Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump have held a phone conversation lasting over two hours, discussing a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict.
The Kremlin reported that the two leaders spoke about a suggested 30-day ceasefire, a prisoner exchange, and maritime security, with Putin responding positively to Trump’s proposals. Both leaders expressed interest in normalizing US-Russia relations, agreeing to continue discussions on global security, economic cooperation, and even cultural exchanges like NHL-KHL hockey matches.
The Kremlin has published a summary on the outcome of the call:
A phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump took place on March 18, 2025.
Reaffirming his commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, President Putin expressed readiness to work closely with American partners on a thorough and comprehensive settlement. He emphasized that any agreement must be sustainable and long-term, addressing the root causes of the crisis while considering Russia’s legitimate security interests.
Regarding President Trump’s initiative for a 30-day ceasefire, the Russian side highlighted key concerns, including effective monitoring of the ceasefire across the entire front line, halting forced mobilization in Ukraine, and stopping the rearmament of its military. Russia also noted serious risks due to Kiev’s history of undermining previous agreements and drew attention to terrorist attacks carried out by Ukrainian militants against civilians in the Kursk region.
It was emphasized that a crucial condition for preventing further escalation and working toward a political-diplomatic resolution is the complete cessation of foreign military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
In response to Trump’s recent request to ensure the safety of Ukrainian troops encircled in Kursk Region, Putin confirmed that Russia is guided by humanitarian considerations. He assured his counterpart that Ukrainian soldiers who surrender will be granted safety and treated in accordance with Russian laws and international humanitarian norms.
During the conversation, Trump proposed a mutual agreement between both sides to refrain from striking energy infrastructure for 30 days. Putin welcomed the initiative and immediately instructed the Russian military to comply.
Putin also responded constructively to Trump’s proposal regarding maritime security in the Black Sea, and both leaders agreed to initiate negotiations to further refine the details of such an arrangement.
Putin informed Trump that on March 19, Russia and Ukraine would conduct a prisoner exchange involving 175 detainees from each side. Additionally, as a goodwill gesture, Russia will transfer 23 severely wounded Ukrainian soldiers who are currently receiving medical treatment in Russian hospitals.
Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to continuing efforts toward resolving the Ukraine conflict bilaterally, incorporating the proposals discussed. To facilitate this, Russian and American expert groups will be established.
Putin and Trump also discussed broader international issues, including the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. They agreed to coordinate efforts to stabilize crisis areas and enhance cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security, which, in turn, would improve the overall state of US-Russia relations. A positive example of such cooperation was their joint vote at the United Nations on a resolution regarding the Ukraine conflict.
Both leaders expressed mutual interest in normalizing bilateral relations, recognizing the shared responsibility of Russia and the United States in ensuring global security and stability. In this context, they explored various areas for potential cooperation, including discussions on mutually beneficial economic and energy partnerships.
Trump supported Putin’s idea of organizing hockey matches in the US and Russia between players from the NHL and KHL.
The presidents agreed to remain in contact on all discussed matters.
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed that the first step towards ending the Ukraine conflict should be an “energy and infrastructure ceasefire,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has revealed. The leaders reached the agreement during a 2.5 hour phone conversation on Tuesday.
According to the readout of the phone call published on X by Leavitt on Tuesday, both leaders concur that the conflict must conclude with a lasting peace. They also emphasized the importance of strengthening bilateral relations.
“The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace,” the transcript reads.
The Kremlin has confirmed that Putin supported Trump’s proposal for Russia and Ukraine to halt strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days, and instructed his military accordingly.
According to the readout, Moscow and Washington have agreed to hold relevant negotiations “immediately in the Middle East.”
Aside from Ukraine, the two heads of state are said to have discussed the situation in the Middle East as well as potential cooperation with a view to preventing future conflicts in the region.
Another topic high on the two leaders’ agenda was the “need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons” globally, according to the White House press secretary.
“The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside,” including but not limited to “enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability,” the readout concludes.
Kirill Fenin’s interview with Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Alexander Grushko on security guarantees from NATO, prospects for dialogue with the EU, and the future of the OSCE:
Q: In December 2021, Russia put forward a proposal to the US and NATO on security guarantees. Is it relevant for us to receive these guarantees now? Is the return of NATO infrastructure to the 1997 borders being discussed in the current negotiations with Washington?
Grushko: In 2021, the Russian Federation put forward two initiatives. One was addressed to the United States, the other to NATO countries. But they were not supported. We realized that our so-called partners were not ready to engage in a dialogue on the merits. It became clear that the nature of the alliance’s military construction and the US military preparations were aimed at achieving superiority over the Russian Federation. Moreover, Ukraine was chosen as the main battlefield, the theatre of military operations against Russia.
If we talk about a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, then, of course, it will have an external outline. We will demand that cast-iron security guarantees become part of this agreement. Since only through their formation will it be possible to achieve lasting peace in Ukraine and, in general, strengthen regional security. Part of these guarantees should be the neutral status of Ukraine, the refusal of NATO countries to accept it as a member of the alliance. In fact, this is precisely the provision that was recorded in the drafts of the aforementioned agreements. As for discussions, of course, they are not being conducted today, since there are no negotiations.
Q: There are reports in the media that the Donald Trump administration is considering the possibility of reducing its military presence in the Baltics. Is this issue currently being discussed with the US?
Grushko: Diplomats and military personnel do not feed on rumors. We soberly assess the situation. If we look at the strategic concepts approved by NATO and developed in the European Union, as well as the nature of NATO deployments along our borders, we will see that we are talking about long-term plans that the West is not trying to adapt in any way to a future peace agreement. And we will proceed from this in terms of our policy and in the sphere of military development.
If we compare the current situation with 2019, the number of NATO military contingents on the eastern flank, primarily in Poland, the Baltic states, Bulgaria and Romania, has increased by 2.5 times. The amount of heavy equipment has increased by about the same amount. The so-called military Schengen (free movement zone for military personnel – Ed.) is being implemented. The airfield and port networks are being strengthened and expanded. NATO is creating new rapid response units and increasing maneuverability. We are seeing how the density and scale of exercises are increasing. They are becoming more aggressive, aimed at military operations against a comparable adversary. By this we mean the Russian Federation. This is the reality that we have to reckon with. And until there are real changes in the policies and military development of NATO countries, we will proceed from the existence of significant threats to Russia from the West.
Q: As is known, the dialogue on security guarantees was conducted not only between Russia and the United States but also along the Russia-NATO line. The last time a meeting in this format took place was in January 2022. Against the backdrop of the intensification of dialogue with Washington, are negotiations between Russia and NATO possible?
Grushko: I don’t see any prospects at the moment. Of course, you can’t say never, but what can we talk about if NATO countries refused to consider Russia as a partner even in those areas where our interests objectively coincided, for example, in the fight against terrorism. Today they have designated Russia as a direct and immediate threat to NATO countries, and they are conducting their military policy and the process of military development in such a way as to achieve superiority over us in all theaters of military operations, in all, as they say, operational environments: in space, in the air, on land, at sea, in cyberspace.
We see that they are turning the previously most peaceful region of Europe in military terms – the Baltic – into a zone of military confrontation. I will only say that 32 military facilities have been allocated for the deployment of American military forces in Sweden and Finland. All this is a new reality that contradicts everything that was laid down in the Russia-NATO Founding Act and other documents that were intended to unite efforts to counter common threats and at the same time deal with the consequences of the Cold War. The Western countries made a different choice. Our representation in NATO was closed, since NATO made its further functioning impossible. And now there is only a hotline with NATO headquarters, which is provided on our part by the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Belgium. It has not yet been activated, but we have officially notified the leadership of the alliance about it. They know where to call if necessary.
Q: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow is categorically against the presence of NATO or EU peacekeepers on Ukrainian territory. Does Russia allow the option of deploying peacekeepers under the auspices of the UN? What conditions must be met for this?
Grushko: Peacekeeping and NATO are incompatible things. They brag a lot that it is a defensive alliance, but the real history of the alliance consists of military operations, a series of aggressions without any reason, just to once again emphasize its hegemony in world and regional affairs. Therefore, all this talk is absolutely inappropriate and absurd. And I think that even the average Westerner understands the real price of such penetrations. Secondly — President Vladimir Putin and Minister Sergey Lavrov talked about this — we absolutely do not care under what label NATO contingents can be deployed on the territory of Ukraine: be it the European Union, NATO, or in their national capacity. In any case, if they appear there, it means that they are deployed in a conflict zone with all the consequences for these contingents as parties to the conflict.
Moreover, the very talk of peacekeeping is an attempt to put the cart before the horse. The question of some kind of international support for the agreement can only be approached when this agreement is worked out. And if the parties come to the understanding that the “peace package” needs international support, then the subject of discussion appears. This could include unarmed observers, a civilian mission that would monitor the implementation of individual aspects of this agreement, or guarantee mechanisms. But for now, it’s just hot air.
Q: What is Russia’s attitude to the possible deployment of peacekeepers to Ukraine under the auspices of the OSCE?
Grushko: There are two points that need to be kept in mind. Firstly, the OSCE does not have armed potential, it does not have an “armed hand”, unlike the UN. In particular, it does not have the competence, the staff committee, the structures that could manage such contingents. Secondly, even the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, which was deployed there, failed to cope with its tasks. In fact, it was used by NATO to gain unilateral advantages for the Kyiv regime. Now it has become known that some employees of this mission, who were supposed to be neutral and ensure strict implementation of the mandate, in fact worked in the interests of Kyiv. And it is no secret that many residents of Donbass said: “OSCE observers drove by – expect shelling”. Therefore, we have an extremely skeptical attitude towards the involvement of the OSCE, even theoretically.
It is impossible not to see that the purpose of these rumors about the deployment of Western contingents on Ukrainian territory is to prepare public opinion for the most radical scenarios, part of a campaign to whip up military psychosis and demonize Russia. Let me remind you that just a few months ago, such a prospect was denied by all NATO member states, and the Secretary General repeatedly stated that under no circumstances would the Alliance’s soldiers appear there.
Q: This week, the OSCE Secretary General came to Moscow. How do you assess the results of the talks with him? Are any further contacts possible through this organization?
Grushko: There will be contacts, of course. It is good that the Secretary-General came. For two years, the OSCE leadership has not visited Moscow. The main problem of the OSCE is that the organization, as a result of the West’s actions, has effectively been pushed to the sidelines of political processes. Its main purpose as an instrument of reconciliation between East and West, of mitigating contradictions, has been lost. At that time, this was generally called “détente.”
Almost nothing remains of this legacy.
The OSCE is currently at a crossroads. This summer will mark the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords. It depends only on the member states themselves whether this platform will be in demand for some unifying purposes or whether the current crisis state of the organization will become terminal.
Q: Against the backdrop of the dialogue between Moscow and Washington, is a similar negotiating track with Brussels possible?
Grushko: Such a track is possible. But, firstly, the European Union is isolating itself from Russia. It has broken off all political contacts. It is difficult for me to even say with which international structure there was a closer dialogue. Two meetings a year at the highest level, an annual meeting of the government of the Russian Federation and the European Commission. Also more than 20 permanent partnership councils, including the umbrella foreign policy one. Everything has stopped.
In any case, if there are finally signals that Brussels is ready to enter into some kind of dialogue with us, we will not be against it. But today such a prospect is not in sight – on the contrary, the European Union continues to follow the suicidal path of introducing sanctions. If in 2013 the volume of trade between Russia and the European Union was €417 billion, then in 2024 it was at the level of €60 billion.
As for the EU’s insistent demands to sit down at the negotiating table on the Ukrainian conflict, I don’t even know how to characterize this in diplomatic terms. The EU was at these negotiations and was at the center of events starting with the Maidan, where three EU countries acted as guarantors of the agreement between Viktor Yanukovych and the “opposition.” And what did they do to implement the Minsk agreements? Absolutely nothing, on the contrary, they encouraged Kyiv to sabotage them. And when they (the Minsk agreements – Ed.) collapsed, when it became clear that Kyiv was leading the matter to a military solution, a conflict, which, in fact, became the trigger for the decision to conduct a special military operation, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande stated that they had no intention of implementing the Minsk agreements. A respite was needed to pump Kyiv with weapons and prepare it for a direct clash with Russia. Against this background, it is not very clear what role the Europeans can play.
Q: Can the EU take a more constructive position towards Russia in the future?
Grushko: If we look at their current positions, they do not in any way suggest any constructive participation in the negotiation process. The statements from the camp of the political elites of the European Union are quite clear. Point 1 — do not let the conflict end quickly, it must continue until 2030, because if it ends quickly, then “Russia will immediately attack the Baltic countries and Poland.” Point 2 — we must achieve the strategic defeat of Russia. And we know what is meant by this. Point 3 — seek guarantees of Ukraine’s security.
In fact, the conflict has reached a stage where the West suffers a strategic defeat. Because in all three components that are counted on – military defeat on the battlefield, economic collapse and, ultimately, as they say, regime change – the result is exactly the opposite. If we look at the economic side, our economy has grown by 4%, in the European Union – approximately 0.1% to 1%, close to the statistical error. And the situation on the battlefield is well known.
One of the most important elements for us is the security interests of Russia. And Europe should understand that if strong international legal guarantees for Russia’s security are created, which will exclude Ukraine’s membership in NATO and the possibility of deploying foreign military contingents on its territory or using it to exert military pressure on Russia, then the security of Ukraine and the entire region in a broader sense will be ensured, since one of the root causes of the conflict will be eliminated.
Q: One of the main initiators of the idea of sending European peacekeepers to Ukraine is French President Emmanuel Macron. In your opinion, what is the reason for the desire to aggravate the situation and lead to a direct clash between Russia and NATO?
Grushko: I think that two factors play a role here. First, France itself is not doing so well in the economic, social and all other spheres. The country is going through a serious crisis, it is being shaken by demonstrations, Emmanuel Macron and the political forces that support him are not in a very strong position. Governments are changing. Therefore, the introduction of such a loud topic as sending a military contingent is intended, among other things, to distract public attention from domestic problems.
Secondly, this is an attempt by France to lead the war party within the EU, thereby emphasizing its leadership in the union. France’s influence has been weakening lately. The link between Germany and France no longer works for many reasons, and Macron has apparently decided to use the military theme to once again bring his country to the epicenter of European politics, abandoning French foreign policy traditions.
In the traditions established by General de Gaulle, France played a balancing role. Its significance and political weight lay precisely in this: France proposed initiatives that united rather than divided. Now France, unfortunately, is becoming more radical than the Russophobic camp consisting of the Baltic countries and Poland.
Q: The head of the European Commission recently came up with an initiative for an €800 billion EU rearmament program. Does Russia see risks in connection with the emergence of this program?
Grushko: We see the risks, they are absolutely obvious. The fact is that the military and political subordination of the European Union to NATO has occurred; this follows not only from the practice of cooperation between NATO and the EU, but also from the documents they adopt. The NATO-EU Joint Declaration quite clearly states the EU’s own aim to become a European support for NATO. The Alliance views Russia as a direct and immediate threat. This postulate has also crept into the EU’s political documents. And we see that the plans to create the so-called autonomous military support for the European Union today are aimed at creating threats primarily to Russia.
Large-scale armament programs have been drawn up: over five years, the growth of arms imports to the EU has increased by 2.5 times, with 64% of military equipment purchased in the United States. At the same time, such systems are being purchased — including, in particular, F-35 aircraft — which are not intended for use in some local crisis situations, but for achieving superiority over a comparable enemy, that is, the Russian Federation. The rearmament program is aimed at preparing Europe for a military clash with Russia. US President Donald Trump is demanding an increase in military spending in the EU countries from 2% to 5%. Many have already stated that they will move in this direction. This is a very significant increase. Today, the amount of military spending by the European Union is several times greater than the military spending of the Russian Federation.
Q: The Dutch parliament has already voted against the country’s participation in the EU rearmament program. Is Europe capable of finding the funds for such a large-scale project?
Grushko: Mario Draghi, former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Central Bank, recently published a report on the economic state of the EU. The report is quite frank and tough; its main conclusion is that if the EU wants to become prosperous in the new global architecture, it needs to find €800 billion annually to invest in industry, new technologies, the “green transition” and other projects. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, added €800 billion to this, which are needed to further arm the European Union.
Let’s not forget that, according to the most conservative estimates, the losses from the sanctions that the EU imposed on Russia and the losses from the refusal to cooperate with us, including in the energy sector, amount to €1.5 trillion. More than €200 billion went to military and other support for the Kyiv regime. If we add up these figures, we get a financial hole of at least €3 trillion. They need to be found somewhere. This is a colossal amount of money – more than two annual military budgets of all NATO countries. It is clear that the money will be scraped from the pockets of taxpayers, cutting spending on education, medicine, science, and so on.
It is difficult for me to say whether this project will withstand such a financial challenge. If we remember that the total public debt of all EU countries will soon approach 100% of GDP – which means that the EU countries must work for a year and spend nothing – then the prospects for implementing all these plans are rather vague.
Q: What measures can Russia take to counter these threats?
I will note once again: we cannot relax. We have drafted military planning documents that are designed to reliably ensure the security of our country and its defense capability in all areas. As the president emphasized, we will not get involved in an arms race. And it is good that our military capabilities allow us to reliably mitigate threats without spending crazy amounts of money on them and taking them out of the development sphere.
It is obvious that the negative trends that are being imposed today by both NATO and the European Union are very stable, and we must be prepared for a variety of scenarios. The events in Ukraine have shown that NATO and the European Union underestimated our capabilities and our determination and, by betting on inflicting a strategic defeat on us, made a big mistake.
On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine with a small force of around 142,000 troops. Not enough to conquer Ukraine, the invading force was sufficient to persuade Ukraine to the negotiating table. Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed that was the original goal of the military operation: “[T]he troops were there to push the Ukrainian side to negotiations.”
And it nearly worked. Within weeks, in Istanbul, a negotiated peace was within reach. It was only after the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, and their NATO allies pushed Ukraine off the path of diplomacy and onto the continued path of war that Putin mobilized more troops and more resources.
As Alexander Hill explains in the newly published book, The Routledge Handbook of Soviet and Russian Military Studies, in the initial phase of the war Russia struggled without the advantage of overwhelming numerical superiority and without committing their latest, most advanced equipment. With the United States and its NATO partners providing the Ukrainian armed forces not only with their most advanced weapons systems, but with the intelligence to effectively use them, Ukraine actually had “an overall technological edge during the initial phases of the war.” But the Russian armed forces proved to be very adaptable. They adopted new tactics and a much more methodical approach to the war, introduced advanced weapons systems, and demonstrated a capability to adapt to and destroy the most advanced Western weapons and equipment.
By the time the Ukrainian counteroffensive had failed to meet any of its goals, the tide had turned, and Russia was irreversibly winning the war.
At the beginning of the war in Istanbul, before the inconceivable loss of life, a negotiated end to the war could have been signed. Three years later, after the loss of more land and hundreds of thousands more lives and limbs, a similar negotiated peace will be signed, only adjusted to the current realities on the ground. Ukraine could have had a similar deal but maintained all their territory but Crimea. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have died or been injured in vain in pursuit of America’s fantasy of a NATO without limits and a weakened Russia.
Russia went to the negotiating table in Istanbul in a weaker position than it goes to the table today. It has survived the war of sanctions and isolation and won the war against Ukrainian soldiers and NATO weapons on the battlefield. Russia will be willing to enter a ceasefire, but only if they can accomplish without fighting everything they can accomplish with fighting.
Tragically, three years later, the ceasefire talks will pick up where the Istanbul talks left off. Everything in between was in vain. President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff has said that “[t]here were very, very what I’ll call cogent and substantive negotiations framed in something that’s called the Istanbul Protocol Agreement. We came very, very close to signing something.” He then added that “I think we’ll be using that framework as a guidepost to get a peace deal done between Ukraine and Russia.”
And if you don’t believe that the remaining differences could have been bridged and a peace signed in Istanbul, then get ready for a very long war. Because those are the very same points that will need to be negotiated if the current ceasefire proposal is to succeed.
After all the loss of land and loss of life, Ukraine will still surrender territory and NATO membership. They will not receive a security guarantee that involves a U.S. military commitment. Kursk has collapsed in a costly strategic failure and the Ukrainian armed forces are barely hanging on across the full length of the 1,000-mile front in eastern Ukraine. Russia is not going to stop the war without receiving a signed agreement from the U.S. and NATO that there will be no Ukraine in NATO nor NATO in Ukraine. And they are not going to stop the war without Crimea and at least some of the four oblasts they have annexed and a guarantee in the Ukrainian constitution of the protection of the rights of ethnic Russians in the territory that remains in Ukraine.
Putin has made clear that the idea of a ceasefire and a negotiated peace is “the right one” and that Russia “support[s] it” but that “there are questions we need to discuss” and that any ceasefire negotiations would need to address the “original causes” of the war.
It seems clear that, before the United States pressured Ukraine into expressing a “readiness to accept the U.S. proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire,” they had already laid the groundwork by discussing with Russia, who can go on fighting to achieve their nonnegotiable goals, what those nonnegotiable goals are.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has confirmed, for example, that the Saudi Arabia talks with Ukraine included discussions about “territorial concessions.” On Sunday, U.S. President Trump said that when he next talks to Putin, “we will be talking about land, we will be talking about power plants.” He said “they were already discussing ‘dividing up certain assets’.” U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already said that any thoughts of recovering Ukraine’s lost territory is “an unrealistic objective” and an “illusionary goal.”
And, most importantly, Hegseth has also stipulated that Trump “does not support Ukraine’s membership in NATO as part of a realistic peace plan.” And Trump has shared that verdict with his NATO allies. On March 14, when NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte was asked if Trump had taken NATO membership for Ukraine off the table in negotiations, he simply replied, “Yes.”
From the time Ukraine was nudged away from the negotiating table in Istanbul to the time it will return to the negotiating table, all the loss of life and land was in vain. It is preestablished that Ukraine will not recover all of its territory, and it is preestablished that they will not become a member of NATO. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have died for nothing but the pursuit of American hubris. And that should make Americans very angry.
Neoconservatism began to take root in the 1970s as strength through militarism and an interventionist foreign policy were increasingly seen as the path to peace. Ideological Manicheanism and narratives of peace through strength challenged more traditional concepts of security that focused on mitigating the security dilemma. Human rights, rather than restraining the use of force, were discovered as a weapon that would legitimize the removal of restraints on the use of force.
I had a conversation with Alastair Crooke and Alexander Mercouris about the geoeconomic confusion in Europe. The US is repositioning itself as the unipolar world order has ended, and multipolarity is already here. The Europeans have no strategy and the policies subsequent lack direction and reason. In Isreal, society has polarised to the extent that political and societal instability will become a challenge to national security.
Cuts in funding for programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are “Setting the Stage for Disease Outbreaks,” according to a report last week in The New York Times.
In interviews with the Times, current and former USAID officials, members of health organizations and experts in infectious diseases described a world “made more perilous” following the Trump administration’s recent cuts to the agency.
However, biosafety expert Richard H. Ebright, Ph.D., professor of chemistry and chemical biology and lab director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers University, said the Times got it backwards.
In an exclusive interview today with The Defender, Ebright shared facts not mentioned in the Times article that he said contradicts the Times’ reporting.
“The facts of the matter are that USAID’s and other agencies’ support for overseas labs and reckless overseas research has been setting the stage for disease outbreaks. Ending this insanity will set the stage for reducing disease outbreaks.”
Ebright is on the leadership team of Biosafety Now, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) that “advocates for reducing numbers of high-level biocontainment laboratories and for strengthening biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management for research on pathogens.”
He has testified at U.S. House and Senate hearings on biosafety, biosecurity and biorisk management, according to Rutgers University.
Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland said, “Dr. Ebright is spot on — lessening the U.S. role in funding ‘pandemic preparedness’ will reduce outbreaks, not increase them.”
Holland, who receives the print version of the Times, said the March 7 article appeared on today’s front page under the headline, “Deepening Peril of Disease As Trump Cuts Foreign Aid.”
According to Holland, the Times’ core message to readers was “be afraid.”
“The article assumes that cuts to USAID funding means that disease outbreaks will increase — while the reality is likely the opposite,” she said. “USAID has been funding ‘gain-of-function’ or bioweapons research overseas for decades, leading to undisputed lab leaks and outbreaks.”
Gain-of-function research involves experimentation to “increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens,” according to a 2016 peer-reviewed paper in Science and Engineering Ethics.
U.S. agencies spent billions constructing ‘unneeded and unsafe labs overseas’
Ebright said he found it “ironic” that the opening first line in the Times’ article mentioned “dangerous pathogens left unsecured at labs across Africa.”
He said:
“The main reason there are dangerous pathogens left unsecured at labs across Africa, and in Asia and Latin America, is that U.S. agencies — particularly USAID, DTRA, BTRP, NIH Fogarty Center, and NIH NIAID — have spent billions of dollars over the last two decades to construct unneeded and unsafe labs overseas, and to fund unneeded and reckless research on discovering and enhancing new dangerous pathogens in labs overseas.”
According to Ebright, USAID gave $60 million to the “now-debarred criminal NGO EcoHealth Alliance” to discover new dangerous pathogens, according to USAspending.gov.
EcoHealth used those funds “to conduct the wantonly reckless research in Wuhan on SARS coronaviruses that caused COVID-19, killing 20 million and costing $25 trillion,” Ebright said.
Ebright also said that USAID gave over $200 million to EcoHealth and its partners in Project PREDICT to discover new bioweapons agents overseas, according to USAspending.gov.
“Prior to the emergence of COVID-19,” Ebright said, “USAID was planning to launch a 6-fold-expanded, $1.2 billion megaproject, the Global Virome Project, for EcoHealth and its partners to discover even more new bioweapons agents overseas.”
The Global Virome Project was designed to discover and catalog thousands of novel viruses that could spill over in nature or pose global biosecurity risks — estimated to be 500,000 viruses or more.
Gain-of-function research has ‘no civilian application’
Ebright has been a vocal critic of gain-of-function research.
In June 2024, he testified before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on the origins of COVID-19.
During the committee hearing, Ebright said his extensive research and gathering of documents pointed toward a lab leak.
He also said gain-of-function research on potentially dangerous pathogens — like the experiments underway at the Wuhan lab in China when COVID-19 emerged — “has no civilian application” but is easy for researchers to do and make money doing.
“Researchers undertake it because it is fast, it is easy, it requires no specialized equipment or skills, and it was prioritized for funding and has been prioritized for publication by scientific journals,” Ebright said.
“These are major incentives to researchers worldwide, in China and in the U.S.,” he pointed out.
Gain-of-function research is largely unregulated, according to Ebright, who said there needs to be an independent agency that oversees and imposes “regulation on this scientific community that has successfully resisted and obstructed regulation for two decades.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, during a phone call with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, called for all parties to refrain from “using force” in Yemen and engage in “political dialogue.”
“In response to argumentation put forward by American representatives, Sergei Lavrov stressed the need for an immediate cessation of the use of force and the importance for all sides to engage in political dialogue so as to find a solution that would prevent further bloodshed,” Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Sunday.
Moscow said that Rubio informed Lavrov about Washington’s decision to launch strikes against Yemen in a call that came after the two countries have relaunched dialogue since US President Donald Trump took office.
On Saturday, Trump announced on his X account that he had ordered the US military to launch “decisive and powerful military action” against Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement.
The US attacks, which began on Saturday and continued into the early hours of Sunday, have killed 31 people and wounded 101, “most of whom were children and women,” spokesperson for Yemen’s Ministry of Health, Anis al-Asbahi, posted on X.
Yemen has launched over 100 attacks targeting Israeli-bound ships since November 2023 in response to the Zionist regime’s genocidal war on Gaza, inflicting significant damage on Israel’s already strained economy and forcing the US military to engage in an expensive campaign to intercept missiles and drones, rapidly depleting US air defense stockpiles.
The recent US airstrikes came a few days after Yemen said it would resume retaliatory operations against Israeli vessels sailing off Yemen in response to the regime’s latest blockade on Gaza.
Earlier this month, the Israeli regime halted all aid coming into the Gaza Strip after it abruptly rejected entering the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal with Hamas as agreed before.
Israel aims to pressure Hamas into accepting a revision of the ceasefire agreement, allowing for the release of more Israeli captives without the withdrawal of occupation forces from the Gaza Strip.
Jacques Baud, retired Colonel in the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service, has published several books on the origin of the Ukraine War, and he presents the conditions to bring the war to an end. Understanding what happened to the Minsk agreement is important to understand what is required to find a solution. Colonel Baud also laments the dangerous geopolitical immaturity in Europe that no longer addresses reality.
The near-total collapse of Ukraine’s operations in Kursk region has highlighted the folly of Zelensky’s obsession with throwing his best troops and materiel into a hopeless campaign. Here’s a selection of NATO equipment that has “found its peace in Kursk’s ground” over the past month, complete with photo and video evidence.
Russia’s Defense Ministry estimates that Ukraine has lost nearly 400 tanks, almost 2,800 armored vehicles and over 1,000 guns and mortars in fighting in Kursk region to date, and says over 85% of territories once occupied by Ukrainian forces have been freed.
Liberated areas contain scores of wrecked, burned out, damaged or abandoned vehicles, including some of NATO’s most advanced equipment:
M2A2 Bradley: Over 300 of these do-it-all American infantry fighting vehicles have been sent to Ukraine, with nearly half confirmed lost by Oryx. They’ve been spotted among other wrecked NATO equipment in Kursk region.
M1 Abrams: 31 of these custom-made monkey model American main battle tanks have been delivered to Ukraine. 20 lost to date. One recently spotted being towed away intact in Kursk region. Australia plans to send 49 more.
Leopard 1 AVLB Biber: Armored vehicle-launched bridge built on a German Leopard-1 tank chassis. 30+ sent to Ukraine. One recently found abandoned, in mint shape, in a Kursk village.
M777: A third of the 180 US-made 155mm howitzers sent to Ukraine have been lost, damaged, or abandoned to date, with several recently captured almost intact in Kursk region.
Stryker: Over 400 of these Canadian-built armored fighting vehicles have been transferred to Ukraine. At least 55 destroyed, some caught on Russian MoD FPV drone videos moments before meeting their fate.
BMC Kirpi II: 200 of these Turkish MRAPs have been sent to serve in Ukraine’s elite units. Scores destroyed, damaged or captured by Russian forces, including in Kursk.
HMMWV: 5,000 of these ubiquitous US vehicles, better known as Humvees, have been delivered to Ukraine. Scores captured on Russian FPV drone cam footage in Kursk region.
Roshel Senator: Over 1,700 of the Canadian-built armored cars have been delivered to Ukraine. Also spotted in Russian FPV drone videos.
MAXXPRO: About 440 these Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs) have been sent to Ukraine by the US, with at least 197 lost to date, including in fighting for Kursk.
M113: 1,000+ of these ancient tracked APCs have been sent to Ukraine by the US and allies, with nearly 300 destroyed to date, including in Kursk region.
BATT UMG: Ukraine has received 116 of these US-made vehicles. Rarely seen, some are known to have met their fate on the battlefields of Kursk.
Bushmaster PMV: About 120 of these Australian-made Protected Mobility Vehicles have gone to Ukraine, some ending up in Kursk region, and at least 25 lost to date.
M240: Besides heavy equipment, an array of NATO small arms has also been destroyed or captured in Kursk as well, among them the FN M240 7.62mm machinegun, delivered to Ukraine by the US and France. In February, a Russian trooper in Kursk captured an M240 after storming a Ukrainian position and bringing the gun back to friendly lines.
The ball is in Russia’s court, according to the Trump administration regarding a proposed 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine.
The proposed truce was announced following discussions on Tuesday in Saudi Arabia between the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and representatives of the NATO-backed Ukrainian regime. Rubio said it was now up to Russia to reciprocate with the Ukrainian side’s purported willingness to hold a ceasefire.
In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin tactfully said that Russia was open to a ceasefire but only if it led to a complete and comprehensive peace settlement. Putin repeated that any durable resolution must address the root causes of the conflict and Russia’s fundamental strategic security concerns.
The Russian leader then met with Trump’s special envoy on Thursday. Following the discussions in Jeddah between the U.S. and the Kiev regime, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff travelled to Moscow where he met with Putin. The details of their conversation were not disclosed. But it was reported that Witkoff delivered “additional information” from Trump to Putin regarding the proposed ceasefire. It was reported that Witkoff returned to Washington with details from Putin. It may be surmised that the Russian position on its terms was reiterated. Trump hailed the discussions as “productive.”
Herein lies the rub. The essential underlying issues are the aggressive expansion of NATO and its weaponizing of a NeoNazi Ukrainian regime. The United States and its NATO partners instigated the conflict in Ukraine over several decades since at least the end of the Cold War in 1991. The past three-year war in Ukraine is but a symptom of a longer and systematic hostility. Trump seems to be cognizant of those issues.
The Trump administration has abandoned the false war-propaganda of the Biden administration. It is now acknowledged in Washington that the conflict in Ukraine is a proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO axis and Russia.
As the spectacular military defeat of the NATO proxy forces in Kursk this week demonstrates – as well as the rapid gains Russia is making against the crumbling Kiev regime – the U.S.-led “Ukraine Project” has been vanquished. Russia has all but won the proxy war.
The Americans (factions within) and their NATO surrogates are trying to avoid the admission of defeat by contriving a superficial peace process that only ends up as a “frozen conflict” on Russia’s borders.
The best way to bring the war to an end is for the United States to stop arming the Kiev regime and supplying it with intelligence and logistical support.
This week Trump resumed military and intelligence supplies to the Kiev regime to coincide with the apparent offer of a ceasefire from the Ukrainian regime. That amounts to one step forward, two steps back.
It was rather risible to hear Marco Rubio, the U.S.’ top diplomat, affecting the image of an honest peace broker telling Russia that the ball was in its court to reciprocate for peace as “a compromise” with Ukraine.
The Trump administration has a misplaced view of the conflict if it thinks Russia can be pressured according to U.S. one-sided and pretentious demands.
Russia is winning a momentous war, not playing tennis.
In any case, the ball, so to speak, is and will remain firmly in the United States’ court until it accepts defeat and Russia’s victory terms. It is the U.S. and not its European vassals nor its catspaw Kiev regime that will have to make that call.
Those terms have been repeatedly stipulated by Moscow: a lasting security treaty in Europe consonant with Russia’s just and basic demands for NATO to roll back and desist from its aggressive tendencies; for Ukraine to be a neutral state in perpetuity never being a member of NATO; for the NeoNazi regime to be eradicated and the cultural rights of ethnic Russian people to be guaranteed and respected; and for the historic Russian territories of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporozhye and of course Crimea to remain intact as part of the Russian Federation.
Moscow reserves the right to change the terms per conditions on the ground if the conflict persists, such as reclaiming its historic territory of Odessa, Kharkiv, Nikolaev, and enforcing a no-fire zone in Ukraine’s Sumy Oblast from where the failed NATO Kursk offensive was launched last August.
On Russia’s successful recapture of Kursk, as Putin points out, there are serious contingencies that need to be dealt with even before a ceasefire is contemplated. The invaders, including NATO mercenaries, committed war crimes against civilians. Are they expected to be let go freely? This is no doubt a reason why the U.S. and Ukraine are suddenly pushing the idea for a ceasefire as a way to salvage failure and rearm.
Trump will have to deal with the reality of Russia’s dominant position: its military victory and its historically righteous cause to confront NATO aggression.
It remains to be seen now how Trump responds. He needs to disabuse arrogant misconceptions that Washington is acting as a peace broker. The U.S. is the main protagonist in a proxy war against Russia. The Kiev regime is but a bit player. Moscow has no need or inclination to engage with a corrupt NeoNazi regime headed up by a puppet president who no longer even has the semblance of legitimacy after cancelling elections last year and ruling by martial law.
If Trump is serious about ending the proxy war in Ukraine, he can do so promptly by ending the weapons flow to that country. His resumption of weapons supplies this week does not bode well.
Trump should also ignore the bleating of the European lackeys, in particular the British, who have nothing positive to offer. London was “intimately” involved in the latest ceasefire proposal from the U.S. and Ukraine, according to the BBC. That should be seen as a warning of a dirty trick.
It is a negative sign that the U.S.-Ukraine joint statement this week in Saudi Arabia peddled vile lies about Russia abducting Ukrainian children. It was also contemptible that the statement called for “future security guarantees for Ukraine” (the aggressor!) while saying nothing about Russia’s security concerns. The absence of the latter indicates the U.S. side has little understanding about “root causes” of the conflict.
Moreover, the U.S.-Ukrainian joint statement called for the involvement of European partners in peace talks. The present crop of European leaders has no intention or capability of negotiating a lasting peace with Russia. They insist on Ukraine becoming a future member of NATO and they want to insinuate themselves into the dialogue to scupper a peace deal by deploying “peacekeeping” troops. The British and French reportedly want the U.S. to provide air cover for what would be their trip-wire troop presence, thereby escalating the war.
Will Trump be duped by the perfidious British, French and other European Russophobes? Perhaps with a false-flag provocation?
American and European political leaders have negligible credibility for offering a ceasefire to Russia, never mind a durable peace. They started this war and surreptitiously want to continue it by other means under the guise of a peace process that does not address the root causes of conflict.
That implies that the only way to deal with the root causes and to establish a lasting peace is for Russia to defeat the NATO enemy with an explicit, unconditional surrender. Can Trump’s ego handle that?
Peace begins when the guns cease, but for true peace to last, the U.S.-led NATO war on Russia must be defeated. Can the U.S. imperial deep state handle that?
The first parts of this series focus on decades of American provocations that caused the war in Ukraine, which was a plan to weaken Russia. Losing this proxy war was not considered, and no strategy exists to prevent a Russian victory. Recent interviews appeared in American corporate news that exposed even more provocations. The CIA built a series of small bases in Ukraine along Russia’s borders a decade ago to conducted covert operations in Russia.
President Joseph Biden admitted the United States had placed nuclear armed missiles in Ukraine. Russia can cite gross violations of the 1991 Belovezha Accords by Ukraine as a reason to intervene with military forces, or cite its right in the UN Charter to take enforcement actions against enemy states from World War II.
Europe and the United States should gradually normalize relations with Russia once the Ukraine conflict is over, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said.
The statement comes a day after the head of the US-led military bloc met President Donald Trump at the White House and amid ongoing efforts by Washington to establish a ceasefire between Moscow and Kiev.
Trump has also expressed interest in restoring economic ties with Russia, an idea that was supported by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Speaking to Bloomberg TV on Friday, Rutte recalled that he had “many dealings” and “many negotiations” with Putin while prime minister of the Netherlands.
“Long-term, Russia is there, Russia will not go away,” he said. “It’s normal if the war would have stopped for Europe somehow, step by step, and also for the US, step by step, to restore normal relations with Russia,” he argued.
Ukraine’s possible membership of the bloc is off the table in the current peace process, Rutte confirmed, a point Moscow has insisted upon.
Most EU leaders, with the notable exceptions of Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, have advocated for continued confrontation with Russia, despite the ongoing peace process.
European NATO countries have been supplying weapons to Kiev since the escalation of the conflict in 2022. Some bloc members, such as France, have floated the idea of deploying troops in Ukraine to monitor a truce. Russia has denounced the idea and insisted that any NATO contingent in Ukraine deployed without a UN mandate will be considered a legitimate target.
Moscow has accused the EU of militarizing against Russia, after the bloc’s leaders backed €800 billion ($860 bn) in debt and tax-breaks for its military industrial complex.
As NATO’s biggest financial contributor, Trump has consistently criticized the bloc’s European members for not meeting the defense expenditure targets.
NATO has maintained a hostile position towards Moscow since Crimea joined the Russian Federation in 2014 and the subsequent escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The developments led to the suspension of practical cooperation and a significant military buildup in NATO countries on Russia’s borders.
By Dr. Elias Akleh* | Sabbah Report | May 24, 2010
A build up of heightened tension in the Middle East is escalating in the last few weeks. American and Israeli postures towards Lebanon, Syria, and Iran have become more threatening. Listening to speeches of political leaders one hears talks only about war not peace. Iranians and Israelis are continuously training hard for a possible showdown. Both sides are conducting extensive war games every month. This led Syrians to claim that Israel is preparing for a soon-to-come another war. The Jordanians also are warning that current stalemate of the peace process is an indication of a war breaking out this summer. The Russian President and his army chief hinted, a few months ago, that the US and Israel were planning for an attack on Iran.
Indeed Iran is, as it has been for last few years, the target of most of the threats and accusations of supporting terrorism. Escalating incitement against Iran the American Defense Department sent last month (April) to Congress a report on Iran’s military claiming Iran could develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US by 2015.
Ignoring the fact that N. Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are proven to have nuclear weapons while Iran does not, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose in her speech, to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference at the UN, to focus on Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions putting the whole world at risk as she put it. According to Clinton Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, rather than Israel’s more than 200 nuclear bombs, is destabilizing the Middle East. She called on the world’s nations to rally around US efforts to hold Iran, not other nuclear countries, to account.
The accusation that Usama Bin Laden is living comfortably in Iran had received a boost after the broadcast of a documentary called “Feathered Cocaine”. This echoed the June 2003 claims of the Italian newspaper Corre de la Sierra that Bin Laden was in Iran according to some intelligence report, and according to Richard Miniter’s book “Shadow War”. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 