Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump-Putin parley is a bit under the weather

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 31, 2025 

The Kremlin apparently came to the conclusion last week that it was about time to do some plain-speaking that US president Donald Trump’s quest for a 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine war was a non-starter. Over the weekend, in a series of remarks, Trump reacted sharply that he’s “very angry” with President Vladimir Putin over his approach to the proposed ceasefire and threatened to levy tariffs on Moscow’s oil exports if the Russian leader does not agree to a truce within a month. 

Trump is either incapable or unwilling to accept that neither Russians nor Ukrainians have their heart in the ceasefire deal (for different reasons, though) even while paying lip service to it, as each wants to have Trump on its side.  

Unlike Ukrainians who are blasé about their desire to continue to wage the war until Russian forces vacate their territories in the east (knowing that may never happen), Russians are savvy operators who prioritise the unfinished business of the war while playing their part in the diplomatic circuit. 

Actually, Russians are in two minds whether the war could end once their military gains total control over Donbass, or, should they also take control of Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkov, etc. to create a security zone roughly, along the Dniepr River, and, let the UN figure out the future of the rump state of Ukraine. (See my blog A Third Way to end the war in Ukraine, Indian Punchline, March 29, 2025.)  

Such is the backlog of the West’s betrayals and repudiation of agreements, including during first term, that Russia may come to estimate that its best security guarantee for durable peace lies in creating solid facts on the ground. 

Trump will do well to read the extraordinary report featured in the New York Times dated March 29, 2025 titled The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine. It is a doctored version of the untold story of America’s hidden role in Ukrainian military operations against Russia but the main thing is that it confirms the Russian allegation that this has been a proxy war kick-started by the US with great deliberateness. 

Suffice to say, Trump’s claim to be a good Samaritan with a bleeding heart who wants the war to end, et al, won’t fly. On the other hand, Putin is nonetheless keen on establishing a good personal rapport with Trump and anchor a meaningful US-Russia partnership on it, realistic enough to accept that Trump is as good an American president as Russia would ever get. 

That said, Putin is also unwavering that in order for peace to be durable, conditions must be created first where he needs Trump’s understanding, although Russian people are deeply sceptical about any US mediation. 

Trump refused to say if there was any deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine, but he told reporters on board Air Force One yesterday, “It’s a psychological deadline. If I think they’re [Russians] tapping us along, I will not be happy about it.” 

On the contrary, Russians have been as transparent as they could in the prevailing climate of deep distrust — and no real effort has yet begun to address the root causes of the conflict. 

The Russian negotiator Grigory Karasin, an accomplished career diplomat and deputy foreign minister and currently a senator heading the foreign affairs committee of the upper-house Federation Council, who was the negotiator at the expert group negotiations at Riyadh last Monday, said over the weekend with great candour on Russia’s national television that the 12-hour talks “haven’t led to any radical breakthrough yet, but the opportunities are there. It would have been naive to expect any breakthroughs.”

Karasin claimed that the US negotiators, including senior National Security Council director Andrew Peek and State Department policy planning chief Michael Anton, initially presented “proposals that are unacceptable to Russia.”

“But then, in my opinion… they realised that a team of civilised, reasoned interlocutors was sitting in front of them,” he said, describing the talks as having had a “good atmosphere” despite the lack of progress. 

Importantly, Karasin said he expects US-Russian negotiations on Ukraine to continue at least until the end of 2025 or beyond.

We will never know how accurate was the feedback Trump received from the inconclusive negotiations in Riyadh. Clearly, the US has since resiled from the understanding given to the Russian side in regard of waiving the sanctions for the export of Russian food and fertilisers to the world market, facilitate the payments system and provide other underpinnings needed. 

Karasin’s glasnost was apparently not music to Trump’s ears. Nonetheless, good sense prevailed finally, as Trump signalled his intentions to talk to Putin. 

Will that help? Putin said as recently as last week that Russia’s interests will not be bartered away. Even if Trump were to now decide to join hands with the UK and France to lead the “coalition of the willing” to continue the Ukraine war, it is unlikely Putin will budge on Russia’s core interests. 

However, Trump’s real predicament is something else. He had a choice to decouple the US from the war. But then, he was also swayed by the Wall Street’s obsessive interest in Ukraine being a honeypot, which of course is incompatible with his known aversion to assuming the obligations and responsibilities of a de facto colonial power in a faraway land 10,000 kms away. 

The result is, Ukrainians have lost respect for him. Zelensky hit out on Friday, saying, “Ukraine has received the new draft agreement on natural resources from the US, which is totally different from the previous framework agreement. Ukraine will not recognise the United States military aid as a debt. We are grateful for support but it’s not a loan.” 

Wall Street Journal reported on the new revised draft document sent to Kiev from Washington, which insists on Zelensky signing an agreement giving the American companies control over key economic projects. In particular, the US seeks the right to be the first to participate in Ukraine’s infrastructure projects and mining programs, including rare-earth metals and construction of ports. 

The fund, managed primarily by US representatives, will channel the profits to pay off the cost of military aid provided by Washington to Kiev. If the agreement is signed, Ukraine will have 45 days to submit a list of projects for consideration by the fund.

Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported that under the latest version of the deal, the US would control half of Ukraine’s oil and gas reserves, its metals and much of its infrastructure, including railways, ports, pipelines and refineries, through a joint investment fund. The US plans to receive all profits until Ukraine pays it at least $100 billion in compensation for military aid, with a 4% surcharge. Kiev will start receiving 50% of the profits only after the debt is repaid.

The newspaper added that the new fund will be registered in the state of Delaware but will operate under the jurisdiction of New York. And the US will have the right to veto the sale of Ukrainian resources to third countries and the prerogative to check the accounts of any Ukrainian agency involved.

Trump has fallen between two stools. Ukraine is highly unlikely to accept the deal with the US. Also, trust Russian ingenuity to make a counter offer in business relationship to Trump that he can’t refuse. In sum, Trump’s attempt to enhance trust with Putin was indeed the right approach. And Putin reciprocated in earnestness.

Indeed, their parley made some headway until it came under weather, thanks to the mercantile considerations in play regarding Ukraine’s resources, which require that the war must be put to sudden death. Whereas, such wars have their own dynamics too. 

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The EU, the USSR, and the architecture of collective security in Eurasia

By Alexander Tuboltsev | Al Mayadeen | March 31, 2025

In July 1966, an important event took place in the Romanian city of Bucharest. The Warsaw Pact countries (USSR, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania) adopted a Declaration on Strengthening Peace and Security in Europe. This document, signed by the leaders of the listed countries, stipulated the following:

1. The Warsaw Pact participants officially declared that they have no territorial claims to any European state.

2. The signatories of the Declaration proposed the simultaneous dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and NATO in order to ease tensions.

3. The Declaration proposed the withdrawal of all foreign troops from European countries.

4. The Warsaw Pact countries proposed to develop mutually beneficial cooperation between all countries of the continent based on the principles of equality and non-interference in internal affairs.

And so, it was 1966. It had been less than five years since the Berlin crisis of 1961, when Soviet and American tanks faced each other in a standoff near the checkpoint (between West and East Berlin).

At the height of the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact countries proposed their own project for a collective, common, mutually beneficial security architecture in Europe.

10 years later, in November 1976, a new meeting of the Warsaw Pact Political Advisory Committee was held in Bucharest. As a result, a new Declaration was adopted. In my opinion, it can be called the prototype of the modern concept of a multipolar world. In the Declaration of 1976, the Warsaw Pact countries published the following program for the collective security system:

1. Ending the arms race.

2. Development of interstate relations with respect for the principles of sovereignty and mutual assistance.

3. Emphasis on the development of mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation between different states.

4. Support the struggle against neocolonialism in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

5. Support for the rights of the Palestinian people.

6. Restructuring of international economic relations based on the principles of justice and equality.

A few months later, in October 1976, the Soviet government sent a detailed Statement to the UN Secretary General on the topic of restructuring world economic relations. The Statement proposed to support the economic interests of Asian, Latin American, and African countries, to fight against neocolonial economic practices, and to limit the activities of global financial monopolies.

What do these historical facts tell us? In the 60s and 70s of the last century, the Warsaw Pact countries proposed to Europe to create a system of collective security and make a choice in favor of cooperation rather than confrontation. At the same time, they proposed to make world trade, economic ties, and political relations more pluralistic and more equal. These projects, outlined in the two Bucharest Declarations of 1966 and 1976, could once have significantly changed the geopolitical situation. But that didn’t happen, because there was one problem.

The military and political establishment of Western Europe and the United States had no intention of building a joint security architecture in Europe with the Warsaw Treaty Organization. The situation was quite the opposite: after 1991, NATO began its waves of expansion to the east. Since the Brussels summit in January 1994, an active process has begun to involve the countries of the former Warsaw Pact in NATO: in 1999 Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary joined the alliance. In the following years, the process of NATO expansion in Europe became continuous, spreading to the post-Soviet space (Baltic countries). The United States used this expansion as a tool to realize its hegemonic ambitions and to maintain the American unipolar dictatorship.

As the years passed, the EU countries continued to turn into a platform for NATO bases, which appeared closer to the borders of Russia. At the same time, the Russian Federation has always expressed its readiness for constructive dialogue, including on the architecture of collective security in Europe. Let’s recall 2008, when Russia took the initiative to create a Treaty on European security. In 2009, a draft of this agreement was presented, which mentioned, among other things, the following aspects:

1. Mutual cooperation between countries based on the principles of indivisible and equal security.

2. An agreement that the countries participating in the Treaty will not carry out actions affecting the security of other participants.

3. The openness of the Treaty for the accession of participants from all over the Eurasian and Euro-Atlantic area.

Western countries did not support this initiative. Moreover, they continued to expand the NATO military infrastructure in Europe, building new bases and accepting new countries into the alliance (Albania, Croatia).

The historical review I have given shows that for decades (since the 20th century), the EU countries have rejected all Soviet and Russian initiatives to create a European collective security architecture. The European Union did not want to enter into a dialogue on this topic and turned the idea of an equal security system into ruins.

Here is a typical example illustrated by Finland. Since 1948, when the Soviet-Finnish Friendship Treaty was signed, the USSR has been one of Helsinki’s most important economic partners. Finland actively bought oil from the Soviet Union at relatively low prices and then re-exported it to other European countries at a higher price. Due to its neutral position during the Cold War, Finland maintained political and economic relations with both the European Economic Community and the Warsaw Pact countries.

And what is happening now? In 2023, Finland joined NATO, becoming another springboard for the alliance’s military expansion. The country closed its border with Russia and began to massively reduce bilateral trade ties, which negatively affected the Finnish economy itself (especially the Finnish border settlements, many of which received most of their income through trade relations with the Russian Federation).

In the 2010s, many EU countries (Italy, Germany, and others that previously had active trade relations with Russia) began to break off bilateral contacts and impose sanctions, thereby undermining the very essence of the idea of free trade. What is the reason for this?

First, the EU countries have been actively using Russia’s resources for decades, buying oil and natural gas at favorable prices. But at the same time, Western European countries showed disrespect for Russia’s national interests and ignored its constructive proposals on the subject of collective security architecture. Instead of an equal dialogue, the EU showed arrogance.

Secondly, since the 90s, the EU has considered the former Warsaw Pact countries and the post-Soviet space as a market for its products and businesses. The EU imposed strict requirements and interfered in the economic processes in the states of Eastern and Central Europe, which began to join it. For example, in Latvia in 2006-2007, due to the agrarian reforms of the EU, the sugar industry of the republic was actually disbanded. This was unprofitable for the Latvian economy, but it was in line with the interests of the larger European sugar producers. Similar reductions in the sugar industry occurred at that time in Bulgaria, the former socialist country. And this is just one example of such EU interference in the economy of former Warsaw Pact members.

Also, the EU, within the framework of the “Eastern Partnership”, began its active economic expansion in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in the 2000s. The EU’s political and economic interference in the affairs of the CIS countries, along with NATO’s eastward expansion, posed a direct threat to Russia’s security. In turn, Russia has responded to this threat by strengthening its security and sovereignty, including in the economic sphere.

Thirdly, back in the 1990s, the EU countries became one of the main springboards of the Western hegemonic unipolar dictatorship led by the United States. The so-called “Western world” tried in every way to prevent the emergence of multipolarity, combining sanctions threats with neocolonial practices in the Global South. The number of international political contradictions grew every year, and the EU constantly refused equal dialogue.

Now, the year is 2025, and the EU has become a clone of NATO in its essence and actions. Like the North Atlantic Alliance, the EU is a vestige of the Cold War era. Instead of solving internal problems (for example, the inequality of economic development in Northern and Southern Europe, rising unemployment, and the European energy crisis), EU leaders are using aggressive Russophobic rhetoric, provoking new escalation stages, and imposing new sanctions packages. They are increasing military spending, sponsoring the militarization of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States, and continuing their neo-colonialist expansion in Africa. Berlin, Brussels, Paris, and Warsaw are now the instigators of conflicts that are pushing the whole of Europe into the abyss in the name of globalism and destructive neoliberalism.

This tendency of the EU establishment to escalate once again confirms that the situation on the continent is tense to the limit. The idea of a collective security architecture is once again becoming relevant to prevent larger and more numerous conflicts. However, this can no longer be a concept of European collective security. Similar projects are a thing of the past. The world has changed, and in recent decades, the role of Asian countries has increased significantly. Countries such as China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam are showing high rates of economic development, and their regional and international influence is growing. Therefore, in my opinion, the collective security architecture should be considered as a possible future project for the whole of Eurasia, built on the basis of equality and mutual respect. It is especially important to take into account the national interests of the countries of the Global South, which have suffered from Western European colonialism and interference for centuries.

To prevent further confrontation, it is necessary to eliminate the root causes that eventually led to the escalation. One of the main security problems in Europe is the expansion of NATO to the east and the concentration of NATO military bases near the borders of Russia and Belarus. Brussels, Paris, and Berlin should clearly understand that such actions (along with the bellicose rhetoric and policies of the current EU leadership) lead to an even more serious confrontation. Moscow and Minsk have repeatedly stressed that they will defend their territory and sovereignty in the event of a direct threat from the West.

It seems to me that, in the future, the most favorable option for reducing tensions in Europe and starting a dialogue on a new Eurasian collective security architecture could be the complete withdrawal of NATO troops from the EU countries bordering Russia (Finland, the Baltic states). If EU countries want to restore relations with Russia in the future, they should stop their hostile anti-Russian actions.

In the emerging multipolar world, there will be neither metropolises nor unipolar hegemonies. Europe is not the center of the world, but a political and geographical region like Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Therefore, future global security can only be based on an equal and mutually respectful relationship between countries and continents, that is, between all poles of a multipolar world order. And there is no place in this system for such destructive practices as the neocolonial paradigm of thinking and Western arrogance towards other peoples.

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Donald Trump is Looking Like a War President

By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | March 31, 2025

Donald Trump ran for president presenting himself as the peace candidate. A little over two months into his presidency, Trump, however, appears to be establishing himself as a war president.

Instead of quickly ending the US government’s support for war against Russia through Ukraine and against Palestinians, Lebanon, and beyond through Israel, Trump is keeping the money, weapons, and intelligence flowing to support the war efforts of these two so-called allies. It would have been simple for Trump to just declare “no more” and bow out of these wars, but he has chosen not to do so. He is also directing new major military action against Somalia and Yemen. Plus, Trump is threatening to bomb Iran, as well as attack any of Iran’s military that may be found around Yemen. Even Greenland is newly in the crosshairs of US military might during Trump’s presidency, with Trump declaring that the US will acquire the island territory of Denmark one way or another, up to through the use of military force.

A little over two months into the new Trump presidency, the death and destruction keeps coming from the US support for Ukraine and Israel in their wars. Further, the US military is directly engaging in newly expanded military attacks elsewhere, and new wars are being threatened in regard to Iran and — out of left field — Greenland.

Can Trump still become the peace president he suggested he would be? Time is running out. The way things are shaping up, it looks like there is a good chance the US will be more immersed in wars two months from now than it is so far in the new Trump administration.

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | | Leave a comment

Thousands march in Paris against military aid to Ukraine

RT | March 29, 2025

Thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets of Paris on Saturday, protesting French President Emmanuel Macron’s and NATO’s militaristic approach to the Ukraine conflict.

On Wednesday, Macron announced a new €2 billion ($2.16 billion) military aid package for Ukraine, after weeks of attempting to drum up support for his initiative to send Western troops as peacekeepers to the country. The new arms will include surface-to-air missiles, armored vehicles and drones, the French leader said.

Saturday’s anti-war rally was organized by former right-wing National Rally politician Florian Philippot and his party, The Patriots.

Thousands of protesters could be seen marching through the French capital, chanting slogans such as “Macron, we don’t want your war!” and “Let’s quickly leave NATO!” in video captured by RT.

Many could also be seen waving placards with the motto “Macron, we will not die for Ukraine.”

“A mad crowd for #Peace… Thousands and thousands of French people are shouting ‘Macron, resign!’ in the streets of Paris right now!” Philippot wrote on X on Saturday.

The Patriots protested in the French capital earlier this month after Macron proposed deploying France’s nuclear weapons in other European allied states, citing uncertainty over Washington’s commitment to the continent.

On Thursday, following an international summit in Paris, Macron announced a French-British plan to push for the deployment of troops to Ukraine as a “reassurance force” in the event of a ceasefire between Kiev and Moscow. Macron first touched on the idea of sending Western troops into Ukraine last February.

Russia has categorically ruled out agreeing to NATO troops being deployed to the conflict zone. Troops from the US-led military bloc, even under the guise of peacekeepers, would amount to direct NATO participation in the conflict, according to Moscow.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment

EU to reject Russia-US Black Sea deal – von der Leyen

RT | March 29, 2025

The EU will not lift its sanctions against Russia for as long as the Ukraine conflict continues, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said.

During talks in Saudi Arabia on Monday, Russia and the US agreed to move towards reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, should include the removal of Western restrictions against Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international sale of food and fertilizers.

In her interview with French broadcaster LCI on Friday, von der Leyen made it clear that Brussels will not support the idea of a maritime truce between Moscow and Kiev put forward by the administration of US President Donald Trump.

“The sanctions are very significant; they are painful; they have an impact on the Russian economy, and they represent a powerful lever,” she said when asked about the possibility of the EU fulfilling Russian demands to lift some of the curbs.

According to the head of the European Commission, the restrictions “will remain in effect until a just and lasting peace is established in Ukraine.”

However, she noted that “when the war is over, the sanctions might be removed.”

Von der Leyen also said that for the conflict to end, “security guarantees for Ukraine” are needed as well as “a solid defense industrial base and a deterrent force” in the EU.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting its restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports.

Moscow withdrew from the deal a year later, citing the West’s failure to uphold its obligations. The Americans and Russians now see its revival as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict altogether.

Earlier this week, President Vladimir Putin asserted that the Russian economy has become the fourth largest in the world in purchasing power parity terms after those of China, the US and India, despite a record 28,595 sanctions being placed on it by Washington, Brussels and their allies. According to the Russian government’s data, the country’s economy grew 4.1% in 2024, surpassing the official forecast of 3.9%.

Putin previously urged the Russian business circles against expecting the sanctions to be fully lifted, describing them as a mechanism of strategic systemic pressure on the country that the West intends to keep using.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

The war over war with Iran has just begun

By Sina Toossi | Responsible Statecraft | March 28, 2025

The war drums are getting louder in Washington.

In recent weeks, many of the same neoconservative voices who pushed the U.S. into Iraq are calling for strikes on Iran. Groups like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy are once again promoting confrontation, claiming there may never be a better time to act. But this is a dangerous illusion that risks derailing what Donald Trump himself says he wants: a deal, not another disastrous war in the Middle East.

A war with Iran wouldn’t just risk another endless conflict. It would blow up Trump’s broader agenda at home and abroad.

A major conflict would drain U.S. resources and attention, distracting from domestic priorities and weakening America’s leverage on every front: China, Russia, Europe, and trade. Europe could seize the moment to prolong support for the war in Ukraine and resist Trump’s push to reset transatlantic ties. Trade partners like Mexico, Canada, India, and others could take advantage of America’s preoccupation to extract lop-sided concessions. And a unilateral strike would likely fracture the international community.

Russia and China, despite their own misgivings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, would point to U.S. aggression as the real threat, undermining American credibility at the United Nations and beyond.

And the most dangerous consequence? A strike could backfire and push Iran to do exactly what Trump says he wants to prevent: build a bomb. Iran is already enriching uranium near weapons-grade. If it withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the last threads of international oversight would disappear. An attack would likely galvanize even more hardline elements in Iran and provide the political justification to sprint for a nuclear weapon.

Trump could go down in history, not as the president who solved the Iran crisis, but as the one under whose watch Iran finally became a nuclear weapons state. That’s not the legacy he wants, or one the country can afford.

Raising alarms, Trump recently declared, “Something will happen to Iran soon.” But he also made clear, “Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other.” These are not the words of a warmonger. They are the words of a negotiator, someone who still sees the value in diplomacy.

Trump is not alone. In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, his foreign policy envoy Steven Witkoff offered a notably more restrained perspective on Iran than is typical from the foreign policy establishment. Witkoff emphasized pragmatism, verification, mutual respect, and, most importantly, avoiding conflict. His remarks reflected a grounded approach rooted in a clear understanding of both American interests and the region’s complex dynamics.

The problem is that many of the loudest voices shaping Iran policy — inside and outside the government — are actively working to sabotage any realistic path to diplomacy. They talk about wanting a “deal,” but what they’re actually demanding is Iran’s surrender: zero uranium enrichment, dismantling its nuclear program, cutting ties with all its regional allies, and fundamentally changing its foreign policy. No Iranian government — pragmatist or hardliner — could accept such terms. Even Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s newly elected president who ran on a platform of diplomacy and engagement, would have no political space to agree to that kind of ultimatum.

Let’s be clear: if you’re pushing for such maximalist demands under the guise of wanting a deal, you’re not working for peace. You’re laying the groundwork for war.

Iran is a complicated actor with a complicated history. But the lessons of the past decade are clear: when the U.S. engages Iran through diplomacy, it gets results. When it relies solely on pressure, it inches closer to conflict.

The point of pressure has always been to create leverage, not to impose costs for their own sake. That leverage now exists. The question is what to do with it.

The 2015 nuclear deal was far from perfect for any side, but it did succeed in placing tight constraints on Iran’s nuclear program and subjected it to unprecedented international inspections. The aim of withdrawing from that deal was to compel Iran to accept stronger terms. That hasn’t happened.

Instead, the result has been several years of Iranian nuclear expansion, regional instability, and growing alignment between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. Iran is now enriching uranium to 60% — dangerously close to weapons-grade — and stockpiling far more than before. Meanwhile, the international consensus that once backed U.S. efforts has frayed.

Now is the time to cash in on current U.S. pressure. Not by continuing on an escalatory path that leads to war, but by using the leverage that’s been built to strike a better deal — one that delivers strong constraints, more transparency, and greater long-term security for the United States.

Against this backdrop, hawkish voices are once again pushing the illusion that striking Iran would be quick and effective. A recent report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) claims Israel’s alleged deep intelligence reach and risk tolerance make a “preventive strike” against Iran potentially “much more successful” than past American efforts, like when the U.S. attacked nuclear targets in Iraq in 1991 and 1993. But this dangerously downplays the risks. Even Trump’s allies are urging caution.

Vice President J.D. Vance, for example, rightly cautioned last October that “America’s interest is sometimes going to be distinct” from Israel’s — and made clear that avoiding war with Iran is in the U.S. interest. He warned such a conflict would be “massively expensive” and a “huge distraction of resources.” The reality is that a strike might at best delay Iran’s program while likely sparking a regional war, endangering U.S. troops, and pushing Iran to weaponize.

Indeed, even the same WINEP report that touts the feasibility of a strike quietly acknowledges the scale of what it would entail: “an open-ended, multiyear campaign to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities, influence its nuclear proliferation calculus, and shape its political and military responses.” In other words, this wouldn’t be a quick, surgical strike; it would be the beginning of another endless war in the Middle East.

Such a conflict would also carry steep economic costs, from skyrocketing oil prices to instability across the Middle East. And it would almost certainly backfire politically: Americans are war-weary, and polls show overwhelming support for diplomacy over conflict.

What’s needed now is a pragmatic strategy to de-escalate and reengage — one that offers Iran credible incentives in exchange for verifiable nuclear limits but doesn’t require dismantling its entire program.

The Iranian leadership has shown a consistent pattern in its dealings with the United States: pressure is met with pressure, while concessions are met with reciprocal steps. History has made clear that what moves the needle is not ultimatums, but a formula grounded in mutual respect, trust-building, and incremental, verifiable actions. Witkoff’s recent interview signaled a welcome openness to serious diplomacy, but rhetoric alone is not enough. To resonate in Tehran, it must be paired with credible, calibrated actions.

Modest, realistic steps — such as allowing a limited release of Iran’s frozen assets for humanitarian purposes or reviving President Emmanuel Macron’s 2019 proposal for a credit line backed by future oil revenues — would not require lifting core U.S. sanctions. Yet they could offer enough tangible benefit to bring Iran to the table. These measures should be linked to parallel Iranian concessions, such as slowing the accumulation of highly enriched uranium and enhancing IAEA access.

Another option is a negotiated “pause:” a fixed-duration agreement where the U.S. freezes further escalation of sanctions and refrains from imposing new pressure, while Iran halts key elements of its nuclear expansion. This mutual freeze could serve as a time-bound window for more comprehensive talks — buying time, lowering tensions, and creating space for diplomacy to succeed.

Critics will claim this approach “rewards bad behavior.” But the real question isn’t about rewarding anyone, it’s about results. What actually reduces the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon or dragging the U.S. into another endless war? The record speaks for itself: pressure detached from feasible diplomatic outcomes hasn’t delivered results. In fact, pressure for its own sake has backfired — driving Iran’s nuclear program forward and repeatedly bringing the U.S. to the brink of conflict.

Some will say Iran cannot be trusted. That’s precisely why inspections and verification are essential. When a deal was in place, international inspectors had access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the program was significantly constrained. Military strikes, by contrast, would likely end all transparency and push Iran to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, eliminating the last tools for monitoring and oversight.

There’s no perfect deal. But the smart play is a deal that contains Iran’s nuclear program, avoids a war, and keeps the U.S. in the driver’s seat. That should be the goal of any serious policy, not wishful thinking or ideological crusades.

President Trump has always seen himself as a dealmaker. Now’s the moment to make one that matters. He should empower voices in his camp — like Steven Witkoff — who understand that diplomacy isn’t weakness, it’s strategy. Rejecting the tired playbook of regime change and endless escalation would show real leadership.

Sina Toossi is a non-resident fellow at the Center for International Politics. Previously he was senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council, and a research specialist at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

EU ‘preparing for war’ – Hungarian FM

RT | March 29, 2025

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has accused Brussels bureaucrats of clinging to a “failed pro-war policy” in a desperate attempt to delay the moment when European taxpayers begin asking where the money spent on bankrolling Kiev has gone.

The European Union recently advised its 450 million inhabitants to stockpile essential supplies for at least 72 hours, with EU Commissioner for Crisis Management Hadja Lahbib warning on Wednesday that the Ukraine conflict threatens the bloc’s overall security.

Szijjarto said he initially thought the warning was some kind of joke or “trolling,” after Lahbib posted a bizarre video showing Europeans what to pack in a 72-hour survival kit.

“But why, in the 21st century, should EU citizens prepare a survival kit? There’s only one explanation: Brussels is preparing for war,“ Szijjarto wrote in a post on X on Friday. “At a time when there’s finally a real chance for a ceasefire and meaningful peace talks with [President Donald Trump’s] return to office, Brussels is going in the opposite direction, clinging to a failed pro-war policy.”

“Why? Because as long as the war continues, pro-war European politicians can avoid taking responsibility for three years of failure, and avoid answering an extremely uncomfortable question: where is the money that was sent to Ukraine?”

EU institutions in Brussels and individual member states have spent over €132 billion over the past three years supporting Kiev, and have pledged an additional €115 billion that has yet to be allocated, according to data from Germany’s Kiel Institute.

Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has pushed for a diplomatic resolution and sought to recoup what he estimates to be over $300 billion in US taxpayer money that his predecessor “gifted” to Kiev. Washington recently brokered a limited ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, placing a moratorium on attacks on energy infrastructure. Kiev, however, has repeatedly breached the ceasefire terms, according to Moscow.

Despite the ongoing peace process, the EU has continued to push a hawkish agenda. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently unveiled an €800 billion plan to ramp up military spending through loans.

Meanwhile, France and the UK continue to advocate for the deployment of a military contingent to Ukraine. Speaking after a summit in Paris on Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that a so-called “coalition of the willing” will seek to deploy a “reassurance force” to Ukraine after a peace deal with Russia is reached.

The proposal to send troops has already been rejected by several EU members. The “coalition of the willing” – a phrase originally coined by the US in 2003 to describe countries backing the invasion of Iraq – now mostly refers to states that have pledged to continue supporting Kiev militarily, without necessarily committing to troop deployments.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

A Third Way to end the war in Ukraine

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 29, 2025 

In an unguarded moment, perhaps, ex-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson blurted out recently in an interview that the ultranationalist elements who rule the roost in Kiev are a formidable obstacle to ending the war in Ukraine. For Johnson, this might be a blame game to absolve himself of responsibility, given his own dubious role as then PM (in cahoots with President Joe Biden) in undermining the Istanbul agreement in April 2022 to rev up the simmering conflict and turn it to a full-fledged US-led proxy war against Russia. 

What Johnson will not admit, though, is that the ascendance of the MI6, Britain’s intelligence agency, in the power structure in Kiev goes back by several years. MI6 was responsible for the personal security of President Zelensky. MI6 took advantage by positioning itself to choreograph the future trajectory of the war and subsequently in the planning and execution of major covert operations directed against the Russian forces — and ultimately to carry the war into Russian soil itself. 

According to reports, the UK intends to establish a base in the Odessa region on the Black Sea coastline. See my article The Hundred Years War Donald Trump should know about, Deccan Herald, January 29, 2025.

So, indeed, the MI6’s unholy alliance with the notorious Azov militia units comprising Ukrainian ultra-nationalists fired up by neo-Nazi ideology who wield control of the power apparatus in Kiev even today, is a key factor in the war, which complicates the prospects for President Trump’s efforts to end the war. Suffice to say, Britain’s strategic defiance of Trump with PM Keir Starmer string up of an insurgency among Europeans to pre-empt any US-Russia rapprochement is a calculated strategy.

Hopefully, President Trump’s decision Tuesday to order the FBI to forthwith declassify files concerning Crossfire Hurricane investigation may throw some light on the so-called Steele dossier (named after an ex-MI6 officer) containing doctored ‘evidence’ that had formed the basis of Hillary Clinton’s fake allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 US election cycle.

Reports had appeared, incidentally, that incumbent president Barack Obama and then vice-president Biden were very much in the loop on the Russia hoax. 

The point is, the entrenched neo-Nazi groups in Kiev, with Zelensky as their frontman, are not in the least interested in budging from their maximalist demands on a total Russian withdrawal and so on for ending the war, which are backed by the Europeans unconditionally who would  know fully well that such hopelessly unrealistic demands are deal breakers. The Kiev regime and European leaders are joined at the hips as interest groups in the war continuing. 

Put differently, so long as the regime in Kiev remains in power (although Zelensky’s presidential term has expired), any forward movement in the peace process will remain a pipe dream. 

The best course of action would be that Zelensky steps down on his own volition and a fresh election is allowed to be held under the supervision of the parliament speaker but all that is too much to expect. Given the massive scale of war profiteering, Zelensky holds a dream job.

The alternative will be Zelensky’s ouster through coercive means as the US once did to an equally corrupt proxy, Ngo Dinh Diem, in 1963 during the Vietnam War. But Trump is unlikely to do that. And in any case, the deep state is hostile towards Trump and Zelensky gets political support from Democrats.

Besides, Zelensky’s violent exit may only bring in another figure with neo-Nazi backing to power. In fact, the ex-army chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who also has MI6 support, is waiting in the wings in London serving as Ukraine’s envoy. 

In such a dismal scenario, the only way out seems to be a Third Way. Russian President Vladimir Putin may have proposed just that in a speech in Mumansk on Thursday possibly to draw Trump’s attention, as the Riyadh talks are not getting anywhere and Zelensky shows no signs of interest in a ceasefire.

Putin said at the outset, “I would like to state – first and foremost – that, in my view, the newly elected President of the United States sincerely wishes to end this conflict for a number of reasons – I will not list them now, as they are numerous. But in my opinion, this aspiration is genuine.” 

He then worked his way to the issue of the neo-Nazi formations who receive western weaponry and financial aid  and have the resources to recruit new personnel, holding de facto power in Kiev and are effectively running the country. Putin stated: “This raises the question: how is it possible to conduct negotiations with them?”

Clearly, the Russians are sceptical of the outcome of the expert level talks in Riyadh last Monday. The European summit in Paris 3 days later had vowed not to relax the sanctions against Russia or to give Russian banks access to the SWIFT clearing system. In short, the exports of Russian agricultural products and fertilisers to the world market is not going to be feasible. Kiev has already raised objection to the US-Russian understanding in this regard.

Simply put, an important element in the so-called Black Sea initiative is not workable. How to cut the Gordian knot?

Taking stock of Kiev’s all-round resistance to ending the war, Putin said:

“In such situations, international practice follows a well-established path. Within the framework of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, there have been several cases of what is termed external governance or temporary administration. This occurred in East Timor, I believe in 1999, in parts of the former Yugoslavia, and in New Guinea. In short, such precedents exist. 

“In principle, it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries – and certainly with our partners and allies – the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine. To what end? To conduct democratic elections, to bring to power a competent government that enjoys public trust, and only then to begin negotiations on a peace treaty and sign legitimate agreements that would be recognised worldwide as consistent and reliable.

“This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. At present, there is no opportunity – and perhaps no possibility – to lay out every detail, as the situation is evolving rapidly. But this remains a viable option, and such precedents exist within UN practice…” 

What Putin didn’t mention but is equally relevant is that the war in Ukraine will meet with sudden death the moment UN governance in Ukraine gets established. Indeed, let the UN decide the composition of any peacekeeping forces to be deployed in Ukraine for conducting elections. There won’t be any need for a ‘coalition of the willing’ of Europeans for deployment in Ukraine, either. 

Of course, the big losers will be MI6 and the politicians in power in the EU countries who lined up behind Biden as his retinue to wage a doomed proxy war against Russia and eventually ended up bringing the roof down on Europe’s economy. These decrepit politicians need the war as a distraction since they will be held horribly accountable by their public for creating conditions under which the welfare state is no longer affordable.

The Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi is expected to visit Moscow next week on Tuesday. It is entirely conceivable that the topic of UN governance in Ukraine will figure in Wang Yi’s talks.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK, France involved in Kiev’s latest attack on Russian energy infrastructure – Moscow

RT | March 28, 2025

France and the UK actively aided Kiev in a strike on the Sudzha pipeline infrastructure in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has told journalists. Earlier the Russian Defense Ministry said that a metering facility was “de facto destroyed” in a Ukrainian HIMARS attack.

“[We] have reasons to believe that targeting and navigation were facilitated through French satellites and British specialists input [target] coordinates and launched [the missiles],” Zakharova said, commenting on the strike.

“The command came from London,” she said, branding the attack part of a Ukrainian “terror” campaign targeting Russian energy infrastructure. The spokeswoman added that such actions demonstrate that Kiev is “impossible to negotiate with.”

Although Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky “publicly supported” a temporary suspension of strikes on energy infrastructure agreed by Moscow and Washington, he “did nothing to observe it,” according to Zakharova.

Moscow ordered that attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure cease on March 18, following a phone call between presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Russia and the US also agreed on a list of energy facilities that should not be targeted as part of a truce earlier this week. The list included gas facilities.

Kiev also agreed to a US-proposed 30-day partial ceasefire following talks between Ukrainian and American delegations in Saudi Arabia on March 15. Zelensky hailed the development and even described it as a diplomatic “victory” for Ukraine, but did not publicly mention any relevant orders to the Ukrainian military.

The Russian Defense Ministry has regularly reported on Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure over the past few weeks. Earlier on Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists that the strike suggested that the Ukrainian military no longer follows Kiev’s orders due to a “total lack of supervision.”

Paris and London have emerged as the staunchest supporters of Ukraine in the face of a gradual shift in Washington’s position under the new Trump administration. In early March, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron said that their nations were ready to lead a “coalition of the willing”—a group of pro-Ukrainian countries prepared to support Kiev with troops and aircraft.

Russia has vehemently rejected any possibility of NATO-aligned European troops deploying to the conflict zone. It has accused France and Britain of hatching plans for “military intervention in Ukraine,” which could lead to a direct armed clash between Russia and NATO.

March 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Macron and Starmer’s coalition of the killing amid Europe’s insane war footing

Strategic Culture Foundation | March 28, 2025

If there were a prize for Orwellian-named conferences, then the one held this week in Paris would surely be a top contender.

Over the past month, there has been a slew of such gatherings in London, Brussels, and Paris. They have been conducted in a frenzy to thwart peace and prolong war – under the guise of “seeking security” against Russia.

Some 30 nations attended the latest Paris summit, convened by France’s Emmanuel Macron, and entitled “Building a Robust Peace for Ukraine and Europe”.

Europe is being gaslighted to view war as peace and accept that all economic resources must be dedicated to militarism. It is an insane war footing that is beyond any democratic or moral rationale.

European Union member states participated as well as NATO and non-EU nations Britain, Norway, and Canada. We should clarify that it was the elitist leaders of these countries who were present. Their lack of democratic mandate and authority is all too obvious to the people of Europe.

Some EU nations, such as Hungary and Slovakia, have protested commendably about the unwavering belligerence and obscene waste of public resources for fueling a proxy war in Ukraine.

Notably, too, the United States was not represented at the Paris summit. Coincidentally, this week, a leaked private group conversation between senior members of the Trump administration revealed their contempt for “loathsome” European leaders. One can understand why.

In the grandeur of Élysée Palace, Macron hailed the non-entity gathering as the “Coalition of the Willing”. With this self-appointed virtue, the French leader was referring to countries that are willing to deploy military forces to Ukraine or maintain the supply of weapons.

Macron has been assiduously supported in this military venture by Britain’s Prime Minister Kier Starmer.

The French and British leaders have intensified their efforts to directly insinuate Europe and NATO militarily in the three-year conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Their efforts are a result of American President Donald Trump engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO alliance and Russia.

Trump’s diplomatic overtures with Moscow have sidelined the European states and have left them with an acute political problem of how to justify continuing military support for a failing Ukraine Project.

The French, British and other European Russophobes do not want the war to end. That’s because they are wedded to the false narrative about defending Ukraine from “Russian aggression”. They are also committed to strategically defeating Russia using Ukraine as a proxy.

In Orwellian fashion, the European and NATO warmongers cannot openly state their nefarious objective. That would be politically fatal. Hence, they are cynically dressing up their motives with virtuous-sounding schemes, such as deploying “peacekeeping troops” in the event of any ceasefire deal that the Americans and Russians might negotiate.

The relentless demonizing of Russia as a threat to Europe is amplified by a near-constant drumbeat of war. European citizens – 500 million of them – are being subjected to non-stop messaging about the “need” to militarize their societies to “defend” against “Russian expansionism”.

This week, the EU began urging citizens to stockpile emergency rations in their homes. Russia was not explicitly invoked as a threat, but it was palpably obvious that fear of war was being inculcated. While European states are slashing billions in social welfare, their elitist, Russophobic leaders are ramping up billions for militarism. Europe is on a war footing based on paranoia and the pathological fears of a ruling clique.

Macron and Starmer are also pushing the idea of integrating Ukraine into a first line of defense against alleged future Russian aggression toward Europe. In reality, this is about reconfiguring offense.

Their pretensions of “building a robust peace for Ukraine and Europe” are a reckless gambit to prolong the war. At its worst, the conflict could explode into an all-out world war.

It is cringe-making that failed European politicians who are mired in internal political and economic messes are seeking to aggrandize their images through high-stakes posturing against Russia.

Macron has said that his coalition of willing wants to have American backing for security. He added this week that if European troops in Ukraine come under fire from Russian forces, they will retaliate.

Moscow has already stated categorically that no European or NATO troops deployed to Ukraine are acceptable. They will be targeted as combatants.

That means that if Paris and London go ahead with their military venture in Ukraine, a wider war is almost inevitable.

It is alarming that Macron has lately said that European troops may be dispatched to Ukraine “with or without American support.”

Laughably, though, neither the French nor the British have the military power for a serious intervention. French forces have been serially kicked out of several African countries that were former colonies. Meanwhile, British military chiefs have warned Starmer that his deployment plans are ill-conceived and amount to “political theater”.

Even the much-vaunted summit in Paris this week showed open cracks between allies. Several European states have stated they are not willing to join any military intervention in Ukraine. Italy, Poland, and Greece have expressed deep concern about where Macron and Starmer’s logic is leading.

It seems that the extreme delusions of grandeur harbored by former imperialist powers are beginning to unnerve even supposed partners.

Hopefully, it is becoming transparent that Britain and France are gambling with world security to satisfy their own egos.

Two world wars in the last century stemmed from European intrigue and duplicity.

Has-been European powers are at it again with their Orwellian doublespeak about ensuring “lasting peace”.

The reality is Russia has won the proxy war that NATO instigated. Even the normally gung-ho Americans realize that.

NATO has been caught with blood on its hands as the culprit of an epic war crime against Russia, using Ukraine as a pawn. Trump seems to want to extricate the Americans from the debacle. He can try to offload the blame onto the previous Biden administration.

However, the European elitist leaders can’t do that. They are the same lackeys who promulgated the criminal proxy war. Their only perceived option is to keep it going… until the European public wakes up and takes retribution on their criminal leaders.

March 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Possible new Black Sea agreement likely to fail again

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 26, 2025

The recently initiated negotiations between the Putin and Trump administrations to de-escalate the conflict in the Black Sea and reform the regional maritime security architecture represent a pragmatic move by both leaders. While Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks stability to protect Russia’s economic and geopolitical interests, U.S. President Donald Trump, with his well-known commercial interests in the region, sees an opportunity to ease tensions and restore crucial trade flows. However, despite the seemingly conciliatory intentions of both powers, the failure of this diplomatic effort is almost certain due to the Kiev regime’s insistence on perpetuating and escalating the conflict.

The Black Sea is a vital strategic route for Eurasian trade, especially for Russia, whose exports of goods such as grain and manufactured products rely on secure and operational maritime corridors. Putin, aware of the economic and military implications of continued escalation, has once again shown a willingness to negotiate a reduction in hostilities and establish clear rules for navigation and security in the region.

Similarly, Donald Trump, whose administration demonstrated a pragmatic approach toward Russia, has a direct interest in Black Sea stability. Trump sees the de-escalation of violence as an opportunity to strengthen trade ties, reduce logistical costs, and ensure safer commodity flows, directly benefiting the global supply chains.

For Trump, a ceasefire and a renewed security architecture would not only bring stability to the region but could also open space for new profitable trade agreements — even between American/Western and Russian companies. It is also important to emphasize that a Black Sea ceasefire agreement would further enhance Trump’s international image as a diplomatic leader and “peacemaker.”

Despite these converging interests, the biggest obstacle to peace is the Kiev regime, which continues to reject any possibility of de-escalation. Despite peace efforts led by Trump, the Ukrainian government remains uncompromising, fueled by bellicose rhetoric and the unconditional support of irresponsible European states. Rather than seeking peace, Kiev seems determined to intensify the war, driven by hopes that the conflict’s continuation will ensure the survival of the Maidan Junta.

The Ukrainian government sees any agreement as an unacceptable concession to Russia, especially regarding sovereignty over Crimea and the New Regions. Kiev, therefore, sees a possible ceasefire not as an opportunity to negotiate but as a threat to its alleged “strategic and self-defense objectives.” This stance not only undermines diplomatic efforts but also serves to perpetuate a cycle of violence and instability, hampering any effort toward fruitful diplomatic dialogue.

Kiev’s insistence on fueling military escalation is not merely a reactive stance to the negotiations—it is a calculated strategy to maintain Western financial and military support, even if only from European countries. Zelensky and his allies believe that by keeping tensions high, they can secure more weapons, additional sanctions against Russia, and possibly more direct Western military intervention. This approach makes any serious attempt to establish lasting peace impossible, no matter how willing Putin and Trump may be to compromise.

Proof of this scenario lies in the fact that Putin and Trump recently spoke by phone and agreed on a 30-day ceasefire on infrastructure targets. Even after Kiev accepted the terms, the regime violated the agreement just hours later—making it practically clear that it does not recognize the legitimacy of any Russian peace guarantee.

Since 2014, Kiev has repeatedly sabotaged all international agreements in which it has participated. The regime has been unable to properly implement the demands of the Minsk Agreements and caved under British pressure to continue the war in the summer of 2022—in addition to sabotaging all Russian-American bilateral negotiations.

Ultimately, the possible failure of the negotiations will be the inevitable consequence of Ukraine’s stance. As long as Kiev insists on terror as a strategy to achieve its goals, any diplomatic effort between Russia and the United States will be doomed from the start. Kiev’s rhetoric, driven by a desire for confrontation and Western political support, is incompatible with peace.

Black Sea stability is vital not only for Russia but for the security and economic prosperity of the entire region. However, as long as Kiev insists on perpetuating the conflict, Putin’s and Trump’s aspirations for lasting peace will remain nothing more than an “illusion”—a hope frustrated by Ukrainian belligerence and insistence on turning the Black Sea into yet another geopolitical battleground.

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

EU rejects US-mediated Black Sea ceasefire deal

RT | March 27, 2025

The EU will not fulfill Russia’s demand to lift sanctions on the country’s main agricultural bank as part of the Black Sea ceasefire initiative discussed between Moscow and Washington, European Commission Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Anitta Hipper has said.

During the talks between Russian and US experts in Riyadh on Monday, the sides agreed to move towards reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, should include the removal of Western restrictions against Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international sale of food and fertilizers. The maritime ceasefire is seen by Moscow and Washington as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict.

In her interview with the Financial Times on Wednesday, Hipper insisted that “the end of the Russian unprovoked and unjustified aggression in Ukraine and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian military forces from the entire territory of Ukraine would be one of the main preconditions to amend or lift sanctions.”

“The EU’s main focus remains to maximize pressure on Russia, using all tools available, including sanctions, to diminish Russia’s ability to wage its war against Ukraine,” she insisted.

US President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that his administration is considering lifting some curbs against Moscow, saying that “there are about five or six conditions. We are looking at all of them.”

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky claimed later that Kiev did not agree to the maritime truce due to it representing “a weakening of positions and a weakening of sanctions” against Russia.

The Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting its restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports. Moscow withdrew from the deal a year later, citing the West’s failure to fold up its obligations.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that the maritime truce could take effect only once certain conditions set out by Russia are met. “Of course, this time justice must prevail, and we will continue our work with the Americans [on the Black Sea Initiative],” Peskov stressed.

March 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »