this was a mistake by the Biden administration, and he wants to rectify this.

And Marco Rubio expressed yesterday, I think, also the assessment that the American team now is getting a better understanding of the Russian position and of the root causes of this situation. One of these root causes, apart from NATO and creation of direct military threats to Russia just on our borders, another one is the rights of the national minorities in Ukraine. Everything Russian, media, education, culture, anything was prohibited by law in Ukraine. And to get out of this crisis, you cannot just forget about human rights.

Whenever we discuss Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, anything, American negotiators put on top human rights. They have claims in this regard to China, to us, to anybody. But whenever Europeans and other Western nations speak about Ukraine, nobody can mumble the words human rights. Just nobody.

On the contrary, what Ursula von der Leyen and other people in Brussels and in Europe say that Ukraine is defending the European values. So one of these values is cancelling the Russian language. Imagine if Israel cancelled Arabic language in Palestine. Just imagine.

Question: You mentioned that the US and Russia need to work on some of these fine points of a deal.

Sergey Lavrov: Yeah, you want the fine points to be spelled out?

Question: Well, of course, I’d love that, but this is not the way. European sources say that the US proposal is really just kind of a list of bullet points. Does Russia have details, the details you need at this point?

Sergey Lavrov: Look, we are really polite people. And unlike some others, we never discuss in public what is being discussed in negotiations. Otherwise, negotiations are not serious.

To ask for somebody’s opinion regarding the substance, go to Zelensky. He is happy to talk to anybody through media, even to President Trump. He presents his claims.

We are serious. We are serious people. And we consider serious proposals. We make serious proposals. And this is a process which is not supposed to be public until the end of it.

Question: OK. So no deal is imminent?

Sergey Lavrov: I didn’t say this. Now I understand, by the way, why you wanted to get brief answers to your questions. You want some slogans to be in the broadcast.

Question: No, the President of the United States said there was a deal with Russia. So I wanted to ask Russia if there is a deal with the United States.

Sergey Lavrov: Well, we made our comments on this statement. The negotiations continue. And until the end of the negotiations, we cannot disclose what it is about.

Question: OK. The National Security Advisor Mike Walz said last month that President Trump is asking for thousands of Ukrainian children who were taken into Russia to be released now as part of what he called “confidence building measures.” What steps has Russia taken to meet Mr. Trump’s request?

Sergey Lavrov: Look, long before the request coming from Washington, we have been addressing the issue of the fate of the kids who during the conflict found themselves outside their homes, outside their families. Most of these kids were attending orphanage. And as soon as and we announce whatever details we have about those kids, and as soon as relevance, I mean, the parents or other relevant relatives make themselves available, they are getting the kids back. This has been the process for the last almost three years between the ombudsmen of Russia and Ukraine.

Question: So there’s no new release of thousands of Ukrainian children at the request of President Trump?

Sergey Lavrov: No, there was nobody. Nobody knows why some experts advised the President about thousands of Ukrainian children.

Every now and then, once in two or three months, we organize exchanges with Ukrainians with the help of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, who do not, you know, make any noise about what they’re doing. They just do something which we are participating in a very constructive manner, bringing kids back to their parents or relatives.

Question: But what “confidence building measures” can Russia offer now, particularly after this strike in Kiev, where the President of the United States is saying, “Vladimir, stop.” How do you convince the United States that Russia is actually serious about peace?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, “confidence building measures” have been plentiful in the last 10 years. I mentioned a deal in February…

Question: That strike was overnight.

Sergey Lavrov: You want a brief answer, right? As I understand from your initial words, or you want an answer which is explaining the situation?

The proposal by President Trump on 30 days moratorium on the strikes against the energy infrastructure was supported by President Putin and observed strictly. This was a confidence building measure against the policy and action taken by the Zelensky regime. As I said several hundred times civilian energy infrastructure was struck.

Another confidence building measure was the proposal of President Trump and his team to resume the deal on Black Sea. And the delegations met in Istanbul, in Riyadh. The delegations exchanged the views how this can be implemented in practical terms. And the proposals made by Russia are being considered by the United States. There are many other examples about confidence building measure.

But if you believe that it’s only Ukraine who is interested in confidence building, I think a short answer would be this is an illusion.

Question: Do you take President Trump at his word when he says if Russia is unable to make a deal on ending the bloodshed in Ukraine, he’ll put secondary tariffs I think you mean sanctions there on oil coming out of Russia. Or do you think that at this point, the relationship between Russia and America has been rebuilt and that won’t happen?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, I cannot comment on what you think President Trump meant when he said something.

