End of the Line for Diplomacy with Ukraine – John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
The Duran | August 21, 2025
Trump administration sued to disclose funding for controversial Gaza aid group
Press TV – August 21, 2025
An American legal advocacy organization has filed a lawsuit to seek the source of funding for the controversial US and Israeli-backed group delivering aid in the Gaza Strip.
The US-run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a so-called humanitarian group set up to cater to the needs of the Palestinian people, has cost the lives of hundreds of Gazans, already ravaged by famine and genocide.
International aid experts have described GHF’s distribution points as “death traps, criticizing the relief group’s work model as “an insult to the humanitarian enterprise and standards.”
GHF spokesperson Chapin Fay told Channel 4 of the UK last week that Western European countries funded GHF, but that he would not reveal which countries did it.
On Wednesday, the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit to seek the source of GHF’s funding and its initial tens of millions of dollars paid as salaries and the travel expenses to its aid workers, who have been described as “mercenaries.”
The CCR was investigating the legality of GHF’s charter and demanding that its financial records be revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.
In its lawsuit, the CCR requested that Delaware’s Attorney General Kathy Jennings “investigate GHF and revoke its charter on grounds that it is illegally abusing its privileges with its complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.”
The New York-based firm said it filed its lawsuit against the Donald Trump administration for its failure to comply with its request.
The CCR said it aims to follow the money to find who is funding the failed aid operation.
“Today’s lawsuit seeks records that could shed light on not only the decision-making process… but also on the creation of GHF, its funding and how it plans to use” a US government grant, the CCR said.
“The Center for Constitutional Rights is particularly interested in information that could reveal whether the administration’s distribution of funds has any link to President Trump’s ‘Gaza Riviera’ plan, which would cleanse the area of Palestinians and redevelop it for investors,” the statement said.
Since GHF began its relief operations in southern Gaza in May, which have left over 1,000 Palestinians seeking food aid dead at its four distribution points across Gaza, its funding sources have been a secret.
US military contractors who staff GHF have also been seen in videos shooting at aid seekers – something former US special forces soldier Anthony Aguilar confirmed after leaving the organization.
“GHF, far from alleviating suffering in Gaza, is contributing to the forced displacement, killing and furtherance of genocide of Palestinians,” the CCR said.
GHF food aid distribution points “have become synonymous with scenes of chaos and carnage,” it added.
Meanwhile, human rights experts familiar with the matter say the word “humanitarian” in the title of the organization only serves to “add to Israel’s humanitarian camouflage.”
“Without clear accountability, the very idea of humanitarian relief may ultimately become a casualty of modern hybrid warfare,” they warned.
Analysts say the United States and the Israeli regime created GHF to bypass the United Nations’ central role in aid distribution in Gaza.
The UN has refused to cooperate with the US-Israeli program, calling it a militarized aid model that would result in the displacement of the Gaza people.
Since the Israeli regime launched its genocidal war in Gaza in October 2023, most of the population has been forced to relocate, some of them several times.
More than 62,122 people in Gaza, most of them women and children, have been killed during this time, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
US expands sanctions against ICC
RT | August 21, 2025
The US has imposed sanctions on two judges and two prosecutors of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for their role in pursuing cases against American soldiers and Israeli officials.
According to a State Department statement on Wednesday, Judge Kimberly Prost was blacklisted for approving The Hague-based court’s investigation into the conduct of US troops in Afghanistan.
Judge Nicolas Yann Guillou was sanctioned for issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes in Gaza. In addition, deputy prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang were blacklisted for upholding the warrants. Neither the US nor Israel is a party to the ICC.
The ICC rejected the designations as “a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution, which operates under a mandate from 125 States Parties from all regions.”
US President Donald Trump imposed his first sanctions on the ICC in February, accusing the court of “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel.” Netanyahu similarly denounced the arrest warrants, calling the ruling “anti-Semitic.”
In 2024, the ICC placed Netanyahu and Gallant on its wanted list after finding “reasonable grounds” that Israel had denied humanitarian aid into Gaza, where more than 60,000 people have been killed since 2023.
EU asks “Daddy” to make Hungary stop
The EU wants Hungary to drop its opposition to Ukraine’s membership in the EU
Remix News | August 20, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump called Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán to ask about his position on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.
The American leader reportedly wanted to discuss the reasons why Orbán is blocking negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.
“The call was the result of Trump’s conversations with a group of European leaders who had gathered at the White House to discuss ways to end Russia’s war with Ukraine. At one point, they asked Trump to use his influence with Orbán to persuade the right-wing populist to drop his opposition to Ukraine’s EU membership,” Bloomberg writes.
During a telephone conversation with Trump, Hungary expressed interest in holding another round of talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky.
Orbán, a close ally of Trump, is widely seen as an inspiration for the U.S. president’s political ideology as well as other right-wing politicians around the world.
On Tuesday, Orbán issued a statement suggesting that he understood Ukraine’s request for EU membership but did not intend to back down from his position.
“Ukraine’s membership in the European Union offers no security guarantees. Therefore, linking membership with security guarantees is unnecessary and dangerous,” he said.
Previously, Orbán has repeatedly said that Ukraine should not join the European Union so as not to bring the war to Europe, and should instead become a “buffer” country between Europe and Russia. Instead of accession, he offered Kyiv “strategic” cooperation – “pragmatic, flexible and based on common interests.” Orbán also considers EU sanctions against Russia ineffective. He has repeatedly criticized them as useless and harmful to the European economy, and in the past he has managed to secure the lifting of EU sanctions against several Russians.
Ukraine stripped of USAID billions
RT | August 20, 2025
Ukraine has lost billions of dollars in aid from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington’s primary funding channel for political projects abroad. Most USAID programs have been shut down in the country, with only a handful set to continue beyond 2025, according to data reviewed by RT.
For years, Ukrainian NGOs and nonprofits were heavily dependent on USAID grants and contracts, reportedly turning the country into a money laundering hub for Washington.
Vladimir Vasilyev, chief research fellow at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute for US and Canadian Studies, told RT that the financial flows, including from Ukraine, eventually returned to the US.
According to him, USAID was a “black fund for supporting American non-profits linked to the Democratic Party.”
“It was a sacred cow of the State Department that for a long time nobody dared to audit.”
Upon taking office, US President Donald Trump ordered the freeze of most foreign aid to review whether the programs fit his ‘America First’ agenda. Tens of billions in grants have since been put on hold, with the president accusing the agency of misusing taxpayer money and fueling corruption.
In Ukraine alone, where more than $400 billion had once been earmarked for reconstruction, over a hundred projects have already been scrapped. Only 30 USAID initiatives have been preserved, but most are set to expire in 2025, the data shows.
A scandal erupted earlier this year over billions of USAID dollars lost in Ukraine. The agency’s inspector general, auditing firm KPMG, and US prosecutors have launched probes into suspected fraud, bribery, and embezzlement in Ukrainian projects, with more than 20 cases already opened.
Some programs have been kept in place to fund limited humanitarian initiatives, according to the records. Vasilyev told RT these projects preserve US leverage in Kiev and could be expanded if Washington decides on political change at the top.
No European security without Russia – Lavrov
RT | August 20, 2025
Collective security in Europe cannot be resolved without Russia’s participation, as Moscow will “firmly” defend its own legitimate interests, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday.
Kiev and its Western European backers have increasingly demanded “security guarantees” as a precondition for any potential peace deal with Russia. While several NATO states have voiced their readiness to deploy so-called “reassurance forces” to Ukraine, Moscow has repeatedly warned that it will not accept troops from the US-led military bloc in the country.
“We cannot agree with the proposal that security issues, collective security, be resolved without the Russian Federation. This will not work,” Lavrov said.
Russia does not overstate its interests, but we will ensure our legitimate interests firmly and harshly.
Lavrov added that the West, and primarily the US, now “perfectly” understands that discussing security issues without Russia is “a road to nowhere.”
Kiev’s negotiating team had proposed developing security guarantees that involved all the permanent members of the UN Security Council during the early Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul in 2022, soon after the escalation of the conflict, Lavrov said.
Russia, China, the US, France, the UK and some other individual countries were to be involved, and each interested party’s security guarantees were to be ensured on an equal basis, he said, adding that Moscow had supported this approach.
However, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had “arrived and forbade his proteges in Kiev from signing anything, and demanded that military actions be continued,” according to Lavrov.
Now, while US President Donald Trump is increasingly pushing diplomacy to end the conflict, Kiev’s Western European backers “are just trying to keep the US as a participant, less and less successfully,” Lavrov said.
According to the top diplomat, the European NATO states want to get Washington to continue to supply arms, so that they can “continue to pump the Kiev regime full of these weapons.”
Ukraine and EU attempt to hinder peace process started in Alaska
By Lucas Leiroz | August 20, 2025
On August 18, US President Donald Trump hosted Ukrainian and European representatives in Washington to discuss possible peace negotiations regarding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The Washington summit was seen as a kind of “reaction” to the previous summit, held on August 15 in Alaska between American and Russian representatives. Outraged that the US president was open to listening to Russian demands, the Ukrainian president and his European supporters headed to Washington to show their “terms”.
The conversations were marked by diplomatic tensions. People familiar with the matter explain that the illegitimate Ukrainian dictator Vladimir Zelensky didn’t know how to behave with the American president. There are reports that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer instructed Zelensky to act “nicely” to Trump, avoiding the same gaffes he made during the previous summit between the leaders in the White House’s Oval Office.
Apparently, Zelensky didn’t fully understand Starmer’s instructions, as there are reports that he acted exaggeratedly, such as repeating “thank you” to Trump over the course of a few minutes of conversation (about a dozen times) — a reaction to Trump’s previous description of him as “ungrateful.”
The discomfort during the summit was clear to everyone. Western analysts described the meeting as “deeply weird” and “worse than the last time Trump met Zelensky.” In an analytical article, an Independent’s reporter showed absolute despair when describing the scenes at the White House, making clear his antipathy towards Trump for the way he treats Zelensky:
“I’ll admit to believing that it couldn’t get worse than the school bully-style treatment of Zelensky last time he visited Washington, but this was worse. To listen to this press conference, you’d think Biden really was the one rolling tanks into Donetsk. A grievance recital that used the background of war for the foreground of Trump’s hurt feelings is so much less than what the world deserves,” the article reads.
Regardless of these details, negotiations have reached an absolute impasse. Zelensky arrived in the US ready to take the war to its ultimate consequences, stating that he would never accept any agreement that involved “ceding” territories to the Russian Federation. The EU similarly made clear its full endorsement of Ukrainian demands. This obviously impedes any peace talks, since Russia is also in no position to negotiate its legitimate sovereignty over the New Regions, which independently voted for the right to reunification with Russian territory.
However, after the meeting, Zelensky confirmed to reporters that territorial changes are still on the list of conditions for a peace dialogue. He appears to have recognized his inability to enforce the so-called “Ukrainian demands,” when the winning side (Russia) and the leader of the pro-Ukrainian coalition (the US) agree to change the map of Ukraine to meet the needs of the Russian-speaking people. The European leaders present at the White House were also unable to convince Trump to drop the territorial issue from negotiations with Putin, tacitly acknowledging the inevitability of a Ukrainian defeat.
It’s important to emphasize that Trump interrupted the conversation with Zelensky and the European leaders to call Putin. Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov clarified some details of the conversation, emphasizing that the objective was to consult Russia’s “readiness to discuss a resolution to the Ukraine conflict with Zelensky.”
There isn’t much information available yet about what the two presidents talked about but Russian representatives have previously clarified that Putin is willing to participate in a trilateral meeting with Trump and Zelensky, as long as the event is merely formal and ceremonial to sign a peace agreement previously agreed upon between the parties. In other words, Putin won’t risk wasting time on fruitless negotiations in a face-to-face meeting, hoping that such an event will merely confirm something already previously deliberated.
Western analysts interpreted Trump’s attitude as disrespectful. The arrogance of the EU and Ukrainian leaders prevents them from having a summit interrupted for less than an hour for an important call whose subject is, at least in theory, precisely the same as the one being discussed at the meeting (to advance the peace process). However, realistically, Trump is absolutely right to inform Putin of every detail of the dialogue with Kiev and the EU.
The one with the real power to “stop the war”—that is, effectively halt military action—is Russia, since Moscow is the winning side in the conflict. It is necessary to know whether the Russians are ready to continue negotiations to advance a fruitful peace process, regardless of how European arrogance interprets this.
However, there is one situation that still needs to be resolved: Russia’s willingness to find a peaceful solution, possibly even in a meeting to sign a peace agreement, will only be possible if Ukraine agrees to respect Russia’s sovereignty over the New Regions (in addition to Crimea). No ceasefire or peace is possible while Ukrainian troops are on Russian constitutional territory.
By merely acknowledging the possibility of negotiating with Zelensky, Russia is already making a major concession, considering that Zelensky is no longer the legitimate president of Ukraine. In fact, it is the Russian side that is showing the greatest interest in peace, and it does so solely for humanitarian reasons, considering that it has all the necessary conditions to end the war militarily.
If Zelensky and the Europeans are even remotely interested in what is best for the Ukrainian people, they will have to quickly accept Russia’s conditions rather than impose even more obstacles to peace.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
The Israeli flag just became the only national flag illegal to burn in the United States
When Criticizing Israel Becomes a Hate Crime: How One Ruling Betrayed the First Amendment
By Shaun King | The North Star | August 16, 2025
The Flag America Protects
This week in Washington, D.C., a federal judge made a ruling so shocking, so unprecedented, that it flips the First Amendment on its head. Judge Trevor N. McFadden declared that the Israeli flag — with the Star of David at its center — is not a political symbol at all, but a racial one.
He ruled that tearing it, grabbing it, desecrating it, even in the heat of protest, is not free expression but racial discrimination.
Think about that. In the United States, you can burn the American flag — the Supreme Court has said so for decades. But now, according to this ruling, burning or tearing the Israeli flag could make you guilty of racial hatred. The one national flag protected in American law today isn’t our own. It’s Israel’s.
You can burn the flags of all 50 states. You can torch the American flag all you want. You can burn the flags of the UK or France or Brazil or China.
But not Israel.
The Supreme Court’s Bedrock Principle
The highest court in the land has spoken clearly: you cannot criminalize burning the American flag. In Texas v. Johnson(1989), Justice William Brennan wrote:
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”
The following year, in United States v. Eichman (1990), the Court struck down another attempt to ban flag burning, reminding the country that:
“Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.”
In America, even the Stars and Stripes — the nation’s own sacred symbol — cannot be placed above criticism or protest. That is what freedom means. And yet in 2025, a federal judge just carved out an exception — for a foreign flag.
How the Israeli Flag Was Elevated
The case came from dueling protests in D.C. last fall. Kimmara Sumrall, a pro-Israel activist, draped the Israeli flag around her shoulders as a cape. A pro-Palestinian demonstrator yanked it. A police officer saw it and arrested the woman.
The criminal court acquitted her. But Sumrall filed a civil rights lawsuit, backed by the National Jewish Advocacy Center, arguing that this wasn’t just an assault — it was racial discrimination.
Judge McFadden agreed. In his ruling, he wrote:
“Purposefully yanking on an Israeli flag tied around a Jewish person’s neck… is direct evidence of racial discrimination. The Star of David — emblazoned upon the Israeli flag — symbolizes the Jewish race.”
With that, he collapsed the line between a political symbol and a people’s identity. He went so far as to compare attacking the Israeli flag to using the N-word against a Black person.
No other flag in the world has been granted this kind of protection in an American courtroom. Not Britain’s. Not Canada’s. Not Mexico’s. Not even our own. Only Israel’s.
Civil Rights Law Twisted
To reach this conclusion, McFadden invoked the Civil Rights Act of 1866, written to protect newly freed Black Americans. Later, in 1987, the Supreme Court held that Jews and Arabs were covered as “races” under this law.
But McFadden went further than any court before him. He declared that the flag of Israel itself is a racial symbol — and therefore protected. And in doing so, he turned what was supposed to be a shield for the oppressed into a shield for an oppressive foreign government.
The Global Contrast
Everywhere else in the democratic world, flag burning is understood as a political expression. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled again and again: desecrating a flag, however offensive, is free speech.
It is only authoritarian regimes that conflate their flags with their people, criminalizing dissent in the name of “unity.” Now, America has imported that same authoritarian logic — not to protect our own flag, but to protect Israel’s. It’s wild to see.
The Stakes for Protest
The implications are chilling. If this ruling stands, tearing down or burning an Israeli flag at a protest could be treated as a federal hate crime. Shouting against Zionism near someone draped in the flag could be called racial harassment.
This isn’t about protecting Jewish people from violence. It’s about shielding Israel from protest while it bombs and starves children in Gaza.
One Flag Above All
Let’s be brutally clear. The Israeli flag is now the only national flag that American courts have declared effectively immune from desecration. The Stars and Stripes itself can be burned in the name of protest. Israel’s flag cannot.
That is not constitutional law. That is political favoritism dressed up as civil rights. And it represents a betrayal of the First Amendment.
Shaun King is an American writer & activist.
Kiev’s backers fail to sway Trump on Russia – analyst

RT | August 19, 2025
The White House meeting on Monday between US President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s European backers produced no major results, political analyst Sergey Poletaev has told RT.
Trump met to discuss the Ukraine conflict with Vladimir Zelensky and some European leaders in Washington just days after holding a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
“Just like in Anchorage, no decisions were announced afterward. And that, in itself, is a sign that something important is happening,” Poletaev said, noting that the talks are part of a larger diplomatic struggle, the ultimate goal of which is to win over the US president.
He suggested that Moscow is seeking to draw Washington out of the conflict, while Europe and Ukraine are pushing to keep the US firmly entangled. Following what Poletaev called Putin’s “gambit” in Anchorage, the European delegation hurried to Washington to persuade Trump to toughen sanctions against Moscow and maintain weapons deliveries to Kiev.
So far, it looks like they came up empty.
Poletaev pointed out that, unusually for the US president, he did not repeat European talking points after the meeting. Instead, Trump reminded the European leaders at the start of the summit that “they had no real power,” the analyst said.
While the immediate effort may have failed, “most likely, Europe will soon try again,” Poletaev stressed.
According to the analyst, the key issue at Monday’s summit was security guarantees for Ukraine. Russia has insisted “from day one” that any such commitments must be tied to “neutrality and disarmament,” he said.
Europe and Kiev, meanwhile, are desperately trying – by hook or by crook – to preserve Ukraine’s armed forces, and even to push for a NATO presence on Ukrainian soil.
According to Poletaev, the attempts are “naive and desperate,” but whatever form security guarantees take in any eventual peace deal will ultimately determine “the fate of the Kiev regime.”
“For now, there’s no compromise in sight,” Poletaev concluded. “And as Ukraine continues to lose ground on the battlefield, the room for maneuver – for both Kiev and its European backers – is shrinking fast.”
Alaska meeting is a milestone of the decline of NATO and EU
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 19, 2025
Is the EU and its member states collectively heading towards the abyss? For so many years analysts have thundered headlines of the flavour “end of the EU” – even myself I must admit – but in recent days the EU itself has never been placed so low on the world map as it was in the so-called Alaska meeting. A few weeks earlier, many supporters of the EU were stunned at just how pusillanimous the EU commission boss was facing Donald Trump, as she accepted 15% tariffs across the board on all EU goods entering the U.S. – absolutely amazing given there was no announcement of trade talks where officials on both sides would negotiate a more appropriate rate. This move alone revealed so much. The EU is, if nothing else, a pseudo superpower administration owned wholesale by the world’s largest corporations – like Pfizer, the U.S. drag maker who Ursula von der Leyen made part of a 600bn euro EU vaccine fund – and so it would have been absurd for her to have resisted.
And now it is the EU’s time to take another body blow as it plays a secondary role in the negotiations for a peaceful settlement for the Ukraine war. Yet few are betting on a peace deal. Even Trump himself doesn’t seem to hold out much hope as Putin has made it clear that he wants the Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine to be handed over as part of the deal, plus guarantees that Ukraine can never be a NATO member.
Whether NATO will even be around in the coming months is another matter as it is worth noting that this transatlantic organization, which the U.S. runs, is currently going through its lowest point of its history, like the EU. What idiotic U.S. journalists who shout out to Putin in the press conference “are you going to stop killing civilians” don’t ask is more telling. Of course, they don’t shout out such stupid questions to Netanyahu when he visits, who is the architect of the most horrific genocide of the 21st century, where women and children who manage to miss the bombs which reign down on their tents are now starved to death – all supported by the U.S. But to Putin, U.S. journalists don’t ask “how’s the war going in Ukraine, sir?” or even “what do you think will happen to NATO if your army forces Zelensky to surrender?”.
The meeting was never going to be a deal breaker for a peace deal in Ukraine as the journalists’ temporary accommodation was a clue to that. What the Alaska meeting set out to do was for both leaders to show reverence for one another so that bigger deals can be worked out – perhaps energy and infrastructure deals in Alaska itself or even more rare earth and minerals in Russia – and if you listen carefully to Trump’s responses to questions from U.S. media, you will note the hints.
But with U.S.-Russia relations moving in a soberer, grown up direction, rather than the silly Biden stance, there are many possibilities on the table. Ukraine may well be resolved at some point if some of these super deals can see the light of day.
For the Europeans and the EU, they will have to dance to the beat of the Putin-Trump drum which makes them look even more ineffective and congruent to the bigger picture geopolitics which they crave. Same goes for NATO. Both of these institutions have poured oil on the fire in recent years by only seeing the war option – or more specifically the ‘escalate to de-escalate’ option which backfired spectacularly every single time that now to justify the huge amounts of money shovelled into a war project which cannot benefit the West, its leaders only have one narrative to repeat over and over again now, so that they can save their own jobs and credibility. War talk. More war. War, war and even more war.
It’s incredible. The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s former PM gave a clue recently to the tunnel vision that the EU and NATO have about the Ukraine war. They see it as the EU’s first test at hard-core foreign policy action, despite it being bank rolled by “Daddy” Trump. Probably the most delusional and idiotic quote of the month has to go to Kallas who told journalists “If Europe cannot defeat Russia how can it defeat China?”. The entire thinking is really all based on conflict rather than conflict prevention which is also about saving both NATO and the EU from its worst ever credibility crash when Russia finally defeats the Ukrainian army. These EU buffoons have created, since 2014 and even before, a war which was inevitable, which they don’t have the means, military capacity or even the leadership to win and yet their priorities now are making a massive cover-up of the failure and protecting their own dynasties. Europe is not preparing itself for war. This is the huge bluff. It is preparing itself for a huge fall which is unprecedented and may well be a catalyst for both the demise of the EU and NATO as we know them.
Trump Holds Firm Peace Deal with Putin Despite European Pushback
Sputnik – 19.08.2025
European leaders and Zelensky didn’t succeed in changing Trump’s peace proposal, which the US president had reached with Putin, former defense politician and chief of staff with the Sweden Democrats Mikael Valtersson told Sputnik.
“The ball is now clearly in Ukrainian and, to a lesser degree, European hands. A strong and clear ‘no’ from the European side might result in broken relations between the US and Europe/Ukraine. Therefore we can expect a ‘maybe’ from the European/Ukrainian side,” he said.
However, Valtersson also notes that playing for time may be part of Zelensky’s strategy, hoping that eventually, a shift in the geopolitical landscape might restore the hardline anti-Russian alliance. This strategy, though, is likely a “lost cause,” according to the former Swedish defense expert. By dragging out the negotiations, Zelensky and his allies risk further territorial losses to Russia and an increase in war casualties.
“If the European leaders really cared for Ukraine, they would pressure Zelensky to accept a peace deal that includes swapping of territories. This would minimize Ukrainian territorial and human losses,” Valtersson argues.
Yet, the expert predicts that European obstruction of a peace deal will continue, driven by the hope that a miraculous turn of events will “rescue” Ukraine. This approach could extend negotiations for weeks, but ultimately, he believes Trump’s patience will wear thin, forcing a clear decision.
In the meantime, the peace process is largely aligning with Russia’s expectations, with Trump holding firm to the terms agreed with Putin in Alaska.



If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .