How Might The US’ Relations With Ukraine & Russia Change If It Abandons Its Peace Efforts?
By Andrew Korybko | April 18, 2025
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday that the US might stop mediating an end to the Ukrainian Conflict if it concludes within “a matter of days” that no peace deal is doable. That coincided with the Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff told them that “Putin had been fixated on Ukrainian land in their discussions. He said that Russia might get some of the regions, but not all.” This analysis here explained why it’s so important for Russia to obtain full control over the disputed lands.
If no breakthrough is achieved, such as the US coercing Ukraine into withdrawing from those regions or Russia agreeing to freeze this dimension of the conflict, then the US might indeed abandon its peace efforts. The question therefore arises of how that could change its relations with Ukraine and Russia. Beginning with the first, Trump and his team’s explicitly expressed exhaustion with this conflict bodes ill for the scenario of the US continuing military support for Ukraine, which would please Russia.
The Europeans would try to replace some of this lost aid in order to keep the conflict going in alignment with Zelensky’s vision, but they’d be unable to replace all of it and he might ultimately be forced into agreeing to worse terms than the US’ if Russia successfully expands its ground offensive. At the same time, however, the US might also suspend its talks with Russia on the strategic resource deals that were supposed to serve as the centerpiece of their planned “New Détente” as long as the conflict continues.
This balanced approach would be predicated on pressuring Ukraine and Russia into committing to compromises aimed at restoring the US-led peace talks since the first doesn’t want to lose territory in other regions while the second is interested in shaping the post-conflict era in partnership with the US. These evidently aren’t their top priorities, however, otherwise the land issue would have already been resolved one way or another and there wouldn’t be any talk of the US abandoning its peace efforts.
Other than the unlikely scenario of the US “escalating to de-escalate” on better terms for Ukraine, another comparatively more probable one exists but which is still less likely than the aforesaid, and that’s the US discontinuing military support for Ukraine but continuing resource talks with Russia. These negotiations are connected to Ukraine since the US is seeking privileged terms from Russia in exchange for coercing Kiev into Moscow’s demanded concessions but can still proceed even if that doesn’t occur.
The reason why this scenario is considered less likely than the balanced one described above is because some of the US’ sanctions that impede the clinching of resource deals with Russia can’t easily be lifted without first bringing about an end to the Ukrainian Conflict. Moreover, sanctions relief and the prospect of jointly shaping the post-conflict era are the only carrots that the US can dangle for incentivizing Russia to compromise on ending the conflict, which Trump wants it to do for solidifying his global legacy.
He’s therefore expected to at least temporarily suspend such talks with Russia for that reason in that scenario but might resume them if the conflict remains protracted with no clear diplomatic or military solution. That would make the most sense since he wouldn’t prematurely give up the only means that the US has for incentivizing Russia to compromise for peace but he also wouldn’t lose the objective economic and strategic benefits that a resource deal would bring.
Israel is the sole obstacle to nuke-free West Asia, says Iran’s FM
Press TV – April 19, 2025
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Israel is the only obstacle to the realization of a nuclear weapons-free West Asia, warning that the occupying regime is fomenting Iranophobia while committing genocide in the region.
Araghchi made the remarks on Saturday in Rome during a meeting with his Italian counterpart, Antonio Tajani. The two met ahead of the second round of indirect talks between Iran and the United States, mediated by Oman at its embassy in the Italian capital.
Reaffirming Iran’s commitment to diplomacy, Araghchi urged all parties to seize the opportunity for a “logical and reasonable understanding” that would recognize Iran’s legitimate rights and lift “unjust and illegal sanctions.”
He emphasized Iran’s peaceful nuclear intentions, reiterating the country’s rejection of weapons of mass destruction based on its religious and national values and defensive doctrine.
The Iranian minister also thanked Tajani for Italy’s coordination in facilitating the talks and conveyed Easter greetings to the Italian people.
Tajani welcomed Araghchi and expressed Italy’s strong interest in deepening ties with Iran. He said hosting the talks was of great value to Rome and stressed Italy’s readiness to assist the negotiations in any possible way.
Araghchi arrived in Rome earlier in the day for talks on Tehran’s civilian nuclear program and termination of Washington’s unlawful sanctions against the country.
Iran had ruled out direct negotiations with the US under pressure or threats of war but stated that it remains open to indirect talks.
Diego Garcia: ethnically cleansed for US forever wars
By Aidan J. Simardone | The Cradle | April 18, 2025
US President Donald Trump’s recent threat to strike Iran unless it halts its nuclear program has revived interest in a long-standing American asset: Diego Garcia. B-2 stealth bombers have been deployed to the island – British territory in name but an American garrison in practice – suggesting that Washington is either preparing for war or raising the stakes with an aggressive bluff.
Located in the heart of the Indian Ocean, the Diego Garcia island gives the United States unmatched reach across West Asia, Eastern Africa, and South Asia. It has been a launchpad for every major US war in the region – from Iraq to Afghanistan. Now, it may be key to a possible assault on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But this island, remote and seemingly uncontroversial, is steeped in colonial injustice. Its original inhabitants, the Chagossians, were forcibly expelled to make way for the base. The UK, under pressure from Washington, detached the archipelago from Mauritius and ethnically cleansed it.
In 2024, Britain finally agreed to hand back the islands to Mauritius, but the US lease remains. For now, Diego Garcia is securely in American hands – and poised once again to serve as a launchpad for imperial warfare.
From paradise to genocide
Once colonized by France and later Britain, the Chagos Islands were home to a unique Creole population descended from African slaves and Indian laborers. For generations, the Chagossians lived peacefully on the islands, building a distinct identity with their own language and customs.
As anti-colonial movements swept across Africa and Asia in the 1950s and 1960s, the US sought new bases to maintain its influence around the Indian Ocean. Camp Badaber in Pakistan ultimately closed in 1970 as the country became closer with China. The Eritrean War of Independence threatened Kagnew Station in Ethiopia. The loss of both bases would be a major blow to US intelligence gathering of Soviet activities.
Diego Garcia could plug this gap, but there were two problems: the islands were part of Mauritius and had inhabitants.
In violation of international legal norms, Britain pressured Mauritius into giving up the Chagos Archipelago.
Then began the ethnic cleansing. To intimidate the islanders, their beloved pet dogs were killed en masse through shooting and gassing. The largest plantation was closed, depriving people of employment.
Food and medical supplies were restricted to kill the population or force them to leave. By 1971, those who remained were told they needed a legal permit, which no one received. With little notice, many were forced to leave their homes. Reminiscent of the slave boats their ancestors were brought in, Chagossians were crammed into the bottom of boats as they fled the islands.
A launchpad for endless war
With the island empty and the runway extended, Diego Garcia quickly became central to US war strategy. It played a key role in the 1980 failed hostage rescue mission in Iran, “Operation Eagle Claw,” and later against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War.
In 1987, the runway was improved for the stationing of US B-52 Bombers, which can deliver large payloads and precision-guided munitions. These bombers were vital during the Gulf War for attacking Iraq’s command and control centers, and again during the beginning of the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
As the US expanded its footprint in the Persian Gulf, bases in Qatar and Bahrain took on greater significance – hosting long-range bombers, the US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) headquarters, and the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. These two bases were vital: bombers from Qatar and vessels from Bahrain helped strike Taliban strongholds during the invasion of Afghanistan and hit Baghdad in the Shock and Awe campaign.
But proximity to the battlefield has become a double-edged sword. Iran’s significant missile arsenal, including hypersonic ones – demonstrated during its October 2024 retaliation against Israel – makes those Persian Gulf bases vulnerable.
Close proximity is also a challenge for B-2 stealth bombers, which can be detected at ground level and during takeoff. With only 20 B-2s, costing $2 billion each, this is a price the US cannot afford. If war breaks out, Tehran is unlikely to spare the economic infrastructure of its neighbors.
It is unlikely that either Bahrain or Qatar would be willing to bear the cost of an Iranian attack. Iran could not only attack US military bases, but also oil and gas infrastructure, which would destroy their economies. The two nations have also been edging closer to Iran: Tehran was one of the few capitals that supported Qatar during its diplomatic crisis with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf emirates; in the past year, Bahrain and Iran have also been working on restoring ties.
Diego Garcia, by contrast, sits well beyond the range of most Iranian missiles – at least that is the assessment for now. It allows stealth bombers to launch undetected, and Iran’s limited ability to punish the island’s British overlords makes it an ideal staging ground for Washington’s war plans.
According to available data, Iran’s longest-range missile is the Khorramshahr-4, with a reach of approximately 2,000 kilometers. Yet, the US military base in Diego Garcia – located deep in the Indian Ocean – is nearly 4,000 kilometers from Iran’s southern coast. While there is no confirmed evidence that Iran currently has the means to strike such a distant target, the existence of capabilities – undisclosed by the Islamic Republic – that could reach the US base cannot be entirely ruled out.
Moreover, the Khorramshahr-4 missile’s proven ability to evade Israeli air defenses raises concerns about the US’s ability to defend Diego Garcia in a major conflict – particularly if Iran possesses long-range missiles capable of striking the remote base.
Any attack on Iran could trigger a wider regional war, with blowback against American assets and allies across West Asia – from Tel Aviv to Riyadh. Killing a few Iranian leaders might offer symbolic victories, but Tehran’s command structure is built for resilience. The risks far outweigh the tactical gains.
A homeland turned fortress
Despite a 2019 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling demanding Britain end “its administration of the Chagos Islands as rapidly as possible,” real justice for the Chagossians remains elusive. Although London agreed in October 2024 to begin the process of returning the archipelago to Mauritius, the US base is staying put. Mauritius offered a 99-year lease, without securing the right of return for the expelled Chagossians.
That could soon become permanent. If war erupts, Diego Garcia may once again be expanded, militarized further, and rendered uninhabitable. A concrete fortress will be all that remains of what was once a peaceful homeland.
In the end, whether through military strike or imperial inertia, the Chagossians risk losing their islands forever – not to history, but to America’s wars.
Russia, China to Discuss Guarantees on Iran Deal with US – Iranian Lawmaker
Sputnik – 19.04.2025
The United States will not be the only one providing guarantees for a potential Tehran-Washington agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, Iranian lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said ahead of the second round of US-Iran talks in Rome.
Russia and China will discuss with the US the issue of “more reliable guarantees” for Tehran, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the Iranian parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, said.
“During the negotiations between Tehran and Washington, guarantees will not only be provided by the US. Countries such as Russia and China will enter into negotiations with the United States on more reliable guarantees,” Boroujerdi said, as quoted by the Iranian state agency SNN.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was on an official visit to Moscow on Thursday and Friday, and in the next few days, according to the Iranian state news agency IRNA, Araghchi will visit China.
During his visit to Russia, the Iranian diplomat held a meeting and talks with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, conveying to him a message from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Araghchi also held talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The parties discussed regional and international cooperation, as well as the situation around the US-Iran talks, the first round of which took place on April 12 in Oman.
Indirect talks between US Presidential Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Araghchi took place in the Omani capital on April 12. According to the US special envoy, they were positive and constructive. Araghchi also described the atmosphere of these talks as constructive and calm, and announced that the second round of talks between the Islamic Republic and the United States would be held on April 19.
Russia announces Easter ceasefire
RT | April 19, 2025
Russia will pause hostilities with Ukraine from 18:00 on Saturday Moscow time until midnight on April 21, President Vladimir Putin has announced.
The president announced the temporary ceasefire on Saturday after a meeting with Russian General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov. He expressed his hope that Kiev will show goodwill and observe the truce.
“At the same time, our troops must be prepared to react to possible violations of the ceasefire and provocations by the adversary, to any aggressive actions,” Putin stated.
Ukraine’s reaction to the Easter ceasefire will clearly demonstrate whether Kiev is able and sincerely willing to participate in the potential negotiations to bring the conflict to its end, the Russian president noted.
Putin invoked the 30-day energy truce between Moscow and Kiev, brokered by US President Donald Trump on March 18, noting Ukraine’s repeated violations.
“We know that the Kiev regime has violated the agreement on pausing energy infrastructure strikes more than a hundred times… Therefore, I ask you to be extremely attentive and focused, to be ready for an immediate full-force response,” he told Gerasimov.
Shortly after the president’s announcement, the Russian Defense Ministry released a short statement on the matter, urging Kiev to show reciprocity.
“The ceasefire regime is being introduced for humanitarian purposes and will be observed by the Russian Joint Group of Troops, provided that it is mutually observed by the Kiev regime,” the military said.
Scott Ritter: Rubio’s Threats to Quit Ukraine Peace Talks Look Like Sabotage
Sputnik – April 18, 2025
Marco Rubio warned Friday that the US could walk out of the Ukrainian peace process if progress is not made “within days.” A day earlier, Volodymyr Zelensky accused Trump Ukraine envoy Steve Witkoff of “spreading Russian narratives,” and claimed Witkoff has no “mandate… to speak about Ukrainian territories.”
The US secretary of state’s remarks on potentially ending the US peace push in Ukraine signal dual frustrations: with Steve Witkoff’s influence over Ukraine policy, and with Russia’s demands for a lasting peace instead of a temporary ceasefire, military analyst and former Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter told Sputnik.
“I think this is an effort by Marco Rubio to insert himself into the process, but I want to remind people that he doesn’t make policy, especially policy concerning US-Russian relations,” Ritter emphasized.
Ritter sees Rubio’s comments as an attempt to “create the atmosphere of a failed policy” to try to get the US to abandon its current policy on Ukraine, but doesn’t see President Trump accepting this position.
Ritter also recalled that Rubio’s position in the Trump administration has forced him to pull a 180 degree turn on the traditional pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia posture he held throughout his career in the Senate.
“Rubio’s statement actually empowers Europe and Ukraine in many ways because now all they have to do is drag this out. The key here is for Europe and Ukraine is to get the United States out of the peacekeeping business and hopefully get the US back into the war-fighting business, that is, to continue their proxy conflict against Russia. That doesn’t seem to be the policy direction that Donald Trump favors,” the observer stressed.
Ultimately, Ritter said, what the Ukraine crisis needs right now is diplomacy. “This requires the United States to put pressure on Europe, to put pressure on Ukraine. The Trump administration doesn’t seem to have the leverage necessary to achieve that. This is where Marco Rubio is supposed to be stepping forward to take the lead diplomatically to see the president’s will translated into actual policy that can be implemented. But Rubio doesn’t seem to be inclined to do this.”
“So what I envision happening is, in a week or so, you’ll see Marco Rubio make a play with the Trump administration, with the president himself, to terminate America’s effort to bring this conflict to an end. But I don’t see Donald Trump accepting that. I see Donald Trump rejecting that advice and continuing to press forward and giving Steve Witkoff a chance to work with the Russians. But this is a process that if it continues, is going to take weeks, if not months, before you get the kind of detailed agreement necessary to allow Russia to accept a ceasefire,” Ritter summed up.
Threats of Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Are ‘Unacceptable’ – IAEA Chief
Sputnik – 18.04.2025
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi called threats of strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities “unacceptable.”
“The IAEA has always emphasized that threats against Iran’s nuclear facilities are unacceptable and that the attacks that are being discussed could not only worsen existing problems, but also create more serious environmental consequences,” Grossi was quoted as saying by the IRIB news agency on Thursday.
On Wednesday, The New York Times newspaper reported that US President Donald Trump did not allow Israel to attack Iranian nuclear facilities after he decided to pursue diplomacy with Tehran. Israeli officials were allegedly ready to attack Iran in May and counted on US support, promising to set back Tehran’s nuclear program by a year or more.
US proposes leaving former Ukrainian territories under Russian control – Bloomberg
RT | April 18, 2025
The US has presented its allies with the details of its peace plan to bring the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to an end, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing European officials familiar with the matter.
The contours of the plan were outlined during a meeting in Paris on Thursday. The proposal reportedly includes easing sanctions on Russia, as well as terminating Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. The roadmap would effectively freeze the war, with the formerly Ukrainian territories held by Russia remaining under Moscow’s control, the sources suggested.
One of the officials told Bloomberg that the proposal still had to be discussed with Kiev, adding that the plan would not actually amount to a definitive settlement of the conflict. Moreover, Kiev’s European backers would not recognize the territories as Russian, the source suggested.
The Paris meetings involved senior officials from several countries. The US delegation was led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House special envoy Steve Witkoff. They met with French President Emmanuel Macron and also held discussions with top officials and negotiators from France, Germany, the UK, and Ukraine.
Earlier on Friday, Rubio signaled Washington was ready to “move on” if a way to end the hostilities between Moscow and Kiev could not be found shortly.
“We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this is doable in the short term. Because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on,” Rubio told reporters before departing from France.
Moscow has signaled a full ceasefire with Ukraine was highly unlikely, citing Kiev’s violations of previous deals. Speaking to reporters at the UN headquarters on Thursday, Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia said there are “big issues with the comprehensive ceasefire,” recalling the fate of the now-defunct Minsk agreements, which were “misused and abused to prepare Ukraine for the confrontation.”
The diplomat also cited repeated Ukrainian violations of a US-brokered 30-day moratorium on energy infrastructure strikes, implemented on March 18.
“How close we are to the ceasefire is a big question to me personally, because, as I said, we had an attempt at a limited ceasefire on energy infrastructure, which was not observed by the Ukrainian side. So, in these circumstances, to speak about a ceasefire is simply unrealistic at this stage,” Nebenzia said.
Europe not ready to expand military aid to Ukraine when US leaves
By Ahmed Adel | April 18, 2025
More than three years in and with little initiative for a diplomatic exit from the West, NATO’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine will reach a critical juncture when aid from the United States ends. Unless US President Donald Trump changes his mind, Europe cannot afford to continue its unconditional aid to Ukraine alone.
In the final months of his term, Joe Biden took significant steps to increase Ukraine’s munitions stockpiles, sending large quantities of projectiles, rockets, and armored vehicles, and approving a $1.25 billion aid package in December 2024. This support has allowed a continued flow of US arms to Ukraine, except for a pause ordered by Trump in March following his spat with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House.
While these decisions have bought Ukraine time, its stockpiles of US munitions are running low. The $1.25 billion aid package is nearly exhausted, and Trump has not approved any new military aid since taking office. Even if he were to use his remaining withdrawal authority, the amount available would be insufficient to sustain long-term US support, especially with the Republican-controlled Congress.
Trump has unsuccessfully sought a ceasefire in the conflict, while the parties involved have not agreed on the full terms. Faced with the impasse, the European Union has encouraged Ukraine to try to gain some strategic advantage over Russia, saying it will maintain support for as long as necessary. But Russia’s superiority has been proven daily, even with Ukraine’s flagrant unilateral violation of the 30-day US-brokered ceasefire for critical infrastructure.
European leaders have been moving to help Ukraine in the absence of US leadership. Discussions about a post-war security force are important, but more planning is needed to deal with the impending loss of US material support.
According to The Guardian, Ukraine’s European backers face two main questions: how Ukraine can persist with a combination of domestic arms production, European assistance, and US intelligence sharing, and how to finance that support. European countries must accept greater risk by donating their own military equipment and increasing defense spending to replenish their stockpiles.
The article argues that Europe should direct more resources to Ukraine’s defense industrial base, which produces drones, munitions, and air defense capabilities. The United Kingdom and France should try to negotiate with the Trump administration to secure additional air defense missiles for Ukraine, with the Europeans footing the bill, of course.
European countries must decide how to finance this support, whether by drawing on their own budgets or seizing the roughly $300 billion Russian sovereign assets illegally frozen through unilateral sanctions. These assets could finance Ukraine’s defense and reduce its dependence on the US, but time is running out for Ukraine to have anything to bargain for.
Moscow believes that arms supplies to Ukraine hinder the resolution of the conflict and directly involve NATO countries in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that any shipment containing weapons to Ukraine would be a legitimate target for Russia. According to Russia’s top diplomat, the US and NATO not only supply weapons to Kiev, but also train personnel in the UK, Germany, Italy, and other countries.
Hundreds of articles and interviews by Western journalists and politicians repeatedly claimed that Russia was allegedly running out of men, shells, missiles, and tanks, and that it only had fuel for two days. However, none of these allegations have been proven because production never ended in Russia; it has only increased.
Rather, to match Russia’s strength, Ukraine will have to mobilize everything it can and increase production several dozen times, an impossible task.
On April 11, Kaja Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, said that the meeting of the “Coalition of the Willing” on Ukraine was a failure because participants had different views on a peace agreement. French media quoted European officials as saying the day before Kallas’ statement that about six of the more than 30 countries participating in the “Coalition of the Willing” are ready to send troops to Ukraine. They include the United Kingdom, France, and the Baltic states. Evidently, the effort to mobilize Europe for this action failed.
Kallas also hoped to mobilize up to €40bln in military aid for Ukraine this year to shore up Kiev’s position and try to gain some strategic leverage for upcoming peace talks with Russia. This proposal has been stalled for weeks though, with EU diplomats criticizing the abstract nature of the plan, the way contributions would be calculated, and the lack of buy-in from most southern European countries.
Europe does not have the military might, economic prosperity, or unity to support Ukraine once US support has truly dried up. Yet, judging by the statements and actions of Kallas, the unelected EU technocrats continue to concoct new ideas to prolong war and suffering in Ukraine.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Full speed ahead for war preparations in Europe: What are French military cartographers doing in Romania?
By Erkin Oncan | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 17, 2025
In the French newspaper Le Figaro, a striking report was published regarding the presence of French Army cartographers in Romania in preparation for a possible “conflict with Russia.” The article, titled “French Army Cartographers Deployed on NATO’s Eastern Flank Amid Rising Tensions with Russia” and penned by Nicolas Barotte, details new military preparations being undertaken with the anticipation of a Russian attack.
According to the report, French Army cartographers are mapping regions along Romania’s borders with Moldova and Ukraine.
It is noted that soldiers are identifying elevated locations such as water towers or bell towers every five kilometers.
According to the French soldiers, these structures will be used as reference points for artillery targeting if necessary.
The French troops have also prepared an extremely detailed map that includes movement routes for military units and the axes along which the army can advance. The main purpose of the mapping effort is to facilitate orientation on the ground even if satellite signals are disrupted.
Who conducted the mapping?
The mapping operation was carried out by the 28th Geographic Group (28e Groupe Géographique).
Known by the abbreviation “28e GG,” this unit is stationed in the town of Haguenau near Strasbourg and is one of the smallest yet most strategic units of the French Army. The 28e GG provides geographical information, map production, and topographic analysis support to land forces. It was under the Intelligence Command for many years, but in the fall of 2023, it was reassigned to the Engineering Brigade (brigade du génie).
This unit, which plays a critical role in military operations, is responsible for map production in operational areas, 3D terrain mapping using methods such as LIDAR (a laser-based positioning method), drones, and mobile data collection tools. It also identifies passage routes for military targets and infrastructure, determines reference points for use in case satellite signals are cut off, and supports artillery with target identification and fire support planning. Comprising 350 soldiers, this unit actively participates not only in operations but also in planning processes.
French military presence in Romania
Meanwhile, the French Army’s presence in Romania is not new. When the Russia–Ukraine war began, France deployed a thousand troops to Cincu, located in the Transylvania region of central Romania, as part of NATO’s efforts to reinforce its eastern flank.
French soldiers also lead the NATO-established Multinational Battlegroup – Romania stationed there.
Why Romania?
According to Le Figaro, the unit has already hung the map it prepared in Romania on the wall of its headquarters in Haguenau.
On the map of Romania, the country’s topography is displayed in three dimensions. The 28e GG identified reference points every five kilometers and created a map of military mobility routes.
The map was created using a technology similar to Google’s Street View. A vehicle equipped with high-resolution cameras and laser sensors, used by the 28e GG, scanned the region in 3D.
The most critical aspect of this military preparation is the Focșani Gate.
The Focșani Gate
The Focșani Gate (or Focșani Pass) is located in eastern Romania and has historically been a region of great military strategic importance.
It is a narrow and flat passage between the Eastern Carpathians and the Danube Plain, serving as a corridor between Moldova, Transylvania, and the Danube region.
Unlike the mountainous terrain surrounding it, this flat region is difficult to defend and easy to attack.
Given NATO’s assumption that Russia may launch an attack through this route, it is predicted that a successful Russian invasion through Focșani could spread to the heart of Romania and even reach the Black Sea via Constanța.
Moreover, the historical use of Focșani for military purposes by the Ottomans, Russia, Germany, and the Soviets contributes to the strategic interest in the area.
What happens if Russia attacks through Focșani?
The emphasis on Focșani is undoubtedly part of the broader effort to militarize Europe under the narrative of a “Russian invasion.” But what if NATO’s assumptions prove true?
If Russia attacks through Focșani as expected, the first military forces it would encounter would be Romania’s 8th Division and the 2nd Infantry Division. The initial air response would come from Romanian aircraft based at the Fetești and Borcea air bases.
If NATO activates Article 5 and decides to fully confront Russia, the U.S. air base at Mihail Kogălniceanu on Romania’s Black Sea coast would also come into play.
If Russia were to attack through Focșani, the heavy NATO presence in the Baltic region would not have a primary impact. For example, due to the Carpathian Mountains, direct intervention in the Moldova–Romania axis by Poland and other Baltic countries would be logistically difficult. At most, these countries could apply a distraction strategy by opening a new front in the north against Russia.
In such a scenario, another key NATO force that comes to mind is the NATO Rapid Deployable Corps – Italy, established in 2001 as NATO’s Immediate Response Force.
Turkey’s position
Assuming Turkey sets aside its balancing diplomacy and fulfills its alliance obligations as the country with NATO’s second-largest land army, Turkey’s potential actions would include deploying its units to Romania within 72 hours.
As of 2023, Turkey is part of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) with high-readiness units such as the 66th Mechanized Infantry Brigade (Istanbul) or Commando Brigades.
In this context, the 66th Mechanized Brigade in Istanbul and experienced commando brigades from Syria operations appear to be the fastest units that could provide ground support to Romania.
The Turkish Navy, also the largest NATO naval force in the Black Sea, contributes on a rotational basis to NATO’s Standing NATO Maritime Group-2 (SNMG2) and Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group-2 (SNMCMG2) with frigates, fast attack boats, and minehunters.
Likewise, Turkey’s air power can provide reinforcements of combat troops and ammunition to NATO bases in Romania by air; with UAVs and maritime patrol aircraft, it can carry out reconnaissance and deterrence missions. Amphibious units with landing capabilities and SAT/SAS commandos could also be deployed to Romanian territory under NATO’s operational plans.
Of course, direct military involvement by Turkey in such a scenario is seen as a possibility that falls outside the scope of Turkey’s traditionally balance-oriented foreign policy.
While the likelihood of such a simulation materializing under the current political circumstances is clearly remote, it would require Russia to first capture Odessa and reach the Moldovan border, then attempt to invade Romania via Moldova (Transnistria).
However, even though direct Turkish involvement in a war remains unlikely for now, the possibility of Turkey taking on new responsibilities within the current “deterrence” concept is increasingly being discussed out loud.
Especially in a political climate where U.S. President Donald Trump is perceived to have “abandoned” Europe, and eyes are turning to Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s recent statement at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum—“Turkey is ready to take responsibility for Europe’s security”—is the clearest indication yet that Turkey will play a more active role in the European security architecture in the near future.
Although there is much talk lately about Turkish troops going to Ukraine, it would not be surprising to see Turkish units in Romania, a key focus area for NATO.
Conclusion
Alongside Eastern Europe, NATO also considers Southeastern Europe as a potential attack route for Russia and is tailoring its war preparations accordingly. While U.S.-Europe relations remain volatile during the Trump era, the ongoing preparations suggest that neither side truly believes the U.S. will withdraw troops from Europe in the short term. Indeed, NATO and U.S. officials have already started attempts to “reassure” on this matter.
On the other hand, while NATO considers Romania a strategic route in the event of a Russian attack and views the region as militarily critical, it is also evident that any anti-NATO or anti-EU shift in a country like Romania would cause severe damage to current strategies. This fact is already apparent from the first round of Romania’s presidential elections.
Although Romania currently plays a key role in NATO’s southeastern flank, signs of a potential shift in political preferences are beginning to emerge. In the first round of Romania’s 2024 presidential elections, pro-Western and pro-European Union parties lost significant ground, while nationalist and EU-skeptical tendencies gained momentum. This shift could pose serious challenges to NATO’s future plans in the region if it continues.
As NATO strengthens its eastern and southeastern flanks in anticipation of a long-term confrontation with Russia, it must also closely monitor the political transformations in its member states. Public discontent, nationalist rhetoric, and the rise of far-right political movements may undermine the alliance’s cohesion and operational capacity.
Moreover, it is becoming clear that the current U.S.-European alliance is not solely built on military arrangements. The sustainability of this alliance also depends on internal political stability and public support within member countries. In this context, the role that Turkey will play is of particular significance, both as a NATO member and as a regional power capable of influencing developments in Southeastern Europe and the Black Sea basin.
While the French military’s cartographic activities in Romania may seem like a routine technical operation, they are, in fact, part of a much broader preparation for war. The choice of mapping locations, the level of detail, and the focus on vulnerable corridors such as the Focșani Gate all point to a well-thought-out military contingency plan.
In summary, Europe is once again preparing for war—this time not against a distant enemy, but against a powerful and nuclear-armed neighbor. And countries like Romania, which sit at the intersection of these fault lines, are being rapidly militarized. Whether this is genuine preparation or a calculated form of deterrence, one thing is certain: the cartographers of war are already on the move.
European and British leaders are using the Sumy airstrike to push for the war in Ukraine to continue
By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 16, 2025
The Sumy airstrike provides a reminder that civilians and children have been killed indiscriminately since the Ukraine crisis started in 2014. Rather than calling on Russia to accept a ceasefire on Ukraine’s terms and encouraging Zelensky to avoid dialogue, European and British leaders need to get behind real negotiations.
On 13 April, a Russian airstrike in the centre of Sumy in Ukraine lead to the deaths of 34 people and injury to 117 others, including children. The strike targeted a planned medal award ceremony organised by the Ukraine Armed Forces’ 117th Territorial Defence Brigade, although the vast majority of the casualties were civilians.
The decision to plan a military event in a built-up city centre has prompted internal concern within Ukraine that this invited a Russian attack. A Mayor of one town in Sumy called on the Governor and the regional head of Ukrainian Military intelligence to resign, for organising a military event in a civilian area.
Russian military bloggers have admitted that the second of two ballistic missiles used did not hit the intended target, causing widespread casualties.
But there was also a depressing sense of déjà vu in this latest tragedy. In an Amnesty International report of 4 August 2022, six months after the war started, the Secretary General, Agnès Callamard, remarked ‘we have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas.’
The strike in Sumy offers a timely reminder that civilians have regularly been caught in the cross-fire of a conflict in Ukraine that has been burning since 2014. Over 15,000 civilians have been killed during that eleven-year period, 3000 of those in the years of 2014 and 2015, as part of Ukraine’s so-called Anti-Terror Operation against the separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk.
The first official record of civilian deaths in the Ukraine conflict was in a report by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission on 5 July, which said, ‘the military campaign of the Ukrainian army in the east of the country continued.. The UN stated that there were numerous reports of death of people due to the intensified security operations in Donetsk and Luhansk, including a killing of a five-year-old girl.’
A 2016 report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, spoke about ‘rampant impunity’ within the Ukrainian anti-terror offensive across the period from 2014-2015, with ‘90 per cent of the conflict related civilian deaths.. caused by the indiscriminate shelling of residential areas.’ The remaining deaths were mostly caused by summary executions by groups on both sides of the conflict.
15,000 civilian deaths across eleven years is an appalling number. But that number pales against the more than one million total deaths and injuries to military personnel on both sides during the war, each one the child of someone.
Everyone should be striving with every sinew to end this needless bloodshed and finally bring peace. But they are not.
Performative accusations against Russia by the western media and politicians create an epic distraction from the real issue; that this would not be happening if there was peace between Russia and Ukraine.
A new propaganda narrative has formed that in this war, Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim. This is both a gross over-simplification and wilfully ignores Ukraine’s role as the other party to the war. It also infantilises casual western consumers of the mainstream news who, stripped of real information and analysis of the history of the conflict, are invited to accept the premise that Ukrainians are the good guys, and the Russians are the bad guys. That this is a fight between the righteous and the wicked. Between David and Goliath.
Antony Blinken, the grossly complicit former US Secretary of State, recently repeated this good versus evil line in an interview. But, when you look at it from the other perspective, you might realise that Russia considers NATO Goliath, and itself David.
Ursula von der Leyen, took to X after the attack in Sumy to amplify this attack line. ‘Russia was and remains the aggressor.’ She goes on to assert that, ‘Europe will continue to.. maintain strong pressure on Russia until the bloodshed ends and a just and lasting peace is achieved, on Ukraine’s terms and conditions.’ Prime Minister Keir Starmer posted on X that ‘Putin must now agree to a fully and immediate ceasefire without conditions.’
But this is deluded. Russia is slowly winning on the battlefield and has been for at least a year and a half. There is no rational world in which Russia will be pressured to accept a ceasefire on Ukraine’s terms. And Russia has conditions, the biggest one that Ukraine repudiate its claim to NATO membership. This has been the case, not since 2022, not since 2014, but since 2008.
A ceasefire will only happen when Ukraine engages in direct talks with Russia, something that President Zelensky steadfastly refuses to do. Calling for more pressure on Russia, and discouraging Zelensky from dialogue, is just delaying an end to hostilities and consigning more innocent people to die.
The EU and Britain, which have both avoided at all costs sending troops to fight, can’t produce enough weapons and are fast running out of money to support Ukraine’s failing state, are encouraging Zelensky to press for something that President Putin will never accept.
President Trump – with whom I disagree deeply on Middle East policy and on tariffs – has been measured in his response, referring to the Russian airstrike in Sumy as a mistake. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was also balanced in his statement, pointing out that, ‘this is a tragic reminder of why President Trump and his Administration are putting so much time and effort into trying to end this war and achieve a just and durable peace.’
Rather than falling back on the same old performative tropes and failed prescriptions, European and British leaders finally need to get behind ending the bloodshed. They must encourage Zelensky to negotiate, rather than humouring him with assurances that won’t reassure, and with promises we’ll never keep.
Belgium eyes welfare cuts to meet NATO target – minister
RT | April 16, 2025
Belgium is preparing to raise debt and cut welfare to meet NATO’s minimum military spending target, the EU country’s budget minister has said.
Vincent Van Peteghem told the Financial Times on Wednesday that Brussels recently agreed to lift its 2025 military budget to 2% of GDP through a mix of temporary cash injections, creative accounting, and structural reforms.
The planned hike in military spending could exacerbate the budget crisis as debt mounts. Recent government plans to cut social services have sparked protests, with over 100,000 people rallying in Brussels in February.
Belgium had previously planned to meet the 2% target only by 2029. Military spending currently stands at around 1.31% of GDP, or roughly €8 billion ($8.5 billion), according to Defense Minister Theo Francken.
The shift comes amid pressure from Washington and ahead of a NATO summit in June, where members are expected to consider raising the spending target to above 3% of GDP. US President Donald Trump has urged the bloc members to increase military spending to 5%, warning that countries that fail to do so may no longer be guaranteed American protection.
Higher spending on military budgets would take a toll on the EU’s welfare programs, Van Peteghem warned.
Last month, the European Commission proposed exempting military budgets from fiscal rules and offering €150 billion in loans as part of its ‘ReArm Europe’ plan, which aims to mobilize up to €800 billion through debt and tax incentives for the bloc’s military-industrial complex.
Van Peteghem said Belgium would tap both options to fund additional military spending this year.
To maintain the 2% level, the government plans to raise more debt and may privatize state-owned assets, the minister said. The remaining gap would be filled through spending cuts, including curbs on unemployment benefits, pension reforms, and tax changes.
“But of course, we will need to do more,” Van Peteghem, who also serves as deputy prime minister, said.
France has also announced plans to cut €5 billion from its budget, with some of the savings potentially redirected to military spending.
Moscow has condemned the EU’s military buildup. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it “a matter of deep concern,” noting that it was aimed at Russia.