Question: What do you think he meant when he said secondary tariffs on oil coming out of Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, we hear many things coming from President Trump. President Trump said that he’s sick and tired of the situation in this settlement, especially yesterday when he commented the statements by Zelensky. And President Trump has his own proposals and has his own style in mentioning those proposals in his public speeches.

We concentrate, as I said, on the real negotiations which President Trump supports and instructed his people to continue to engage in these negotiations. I’m sorry, the answer was a bit longish, but it’s difficult to explain otherwise.

Question: So I asked about the threat of sanctions or secondary tariffs, because you recently said in an interview, if you had to personally pick sides, you would keep the existing sanctions in place on Russia. You said you’ve restructured the economy to be self-sufficient. And there is a growing fear that, quote, cunning Americans will lift sanctions all of a sudden to flood our market with services and technologies. So if that’s the case, why should the United States consider lifting sanctions at all?

Sergey Lavrov: Why do you ask me? You just quoted my statement, and this statement is clear for me and clear to all those who read it. If you have questions to the American side, how they treat the situation, it is not the right address to raise it with me.

Question: So you want to keep sanctions in place. Is that really the Russian position?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t want to re-explain what I explained, I think, in quite a clear manner. And you quoted, I think, very close to the real content. Yeah, but it was a bit longer than normally you prefer, I know.

Question: Well, back in February. Though one of your colleagues, Kirill Dmitriev, who runs the Sovereign Wealth Fund and has been active in the diplomacy with the United States, said something a bit different. That’s why I’m asking for clarification, because he said there is the expectation that American companies would return to the Russian market in the second half of 2025.

Sergey Lavrov: Well, the president of Russia commented upon this situation. He said that we have nothing against American companies, but those companies who decided to leave their business in Russia might find that their place has been occupied already by Russian or other foreign investors. And in this case, we would not make any decisions which would discriminate those who came to invest in Russia instead of Americans. If American companies would like to come to a place which is not yet occupied, if they want to propose a project, a new project on top of the previous business ties, of course, we will look into this. And if we find balance of our interests, I think it would be only natural to get into business together.

Question: Well, what areas has the US offered to lift sanctions on? Because it wouldn’t be possible for many American companies to enter the Russian market right now under the existing sanctions.

Sergey Lavrov: It is up to them to decide.

Question: So no offer has been made?

Sergey Lavrov: No. How can we offer something? In a situation when…

Well, the United States clearly tells us that they are interested in doing business together. We never reject business proposals provided they are based on the equal opportunities and the treatment of each other and lead to a balance of interest.

Specific proposals which are being mentioned in the media, I cannot comment upon. This is not serious. We are not acting like the people in Kiev who talk to the world through the media, including talking to presidents of great countries.

Question: So if I understand you correctly, you neither fear sanctions nor want them lifted?

Sergey Lavrov: Look, you quoted my statement and you quoted it right. That’s my position.

Question: Okay. So when President Trump threatens new sanctions, that’s not a concern?

Sergey Lavrov: You’re asking this for the third time. This was a brief answer, by the way.

Question: You are being brief and direct on that part. I was asking on the sanctions for clarity and directness. Broadly speaking, when you look at what’s happening in the battle space in Ukraine right now, analysts say about 18% of Ukrainian territory is under the control of Russian forces. US intelligence says battlefield trends are in Russia’s favour. So if that’s the case, why should the US believe Russia is serious about ending the war if everything is in your favour?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, we judge by the reaction of our American colleagues to what we tell them. And this is being done during negotiations. They are confidential, as any serious negotiation. And they know our position. And as I quoted Marco Rubio, he publicly said that now they better understand the Russian position and the reasons for what is going on. And he said that nobody in Washington lifted a finger to do the same to try to understand Russia during the Biden administration.

And this implies that the dialogue continues, that the dialogue is supported by the United States, and I reiterate that it is supported by the Russian Federation, and this dialogue continues.

Question: So President Trump said he expects to meet soon with Vladimir Putin. What’s an acceptable time and location? Why should they meet?

Sergey Lavrov: Look, the presidents are masters of their own destiny and of their own schedule.

I heard President Trump say that he is planning to be somewhere mid-May, and that after that he would be suggesting some dates. I cannot add anything else.

Question: Right, he said he was asked about meeting with Vladimir Putin specifically in Saudi Arabia, and he said most likely not. That’s in mid-May, but shortly thereafter.

Sergey Lavrov: You said the same thing as I did.

Question: Right.

Sergey Lavrov: So we read the same newspapers and watch the same channels on TV.

Question: Right, but I can’t pick up the phone and call Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, like you can. What plans are you making for the two to meet?

Sergey Lavrov: Look, I hope your listeners understand very well that it is not ethical for a foreign minister to prejudge, to presume what presidents might or might not discuss.

Question: But you think it would be good for the two leaders to meet soon? Do you expect that Rubio and Witkoff is negotiated?

Sergey Lavrov: We’re always in favor of meeting with people who are ready for a dialogue. President Putin repeated this thousands of times.

When we met in Riyadh, together with President Putin’s Foreign Policy Advisor Yury Ushakov, with Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, the American colleagues clearly stated that the US policy is based firmly on US national interests. They understand that the Russian policy led by President Putin is also based on Russian national interests, and that it is the responsibility of great powers to make sure that whenever those national interests do not coincide, and this is in most of the cases, this difference should not be allowed to degenerate into confrontation. And that’s what dialogue is for.

But they also added that when the national interests of two countries or more countries coincide, it would be stupid to miss an opportunity to translate this coincidence into some material mutually beneficial projects. This is absolutely our position.

Question: You know that President Trump is coming up on 100 days in office, and he has made clear his patience is wearing thin with the diplomacy here. Do you expect the US and Russia to continue to talk after these potential peace talks fall apart? I mean, is the rebuilding of the relationship so significant now that you think it could withstand the peace talks in Ukraine falling apart?

Sergey Lavrov: First, Russia is always available for a dialogue. So you have to address the question to the American side. Second, you prejudge the current process by saying that eventual collapse of the talks.

We concentrate on doing business, not on thinking, you know, about failures or victories, about anything. Unless you concentrate on the facts, that’s what we do. You cannot be serious about what you are doing.

Question: Well, President Trump and Secretary Rubio said that the window was closing, that time is running out here. That’s not my opinion. That’s what they said.

Sergey Lavrov: No, wait a second. I just quoted Marco Rubio, who yesterday said about better understanding of the Russian position. So maybe you missed that. Question: Well, he also said a decision in days needed to be made and that the US has other things to focus on.

Sergey Lavrov: No. We understand the impatience. Because in American culture, you create expectations, and you ignite tension around those expectations. This does not help to do real politic.

But in our case, as I said, we are always ready for dialogue, ready for negotiations, and we would not, you know, begin by banking on a failure. This would be a characteristic of bad dealmakers, inexperienced dealmakers.

Question: Others in the Russian government have proposed that the US and Russia could work together in the Arctic. Are there specific areas of discussion for cooperating right now?

Sergey Lavrov: You always want me to disclose things which might be discussed by respective officials of Russia and the United States, by those who are responsible for trade, economic cooperation, investments, and so on and so forth.

How do you expect a participant of negotiations, which are still to reach some kind of specific understanding, to disclose details in public? It is not serious.

Yeah, I read President Trump’s book, “The Art to Make a Deal,” and he doesn’t advise to disclose information before it’s time.

Question: Respectfully, President Trump speaks quite a lot about the things he would like to do with Russia and opportunities to work together. I understand you don’t want to. On the specific things President Trump has said in public, one of the things he brought up is that the US could work with Ukraine to operate the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, which is in an area you know, Zaporozhye. Russians control that area right now. Do you agree with President Trump’s public statements that the best security would be for the US and Ukraine to operate that together?

Sergey Lavrov: No, we never received such an offer, and if we do, we would explain that the power station, Zaporozhskaya Nuclear Power Station, is run by the Russian Federation state corporation called Rosatom. It is being under monitoring of the IAEA personnel permanently located on the site, and if not for the Ukrainian regular attempts to attack the station and to create a nuclear disaster for Europe and for Ukraine, as well, the safety requirements are fully implemented. It is in very good hands.

Question: So that’s a no?

Sergey Lavrov: No. I don’t think any change is conceivable.

Question: Okay, because that was in a public statement from the White House to the media.

Sergey Lavrov: We, as I said, we did not receive any proposal which would be specific, so, you know, I understand that journalists have to speculate. We cannot speculate on something which is really not being mentioned during the negotiations.

Question: Zaporozhskaya station is not being negotiated right now?

Sergey Lavrov: Shall I say that for the third time? You wanted me to be brief.

Question: I heard you, but I just want to be abundantly clear because that is also widely reported to be in the US proposal currently on the table.

Sergey Lavrov: Why don’t you ask me about President Trump’s position on Crimea?

Question: You liked what President Trump said about Crimea yesterday when he said that it has been under Russian control.

Sergey Lavrov: It’s not about liking or disliking. It’s about the fact that he said the truth, and when Zelensky said that this is absolutely excluded because Crimea is part of Ukraine according to the constitution, nobody in Europe or in the States, by the way, reminded him that apart from territorial issues, the Ukrainian Constitution guarantees, I quote, “the free development, the use and protection of the Russian and other national minorities’ language in Ukraine,” and they guarantee the development of ethnic, cultural, language, and religious identity of all peoples and national minorities in Ukraine. This is also in the constitution, but as I mentioned already, and you decided not to go deeper into this topic, nobody in the West even mentions human rights when they demand that “Ukraine defeat Russia in the battlefield.“

Question: President Trump said Crimea is not even being discussed right now.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, because this is a done deal.

Question: You mean Russia occupies and controls and will not negotiate the future of Crimea? Is that what you’re saying?

Sergey Lavrov: Russia do not negotiate its own territory. And President Trump understands this.

Question: One specific thing that you do want in the public space, you said everything else that I’ve asked you about in the US proposal is too sensitive to discuss. Is there any other part of the US proposal that you do like?

Sergey Lavrov: No, no, no. I only commented what was said publicly. And I also said that normal negotiators, I emphasize this once again, normal negotiators do not negotiate by throwing a microphone. They meet and they discuss, they listen to each other, they try to understand, they try to see where a balance of interest can be reached, and this is how our contacts with the American representatives are organized.

Question: Respectfully, you’ve been in the top levels of Russian diplomacy for 30 years…

Sergey Lavrov: For how many?

Question: For at least 30 years. I mean, you’ve been in very key diplomatic roles within the top of the Russian diplomatic system for a very, very long time. I don’t think any part of this is typical or normal, to use the words you used. Steve Witkoff is the envoy. Kirill Dmitriev is Vladimir Putin’s envoy here. Do you think it’s unfortunate that the international system of diplomacy isn’t being used more and that it’s this kind of one-on-one personal envoy structure?

Sergey Lavrov: You did not express your disappointment that the international system of diplomacy was not used for the entire duration of the Biden administration. You did not mention that Europeans are really very nervous that they’re being marginalized. But I can quote a lot of what Europeans stated. I mentioned already Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen, who said, “Any deal must make sure that Ukraine is stronger and that Ukraine is on top of Russia.”

Look, do you need negotiators who believe in this kind of logic and who don’t want to look for honest balance of interest? The Trump administration is interested in searching for a balance of interest. They sincerely want to understand better the Russian position. And they’re getting this understanding. And we understand better the American position through negotiations and meetings and discussions, which we have with them.

Question: Back in January, Russia signed a deal with Iran to become a strategic partner. Would Russia be willing to sever that relationship at the request of the US if it meant better relations with America?

Sergey Lavrov: There was never any request like this. And we welcome the process which was initiated between the United States and Iran. We are ready to be helpful if parties believe this can be the case. And they know this.

Question: You were the negotiator back in 2015 on behalf of Russia for that landmark international agreement, the JCPOA. And part of how Russia was helpful was destroying Iran’s enriched nuclear material. Is that an offer you would do again?

Sergey Lavrov: We were not involved in destroying Iran’s nuclear material.

Question: Disposing.

Sergey Lavrov: Part of the deal was to move some amount of this material to Russia for keeping.

Question: Okay. So not destroying, but keeping. Would you keep Iran’s enriched nuclear material that they’ve made?

Sergey Lavrov: Look, I said, “We are not putting our nose in the negotiations between the two countries, one of which is not Russia.” And I said very clearly, I believe, but you wanted a brief answer, I will have to be longer, since it is not probably getting through.

We welcome the dialogue between the US and Iran. We would be certainly ready to help if both parties believe this is going to be useful. And they know that we are ready.

Question: Well, back then, there were sanctions and pressure at the UN. It’s a very different dynamic now. I want to ask you quickly about nuclear weapons, because Russia is such a nuclear powerhouse. According to US intelligence, Russia is developing a new satellite meant to carry a nuclear weapon, which would knock out other satellites and devastate the U.S. if it’s used. That’s in publicly published material. Does Russia intend to violate past treaties and actually put a nuclear weapon in space?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, before asking this question, you have to check whether this is true or not, what your military, US intelligence says…

I was listening to President Trump about his views of what is the list of achievements of US intelligence. And I have my own facts on which I rely.

We have been promoting for many years in the United Nations a resolution prohibiting putting any nuclear weapons into outer space. The country which is categorically against it is the United States. At the same time, the United States promotes an approach according to which they want to prohibit putting conventional weapons in outer space. And they cannot answer the question, “Does this mean that nuclear weapons, they would be planning to move to the orbit?”

So my answer is very clear. We have been championing in the United Nations a legal prohibition of placing any nuclear weapons in outer space. And the United States, at least during the Biden administration, this was the case, they were categorically against it.

Question: It was the Trump administration’s intelligence community that published those findings just a few weeks ago. Are you saying the Trump administration’s intelligence community findings are incorrect in regard to Russia developing a new satellite meant to carry a nuclear weapon?

Sergey Lavrov: We denied those allegations. We, once again, cannot help repeating, have been promoting for years in the United Nations a treaty, not a declaration, a treaty prohibiting placing weapons in outer space. And the United States is against it. I cannot comment about the validity of the intelligence reports, as I told you. We never received any facts which would confirm the allegations.

Question: Do you have any interest in arms-control talks with the United States, with the Trump administration?

Sergey Lavrov: It was the United States which broke the process of strengthening strategic stability. And if the United States is willing to get back to this track, we will see what are the conditions under which this might be possible. As long as in the U.S. doctrinal documents, we are described as adversary, when the officials in Washington called some time ago, called us enemy.

So we want to understand what Washington thinks of our relationship and whether Washington is ready for, I would emphasize once again, an equal, mutually respectful dialogue heading to finding a balance of interest. If this is the approach, everything is possible.

Question: Minister, we are coming up on time, but just before I let you go from everything you laid out, I haven’t heard from you that Russia is willing to make any concession on anything to date.

Sergey Lavrov: No, my brief answer is you are wrong.

I have been emphasizing repeatedly in relation to Ukraine, in relation to strategic relations with the United States, I have been emphasizing our readiness to seek balance of interests. If this is not what your station considers readiness for negotiations, then I don’t know how to be even less eloquent in trying to be brief in my answers.

Question: Well, there have been very clear, specific things said by the Trump administration, such as the vice president saying that the current lines of contact in Ukraine would freeze and end up fairly close to where troops are right now. Do you actually consider that a concession?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t discuss publicly the details of what is being subject of negotiations. I understand that you love rumors because rumors are played around…

Question: The vice president of the United States said it on camera.

Sergey Lavrov:  Was it a question? What did you say?

Question: Well, rumor. Rumor. You said it was a rumor. The vice president said it.

Sergey Lavrov: No, I said about us. We are not discussing things which are subject to negotiations.

Question: Okay. Minister Lavrov, thank you for your time.

April 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 1 Comment

New sanctions on Russia would mean two more years of war – Rubio

RT | April 27, 2025

The US administration has abstained from imposing new sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict, believing such a move would jeopardize negotiations and prolong hostilities, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said.

Speaking to NBC News’ Meet the Press on Sunday, Rubio questioned the usefulness of placing new restrictions on Moscow, stating Washington was “hoping to see” whether the diplomacy would work first.

“The minute you start doing that kind of stuff, you’re walking away from it, you’ve now doomed yourself to another two years of war and we don’t want to see it happen,” the top diplomat said.

Rubio claimed that the US is the only country or institution speaking to both Kiev and Moscow, and only US President Donald Trump has the potential to bring the warring sides to the negotiating table.

The upcoming week is expected to be “very critical” for the White House with regard to the talks, as the administration is trying to make a “determination about whether this is an endeavor that we want to continue to be involved in.” While Washington does not want to walk away, it does not want to “spend time on something that’s not going to get us there” either, the secretary explained.

“There are reasons to be optimistic, but there are reasons to be realistic. We’re close, but we’re not close enough,” he said.

The remarks from the US secretary of state come a day after Trump threatened Moscow with new sanctions over the conflict, accusing Russia’s leadership of trying to drag out hostilities and of “shooting missiles” into Ukraine for “no reason” over the past few days. Moscow maintains it only targets facilities and infrastructure used by Kiev’s military, and has repeatedly denied accusations of staging indiscriminate strikes on civilian areas.

Trump’s threats came as Moscow once again reiterated its readiness for discussions with Kiev without preconditions. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed the topic was brought up by Russian President Vladimir Putin during a meeting with Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow on Friday.

Ukraine’s leader, Vladimir Zelensky, explicitly banned negotiations with Russia for as long as Putin is in charge back in October 2022. Since then, he has seemingly softened his position, claiming the negotiating ban concerned everyone in the country but himself. Most recently, Kiev has demanded an unconditional ceasefire before any direct talks can happen.

April 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »