Fyodor Lukyanov: Forget land – this is Russia’s main demand from the West
By Fyodor Lukyanov | RT | April 28, 2025
Everyone is expecting news on a Ukrainian settlement this week. The diplomatic activity is real and intense, and the visible signs suggest something significant is underway. There is little point in trying to guess which of the leaked plans are genuine and which are misinformation. What is clear is that Russia is being offered a choice between “a bird in the hand and two in the bush.” The trouble is, the elements necessary for any sustainable agreement are still scattered among the various birds.
Currently, discussions naturally revolve around territory. This is a sensitive subject, particularly since the territories under consideration are already under Russian control. The bird’s wings are clipped, however: legal recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over these lands seems unrealistic, at least in the near term. De facto recognition, with a pledge not to attempt to return them by force, could be the achievable result. In today’s global atmosphere, it is naive to view any legal agreement as genuinely final.
Yet territory was not the true cause of this conflict. The deeper issue was decades of unresolved security contradictions. ‘Demilitarization’ – so prominently featured in Russia’s original demands – encompasses both Ukraine’s neutral status and the broader limitation of its military capabilities, whether through curtailing domestic production, cutting off external supplies, or reducing existing forces.
This demand is far from cosmetic. Fulfillment would overturn the international order that has reigned since the end of the Cold War – an order based on NATO’s unchecked expansion across Europe and Eurasia, without regard for Moscow’s objections. The military campaign thus became a way of exercising a “veto” that the West had long denied Russia. True demilitarization of Ukraine would, in effect, force international recognition of that veto. But many in the West remain unwilling to accept such a precedent.
As discussions have moved toward territorial issues, the central problem of military security seems to have been relegated to the background. Perhaps US President Donald Trump’s administration – more skeptical of NATO itself – views it as less fundamental. Or perhaps it simply finds it easier to force Ukraine to cede territory than to make Western Europe recognize Russia’s security rights. Nevertheless, for Moscow, military security remains a matter of principle. Even if Washington offers major concessions – lifting sanctions, formalizing territorial changes – Russia cannot abandon this core demand.
This creates a divergence in diplomatic tempo. Washington wants a quick deal; the Kremlin believes that haste will not produce a reliable settlement. Yet Moscow also knows that the political stars – especially in Washington – have aligned in a uniquely favorable way, and it does not want to miss the moment.
The outcome will be known soon enough. However, some important lessons from history should be remembered.
First, achieving political goals often takes more than one campaign. A pause in fighting is not necessarily a resolution.
Second, there is no such thing as an open-ended, unchangeable agreement. If a deal does not truly satisfy all parties, it will eventually collapse. The struggle will resume – though not necessarily through military means.
Third, Ukraine is only one piece of a much larger process of global transformation in which Russia intends to play a central role. These changes are already underway, and will continue to deepen. Reaching some degree of understanding with the United States is important. Interestingly, the NATO issue might resolve itself over time, not because of Russian pressure but due to the alliance’s own growing irrelevance.
But for now, that remains a matter for the future. In the immediate term, Russia faces a choice between the imperfect birds on offer – and must weigh carefully which to catch and which to let fly.
Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
Russians ‘are not our enemy’ – Trump adviser
RT | April 28, 2025
The White House crypto tsar has rejected the notion that Ukraine is aiding the United States against its enemies by fighting Russia.
Kiev has consistently asserted that it is “defending” Western nations from Russia. Vladimir Zelensky reiterated the point in a recent interview with conservative journalist Ben Shapiro, where he urged the US to act as an arms supplier rather than a diplomatic mediator and stating that Ukrainians “are fighting against your enemies, the Russians.”
“Russians are not our enemy. We shouldn’t be helping to kill them,” countered David Sacks, a venture entrepreneur and White House advisor on crypto and artificial intelligence, who responded on social media on Sunday to a clip from the interview. Sacks has long criticized US support for Kiev, characterizing it as an attempt to transform the Ukraine conflict into a “forever war.”
Zelensky has argued that modern Russia shares the same agenda as the former USSR and considers the US its “main enemy.” He accused Moscow of collaborating with Tehran and Pyongyang to undermine American interests.
Conversely, he stated that Kiev views the US as a “strategic partner” and “friend.” However, he cautioned that any attempts to pressure Ukrainians could “turn them around very quickly.”
US President Donald Trump has claimed that Zelensky has undermined his efforts to negotiate a peace deal between Kiev and Moscow by publicly dismissing his proposals. In their latest meeting, held on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral last Saturday, the Ukrainian leader requested more weapons, the US president told the media, adding that “he has been saying that for three years.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told CBS last week that Moscow is interested in a relationship with the US which is based on “an equal, mutually respectful dialogue heading to finding a balance of interest.” With that approach, “everything is possible,” he added.
The Kellogg framework is a disaster for Trump
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 28, 2025
Political warfare in Washington is endemic. But the body count at the Pentagon has started to rise precipitously. Three of Secretary of Defence Hegseth’s top advisors were placed on leave, and then fired. The war continues, with the Secretary now in the firing line.
Why this matters is that the Hegseth attrition comes amid fierce internal debates in the Trump administration about Iran policy. Hawks want an definitive elimination of all Iran’s nuclear and weapons capabilities, whilst many ‘restrainers’ warn against military escalation; Hegseth reportedly was amongst those warning against an intervention in Iran.
The recent Pentagon dismissals have all been identified as restrainers. One of the latter, Dan Caldwell, formerly Hegseth’s Top Adviser and an army veteran, wrote a post slamming the ‘Iran Hawks’ – and subsequently was fired. He was later interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Notably, Caldwell describes in scathing terms America’s wars in Iraq and Syria (“criminal”). This adverse sentiment concerning America’s earlier wars is a rising theme, it seems, amongst U.S. Vets today.
The three Pentagon staffers essentially were fired, not as ‘leakers’, but for talking Hegseth out of supporting war on Iran, it would appear; the Israeli-Firsters, have not given up on that war.
The inflamed fault lines between hawks and traditionalist ‘Republicans’ bleed across into the Ukraine issue, even if the faction membership may alter a tad. Israeli-Firsters and U.S. hawks more generally, are behind both the war on Russia and the maximalist demands on Iran.
Conservative commentator Fred Bauer observes that when it comes to Trump’s own war impulses, they are conflicted:
“Influenced by the Vietnam War of his youth … Trump seems deeply averse to long-term military conflicts, yet, at the same time, Trump admires a politics of strength and swagger. That means taking out Iranian generals, launching airstrikes on the Houthis, and boosting the defence budget to $1 trillion”.
Hegseth’s potential exit – should the campaign for his removal succeed – could cause the struggle to grow fiercer. Its first casualty is already apparent – Trump’s hope to bring a quick end to the Ukraine conflict is over.
This week, the Trump team (including both warring factions, Rubio, Witkoff and General Kellogg) met in Paris with various European and Ukrainian representatives. At the meeting, a Russian-Ukrainian unilateral ceasefire proposal was mooted by the U.S. delegation.
After the meeting, at the airport, Rubio plainly said that the ceasefire plan was ‘a take-it-or-leave-it’ U.S. initiative. The various sides – Russia, Kiev and the European members of the ‘coalition of the willing’ – had only days to accept it, or else the U.S. was ‘out’, and would wash its hands of the conflict.
The framework presented, as reported, is almost (maybe 95%) unadulteratedly that previously proposed by General Kellogg: i.e. it is his plan, first aired in April 2024. It appears that the ‘Kellogg formula’ was adopted then as the Trump platform (Trump was at the time in mid-campaign, and unlikely to have been following the complicated minutiae of the Ukraine war too closely).
General Kellogg is also the likely source for Trump’s optimism that the ending to the Ukraine war could come with a click of Trump’s fingers – through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats on both belligerents by Trump – and with the timing decided in Washington.
In short, the plan represented a Beltway consensus that the U.S. could implement a negotiated end-state with terms aligned to U.S. and Ukrainian interests.
Kellogg’s implicit assumptions were that Russia is highly vulnerable to a sanctions threat (its economy perceived as being fragile); that it had suffered unsustainably high casualties; and that the war was at a stalemate.
Thus, Kellogg persuaded Trump that Russia would readily agree to the ceasefire terms proposed – albeit terms that were constructed around patently flawed underlying assumptions about Russia and its presumed weaknesses.
Kellogg’s influence and false premises were all too evident when Trump, in January, having stated that Russia had lost one million men (in the war) then went on to say that “Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal, adding (seemingly as an aside), that Putin may have already made up his mind ‘not to make a deal’”. He further claimed that Russia’s economy is in ‘ruins’, and most notably said that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia. In a subsequent Truth Social post, Trump writes, “I’m going to do Russia – whose Economy is failing – and President Putin, a very big FAVOR”.
All of Kellogg’s underlying assumptions lacked any basis in reality. Yet Trump seemingly took them on trust. And despite Steve Witkoff’s subsequent three lengthy personal meetings with President Putin, in which Putin repeatedly stated that he would not accept any ceasefire until a political framework had been first agreed, the Kellogg contingent continued to blandly assume that Russia would be forced to accept Kellogg’s détente because of the claimed serious ‘setbacks’ Russia had suffered in Ukraine.
Given this history, unsurprisingly, the ceasefire framework terms outlined by Rubio this week in Paris reflected those more suited to a party at the point of capitulation, rather than that of a state anticipating achieving its objectives – by military means.
In essence, the Kellogg Plan looked to bring a U.S. ‘win’ on terms aligned to a desire to keep open the option for continuing attritional war on Russia.
So, what is the Kellogg Plan? At base, it seeks to establish a ‘frozen conflict’ – frozen along the ‘Line of Conflict’; with no definitive ban on NATO membership for Ukraine, (but rather, envisaging a NATO membership that is deferred well into the future); it places no limits on the size of a future Ukrainian army and no restrictions on the type or quantity of armaments held by the Ukrainian forces. (It foresees, contrarily, that after the ceasefire, the U.S. might re-arm, train and militarily support a future force) – i.e. back to the post-Maidan era of 2014.
In addition, no territory would be ceded by Ukraine to Russia, save for Crimea which alone would be recognised by the U.S. as Russian (the unique sop to Witkoff?), and Russia would only ‘exercise control’ over the four Oblasts that it currently claims, yet only up to the Line of Conflict; territory beyond this line would remain under Ukrainian control (see here for the ‘Kellogg map’). The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant would be neutral territory to be held, and managed, by the U.S. There is no mention made of the cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson that have been constitutionally incorporated into Russia, but lie beyond the contact line.
Nothing about a political solution apparently was outlined in the plan, and the plan leaves Ukraine free to pursue its claim to all Ukraine’s former territories – save for only Crimea.
Ukrainian territory west of the Dnieper River however, would be divided into three zones of responsibility: British, French and German zones (i.e. which NATO forces would manage). Finally, no American security guarantees were offered.
Rubio subsequently passed details of the plan to Russian FM Lavrov, who calmly stated that any ceasefire plan should resolve the underlying causes to the conflict in Ukraine as its first task.
Witkoff flies to Moscow this week to present this ‘pig’s ear’ of a plan to Putin – seeking his consent. The Europeans and Ukrainians are set to meet next Wednesday in London to give their riposte to Trump.
What’s next? Most obviously, the Kellogg Plan will not ‘fly’. Russia will not accept it, and likely Zelensky will not either, (though the Europeans will work to persuade him – hoping to ‘wrong-foot Moscow’ by presenting Russia as the essential ‘spoiler’). Reportedly, Zelensky already has rejected the Crimea provision.
For the Europeans, the lack of security guarantees or backstop by the U.S. may prove to be a killer for their aspiration to deploy a tripwire troop deployment to Ukraine, in the context of a ceasefire.
Is Trump really going to wash his hands of Ukraine? Doubtful, given that the U.S. neo-conservative institutional leadership will tell Trump that to do so, would weaken America’s ‘peace through strength’ narrative. Trump may adopt supporting Ukraine ‘on a low flame’ posture, whilst declaring the ‘war was never his’ – as he seeks a ‘win’ on the business front with Russia.
The bottom line is that Kellogg has not well-served his patron. The U.S. needs effective working relations with Russia. The Kellogg contingent has contributed to Trump’s egregious misreading of Russia. Putin is a serious actor, who says what he means, and means what he says.
Colonel Macgregor sums it up thus:
“Trump tends to view the world through the lens of dealmaking. [Ending the Ukraine war] is not about dealmaking. This is about the life and death of nations and peoples. There’s no interest in some sort of short-fused deal that is going to elevate Trump or his administration to greatness. There will be no win for Donald Trump personally in any of this. That was never going to be the case”.
Europe’s Downfall
Col. Jacques Baud & Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | April 27, 2025
Colonel Jacques Baud is a former military intelligence analyst in the Swiss Army and the author of many books. Colonel Baud argues that Europe no longer has a strategy in terms of grand objectives to achieve that correspond with its means. Europe is without direction, which results in destructive policies, self-harm, fragmentation, and eventually its downfall.
Trump made no overtures to Russia over Europe’s largest nuclear plant – Lavrov
RT | April 27, 2025
The US has made no offer to Russia regarding the future of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has told CBS. The diplomat’s remarks followed media reports about Washington’s alleged plans vis-a-vis the installation.
The energy facility, which is Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, has been under Russian control since March 2022. Later that year, Zaporozhye Region’s residents voted to join Russia in a referendum, which Ukraine dismissed as a sham.
When asked during an interview with CBS on Sunday whether US President Donald Trump had approached Moscow over the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, Lavrov said that “we never received such an offer.” He added that “if we do, we would explain that the power station… is run by the Russian Federation state corporation called Rosatom.”
“It is in very good hands,” the diplomat added, noting that the facility is “being monitored by IAEA personnel permanently stationed at the site.”
“If not for the Ukrainian regular attempts to attack the power plant, and to create a nuclear disaster for Europe and for Ukraine as well, the safety requirements are fully implemented,” Lavrov asserted.
Moscow ready to seek ‘balance of interests’ with Ukraine and US — LavrovREAD MORE: Moscow ready to seek ‘balance of interests’ with Ukraine and US — Lavrov
When further pressed on the issue, the minister reiterated that “I don’t think any change [to the facility’s status] is conceivable.”
“We cannot speculate on something which is really not being mentioned during the negotiations,” he concluded.
On Tuesday, Axios, citing unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the discussions, reported that American officials had presented Kiev’s representatives with President Trump’s “final offer” to end the Ukraine conflict during talks in Paris last week.
According to the outlet, the proposal includes designating the area around the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant as neutral territory under US administration.
Last Sunday, the Wall Street Journal carried a similar report, citing anonymous sources.
In March, Trump claimed that Vladimir Zelensky had proposed that the US assume ownership of his country’s nuclear power plants. The Ukrainian leader, however, refuted this assertion, stating that he and Trump had only discussed potential US investments in the Zaporozhye NPP.
Lavrov discusses Ukraine concessions, Crimea, Trump and nuclear weapons
RT | April 27, 2025
In an interview with CBS, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has rebuked the network for suggesting Moscow is not ready to make concessions to end the Ukraine conflict. He stressed that Russia is committed to seeking a “balance of interests” with the US and Ukraine. Lavrov added that Russia is always ready for “serious and respectful” negotiations, unlike Kiev, which he accused of “talking through the media.”
The top diplomat said talks with Washington are “moving in the right direction” because US president Donald Trump had recognized NATO’s mistakes and the violation of Russian rights in Ukraine.
He welcomed Trump’s ceasefire plan but demanded firm guarantees Ukraine would not use it to rebuild its military.
Responding to US accusations that Moscow has space-based weapons, Lavrov rejected the claims as false. He said that Russia has long promoted a UN treaty to ban nuclear weapons in outer space, which the US has refused to support.
Lavrov called Crimea being part of Russia a “done deal” and praised Trump for acknowledging it.
Here is the CBS interview in full:
Question: Good morning, Minister Lavrov. I want to ask you about what happened in Kiev. There was a large Russian attack on that capital city about 1 o’clock in the morning. President Trump has said publicly the Russian strikes are not necessary and very bad timing. “Vladimir, stop”, was his quote. What made it worth killing civilians when Ukraine says it’s ready for a ceasefire?
Sergey Lavrov: We only target military goals or civilian sites used by the military. President Putin expressed this for so many times, and this is not different this time as well. We never consciously target civilian sites, unlike the Zelensky regime.
Question: So was this an intentional attack then, not a mistake?
Sergey Lavrov: If this was a target used by the Ukrainian military, the Ministry of Defense, the commanders in the field have the right to attack them.
Question: So just to be clear, when the President of the United States says, “Vladimir, stop,” is this a rejection of that request, or was the assessment that because of what you say regarding the concerns that this loss of civilian life made it worth it?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, I can assure you that the target attacked was not something absolutely civilian like a TV center in Belgrade in 1999. This was an intentional attack against civilian target.
In our case, we only target those sites which are used by the military. And regarding the ceasefire and regarding the call to stop, President Putin immediately supported President Trump’s proposal a few weeks ago to establish a 30-day ceasefire provided we do not repeat mistakes of the last 10 years when deals were signed, and then Ukraine would violate those deals with the support and with encouragement from Biden administration and from European countries.
This was the fate of the deal of February 2014. Then this was the fate of the Minsk agreements, and this was the fate of the deal reached on the basis of Ukrainian proposals in Istanbul in April 2022.
So President Putin said, “Ceasefire, yes, but we want the guarantees that the ceasefire would not be used again to beef up Ukrainian military, and that the supplies of arms should stop.”
Question: Ukraine accepted on March 11th that idea of a US-brokered ceasefire without preconditions. You’re saying the preconditions are a negotiation to end something else?
Sergey Lavrov: No, it is not a precondition. It’s the lessons learned after at least three times. The deals, similar to the one which we are discussing now, were broken by the Ukrainian regime with the strong support from European capitals and Biden administration.
If you want a ceasefire just to continue supply arms to Ukraine, so what is your purpose? You know what Kaja Kallas and Mark Rutte said about the ceasefire and the settlement? They bluntly stated that they can support only the deal which at the end of the day will make Ukraine stronger, would make Ukraine a victor. So if this is the purpose of the ceasefire, I don’t think this is what President Trump wants. This is what Europeans, together with Zelensky, want to make out of President Trump’s initiative.
Question: Will Russia continue targeting Kiev despite President Trump saying, “Vladimir, stop?”
Sergey Lavrov: You’re not listening to me. We will continue to target the sites used by the military of Ukraine by some mercenaries from foreign countries and by instructors whom the Europeans officially sent to help target Russian civilian sites.
If you take a look at the situation in the Kursk region of Russia, for example, there is no single military target for the last six months which the Ukrainians would fire at.
And there was also a proposal by President Trump immediately supported by President Putin to have a one-month moratorium on the attacks on energy infrastructure. We never violated this commitment of President Putin. And Ukrainians violated what Zelensky seemed to support several hundred times. And I sent to Marco Rubio and to the United Nations the list of those attacks. It’s really very, very telling and eloquent.
Question: Ukraine disputes that, but putting that aside, I want to ask you about what President Trump said on Wednesday. The President of the United States says he thinks the US and Russia have a deal, let’s get it done. Does President Putin agree?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, the President of the United States believes, and I think rightly so, that we are moving in the right direction. The statement by the President mentions a deal, and we are ready to reach a deal, but there are still some specific points, elements of this deal which need to be fine-tuned, and we are busy with this exact process. And the President of the United States did not spell out the elements of the deal, so it is not appropriate for me to do this.
Question: But he did say there was a deal, and that he was sending his envoy, Steve Witkoff, to meet with Vladimir Putin Friday in Russia. Is that meeting still happening, and should we expect a deal this week?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, you don’t trust the word of the President of the United States?
Question: I was asking your President’s word. What will he tell the US envoy?
Sergey Lavrov: We continue our contacts with the American side on the situation in Ukraine. There are several signs that we are moving in the right direction, first of all, because President Trump is probably the only leader on Earth who recognized the need to address the root causes of this situation. When he said that it was a huge mistake to pull Ukraine into NATO, and this was a mistake by the Biden administration, and he wants to rectify this.
And Marco Rubio expressed yesterday, I think, also the assessment that the American team now is getting a better understanding of the Russian position and of the root causes of this situation. One of these root causes, apart from NATO and creation of direct military threats to Russia just on our borders, another one is the rights of the national minorities in Ukraine. Everything Russian, media, education, culture, anything was prohibited by law in Ukraine. And to get out of this crisis, you cannot just forget about human rights.
Whenever we discuss Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, anything, American negotiators put on top human rights. They have claims in this regard to China, to us, to anybody. But whenever Europeans and other Western nations speak about Ukraine, nobody can mumble the words human rights. Just nobody.
On the contrary, what Ursula von der Leyen and other people in Brussels and in Europe say that Ukraine is defending the European values. So one of these values is cancelling the Russian language. Imagine if Israel cancelled Arabic language in Palestine. Just imagine.
Question: You mentioned that the US and Russia need to work on some of these fine points of a deal.
Sergey Lavrov: Yeah, you want the fine points to be spelled out?
Question: Well, of course, I’d love that, but this is not the way. European sources say that the US proposal is really just kind of a list of bullet points. Does Russia have details, the details you need at this point?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, we are really polite people. And unlike some others, we never discuss in public what is being discussed in negotiations. Otherwise, negotiations are not serious.
To ask for somebody’s opinion regarding the substance, go to Zelensky. He is happy to talk to anybody through media, even to President Trump. He presents his claims.
We are serious. We are serious people. And we consider serious proposals. We make serious proposals. And this is a process which is not supposed to be public until the end of it.
Question: OK. So no deal is imminent?
Sergey Lavrov: I didn’t say this. Now I understand, by the way, why you wanted to get brief answers to your questions. You want some slogans to be in the broadcast.
Question: No, the President of the United States said there was a deal with Russia. So I wanted to ask Russia if there is a deal with the United States.
Sergey Lavrov: Well, we made our comments on this statement. The negotiations continue. And until the end of the negotiations, we cannot disclose what it is about.
Question: OK. The National Security Advisor Mike Walz said last month that President Trump is asking for thousands of Ukrainian children who were taken into Russia to be released now as part of what he called “confidence building measures.” What steps has Russia taken to meet Mr. Trump’s request?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, long before the request coming from Washington, we have been addressing the issue of the fate of the kids who during the conflict found themselves outside their homes, outside their families. Most of these kids were attending orphanage. And as soon as and we announce whatever details we have about those kids, and as soon as relevance, I mean, the parents or other relevant relatives make themselves available, they are getting the kids back. This has been the process for the last almost three years between the ombudsmen of Russia and Ukraine.
Question: So there’s no new release of thousands of Ukrainian children at the request of President Trump?
Sergey Lavrov: No, there was nobody. Nobody knows why some experts advised the President about thousands of Ukrainian children.
Every now and then, once in two or three months, we organize exchanges with Ukrainians with the help of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, who do not, you know, make any noise about what they’re doing. They just do something which we are participating in a very constructive manner, bringing kids back to their parents or relatives.
Question: But what “confidence building measures” can Russia offer now, particularly after this strike in Kiev, where the President of the United States is saying, “Vladimir, stop.” How do you convince the United States that Russia is actually serious about peace?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, “confidence building measures” have been plentiful in the last 10 years. I mentioned a deal in February…
Question: That strike was overnight.
Sergey Lavrov: You want a brief answer, right? As I understand from your initial words, or you want an answer which is explaining the situation?
The proposal by President Trump on 30 days moratorium on the strikes against the energy infrastructure was supported by President Putin and observed strictly. This was a confidence building measure against the policy and action taken by the Zelensky regime. As I said several hundred times civilian energy infrastructure was struck.
Another confidence building measure was the proposal of President Trump and his team to resume the deal on Black Sea. And the delegations met in Istanbul, in Riyadh. The delegations exchanged the views how this can be implemented in practical terms. And the proposals made by Russia are being considered by the United States. There are many other examples about confidence building measure.
But if you believe that it’s only Ukraine who is interested in confidence building, I think a short answer would be this is an illusion.
Question: Do you take President Trump at his word when he says if Russia is unable to make a deal on ending the bloodshed in Ukraine, he’ll put secondary tariffs I think you mean sanctions there on oil coming out of Russia. Or do you think that at this point, the relationship between Russia and America has been rebuilt and that won’t happen?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, I cannot comment on what you think President Trump meant when he said something.
Question: What do you think he meant when he said secondary tariffs on oil coming out of Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, we hear many things coming from President Trump. President Trump said that he’s sick and tired of the situation in this settlement, especially yesterday when he commented the statements by Zelensky. And President Trump has his own proposals and has his own style in mentioning those proposals in his public speeches.
We concentrate, as I said, on the real negotiations which President Trump supports and instructed his people to continue to engage in these negotiations. I’m sorry, the answer was a bit longish, but it’s difficult to explain otherwise.
Question: So I asked about the threat of sanctions or secondary tariffs, because you recently said in an interview, if you had to personally pick sides, you would keep the existing sanctions in place on Russia. You said you’ve restructured the economy to be self-sufficient. And there is a growing fear that, quote, cunning Americans will lift sanctions all of a sudden to flood our market with services and technologies. So if that’s the case, why should the United States consider lifting sanctions at all?
Sergey Lavrov: Why do you ask me? You just quoted my statement, and this statement is clear for me and clear to all those who read it. If you have questions to the American side, how they treat the situation, it is not the right address to raise it with me.
Question: So you want to keep sanctions in place. Is that really the Russian position?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t want to re-explain what I explained, I think, in quite a clear manner. And you quoted, I think, very close to the real content. Yeah, but it was a bit longer than normally you prefer, I know.
Question: Well, back in February. Though one of your colleagues, Kirill Dmitriev, who runs the Sovereign Wealth Fund and has been active in the diplomacy with the United States, said something a bit different. That’s why I’m asking for clarification, because he said there is the expectation that American companies would return to the Russian market in the second half of 2025.
Sergey Lavrov: Well, the president of Russia commented upon this situation. He said that we have nothing against American companies, but those companies who decided to leave their business in Russia might find that their place has been occupied already by Russian or other foreign investors. And in this case, we would not make any decisions which would discriminate those who came to invest in Russia instead of Americans. If American companies would like to come to a place which is not yet occupied, if they want to propose a project, a new project on top of the previous business ties, of course, we will look into this. And if we find balance of our interests, I think it would be only natural to get into business together.
Question: Well, what areas has the US offered to lift sanctions on? Because it wouldn’t be possible for many American companies to enter the Russian market right now under the existing sanctions.
Sergey Lavrov: It is up to them to decide.
Question: So no offer has been made?
Sergey Lavrov: No. How can we offer something? In a situation when…
Well, the United States clearly tells us that they are interested in doing business together. We never reject business proposals provided they are based on the equal opportunities and the treatment of each other and lead to a balance of interest.
Specific proposals which are being mentioned in the media, I cannot comment upon. This is not serious. We are not acting like the people in Kiev who talk to the world through the media, including talking to presidents of great countries.
Question: So if I understand you correctly, you neither fear sanctions nor want them lifted?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, you quoted my statement and you quoted it right. That’s my position.
Question: Okay. So when President Trump threatens new sanctions, that’s not a concern?
Sergey Lavrov: You’re asking this for the third time. This was a brief answer, by the way.
Question: You are being brief and direct on that part. I was asking on the sanctions for clarity and directness. Broadly speaking, when you look at what’s happening in the battle space in Ukraine right now, analysts say about 18% of Ukrainian territory is under the control of Russian forces. US intelligence says battlefield trends are in Russia’s favour. So if that’s the case, why should the US believe Russia is serious about ending the war if everything is in your favour?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, we judge by the reaction of our American colleagues to what we tell them. And this is being done during negotiations. They are confidential, as any serious negotiation. And they know our position. And as I quoted Marco Rubio, he publicly said that now they better understand the Russian position and the reasons for what is going on. And he said that nobody in Washington lifted a finger to do the same to try to understand Russia during the Biden administration.
And this implies that the dialogue continues, that the dialogue is supported by the United States, and I reiterate that it is supported by the Russian Federation, and this dialogue continues.
Question: So President Trump said he expects to meet soon with Vladimir Putin. What’s an acceptable time and location? Why should they meet?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, the presidents are masters of their own destiny and of their own schedule.
I heard President Trump say that he is planning to be somewhere mid-May, and that after that he would be suggesting some dates. I cannot add anything else.
Question: Right, he said he was asked about meeting with Vladimir Putin specifically in Saudi Arabia, and he said most likely not. That’s in mid-May, but shortly thereafter.
Sergey Lavrov: You said the same thing as I did.
Question: Right.
Sergey Lavrov: So we read the same newspapers and watch the same channels on TV.
Question: Right, but I can’t pick up the phone and call Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, like you can. What plans are you making for the two to meet?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, I hope your listeners understand very well that it is not ethical for a foreign minister to prejudge, to presume what presidents might or might not discuss.
Question: But you think it would be good for the two leaders to meet soon? Do you expect that Rubio and Witkoff is negotiated?
Sergey Lavrov: We’re always in favor of meeting with people who are ready for a dialogue. President Putin repeated this thousands of times.
When we met in Riyadh, together with President Putin’s Foreign Policy Advisor Yury Ushakov, with Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, the American colleagues clearly stated that the US policy is based firmly on US national interests. They understand that the Russian policy led by President Putin is also based on Russian national interests, and that it is the responsibility of great powers to make sure that whenever those national interests do not coincide, and this is in most of the cases, this difference should not be allowed to degenerate into confrontation. And that’s what dialogue is for.
But they also added that when the national interests of two countries or more countries coincide, it would be stupid to miss an opportunity to translate this coincidence into some material mutually beneficial projects. This is absolutely our position.
Question: You know that President Trump is coming up on 100 days in office, and he has made clear his patience is wearing thin with the diplomacy here. Do you expect the US and Russia to continue to talk after these potential peace talks fall apart? I mean, is the rebuilding of the relationship so significant now that you think it could withstand the peace talks in Ukraine falling apart?
Sergey Lavrov: First, Russia is always available for a dialogue. So you have to address the question to the American side. Second, you prejudge the current process by saying that eventual collapse of the talks.
We concentrate on doing business, not on thinking, you know, about failures or victories, about anything. Unless you concentrate on the facts, that’s what we do. You cannot be serious about what you are doing.
Question: Well, President Trump and Secretary Rubio said that the window was closing, that time is running out here. That’s not my opinion. That’s what they said.
Sergey Lavrov: No, wait a second. I just quoted Marco Rubio, who yesterday said about better understanding of the Russian position. So maybe you missed that. Question: Well, he also said a decision in days needed to be made and that the US has other things to focus on.
Sergey Lavrov: No. We understand the impatience. Because in American culture, you create expectations, and you ignite tension around those expectations. This does not help to do real politic.
But in our case, as I said, we are always ready for dialogue, ready for negotiations, and we would not, you know, begin by banking on a failure. This would be a characteristic of bad dealmakers, inexperienced dealmakers.
Question: Others in the Russian government have proposed that the US and Russia could work together in the Arctic. Are there specific areas of discussion for cooperating right now?
Sergey Lavrov: You always want me to disclose things which might be discussed by respective officials of Russia and the United States, by those who are responsible for trade, economic cooperation, investments, and so on and so forth.
How do you expect a participant of negotiations, which are still to reach some kind of specific understanding, to disclose details in public? It is not serious.
Yeah, I read President Trump’s book, “The Art to Make a Deal,” and he doesn’t advise to disclose information before it’s time.
Question: Respectfully, President Trump speaks quite a lot about the things he would like to do with Russia and opportunities to work together. I understand you don’t want to. On the specific things President Trump has said in public, one of the things he brought up is that the US could work with Ukraine to operate the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, which is in an area you know, Zaporozhye. Russians control that area right now. Do you agree with President Trump’s public statements that the best security would be for the US and Ukraine to operate that together?
Sergey Lavrov: No, we never received such an offer, and if we do, we would explain that the power station, Zaporozhskaya Nuclear Power Station, is run by the Russian Federation state corporation called Rosatom. It is being under monitoring of the IAEA personnel permanently located on the site, and if not for the Ukrainian regular attempts to attack the station and to create a nuclear disaster for Europe and for Ukraine, as well, the safety requirements are fully implemented. It is in very good hands.
Question: So that’s a no?
Sergey Lavrov: No. I don’t think any change is conceivable.
Question: Okay, because that was in a public statement from the White House to the media.
Sergey Lavrov: We, as I said, we did not receive any proposal which would be specific, so, you know, I understand that journalists have to speculate. We cannot speculate on something which is really not being mentioned during the negotiations.
Question: Zaporozhskaya station is not being negotiated right now?
Sergey Lavrov: Shall I say that for the third time? You wanted me to be brief.
Question: I heard you, but I just want to be abundantly clear because that is also widely reported to be in the US proposal currently on the table.
Sergey Lavrov: Why don’t you ask me about President Trump’s position on Crimea?
Question: You liked what President Trump said about Crimea yesterday when he said that it has been under Russian control.
Sergey Lavrov: It’s not about liking or disliking. It’s about the fact that he said the truth, and when Zelensky said that this is absolutely excluded because Crimea is part of Ukraine according to the constitution, nobody in Europe or in the States, by the way, reminded him that apart from territorial issues, the Ukrainian Constitution guarantees, I quote, “the free development, the use and protection of the Russian and other national minorities’ language in Ukraine,” and they guarantee the development of ethnic, cultural, language, and religious identity of all peoples and national minorities in Ukraine. This is also in the constitution, but as I mentioned already, and you decided not to go deeper into this topic, nobody in the West even mentions human rights when they demand that “Ukraine defeat Russia in the battlefield.“
Question: President Trump said Crimea is not even being discussed right now.
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, because this is a done deal.
Question: You mean Russia occupies and controls and will not negotiate the future of Crimea? Is that what you’re saying?
Sergey Lavrov: Russia do not negotiate its own territory. And President Trump understands this.
Question: One specific thing that you do want in the public space, you said everything else that I’ve asked you about in the US proposal is too sensitive to discuss. Is there any other part of the US proposal that you do like?
Sergey Lavrov: No, no, no. I only commented what was said publicly. And I also said that normal negotiators, I emphasize this once again, normal negotiators do not negotiate by throwing a microphone. They meet and they discuss, they listen to each other, they try to understand, they try to see where a balance of interest can be reached, and this is how our contacts with the American representatives are organized.
Question: Respectfully, you’ve been in the top levels of Russian diplomacy for 30 years…
Sergey Lavrov: For how many?
Question: For at least 30 years. I mean, you’ve been in very key diplomatic roles within the top of the Russian diplomatic system for a very, very long time. I don’t think any part of this is typical or normal, to use the words you used. Steve Witkoff is the envoy. Kirill Dmitriev is Vladimir Putin’s envoy here. Do you think it’s unfortunate that the international system of diplomacy isn’t being used more and that it’s this kind of one-on-one personal envoy structure?
Sergey Lavrov: You did not express your disappointment that the international system of diplomacy was not used for the entire duration of the Biden administration. You did not mention that Europeans are really very nervous that they’re being marginalized. But I can quote a lot of what Europeans stated. I mentioned already Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen, who said, “Any deal must make sure that Ukraine is stronger and that Ukraine is on top of Russia.”
Look, do you need negotiators who believe in this kind of logic and who don’t want to look for honest balance of interest? The Trump administration is interested in searching for a balance of interest. They sincerely want to understand better the Russian position. And they’re getting this understanding. And we understand better the American position through negotiations and meetings and discussions, which we have with them.
Question: Back in January, Russia signed a deal with Iran to become a strategic partner. Would Russia be willing to sever that relationship at the request of the US if it meant better relations with America?
Sergey Lavrov: There was never any request like this. And we welcome the process which was initiated between the United States and Iran. We are ready to be helpful if parties believe this can be the case. And they know this.
Question: You were the negotiator back in 2015 on behalf of Russia for that landmark international agreement, the JCPOA. And part of how Russia was helpful was destroying Iran’s enriched nuclear material. Is that an offer you would do again?
Sergey Lavrov: We were not involved in destroying Iran’s nuclear material.
Question: Disposing.
Sergey Lavrov: Part of the deal was to move some amount of this material to Russia for keeping.
Question: Okay. So not destroying, but keeping. Would you keep Iran’s enriched nuclear material that they’ve made?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, I said, “We are not putting our nose in the negotiations between the two countries, one of which is not Russia.” And I said very clearly, I believe, but you wanted a brief answer, I will have to be longer, since it is not probably getting through.
We welcome the dialogue between the US and Iran. We would be certainly ready to help if both parties believe this is going to be useful. And they know that we are ready.
Question: Well, back then, there were sanctions and pressure at the UN. It’s a very different dynamic now. I want to ask you quickly about nuclear weapons, because Russia is such a nuclear powerhouse. According to US intelligence, Russia is developing a new satellite meant to carry a nuclear weapon, which would knock out other satellites and devastate the U.S. if it’s used. That’s in publicly published material. Does Russia intend to violate past treaties and actually put a nuclear weapon in space?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, before asking this question, you have to check whether this is true or not, what your military, US intelligence says…
I was listening to President Trump about his views of what is the list of achievements of US intelligence. And I have my own facts on which I rely.
We have been promoting for many years in the United Nations a resolution prohibiting putting any nuclear weapons into outer space. The country which is categorically against it is the United States. At the same time, the United States promotes an approach according to which they want to prohibit putting conventional weapons in outer space. And they cannot answer the question, “Does this mean that nuclear weapons, they would be planning to move to the orbit?”
So my answer is very clear. We have been championing in the United Nations a legal prohibition of placing any nuclear weapons in outer space. And the United States, at least during the Biden administration, this was the case, they were categorically against it.
Question: It was the Trump administration’s intelligence community that published those findings just a few weeks ago. Are you saying the Trump administration’s intelligence community findings are incorrect in regard to Russia developing a new satellite meant to carry a nuclear weapon?
Sergey Lavrov: We denied those allegations. We, once again, cannot help repeating, have been promoting for years in the United Nations a treaty, not a declaration, a treaty prohibiting placing weapons in outer space. And the United States is against it. I cannot comment about the validity of the intelligence reports, as I told you. We never received any facts which would confirm the allegations.
Question: Do you have any interest in arms-control talks with the United States, with the Trump administration?
Sergey Lavrov: It was the United States which broke the process of strengthening strategic stability. And if the United States is willing to get back to this track, we will see what are the conditions under which this might be possible. As long as in the U.S. doctrinal documents, we are described as adversary, when the officials in Washington called some time ago, called us enemy.
So we want to understand what Washington thinks of our relationship and whether Washington is ready for, I would emphasize once again, an equal, mutually respectful dialogue heading to finding a balance of interest. If this is the approach, everything is possible.
Question: Minister, we are coming up on time, but just before I let you go from everything you laid out, I haven’t heard from you that Russia is willing to make any concession on anything to date.
Sergey Lavrov: No, my brief answer is you are wrong.
I have been emphasizing repeatedly in relation to Ukraine, in relation to strategic relations with the United States, I have been emphasizing our readiness to seek balance of interests. If this is not what your station considers readiness for negotiations, then I don’t know how to be even less eloquent in trying to be brief in my answers.
Question: Well, there have been very clear, specific things said by the Trump administration, such as the vice president saying that the current lines of contact in Ukraine would freeze and end up fairly close to where troops are right now. Do you actually consider that a concession?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t discuss publicly the details of what is being subject of negotiations. I understand that you love rumors because rumors are played around…
Question: The vice president of the United States said it on camera.
Sergey Lavrov: Was it a question? What did you say?
Question: Well, rumor. Rumor. You said it was a rumor. The vice president said it.
Sergey Lavrov: No, I said about us. We are not discussing things which are subject to negotiations.
Question: Okay. Minister Lavrov, thank you for your time.
New sanctions on Russia would mean two more years of war – Rubio
RT | April 27, 2025
The US administration has abstained from imposing new sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict, believing such a move would jeopardize negotiations and prolong hostilities, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said.
Speaking to NBC News’ Meet the Press on Sunday, Rubio questioned the usefulness of placing new restrictions on Moscow, stating Washington was “hoping to see” whether the diplomacy would work first.
“The minute you start doing that kind of stuff, you’re walking away from it, you’ve now doomed yourself to another two years of war and we don’t want to see it happen,” the top diplomat said.
Rubio claimed that the US is the only country or institution speaking to both Kiev and Moscow, and only US President Donald Trump has the potential to bring the warring sides to the negotiating table.
The upcoming week is expected to be “very critical” for the White House with regard to the talks, as the administration is trying to make a “determination about whether this is an endeavor that we want to continue to be involved in.” While Washington does not want to walk away, it does not want to “spend time on something that’s not going to get us there” either, the secretary explained.
“There are reasons to be optimistic, but there are reasons to be realistic. We’re close, but we’re not close enough,” he said.
The remarks from the US secretary of state come a day after Trump threatened Moscow with new sanctions over the conflict, accusing Russia’s leadership of trying to drag out hostilities and of “shooting missiles” into Ukraine for “no reason” over the past few days. Moscow maintains it only targets facilities and infrastructure used by Kiev’s military, and has repeatedly denied accusations of staging indiscriminate strikes on civilian areas.
Trump’s threats came as Moscow once again reiterated its readiness for discussions with Kiev without preconditions. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed the topic was brought up by Russian President Vladimir Putin during a meeting with Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow on Friday.
Ukraine’s leader, Vladimir Zelensky, explicitly banned negotiations with Russia for as long as Putin is in charge back in October 2022. Since then, he has seemingly softened his position, claiming the negotiating ban concerned everyone in the country but himself. Most recently, Kiev has demanded an unconditional ceasefire before any direct talks can happen.
Macron snubbed during Trump–Zelensky meeting in Vatican
RT | April 27, 2025
French President Emmanuel Macron was sidelined when his US counterpart Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky met before the funeral of Pope Francis on Saturday. Footage from the Vatican showed him being left out despite the Ukrainian leader’s apparent expectations that he would join.
Trump and Zelensky last met in February in the Oval Office. The meeting, where they’d intended to finalize a US-Ukraine minerals agreement and discuss a potential ceasefire with Russia, ended abruptly amid a heated exchange involving Vice President JD Vance, which led to the Ukrainian leader’s early departure from the White House.
Video footage from the Vatican showed Zelensky walking toward the seating area with Trump. He glanced back several times, reportedly expecting Macron to join. Three chairs were set up, suggesting plans for a three-way discussion. As the French president approached, Zelensky greeted him warmly with a smile and a hand gesture, inviting him to join.
However, just moments later, a staff member discreetly removed the third chair before the meeting began. Footage shows Trump gesturing openly while maintaining a firm posture, signaling the conversation would be strictly between him and Zelensky. Macron eventually stepped back as the two engaged directly.
Visuals captured Zelensky’s expression changing from confident to visibly tense upon realizing he would face Trump alone. The 15-minute meeting took place against a backdrop of growing tensions; the US president has pressured Kiev to accept what media outlets have termed his “final offer” to end hostilities. Reports suggest that Washington’s proposal involves freezing the conflict along the existing front lines and recognizing Crimea as part of Russia, a condition the Ukrainian leader has firmly rejected.
Trump stated in an interview with Time magazine on Friday that “Crimea will stay with Russia.” Before 2014, the peninsula was part of Ukraine, but it joined Russia after a referendum which followed a Western-backed coup in Kiev. Trump also recently reiterated that Zelensky “has no cards to play,” echoing what he told him during their last White House meeting.
Macron has been among Zelensky’s most steadfast supporters, and has consistently emphasized that any peace agreement must ensure Ukraine retains its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Russia has stressed, however, that any deal to end hostilities must not only acknowledge territorial reality but also address the conflict’s root causes, including Ukraine’s NATO aspirations.
Trump voiced satisfaction with negotiations between Washington and Moscow after Russian President Vladimir Putin held lengthy talks with US envoy Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin on Friday.
Trump’s diplomacy gains traction, silences sceptics
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | April 27, 2025
The US President Donald Trump is a lone ranger in the international arena and a self-confessed practitioner of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absolute maxim that ours is not an era of wars no matter the ‘casus belli’. He sets a high benchmark for himself and makes himself open to attack by hawkish opinion makers at home, although a staunch nationalist who puts American interests first regardless of their legitimacy.
Trump’s cabinet ministers do not necessarily subscribe to his bottom line, as the vitriolic, intrusive remark by the US’ Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, regarding the cascading tensions in India-Pakistan relations would suggest.
The stunning thing about Trump’s mindset is that he is also a man of convictions. Not many would know or choose to recall that this extraordinary person, decades before he actually waded into American politics and threw his hat on the presidential ring as an outlier, paid to New York Times a princely sum of $98,000 out of his (businessman’s) pocket to feature a one-page supplement at the dawn of the Ronald Reagan presidency espousing the hidden charms of a détente with the Soviet Union and offered his services as special envoy dedicated to that task.
The run-of-the-mill politicians may pontificate noble thoughts but do not practice them when the crunch time comes. On the contrary, strong convictions have a multiplier effect on Trump’s actions, which is what distinguishes his diplomacy so far. The image of his one-on-one with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky at the Vatican on Saturday will remain etched in memory for a very long time to come.
In the chaotic international situation today as the world order is transitioning from one epochal era — nearly five centuries of western dominance — to another that is inchoate still, the temptation is always there for the US, as by far the single biggest military power on the planet, to leverage its prowess and coercive means to have its way. In fact, globalism and the neocon ideology of interventionism are still very much the principal current in the stream of consciousness of American elites, civilian and military, and is a bipartisan consensus too.
Tulsi Gabbard is not an exception; today’s papers have reported that another neocon well-known in South Asia as a long-time specialist on the South Asian region, Christine Fair, has echoed the very same “free hand to India” chorus — and, unlike Gabbard, she has actually done extensive work on the region and is credited with insights into Pakistan’s use of terrorists as state policy. “That’s the right message to send even if by accident. Why should the US bail out Pakistan by trying to restrain India? Pakistan has to be taught a lesson… by India,” Fair posted on X.
Suffice to say, on all three major vectors of the present international situation, Trump is reining in the US’ natural instincts for use of force — the Ukraine crisis, the situation around Iran and the Indo-Pacific devolving upon US-China relations. And that is already having a calming effect on international security.
Credit goes entirely to Trump for the backtracking by Russian President Vladimir Putin from the high horse he mounted on June 14 last year in his landmark speech at the foreign ministry in Moscow where he set forth conditions for commencing dialogue with Ukraine, which included, amazingly enough, a summary withdrawal by Ukrainian forces from the territories they still held in Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts in the southeastern regions of their country!
Of course, Putin is a pragmatist but if he felt emboldened to make concessions it is at the astonishing sight of the smart power that Trump deployed to whittle down Zelensky’s obdurate stance by holding in front of the latter to sip from a chalice of poison accepting that Crimea is an integral part of Russia!
On the other hand, Trump has scattered the hare-brained scheme of the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron for the creation of a ‘coalition of the willing’ for deployment in Ukraine as a bulwark against Russia. In political terms, Trump crushed at one stroke the resistance from Europe to his peace plans for Ukraine and asserted the US’ leadership.
Most important, Trump forced Zelensky (and his European backers) to see the writing on the wall that the choice is between travelling on the pathway that he is opening through peace talks or inviting his country’s annexation by Russia. And in this entire enterprise, not a volley of shots was fired by the Pentagon.
When it comes to the Iran nuclear issue and China, Trump is quintessentially adopting the same approach. Although in the case of Iran, high-pitched rhetorical flourishes continue — which Iran habitually ignores as bluster — all reports suggest that the negotiations have gained traction.
This is reflected in the remark by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi after the third round of negotiations with the US special envoy Steve Witkoff in Muscat on Saturday. Araqchi said, “I am satisfied with the progress of the negotiations and their pace. They are proceeding well and remain satisfactory.” Importantly, he weighed in that “It was quite evident that both sides were serious and entered the talks with determination. This creates an atmosphere that gives us hope for progress in the negotiations.”
Nuclear experts from two sides and the IAEA are likely attending the next round of talks. Araqchi acknowledged that some “very serious” differences and some other not-so-serious differences still exist but, the point is, “The past experiences help us to make our progress easier and faster, but I believe that so far, our progress has been good.”
Equally, the US and China are tiptoeing toward the negotiating table. The paradox is, the dramatic standoff on tariffs helped the two sides to peer into the abyss and realise that they don’t like what they are seeing. Trump has conceded that high tariffs are not to the advantage of either side and has exuded confidence that a balanced deal is within realms of possibility. Meanwhile, notably, there has been no belligerent display of assertion of ‘freedom of navigation’ in the waters around Taiwan by the US Navy since Trump returned to the Oval Office.
In all three cases — Ukraine, Iran and China — Trump is also looking for generating business opportunities for the US economy. In fact, Russia and Iran have already voiced at the highest level of leadership their interest and openness to developing mutually beneficial economic partnerships with the US if only the relations are normalised. Indeed, China can’t be far behind, either, once the dust settles down.
The most profound outcome of Trump’s diplomatic odyssey could be its impact on the global situation. While it is too early to speak of a ‘butterfly effect’, eventually, such a phenomenon is to be expected. Arguably, Trump’s intervention must be a welcome thing. There should be no false pride over third party mediation when protagonists are patently unable to settle their differences and resultant tensions threaten international security.
If Putin can see the reasonableness of Trump’s mediation, can Modi be far behind? In the 21st century, it is unrealistic to try to impose solutions unilaterally. Conversely, if the ‘lone superpower’ and an ancient ‘civilisation power’ can show the humility to take the mediation of a small country like Oman, it only underscores their self-confidence and order of national priorities.
The negotiations over Ukraine and the Iran nuclear issue testify to the correctness of Modi’s prophecy that ours is not an era of wars. Equally, its natural corollary is that solutions cannot be unilaterally imposed by nation states in the emerging world order in the 21st century .
Rhetorical deterrence at the heart of US foreign policy
By Mohamed Lamine KABA | New Eastern Outlook | April 27, 2025
Weakened by its role in the proxy conflict in Ukraine and hampered by its trade war against China, the United States is moving toward purely rhetorical deterrence without any real evidence of its power.
This strategy proves not to be a lever of intimidation, but an implicit admission of powerlessness on the international stage.
As global dynamics are characterized by the return of the military state, implying the return of the state of war, Michael Kratsios’s declaration of a mysterious and overpowering weapon raises questions about the United States’ communication strategy regarding deterrence. This three-part, interrelated analysis highlights the dangers of deterrence lacking evidence and likely to undermine Washington’s international credibility. While effective deterrence relies on material displays of power, the evasive communication of the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is a sign of weakness that incites provocations and calls into question American supremacy.
This strategy – consisting of reassuring oneself that this or that adversary is fearful –can generate diplomatic tensions, shake the confidence of allies, particularly within NATO, and potentially provoke an escalation in the Cold War-style arms race of 1947-1991. If the goal of Kratsios‘s statement is to intimidate actors such as China or Russia, the lack of tangible evidence could be interpreted as an attempt at manipulation that could lead to a surge in their military capabilities in response. Rhetorical deterrence without concrete support is therefore a perilous strategy. It risks compromising the United States’ strategic position and generating unpredictable geopolitical dynamics. This highlights the importance of clear and informed communication in maintaining a stable balance of power on the international stage.
Incidentally, in a context of major geopolitical transformation, we are witnessing an erosion of the once unchallenged American hegemony. This development is the result of the rise of the BRICS, a questioning of American leadership, and the growing ineffectiveness of traditional deterrence strategies.
The United States, faced with a challenge to its supremacy, is confronting the emergence of powers such as China and Russia, which are developing alternatives to Western structures and reshaping strategic alliances. The adoption of rhetorical deterrence by the United States, without tangible evidence of its military strength, raises concerns about its equally strategic credibility. At the same time, the reshaping of international alliances, with blocs such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, is reducing American influence and encouraging many countries to diversify their diplomatic and economic relations. This is undoubtedly the era of the shift of global power towards the Global South. Neither Washington, nor Brussels, and certainly not London, can stop this global power transition.
Deterrence without evidence is a risky bet for the United States
Historically, deterrence has relied on a palpable show of force, ranging from nuclear weapons to cyber capabilities to dis-constrained military superiority. However, the current US tendency to favor a rhetorical deterrence strategy, preferring statements over tangible actions, raises questions about the credibility of its power and the repercussions on its geopolitical positioning as indicated above in the introduction.
This once unshakeable credibility is crumbling on the international stage, with strategic dominance compromised by rhetoric unsupported by verifiable evidence. Kratsios’ mention of a weapon, without concrete evidence, already diminishes the perception of American strength, especially in the face of formidable adversaries such as China and Russia, who might see it as a sign of weakness and call into question the robustness of American deterrence. This strategy also impacts diplomatic relations, particularly with U.S. NATO allies, who may question Washington’s transparency and the reality of this alleged weapon, creating diplomatic tensions and eroding the trust of strategic partners.
Furthermore, such communication could stimulate an arms race, pushing other nations to develop military technologies in the face of an ambiguous threat. If the intention is to intimidate adversaries, as mentioned above, this strategy could backfire on the United States. In the absence of material evidence, powers such as China or Russia, as well as many others in the Global South, could perceive this announcement as a bluff and strengthen their military capabilities in response. Moreover, the media and analysts could seize on this rhetoric to criticize U.S. defense policy, highlighting a strategy perceived as uncertain and unreliable. Bluntly put, rhetorical deterrence is a high-risk strategy that, without strong evidence, could not only weaken the United States’ international stature but also generate unpredictable geopolitical dynamics.
A strategy that weakens the United States and impacts its alliances and diplomacy
At the heart of contemporary geopolitics undergoing a complete reshaping, the United States’ rhetorical deterrence strategy, recently highlighted by statements from the director of the US Office of Science and Technology Policy, raises questions about the robustness of international alliances and Washington’s diplomatic credibility. This tactic, characterized by evasive and unsubstantiated statements, threatens to profoundly disrupt America’s geopolitical stature.
Allied trust, essential to collective security, is being tested by ambiguous announcements about hypothetical weapons. This sows doubt and potentially weakens transatlantic cooperation. Partners could be encouraged to diversify their alliances and strengthen their defensive autonomy. At the same time, American diplomacy, traditionally anchored in the projection of force and leadership, is being shaken. Rival powers, such as Russia, China, and a host of others, could take advantage of this uncertainty to further challenge the reliability of the United States while consolidating their regional influence and presenting themselves as stable alternatives.
Moreover, this uncertainty could fuel an arms race, exacerbating global tensions and increasing the risk of conflict, while eroding alliance cohesion. This purely rhetorical US deterrence strategy is a dangerous game with potentially far-reaching and unpredictable consequences for diplomacy and international relations.
The dangers of rhetorical deterrence, a strategy that can backfire on the United States
The rhetorical deterrence strategy put forward by figures such as Michael Kratsios is proving to be a bold gamble with potentially destabilizing repercussions for the American superpower. By relying on evasive statements lacking solid foundations, the United States is exposing itself to highly complex geopolitical issues that could undermine its global supremacy. This tactic risks having a boomerang effect on its international credibility, as historical geopolitical adversaries such as China and Russia, as well as the growing number of emerging adversaries in the European Union, NATO, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, may perceive this rhetoric as a lack of firmness or an attempt at disinformation.
The absence of concrete evidence could encourage these adversaries to challenge the resilience of American deterrence, potentially leading to an escalation of tensions internationally. Moreover, this approach could be interpreted as strategic arrogance, generating hostility among both emerging nations and historic allies. The policy of rhetorical deterrence also runs the risk of losing control of geopolitical dynamics. Faced with uncertainty about the true scope of this strategy, US rivals could intensify the development of their military and technological capabilities, increasing the risk of armed conflict. China, for example, could redouble its efforts in technological innovation, while Russia could seek to consolidate its alliances with countries in the Global South. This armed escalation, fueled by unverifiable rhetoric, is likely to further weaken global stability and diminish US influence in major international negotiations.
Furthermore, Kratsios’s remarks could negatively affect public and media perceptions of the United States. Critical media coverage could erode the United States’ image as a global leader and raise questions about the validity of its defensive policy and geopolitical strategy. This altered perception could influence public opinion in allied countries, diminishing their support for American initiatives and weakening established alliances. Verbal deterrence practiced by the United States therefore proves to be a risky strategy that, in the absence of material evidence, could reverse its international credibility, compromise its alliances, and fuel unpredictable geopolitical dynamics. This approach, far from consolidating the American position, could paradoxically precipitate its decline on the global stage.
The lesson to be learned is that the illusion of supremacy is crumbling as the United States reels in the face of a world that no longer dances to its rhythm. In this new order in the making, history no longer bends to old dominations, but to the realities of a power that eludes those who believed it was eternally acquired.
Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in Geopolitics of Governance and Regional Integration, Institute of Governance, Humanities and Social Sciences, Pan-African University
That Fluoride Added to Your Town Water to ‘Prevent Cavities?’ The EPA Says It’s Hazardous Waste
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 24, 2025
After Utah last month became the first state to ban water fluoridation, local water managers now face a dilemma: How should they dispose of the remaining fluoride?
Mainstream media, dental associations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other proponents of water fluoridation repeatedly state that the “miracle mineral” fluoride is a “naturally occurring” mineral.
But the fluoride added to town water supplies is far from natural.
Naturally occurring fluoride is calcium fluoride. The fluoride added to water is the byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production, sold off by chemical companies to local water departments across the country.
The byproduct comes in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is used by most large cities to fluoridate their water.
Hydrofluorosilicic acid is considered a hazardous substance and must be disposed of following strict environmental regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Scott Paxman, general manager of the Weber Basin Conservancy District, which provides water to over 700,000 Utah residents, told The Defender that he reached out to the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to inquire about fluoride disposal.
DEQ told Paxman that once the May 7 deadline to end fluoridation in Utah kicks in, any water districts that still have fluoride in their facilities will be subject to regulation as generators of hazardous waste — requiring them to follow an expensive and time-consuming set of regulatory requirements to get rid of their hydrofluorosilicic acid.
Paxman said he was outraged that his water conservancy district would be classified as a hazardous waste generator. “We aren’t hazardous waste generators,” he said. “We are just middlemen.”
He said that for years, water operators in Utah had been raising concerns about the hazards of the acid that they saw firsthand in their facilities and the health risks they and the public faced from fluoride exposure.
Water operators like Paxman were active in the campaign to end fluoridation in Utah, he said. Now they were not getting the guidance they needed to dispose of the chemicals.
‘They have no idea how toxic this stuff is’
Paxman said DEQ’s first suggestion was that the water districts run out the fluoride by stepping up the feed rates of fluoride into the water. The agency pointed out that they could go as high as 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) — which is the current maximum contaminant level (MCL) enforceable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The 4 mg/L maximum contaminant level was challenged in the recent landmark lawsuit against the EPA for failing to appropriately regulate the chemical. The EPA lost, and the judge in the case directed the agency to enact new regulations. The EPA is appealing the ruling.
Four mg/L is the level at which fluoride causes skeletal fluorosis, a debilitating condition that causes skeletal deformities. The judge in the federal lawsuit ruled that at 0.7 mg/L, water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to children’s health, because evidence shows it leads to reduced IQ.
Paxman said when he saw that suggestion, he realized, “Oh my God, they have no idea what they are talking about. They have no idea how toxic this stuff is.”
Other ideas floated by DEQ included selling the leftover hazardous waste to other states still fluoridating, or returning it to Thatcher Chemical, the industrial chemical distributor that sold them the so-called miracle mineral.
Better guidelines needed for handling, disposing fluoride as hazardous chemical
Paxman has worked with input from fluoride toxicity expert Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., and DEQ to develop better guidelines that have since been shared with water operators.
“Since this is a hazardous chemical, with elevated levels of arsenic, lead, mercury and chromium, it must be handled and disposed of as a hazardous chemical, as state and federal regulations require,” Paxman wrote in an email to colleagues.
Operators must legally continue fluoridation until May 7, when they will “mothball” all systems — disconnecting them, shutting down power and winterizing them.
Then they will hire a hazardous waste cleanup company like Clean Harbors to clean up the rest — pumping out their tanks and disposing of the hydrofluorosilicic acid at a hazardous waste facility. He anticipates it will cost his facility alone about $125,000.
Paxman said that at Weber Basin, they have lowered the levels from the recommended 0.7 mg/L to the minimum requirement of 0.5 mg/L out of concern for public safety.
Paxman’s concerns about the hazardous chemical reflect concerns long raised by scientists, even within the regulatory agencies.
In 2000, Dr. William Hirzy, the senior vice president of the EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists and Professionals, said:
“If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant … There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.”
Other cities, including Branson, Missouri, that voted to end water fluoridation have raised similar concerns that disposing of fluoride will be expensive, because it is hazardous waste.
So-called ‘miracle mineral’ also contains other heavy metals
Unlike the fluoride in toothpaste, fluoridation chemicals are not of pharmaceutical-grade quality. They are unpurified industrial byproducts collected in the air pollution control systems of fertilizer production systems.
The industry formerly allowed these byproducts to vent into the air until it was compelled to mitigate them.
The phosphate industry collects the fluoride gas in a “wet scrubber,” and the resulting hydrofluorosilicic acid liquid is put into storage tanks and shipped to water departments.
In declarations made as part of the fluoride lawsuit, all three major producers of fluorosilicic acid, Mosaic, Solvay and Simplot confirmed that they have never done safety or effectiveness studies on the FDA chemicals they sell for water fluoridation.
Mosaic also noted that the market for their chemicals is “in large part based on the endorsement of fluoridation of public drinking water sources by the American Dental Association and other human health, professional or scientific groups.”
The chemicals are known to contain elevated levels of certain contaminants, including arsenic.
Recently, Mullenix said, producers of water fluoridation compounds have moved their operations to China, where there is even less regulation — which means more dangerous conditions for workers and more contaminated material.
According to the EPA, by 2019, well over half of the water fluoridation chemicals were imported from China.
Mullenix said she has been frustrated for years by the fact that public health policy makers and public health departments “have totally turned a blind eye to the chemical.”
“They gave no attention to what’s going to happen if you have an overfeed, how do you dispose of the chemical if it’s spilled or leaked? They paid no attention to that or to what the chemical really was,” she said.
This posed a serious problem for water operators. She has worked for years advising workers injured at work handling hydrofluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride, which smaller communities sometimes use to fluoridate their water.
Mullenix said regulations control only the contaminant level for fluoride itself — which extensive research, including her own, has shown to be a neurotoxicant. The regulations don’t account for other heavy metals present in the acid. “What about the arsenic MCL?” she asked, “What about the lead?”
Unseen risks in the technical process of fluoridating water
Paxman said fluoridating water isn’t as simple as turning a switch on or off, and it’s not cheap, despite what the regulatory agencies told water operators in Utah when they began fluoridating the water in the early 2000s.
Davis County spent tens of millions of dollars to build ten water fluoridation stations, he said. “And we found out very quickly that you don’t fool around with the fluorosilicic acid that we feed into the tanks. It’s super, super corrosive and it off-gases, even from the sealed polyethylene tanks.”
He said the gases etch the glass, corrode the door frames and all of the electronics. It also impacts the health of the operators, he said, who complain of migraines and other health issues when they have to enter the fluoride facilities on a regular basis.
After one of their operators in 2012 was hospitalized when he inhaled fumes during the delivery of hydrofluorosilicic acid from Thatcher, Weber Basin began periodically contracting a state-certified external lab to analyze the chemicals provided, so they could check the contaminant levels themselves and compare them to the company’s claims.
The certificates of analysis show that the shipments of fluoride that then go into the water system regularly have extremely high levels of arsenic and sometimes lead or other metals.
A comparison of the certificates of analysis provided by Thatcher and those done by an independent lab also showed discrepancies between what the company certified and what was in the fluoride that Weber received, which had higher levels of antimony, arsenic, cadmium and other metals.
He also said that the systems have a complex technology in place to measure the amount of fluoride going into the water, but that the dose of fluoride in water inevitably varies. “We have maintained the 0.7 level, but that’s an average,” he said. The actual levels are always “bouncing all over the place,” depending on water flow rates.
He said this is a challenge for fluoridation systems all across the country, and it means that sometimes fluoride levels in drinking water are over the 0.7 mg/L recommended dosage — which is the level that already poses a risk to children’s health.
Accidents, cover-ups, corruption and lack of accountability ‘happening everywhere’
Fluoride accidents and overfeeds happen regularly, according to the Fluoride Action Network, which tracks publicly recorded accidents on a webpage. Accidents range from a small, 10-gallon spill in 2012 in Connecticut to an incident in New Orleans in 2008, where the fluorosilicic acid ate through its storage tanks and then through a concrete containment tank.
To avoid a “catastrophic mix of toxic chemicals,” the environment department discharged nearly half a million gallons of the toxic acid into the Mississippi River.
In the city of Sandy, Utah, in 2019, a malfunctioning pump in the water fluoridation system released undiluted hydrofluorosilicic acid into the water in 2019, affecting 1,500 households, institutions and businesses and sickening over 200 people.
An investigation revealed that officials failed to notify the public for 10 days and that fluoride was detected in the drinking water at 40 times the recommended levels.
Fifth-grader Max Widmaier drank that over-fluoridated water in school and soon after spiked a high fever, developed tics, had severe emotional swings, and had developmental regression so severe that at one point he lost the ability to put together sentences, his mother, Jenny Widmaier, told The Defender.
Medical records shared with The Defender showed that after Max was exposed to the over-fluoridated water, he had high levels of several heavy metals in his blood. Several months of intense therapies and strict dietary changes eventually helped Max to recover.
However, Jenny said, Max has essentially no memory of the entire year and to this day cannot be exposed to any fluoride — even food cooked in fluoridated water — without a severe reaction.
The family received no compensation from the city.
Lorna Rosenstein, executive director of Waterwatch of Utah, told The Defender that Sandy was just one of the accidents in Utah in recent years.
In 2007, an estimated 1,500 gallons of hydrofluorosilicic acid was released in a tank rupture at a treatment plant in Salt Lake County, Deseret News reported.
In North Salt Lake in 2014, a feeder pump malfunctioned, and 140 gallons of hydrofluorosilicic acid spilled from the drinking water well house out to the curb and gutter and into the storm drain, according to documents Rosenstein obtained via public records requests.
She has been holding water officials, politicians, and health agency officials accountable for their actions regarding fluoride for years through her public records requests and public advocacy.
Rosenstein said the rules, violations, accidents, cover-ups, corruption and general lack of accountability that kept fluoridation going in Utah are happening everywhere.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Former Biden “Disinfo” Board Chief Urges EU to Resist Criticism on Censorship Laws
In Strasbourg, Jankowicz rewrites the script, casting Washington as the villain in Europe’s censorship push.
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 24, 2025
Former head of former President Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz, has found a new audience for her political and ideological narratives – and it’s EU institutions.
Jankowicz – known by her critics as “Biden’s disinformation czar” (or at least, would have been one, had the Disinformation Governance Board not been so short lived) – this week spoke at a meeting of a European Parliament committee dedicated to EU Commission’s latest censorship initiative, “the European Democracy Shield.”
The meeting was called to discuss risks to democracy, in this case, what the bloc considers to be Russian disinformation campaigns, but Jankowicz focused on the US administration, referring to her country as “another autocracy” that she wants the EU to “stand firm against.”
Jankowicz took the opportunity to warn that the US administration is “undoubtedly preparing a pressure campaign” to make the EU abandon (censorship) rules like the Digital Services Act (DSA). In the same breath, she also claimed that Washington will pressure Brussels to “end support for Ukraine, to stop holding Russia to account.”
Jankowicz had trouble keeping to the theme of the meeting, namely, “Russian hybrid threats,” and kept returning to her anti-Trump agenda, stating that just as Russia, China, Iran, and others are busy with their “interference campaigns” – in the US, “homegrown anti-democratic forces have launched a coordinated campaign to undermine researchers, journalists, advocates and civil servants who work to expose their lies.”
She was also critical of US tech giants accusing them of being complicit in creating “global instability” and again went back to Trump, his administration’s supposed “capture” of major social networks, only to conclude that neither are interested “in preserving democracy.”
Jankowicz singled out US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his decision to shut down the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI) Hub, which was a rebrand of the also disbanded Global Engagement Center (GEC), a State Department entity involved in flagging social media posts for censorship.
But to Jankowicz, the steps the current administration has been taking to dismantle the intricate and documented system of online censorship is done merely “under the guise of protecting free speech.”
Jankowicz also told the EP commission that she supported 51 former intelligence officials who penned a letter suggesting the Hunter Biden laptop story was “disinformation” – a claim that has since been debunked, but at the time, just before the 2020 election, led to widespread censorship of the New York Post article on the subject.
“A valid expression of free speech,” is how Jankowicz views the letter.
Featured Video
Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A low-fat, high-carb diet has been the largest public health experiment in history. It’s past time for a rethink.
By Malcolm Kendrick | RT | November 25, 2020
New research suggests that four billion people globally will be overweight in 2050. This trend can be traced back to the ‘low-fat, high-carb’ guidelines first issued in the 70s, and should prompt a major U-turn on dietary advice.
A recent report from the Potsdam Institute predicts that by 2050 there will be four billion overweight people in the world, with one-and-a-half billion of them obese. This is not entirely surprising. The world has been getting fatter for years, and things do not seem to be slowing down.
Why is this happening? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- OPCW Forced To Pay Damages To Whistleblower Who Found Evidence Of False Flag In Syria
- Iran can thrive under blockade, the US and its allies cannot
- Iran slams US leadership, debunking fabrications, false war costs
- Here’s why Iran is sovereign and Germany is not
- Israel pours $730m into global propaganda machine as reputation collapses
- Leaked audios reveal pro-Israel groups ‘paid’ for US pardon of convicted drug trafficker Juan Orlando Hernandez
- Congress Extends Section 702 Spy Program 45 Days
- Zionists Are Gunning for Your Freedom of Speech
- Larry Johnson: U.S. Desperation Grows as Iran Is Winning
- Why don’t UK media mention the Israel lobby?
- If Americans Knew
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- Israel’s top Jewish religious body ‘refuses to condemn’ smashing of Jesus statue
- Nun assaulted in Jerusalem amid ‘pattern’ of anti-Christian attacks by Israelis
- Former Tik Tok official describes massive pressure from Israel lobby
- Amid ceasefire violations and genocide, Israel commits piracy – Daily Update
- Five Laws and Standards That Require the US Cut Off Weapons to Israel
- Israel’s diabolical killing machine and how it targets journalists.
- The Global Sumud Flotilla to Gaza — A cry at sea to the world’s dormant conscience
- No Tricks Zone
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
Aletho News 