Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Russia outlines ceasefire conditions in Istanbul talks with Ukraine

Al Mayadeen | May 17, 2025

The Russian Ministry of Defense has revealed the conditions presented by Moscow during the Istanbul negotiations with Kiev, as shared by the Clash Report platform on social media.

The outlined terms reflect Russia’s position on a potential settlement in Ukraine, with an immediate ceasefire as the primary demand.

Russia’s ceasefire conditions

Neutrality modeled on Austria

The first condition proposed by Moscow is that Ukraine adopt a neutral status, similar to Austria’s model. This would prohibit the presence of foreign troops or non-Ukrainian military bases on Ukrainian territory, effectively excluding NATO or other military alliances from operating within the country.

No foreign troops or bases in Ukraine

Moscow emphasized that neutrality must be comprehensive, with Kiev legally committing to reject the stationing of foreign forces and equipment.

Territorial demands and border recognition

Among the key demands, Russia requires Ukraine to formally recognize its constitutional claims over five regions: Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and the Crimean Peninsula.

The Russian Defense Ministry stressed that the immediate ceasefire is contingent upon the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from all five regions claimed by Russia.

Renunciation of war compensation claims

Moscow is also seeking a mutual legal renunciation of any compensation claims related to war losses, including economic damage and human casualties.

Protection of Russian-speaking citizens

Russia demands that Ukraine commit to European standards on minority rights, specifically to safeguard the rights of Russian-speaking citizens. In addition, Moscow calls for an end to what it terms “nationalist propaganda” within Ukrainian society.

Russia, Ukraine agreed to exchange ceasefire conditions

Later on Saturday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia and Ukraine have agreed to exchange the lists of ceasefire conditions, noting that the Russian side is working on the matter.

The Russian side has prepared such a list and will hand it over, with exchange with the Ukrainian side,” he told reporters.

At the same time, the work on the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine has just started and it will be continued, he added.

Change in Russian delegation to negotiations not being discussed

Peskov pointed out that a change in the composition of the Russian delegation to the negotiations with Ukraine is not being discussed, emphasizing the importance of implementing the agreements reached during the recent Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul.

The Kremlin spokesperson also asserted that the ongoing negotiations “are and should be held in a closed format.”

Putin-Zelensky meeting possible if certain agreements reached

The Russian diplomat highlighted that a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky is possible if delegations of both countries reach certain agreements.

“Such a meeting as a result of the work of the delegations of the two sides is possible when certain agreements of these delegations are reached,” he said.

Elsewhere, Peskov also said that Moscow considers the candidacy of Kiev’s signatory as the main and fundamental thing when signing documents between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations during the negotiations.

First direct talks since 2022

Russia and Ukraine held their first direct peace talks in over three years on Friday in Istanbul, reaching a key agreement on a large-scale prisoner exchange but making little headway on a ceasefire or broader political settlement.

The 90-minute meeting marked the first direct diplomatic engagement between Moscow and Kiev since 2022 and came amid continued hostilities and mounting international calls for a de-escalation of the conflict.

Both sides emerged from the session expressing cautious openness to further dialogue, though no immediate breakthrough was achieved on halting the war, now in its third year.

Ukraine entered the talks seeking an unconditional ceasefire, hoping to bring relief to areas devastated by the conflict and to ease the humanitarian crisis affecting millions.

Russia, however, dismissed the demand, and both sides instead agreed to present their respective “visions” for a potential ceasefire at a later stage, according to Russian lead negotiator Vladimir Medinsky.

Prisoner exchange agreement reached

The only concrete outcome of the talks was an agreement to exchange 1,000 prisoners from each side. Both delegations hailed the deal as a positive humanitarian step.

Ukrainian Defense Minister and chief negotiator Rustem Umerov described the agreement as a “great result”, noting that it set the stage for further negotiations.

Ukraine pushes for Putin-Zelensky summit

Kiev pushed for a direct meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Georgiy Tykhy stressed that progress would require “a meeting of leaders.”

Russia acknowledged Ukraine’s request for a summit but did not commit. Putin declined to attend the talks in Turkey, instead dispatching a lower-level delegation. Zelensky accused Putin of being “afraid” to engage directly and said Moscow was not approaching the talks “seriously”.

Rubio urges ‘peaceful end to the war’

Ahead of the negotiations, Ukrainian representatives met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s special envoy Keith Kellogg, and national security advisors from Britain, France, and Germany.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said Rubio had urged “a peaceful end to the war” and emphasized that “the killing needs to stop.”

Speaking at a European summit in Albania, Zelensky called on the international community to impose further sanctions on Russia if the talks failed to yield results, warning of global consequences should diplomatic efforts collapse.

May 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Preliminary talks in Istanbul are a start… the real show to come is Trump and Putin

Strategic Culture Foundation | May 16, 2025

The talks in Istanbul this week provide a prospect for peace. It bears emphasizing that the three-year proxy war could have been avoided if diplomacy had been permitted by Washington in early 2022 instead of being sabotaged.

Three years on, we have a new president in the White House, and there appears to be a more enlightened policy. Or maybe it’s an implicit admission that the U.S. proxy war agenda is a failure and can’t go on.

In any case, Trump and his envoys are unequivocally saying that they want to stop the bloodshed in Ukraine. That’s a big change from his predecessor, Joe Biden, who vowed to back Ukraine for as long as it takes in a fantastical, reckless pursuit to strategically defeat Russia.

It was the Biden administration, along with the British government, that intervened to scupper nascent peace talks in March 2022 between Russia and Ukraine for a peace deal. Washington and London coaxed the Kiev regime to fight on with promises of more weapons.

The result: three more years of intense conflict, which have caused millions of casualties, mainly on the Ukrainian side. The proxy war has come perilously close to provoking an all-out world war between nuclear powers.

Trump appears to want peace. If he is genuine in that intention, then the American president will have to address the root causes of the conflict. Russia has consistently explained the deeper causes of NATO aggression and the militarization of Ukraine as a hostile bridgehead on its borders since the CIA-orchestrated coup in Kiev in 2014.

The American president has shown petulance at times, urging Ukraine and Russia to get down to a peace deal. He has even threatened Russia with more (futile) economic sanctions. What the Trump administration needs to understand is that resolving deep causes of conflict requires commensurate negotiations and a realistic commitment to lasting geopolitical security arrangements.

The talks in Istanbul this week to explore a peaceful resolution were initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an announcement last week.

Russia’s delegation was led by Putin’s senior aide, Vladimir Medinsky. That speaks of consistency and commitment. Medinsky led the peace talks three years ago in Istanbul, which were then sabotaged in April 2022 by the American and British intervention.

This week, the Russian side held preliminary bilateral talks with the Americans led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Subsequently, the Russian and Ukrainian delegates engaged in a meeting convened by Turkish diplomats. It was the first direct encounter between Russian and Ukrainian officials since the March 2022 negotiations.

It is not clear if follow-up meetings will take place. But at least one might say that talks took place.

The key to any prospect of ending the conflict depends on Washington demonstrating the requisite commitment. Trump said this week again that he would like to hold a summit with Putin as “soon as possible.” The Kremlin has also said that a formal presidential meeting is desirable.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned that there must first be adequate preparation for meaningful discussions. That implies that any top-level meeting must be cognizant of Russia’s demands for a resolution, one that deals with the historic, systematic causes of the proxy war.

Western politicians and media denying Russia’s perspective are delusional or duplicitous. To claim that the conflict is all about “unprovoked Russian aggression” against “democratic Ukraine” and “Russian expansionism” towards Europe is a travesty. It’s a bogus narrative that precludes peaceful resolution. Trump seems to be aware of that. But he needs to go beyond a superficial “peace broker” charade.

If Trump wants a gimmicky big summit with Putin for PR ratings, as his tour of the Middle East this week illustrates his egotistical wont, he can forget it.

The meetings this week in Turkey can be seen as preliminary technical discussions.

However, President Trump needs to take the lead. Appropriately, a peaceful resolution will only happen at the senior level of the U.S. and Russian governments. That’s because the United States is the primary protagonist in the proxy war against Russia.

It is clear from the antics and theatrics of the Kiev regime this week that there is no prospect of a meaningful, lasting peace if negotiations are confined to that level. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky does not even have constitutional legitimacy after cancelling elections last year. His erratic behavior of grandstanding and mudslinging at the Russian diplomatic efforts proves that he is not capable of substantive negotiations.

The European leaders are also an impediment to achieving an authentic peace settlement. Even before delegations met this week in Istanbul, various non-entity European politicians were disparaging Russia’s diplomatic initiative. Macron, Starmer, Merz, Von der Leyen and Kallas were desperately trying to insult the Russian president, indulging Zelensky’s PR stunt demanding a face-to-face meeting with Putin in Istanbul.

The European Union also timed an announcement this week to double its supply of heavy-calibre munitions to Ukraine. Another provocation.

France’s Macron sought to impose a precondition for the talks by demanding a 30-day ceasefire. That was a flagrant attempt to sabotage the negotiations before they even started.

These people are not honest about ending the worst war in Europe since the end of World War Two. Disgracefully, they want the bloodshed to continue for their political survival and gratifying their obsessive Russophobic fantasies.

If Trump wants to end NATO’s proxy war against Russia, he will have to sideline the European naysayers and the Kiev puppet regime. Their involvement is counterproductive. One suspects that Trump already knows that.

An American and Russian agreement at the highest level is the only way to bring the war to an end. It is no use for the American side pretending that they are mere peace brokers. They are the main protagonist, not the European lapdogs nor the Kiev regime.

Preliminary talks are all very well. But they are just that. Preliminary. If the talks have any chance of succeeding, the American side must take responsibility for the war it started and fueled.

May 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Being Russia’s enemy could cost European allies $1trn – study

RT | May 16, 2025

European NATO members would face a $1 trillion bill over 25 years to replace US military contributions if Washington exited the bloc, according to a study published on Thursday by a British think tank. The EU is planning a militarization drive, which it claims is necessitated by an alleged Russian threat.

Western European leaders have said member states must reduce their dependence on US weapons while implementing a massive increase in military spending. The proposed hike comes amid claims that Russia could attack a NATO member in the coming years. Moscow has denied the allegations and has accused the West of “irresponsibly stoking fears” of a fabricated threat.

The report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) outlines the challenges nations would encounter in the event the US withdraws from NATO to focus on confronting China.

According to the IISS, European nations – including the UK – would need to replace some 128,000 American troops, along with a wide array of weapon systems and command infrastructure currently provided by the Pentagon, particularly for air and naval forces.

”European states would need to invest significant resources on top of already existing plans to boost military capacity,” the report stated. The estimated price tag for replacing American weaponry alone ranges from $226 billion to $344 billion.

Domestic arms manufacturers would face difficulties securing contracts, financing, and skilled labor, while also grappling with regulatory and supply chain hurdles, the report warned. In certain sectors – such as stealth aircraft and rocket artillery – European NATO members currently lack viable alternatives, prompting the IISS to suggest outsourcing production to countries outside the bloc.

Beyond hardware, the study highlighted intangible but critical costs associated with command-and-control functions, space intelligence, and filling high-level leadership roles traditionally held by US officers.

The think tank questioned whether European governments possess the political will to ensure the vast spending required. The administration of US President Donald Trump has accused European NATO nations of taking advantage of American military protection without contributing enough in return.

On Thursday, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul stirred controversy by vowing to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, well above Germany’s existing level of 2.1%. The statement, made following a NATO meeting, drew backlash, including from members of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s coalition. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius later stated that the exact percentage was “not so important” and that Berlin considered 3% to be a more realistic level.

May 16, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

France leading West’s ‘party of war’ – Russia

RT | May 16, 2025

France has emerged as one of the leaders of the “hybrid war” against Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. She made her remarks after the EU agreed to its 17th package of sanctions.

France, together with the United Kingdom, proposed the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ to take a more proactive role supporting Ukraine in its fight with Russia in February 2025 after the new administration of US President Donald Trump moved to adopt a more conciliatory stance towards resolving the conflict.

“It is common knowledge that since 2022, Paris has been one of the most uncompromising participants in the West’s hybrid war against our country,” Zakharova said during a press call on Thursday.

“Over the past few months, the French have effectively become the leaders of the West’s ‘party of war,’” she added, citing France’s military aid to Ukraine and its push for additional sanctions on Russia.

“France has played a major role in devising illegitimate sanctions packages in the past. Now, it is attempting to blackmail us with new, supposedly broader sanctions,” Zakharova said.

She argued that the restrictions are part of a “trade war” aimed at “hindering Russia’s economic, technological, and humanitarian development, and at undermining its industrial potential.” Russia, she added, will have a “measured response” to any new restrictions.

French President Emmanuel Macron has said the EU would impose new sanctions “in the coming days” if Moscow does not accept Ukraine’s demand for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Earlier this year, Paris delivered a first batch of Mirage 2000 fighter jets to Kiev.

Russia has warned that military aid to Ukraine would only lead to further escalation. President Vladimir Putin has insisted that, for a lasting ceasefire, Ukraine must halt its mobilization campaign, stop receiving weapons from abroad, and withdraw its troops from all territory claimed by Russia.

May 16, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Negotiations or Political Theatre in Istanbul?

Prof. Glenn Diesen on MOATS with George Galloway
Glenn Diesen | May 15, 2025

How will the war end? The position of Ukraine and NATO continues to go from bad to worse, yet there is still a reluctance to engage in genuine discussions. There is subsequently a growing possibility that there will eventually be a collapse of the government in Ukraine, which would allow Moscow to dictate the political settlement. Yet, even as the situation goes from bad to worse, the Europeans and Ukraine are reluctant to engage with Russia in genuine negotiations. Part of the problem is evidently the extent of demands from the Russian side, although the Russian demands will only grow as the war drags on.

May 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

US to Spend $1 Trillion on Nuclear Weapons Over Next Decade

By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | May 15, 2025

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Washington will spend $1 trillion from 2025 to 2034 on modernizing and operating America’s strategic arsenal.

“If carried out, DoD’s and DOE’s plans to operate, sustain, and modernize current nuclear forces and purchase new forces would cost a total of $946 billion over the 2025–2034 period, or an average of about $95 billion a year, CBO estimates,” the report says.

The spending includes $357 billion on operating nuclear weapons and delivery systems, $460 billion on modernization projects, and $130 billion in expected cost overruns. The CBO report notes that Pentagon plans often cost significantly more than projected.

The forecast in this year’s CBO report is $93 billion higher than the estimate produced last year.

“Weapons programs frequently cost more than originally budgeted amounts for a variety of reasons.” It continues, “If nuclear force programs exceeded planned amounts at roughly the same rates that costs for similar programs have grown in the past, they would cost an additional $129 billion over the next decade, $33 billion more over 10 years than CBO estimated in 2023.”

Washington is in the process of a major nuclear weapons upgrade. The US is developing a new bomber, an intercontinental ballistic missile, and a submarine capable of firing nuclear weapons.

The US nuclear buildup comes as Washington has walked away from several major arms control agreements with Russia since the end of the Cold War. Under George W. Bush, the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the INF and the Open Skies agreements during his first term.

During his second term, Trump has denounced nuclear weapons and suggested he could engage in talks with Russia and China on an agreement to reduce the global stockpile of nuclear arms.

However, Trump made similar remarks during his first term, but never seriously engaged in arms control talks with Beijing or Moscow. The only remaining nuclear arms agreement between the US and Russia, the New START Treaty, is scheduled to lapse next year.

May 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russia Calls Out US Over Ukraine Biolabs and Demands More Than Empty Words

Sputnik – 15.05.2025

MOSCOW – Russia remains open to contacts with the United States on the military biological program in Ukraine and hopes to remove concerns on this account, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.

“We have repeatedly noted and repeat again that we remain open to bilateral contacts with the American side on this topic [military biological program in Ukraine] in order to eliminate relevant irritants. We expect Washington to take the necessary steps to address Russia’s concerns about US military biological activity,” Zakharova told a briefing.

Moscow considers US efforts to strengthen control over biological activities as a step in the right direction, Zakharova said, adding that the measures announced by Washington are not enough to address Russia’s concerns about the US military biological activities abroad.

May 15, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russia sent Su-35 jet after bid to detain ‘shadow fleet’: Estonia

Al Mayadeen | May 15, 2025

Estonia’s foreign minister said Thursday that a Russian military jet was deployed as the Estonian Navy attempted to intercept a Russia-bound oil tanker, the Jaguar, which had been placed under British sanctions and was accused of sailing without a flag.

The incident unfolded near Naissaar Island, off the coast of Tallinn, where Estonian forces identified the Jaguar as part of Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet,” a term Western governments use to describe vessels allegedly used by Moscow to bypass international sanctions.

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna stated in Antalya, Turkey, ahead of a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, that the Russian Federation sent a fighter jet to “check the situation,” adding, “We need to understand that Russia has officially tried and connected itself to the Russian ‘shadow fleet’.”

He added, “The Russian Federation is ready to protect the ‘shadow fleet’… The situation is really serious,” calling for faster and tougher sanctions against Moscow.

The Jaguar was added to the UK sanctions list last Friday.

When contacted by the Estonian Navy at 15:30 GMT on Tuesday, the vessel refused to comply with a boarding attempt. According to the Estonian Navy, the operation was carried out under legal obligations to verify the ship’s documentation and status, as it appeared to be sailing without a recognized nationality.

Commander Ivo Vark of the Estonian Navy said, “The vessel denied cooperation and continued its journey toward Russia… Given the vessel’s lack of nationality, the use of force, including boarding the vessel, was deemed unnecessary.”

According to reports, the vessel was then escorted to Russian waters. Moreover, marine traffic data on Thursday showed the Jaguar anchored near the Russian port of Primorsk, listed under the flag of Gabon.

NATO response and air patrol deployment

According to the report, the deployment of the Russian jet triggered a response from NATO, with military aircraft based in the Baltic taking off to monitor the situation.

A video, which circulated on social media, showed Estonian naval vessels, a helicopter, and a patrol aircraft surrounding the Jaguar. A voice can be heard in English commanding, “This is Estonian warship… follow my instructions, alter your course to 105 immediately.”

A Russian speaker responds, noting that helicopters are demanding the ship’s anchor.

Estonia has not confirmed if this incident is related to a previously reported “airspace breach” involving a Russian Su-35 jet earlier in the week, which prompted a diplomatic protest from Tallinn.

Margarita Simonyan, head of Russia’s state media outlet RT, claimed the Su-35 was dispatched to prevent the Jaguar’s seizure.

The incident comes after Estonia detained another Russia-bound oil tanker, Kiwala, on April 11, also allegedly sailing without a valid flag.

Western governments have said Russia’s shadow fleet is central to maintaining its oil exports despite sanctions. That said, Britain asserts that sanctioning these vessels limits Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ability to finance the war in Ukraine.

May 15, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Let’s just get on with the planned Istanbul peace talks on Thursday, whether or not Putin and Zelensky meet

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 14, 2025

As we gear up for the first direct talks between Russia and Ukraine since the failed Istanbul talks of March 2022, a complex game of brinkmanship is underway.

Not surprisingly, in my view, President Putin ignored the coalition of the willing’s ultimatum to Russia to embark on an unconditional ceasefire for thirty days or face massive new sanctions. Instead he proposed what the Americans have been pushing for since Trump assumed office, direct bilateral talks with Ukraine in Istanbul on Thursday 15 May.

I have long argued that the only route out of the war in Ukraine is through talks. Compromise was offered by both sides in the first round of Istanbul talks in March 2022. Any new negotiations will require compromise from both sides, but the difference today is that the cards are more heavily stacked in Russia’s favour than they were in 2022.

Against this backdrop, President Zelensky has called on President Putin to meet him personally in Istanbul on Thursday. From my perspective, this appears an attempt to call off talks if Putin doesn’t show up.

Usually, when Heads of State meet, officials will have hammered out the negotiation for some time before hand. The leaders can then arrive and either sign on the dotted line or tackle the most difficult issues one on one. It’s now Tuesday 13 May. There is simply no way that Russian and Ukrainian officials will have lined up the framework for a deal for both leaders to sign in Istanbul on Thursday.

Even if Putin showed up on Thursday, Zelensky isn’t going to announce unilaterally that Ukraine is giving up its NATO ambition before the full negotiations have even started. Whether you agree or not, this is self-evidently Russia’s core ‘root cause’ of the war. The new German Foreign Minister, Johann Wadephul recently repeated the line that Ukraine’s path to NATO is irreversible, even though the Trump administration disagrees.

A form of words on Ukraine’s NATO aspiration that is agreeable to both sides in the war will take time to draft. And there’s a huge list of other detailed points that have to be addressed, including the line of control, the role of military forces from other states, the return of Ukrainian children, the protection of minority languages and so on.

Every statement that Zelensky has made since the war started has emphasised the need for the west to pile more pressure on Russia to ensure ultimate victory. He would meet Putin in Istanbul without the back slapping adulation that he receives in western capitals and with no pressure cards in his back pocket.

That doesn’t mean I think a meeting shouldn’t happen, because I do. The image of both war times leaders meeting in Istanbul, however awkward and uncomfortable, could be deeply symbolic in announcing the commencement of long overdue peace talks between officials. They could agree, face to face, to maintain a ceasefire for as long as those peace talks continued.

But no leader likes to turn up to any international meeting without the preparatory ground work in place. There is deep enmity between Putin and Zelensky for obvious reasons. Given Zelensky’s penchant for publicity stunts, the Russian side would want to be absolutely sure that the choreography of any meeting and the deliverables – what they would announce, however limited – had been agreed.

Putin will know that if he does not now turn up to Istanbul that Zelensky will hit the international airwaves calling for massive sanctions. But that if he meets Zelensky and a comprehensive deal isn’t agreed there and then – a frankly impossible feat it seems to me – then the same calls for massive sanctions against Russia will be made.

Of course, Putin will also know that Europe can’t muster new sanctions massive enough to make a difference at this late stage in the process, having exhausted most avenues since 2014. On Victory Day, Britain unilaterally announced the ‘biggest ever sanctions package’ against Russia’s so-called shadow fleet of oil tankers. The idea that unseaworthy hulks are carrying illicit Russian oil into Britain is obviously fanciful. But in any case, with the global oil price now close to the G7 oil price cap on Russian oil, the idea of a shadow fleet, delivering oil at its market rate, has fallen away. Britain’s February sanctions package against 107 persons and entities was labelled the largest sanctions package since 2022. Let’s be clear, the biggest sanctions package against Russia was imposed in February 2022, and everything since that time has offered diminishing marginal returns.

But that’s not really the point. By trying to force a showdown in Istanbul, Zelensky may want to continue to paint Russia as the aggressor and to press the case for more military aid, having asked for three million new artillery shells during his recent trip to Prague. However, this war really must now end, having blighted over one million lives already.

Boris Johnson was wrong in March 2022 to discourage Zelensky from accepting the first Istanbul peace deal precisely because he could not back up the promise that he made; to support Ukraine for as long as it takes. Even though Britain continues to pump £4.5bn in yearly military aid into Ukraine, that sum pales against the free aid that the U.S. offered under Joe Biden.

Trump is offering nothing more now than to plunder Ukraine’s resources so that it can buy American weapons, and Europe cannot afford to make up the difference, for as long as it takes. Ukraine is still losing on the battlefield and now, apparently, treating its traumatised troops with ketamine to help them deal with the PTSD.

Despite significant risks around inflation and high interest rates caused by the enormous fiscal splurge on its war economy, Russia is still growing at a respectable rate. Europe is not.

For now, President Putin is keeping his powder dry by not responding to Zelensky’s relentless press stunts. It’s clear to me that Russia’s initiative of a second round of Istanbul peace talks from Thursday is essential in edging both sides closer to a cessation of the killing that should have ended over three years ago. Whether or not both leaders meet at the start or at the end of those negotiations, let’s just please get down to the business of talking.

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

France can’t give Ukraine any more arms – Macron

RT | May 14, 2025

France has reached the limit of its military support for Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron has said.

In a televised interview with TF1 on Tuesday, Macron defended his administration’s handling of the Ukraine conflict, saying the French have done “the maximum we could” to help Kiev, given that the country’s military was not set up to conduct a protracted, high-intensity land war.

”We gave away everything we had,” Macron said. “But we can’t give away what we don’t have, and we can’t strip ourselves of what is necessary for our own security.” He noted that France’s approach, coordinated with those of other Western donors, aims to avoid direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed power.

France has committed more than €3.7 billion ($4.1 billion) in military assistance to Ukraine since the escalation of the conflict in February 2022, according to the Kiel Institute’s aid tracker. Macron highlighted efforts to scale up the domestic defense industry to continue supplying arms.

The remarks came as the French government struggles with an economic crisis. The national budget deficit hit 5.8% last year, once again surpassing the 3% threshold recommended for EU members. Public debt has climbed above 110% of GDP, and economic forecasts predict growth of less than 1% in 2025. Macron is also facing increased challenges in pushing legislation through parliament.

The TF1 broadcast opened with a montage of public criticism, including accusations that Macron has mismanaged the economy, treated ordinary citizens with contempt, and focused too heavily on foreign affairs. One citizen described him as “a president who practically wants to send us to war.”

Macron advocates for deploying French troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal between Kiev and Moscow, arguing that such a move could help deter Russia.

Moscow has repeatedly warned it would not accept any NATO presence in Ukraine, citing the military bloc’s expansion in Europe as a core reason for the conflict. Russia views the war as a US-led proxy campaign, with local troops serving as “cannon fodder.”

Direct talks between Russia and Ukraine, which Kiev called off in 2022, are expected to resume this week in Türkiye. Kiev has demanded that President Vladimir Putin participate in person and urged its Western backers to impose new sanctions if he refuses. Moscow has yet to confirm its delegation.

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ian Proud: Ukraine Peace Talks or Political Theatre?

Glenn Diesen | May 13, 2025

Ian Proud was a member of His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. Ian was a senior officer at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019, at a time when UK-Russia relations were particularly tense. He performed a number of roles in Moscow, including as Head of Chancery, Economic Counsellor – in charge of advising UK Ministers on economic sanctions – Chair of the Crisis Committee, Director of the Diplomatic Academy for Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Vice Chair of the Board at the Anglo-American School.

Ian Proud’s Substack: https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Key lessons from the Recent India-Pakistan escalation

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 13, 2025

Recent developments in the India-Pakistan conflict indicate that New Delhi has suffered a significant military humiliation. Despite the ceasefire allegedly mediated by Washington, reports suggest that hostilities are ongoing — implying that the agreement was either never respected or was quickly broken by one of the parties.

It is unclear whether Islamabad abandoned the path of peace after gaining an advantage on the battlefield, or whether it was India that, unwilling to accept its military defeat, chose to resume offensive actions. The fact remains: tensions are far from resolved, and the international perception is that India severely underestimated Pakistan’s response capabilities.

It is remarkable, from any point of view, that Indian strategists acted as if they could launch strikes inside the territory of a nuclear power without facing serious retaliation. This is a major miscalculation, revealing political amateurism and serious failures in military intelligence.

Even more troubling is New Delhi’s diplomatic conduct at the height of the tension. Amid Iranian efforts to mediate — a country with which India maintains long-standing strategic relations — Indian officials went so far as to publicly insult the Iranian Foreign Minister, with a high-ranking military officer calling him a “pig” on national TV during his official visit to India’s capital. This behavior not only undermines key diplomatic ties but also highlights the disorientation and arrogance currently affecting some key segments of Indian society.

The broader context of this crisis becomes even more concerning when one considers the direct involvement of Israeli “experts” in India’s decision-making apparatus following the Pahalgam attack. The decision to call in military advisors from Israel is neither neutral nor effective. The recent history of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in dealing with asymmetric enemies is, at best, questionable: its repeated failures against Hezbollah, Hamas, and other supposedly “weaker” adversaries in the Middle East should have served as a warning to India.

It is unwise, to say the least, for a major power like India to entrust a substantial part of its national defense strategy to a foreign military doctrine whose effectiveness is increasingly problematic and doubtful. Israel’s obsession with disproportionate shows of strength, combined with a tendency to underestimate smaller adversaries, appears to have infected Indian strategic thinking in this recent episode.

New Delhi now faces a delicate situation: it seeks to maintain its image as a respectable regional power, yet it cannot conceal the operational and diplomatic failures of recent weeks. Pakistan’s response, by contrast, has been militarily effective and politically coordinated — something India has failed to do during the clash.

Meanwhile, the international community watches with growing concern as tensions escalate between two nuclear powers. Fears of a larger, prolonged conflict are rising, and India’s unpreparedness in handling the crisis only deepens these anxieties.

This case should serve as a lesson. Military strategy requires sobriety, precision, and, above all, realism. Underestimating the enemy, insulting long-time allies, and importing failed military doctrines are a certain path to strategic disaster.

If India wishes to preserve its stability, sovereignty and international position, it must reevaluate not only its stance toward Pakistan but also its entire strategic decision-making framework — including the dangerous influence of foreign consultants who know more about propaganda than real victories.

May 13, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »