Posted by @nsanzo ⋅ 04/28/2025
“We all know how unpleasant the next agreement will be for those who have been deceived about the outcome all these years. That's why the packaging is of utmost importance. Rutte is doing everything possible,” Russian opposition journalist Leonid Ragozin wrote yesterday on social media. He was referring to the NATO Secretary General's smiling remarks during an appearance on Fox News , the favorite channel of Donald Trump and his political entourage, who stated that “President Trump's leadership has broken the deadlock,” adding that “any deal on Ukraine must be lasting,” and stating that “acknowledging the occupation of Crimea does not mean legally recognizing it, like the Baltic countries did in the 1950s.” Rutte also insisted on the need to increase military spending to 3% of NATO member countries' GDP, linking it to Russian “weakness,” a case in point, in the strange Atlantist logic of the recent Russian missile attack on Kiev.
In Rutte's words, one can see how his discourse is adapting to the circumstances, in this case to the possibility—or risk—of an agreement between Russia and Ukraine, which under current conditions will entail a loss of territory that is being presented as temporary. An example with a happy ending for the West is provided: that of the Baltic countries and their independence from the Soviet Union. For the NATO Secretary General, the main objectives appear to be to ensure that there is no US recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea and to guarantee a sharp increase in military spending on the continent, undoubtedly aimed at the future armed peace in which the fight against Russia will continue through a military presence in Ukraine, which implies a certain arms race, and through economic means. Hence, from the perspective of NATO, which has always had its raison d'être in the political confrontation with Moscow, a peace agreement that perpetuates the political conflict cannot be considered a tragedy.
The conditions under which this cold war phase between two heavily armed blocs will occur depend in part on what the lobbying work being carried out by Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, and the pressure from Volodymyr Zelensky and the more radical representatives of the European Union, can achieve with Donald Trump. Particularly important in this effort is the response that Ukraine and its European allies—the United Kingdom, France, and Germany—have given to Washington after receiving the final offer from the United States. It is clear from reading this document that the objectives are threefold: to ensure that Ukraine receives control of strategic positions and that it does not have to assume the loss of other territories in advance; to avoid the commitment to lift European sanctions against Russia; and to receive the support and assistance of the United States for the control and monitoring of a possible ceasefire and for the subsequent militarization of Ukraine, camouflaged by the oft-repeated security guarantees .
For months, especially since Donald Trump announced his intention to move quickly toward resolving the war and clearly distanced himself from US participation in post-ceasefire security guarantees, European countries have struggled to find a way to balance an increased continental role with maintaining Washington's support, necessary to launch the peace mission initially envisioned. In this effort, Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, currently to the right of NATO in terms of their belligerence and rejection of a negotiated peace agreement with the Russian Federation, have taken the lead in European leadership in seeking tougher measures against Russia.
In this endeavor, France and Germany are aligning themselves with the continent's most radical countries, as demonstrated by the fact that the chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committees of the French and German parliaments have signed, along with Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, a letter stating that "negotiating with the war criminal Putin is useless; his main objective is to undermine or humiliate our ally, the United States." The letter, which calls Russia a "terrorist regime," demands accelerated Ukraine's accession to the European Union, and calls "on the United States and other NATO members to admit Ukraine to NATO without delay." It insists that "there can be no compromise or external pressure on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," a recipe for eternal war that, for certain sectors of the European establishment , is preferable to a negotiated ceasefire. Appealing to a simile as incomparable as it is overused, the text declares that "we cannot repeat the mistakes of Munich in 1938." Amid all this belligerent rhetoric, the main message may be the one that emerges from the statement that "strong leadership in European countries is also needed, along with strengthened transatlantic solidarity."
That seemingly innocent phrase in a markedly exalted text reflects a stubborn reality: European countries may aspire to show leadership at the public and media levels, but they depend on the United States to carry out their political and military plans. Until the Paris meeting and the subsequent failed London summit, European countries had not even been invited to the negotiation of a peace agreement whose post-war situation they will have to address politically, militarily, and economically. The attempt by the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to significantly improve the terms of the agreement that the United States will present to Moscow is not only a response to defending Ukraine, but also has a component of self-interest. Despite periodic references to European strategic autonomy , even the most basic military deterrence mission that Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer have been preparing for months depends directly on the participation of the United States.
“Britain is likely to abandon its plans to send thousands of troops to protect Ukraine because the risks are deemed ‘too high,’” The Times states . After months of European countries boasting about their strength and insisting that the mission depended solely on their own will and Ukrainian permission, Russian opinion and US participation ultimately proved to be the most important factors. “In an apparent softening of the plans, Britain and Europe would no longer have a ground force guarding key cities, ports, and nuclear power plants to ensure peace,” the article insists, seeking to present the initial abandonment of the flagship measure of the Starmer-Macron plan, which was “in the operational phase” of preparations, as a gesture of peace rather than a lack of autonomy. “It is hoped that this shift in military support for Ukraine could push Moscow to move its red lines toward a peace agreement,” the article continues, reporting that the operation will be limited, for now, to sending troops to instruct and train the Ukrainian army in western Ukraine, the safest and most remote area from the front lines. “Much of what we hear from Brussels, Paris, and London these days is just damage control,” commented Leonid Ragozin.
Rather than a peacekeeping, peacekeeping, or even deterrence mission—the lowest level of a foreign military presence—“the security commitment to Ukraine would focus on rebuilding and rearmament of Kiev’s military, with protection from the air and sea,” The Times clarifies . This is consistent with the position of European countries, which have opted for the continuation of the proxy war, in which they provided the weapons and ammunition and the funding to keep the state afloat while Ukraine provided the troops and assumed all the risk.
“Arms from the UK and Europe would continue to flow, so Ukraine would be in a strong position should Russia break the terms of any agreement. Nothing has yet been ruled out, and the Ministry of Defense is clear that Britain would not be prepared to abandon plans to send troops to the country in some capacity,” The Times continues . Under current conditions, without the security guarantee of US involvement, the European objective is to militarize Ukraine while remaining a safe haven, though without completely withdrawing the option of a military presence, which is always linked to US readiness.
“A source involved in discussions about a ‘coalition of the willing’ referred to plans for a force of tens of thousands of ground troops: ‘The risks are too high and the forces inadequate for such a task,’” The Times adds . When things don’t go as planned, it’s always useful to look for a scapegoat. “This has always been the UK’s idea,” the outlet quotes one of its sources as saying, “it was France that wanted a more muscular approach .”
European countries, including the United Kingdom and France, want to continue fighting for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty, but they don't want to risk having to confront Russia without the essential help of their American partner.
https://slavyangrad.es/2025/04/28/plane ... -terceros/
Google Translator
******
From Cassad's telegram account:
Colonelcassad
Putin declared a truce on May 9 to mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.
The enemy will certainly try to break it, as it did the Easter truce.
During the days of the 80th anniversary of Victory – from midnight on May 7-8 to midnight on May 10-11 – the Russian side declares a truce. All military actions cease during this period.
Russia believes that the Ukrainian side should follow this example.
In the event of a violation of the truce by the Ukrainian side, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will give an adequate and effective response – Putin
***
Colonelcassad
The enemy admitted that a Su-27 fighter was lost in an air battle with the Geraniums.
Most likely, either he tried to shoot it down too close and was cut by shrapnel, or the PPO Titans shot down their own, as is tradition.
It is worth noting that this is not the first episode of a Geranium's victory over an enemy fighter. In 2022, an exploding Geranium shot down an enemy MiG-29 fighter.
Thus, the Geraniums have already shot down at least 2 enemy fighters in air battles.
***
Colonelcassad
The President of Congo announced that he would also attend the Victory Parade in Moscow on May 9.
According to him, he is going to meet with Putin in a situation where his country is choosing a multipolar world. Congo is still grateful to the USSR for its assistance.
Congo wants to join BRICS and develop joint projects with Russia.
Of course, we need to work there within the framework of our general strategy for the decolonization of Africa, which enables African countries to free themselves from the colonial yoke and become more independent, while Russia gets the opportunity to expand its influence in Africa, obtain new military bases and conclude favorable agreements on the joint extraction of natural resources. The rich history of the USSR's participation in the decolonization of Africa plays an important role in restoring our positions on the African continent. The investments that we refused under Gorbachev and Yeltsin were not in vain. Thanks to them, among other things, the French neocolonial empire was crushed.
https://t.me/s/boris_rozhin
Google Translator
******
Russian General Staff Confirms: North Korean Troops Fought Valiantly in Kursk
Simplicius
Apr 26, 2025
Today Putin announced the complete liberation of the Kursk region: (Video at link.)
In reality, it seems the Kremlin has made a habit out of reporting slightly premature victories, as they famously did in Khrynki last year. Ukrainian troops have been driven back to nearly the border, but top map makers on both sides still maintain a tiny sliver of Kursk land held by dogged AFU units. To be fair, Gerasimov did indicate in the report that the last few Ukrainian stragglers hiding in abandoned sheds and woods near the border were being hunted down.
But the biggest ‘shock’ came when Gerasimov made official confirmation of the active participation of North Korean troops in the Kursk theater: (Video at link.)
And it wasn’t mere presence—Gerasimov reports they fought shoulder to shoulder with Russian troops. And now that the cat’s out of the bag, there are more details trickling out from Russian frontline journos who had previously been sworn to OPSEC about the DPRK forces.
One channel published this photo of what is claimed to be real DPRK troops:
Famed journo Alexander Kots filled in the following:
How Koreans Helped Us Liberate Kursk Region
Until now, Russia has neither confirmed nor denied the presence of DPRK troops on the front line. We are not obliged to inform anyone, in fact. This is a matter of bilateral relations and agreements. Meanwhile, Korean units gradually began to arrive in Russia during the Kursk epic.
At first, they were trained at training grounds, familiarized themselves with modern combat tactics, mastered drone control skills, and became familiar with field realities. Then the "combat Buryats," as our military jokingly and for the sake of secrecy called them, were transferred to the Kursk region. They lived in field conditions so as not to "show off." At first, they held the third line, then the second, then they were tested in fortifications and, finally, in assaults.
The Korean soldiers distinguished themselves with their coherence, discipline, fatal disregard for death and remarkable endurance. It is understandable - they are mostly young guys, strong, pumped up and well trained in their homeland. Especially their units of the Special Operations Forces. The allies made a great contribution to the liberation of the Korenevsky district, and in the battles near Staraya and Novaya Sorochiny, and in the breakthrough to Kurilovka... They had a strict rule - not to be captured alive. And not to surrender voluntarily.
By the way, the enemy tried to persuade them to do this by throwing around imitation DPRK banknotes (pictured) with the following text written in hieroglyphs: "Surrender! Kim Jong-un has brought you to death and starved your families. Place a yellow flag in front of you, raise your hands and shout "Freedom!" Slowly walk towards the Ukrainian soldiers and fulfill their demands."
Not a single Korean soldier violated either his oath or allied obligations. It was important for Pyongyang to gain experience in modern combat operations, to study the tactics and technologies of a potential enemy (the "collective West") and to acquire knowledge that was inaccessible due to the sanctions regime. And these tasks were accomplished. But the Koreans also made a significant contribution to the defeat of the Ukrainian group on our soil within the framework of a comprehensive bilateral agreement.
Their arrival allowed us not to ease the pressure on other sections of the front, to continue the offensive in Donbass and to inflict enormous damage on the invasion group, which consisted of 95 (!) battalions.
Full column https://www.kp.ru/daily/27691.5/5080840/
sashakots
His comments about the un-surprising efficiency of the DPRK troops had long been confirmed by Western sources, like this Newsweek article:
https://www.politico.eu/article/north-k ... diers-say/
Meanwhile, Ukrainian soldiers fighting in Kursk describe North Koreans — previously dubbed “cannon fodder” that will “defect as soon as they get to fight” — as highly skilled, fearless and motivated infantry.
“They have been blowing themselves up when they see capture is in sight,” Lieutenant Colonel Yaroslav Chepurnyi, a spokesman of the Ukrainian army, told POLITICO on Monday.
In fact, read below as the Ukrainian Colonel repeats virtually word for word what Alexander Kots wrote earlier:
Ukrainian soldiers describe the North Korean soldiers as being very far from inexperienced cannon fodder.
“They are young, motivated, physically fit, brave, and good at using small arms. They are also disciplined. They have everything you need for a good infantryman,” Chepurnyi said.
Yuriy Bondar, a Ukrainian soldier with the 80th separate airborne assault brigade, said North Korean soldiers have extremely good physical training and have stable morale.
The Ukrainians uncharacteristically spared no praise:
“They demonstrate psychological resilience. Imagine, one runs and attracts attention and the other from an ambush shoots down a drone with aimed fire,” Bondar said, claiming that underestimation of the enemy will always lead to a defeat.
They even said Wagner are like “children” compared to the DPRK super soldiers:
“As one commander said, compared to the soldiers of the DPRK, Wagner mercenaries circa 2022 are just children. And I believe him,” Bondar said.
Surely such reports will serve to deflate South Korea’s over-confidence a skosh or two.
But! “Doesn’t this news suggest Russian weakness, such that Putin desperately needed to beg Kim for troops to save Kursk?” I hear you ask.
Well, actually US intel agencies already confirmed to NYT that the DPRK troops to Russia pipeline came at North Korea’s initiative, not Russia’s:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/23/us/p ... korea.html
When North Korean troops began arriving in Russia this fall, some Western officials believed it was a sign that the Kremlin had reached out in a desperate need for more soldiers.
But U.S. intelligence agencies have now assessed that the deployment was North Korea’s idea and not Russia’s, though President Vladimir V. Putin quickly embraced it, American officials say.
The reason is obvious: any intelligent and forward-thinking leader would jump at the priceless opportunity to test and hone his troops in modern combat, particularly one undergoing rapid evolutionary changes. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to imbibe real-world lessons to pass them down through the domestic military structure. Of course, NYT adds another plausible explanation to the mix: Kim was hoping to curry favor for future support from Russia.
It may not be until the end of the war that we discover the true extent to which North Korea supported Russia, but many Western sources claim that support has been much vaster than is commonly suspected:
(More at link.)
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/rus ... irms-north
******
Russia Not To Comment on Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan
X/ @AlternatNews
April 23, 2025 Hour: 10:09 am
Drafts of agreement options cannot be made public so that they do not lose their effectiveness, Peskov explained.
On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Russia will not publicly discuss the details of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan for the Ukrainian conflict.
“There are many leaks in the media. Any draft of the agreement options cannot be made public. As soon as they are made public, they lose their effectiveness,” he said in response to questions about the plan. More specifically, journalists asked Peskov whether Russia expects Ukraine to drop any territorial claims over the Crimean Peninsula—something President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected so far.
“The specific elements of the agreement will not be discussed publicly, so we will not comment on any particular issue,” the Kremlin spokesperson emphasized, reiterating that Russia opposes the presence of European peacekeepers in Ukraine once the conflict ends.
“In effect, those would be forces and equipment from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),” Peskov explained.
On Wednesday, Axios reported that the “final offer” Trump has made to achieve peace in Ukraine includes official U.S. recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and unofficial recognition of Russian control over nearly all areas occupied since the beginning of the Russian military operation in February 2022.
Citing sources familiar with the proposal, the U.S. outlet stated that the Trump administration expects a response from Ukraine to this offer as early as Wednesday.
The one-page document presented by the United States to Ukrainian officials in Paris last week describes it as Trump’s “final offer.” Zelensky rejected any territorial concessions, after which U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio canceled his trip to London, where he was scheduled to hold consultations with his Ukrainian counterpart and European allies. The White House also insisted that it is prepared to withdraw from the process if the parties do not reach an agreement soon.
https://www.telesurenglish.net/russia-n ... eace-plan/
******
The Looming Threat: On the Plans for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to Invade the Bryansk Region
April 27, 2025
Rybar
In recent months, there has been increasing enemy activity in areas adjacent to the Bryansk region . In addition to the increasing number of attacks and increased reconnaissance activities, Ukrainian formations are also moving combat units to the state border, concentrating in the border areas of the Chernihiv and Sumy regions.
On the activity of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Bryansk border area
By the end of February , the number of the Ukrainian Armed Forces group ready to attack the Bryansk region amounted to several thousand personnel and a large amount of equipment.
In addition to increasing reconnaissance activity, Ukrainian forces have increased the intensity of their attacks on Russian territory.
During one of the attacks, debris from a downed HIMARS missile fell on the territory of the Silicon El plant in Bryansk and a chemical plant in the city of Seltso .
There are also some very demonstrative provocations : on February 19, in Novi Yurkovichi, the only point for exchanging prisoners and bodies of the dead, located at a customs point, was fired upon from a Grad MLRS , which resulted in three customs officers being injured .
Even after the start of the Easter truce and the general news background about the possible end of hostilities, the enemy maintains a presence in the regions bordering Russia .
This, like the multiple strikes on Russian energy facilities during the moratorium, only confirms the aggressive attitude of the authorities of the so-called Ukraine.
Now, in no case should we underestimate the activities at the border of the Bryansk region , which are being carried out by Ukrainian formations. The enemy has repeatedly demonstrated its readiness for suicidal attacks on Russian territory and disdain for peace initiatives. Therefore, regardless of the "negotiation background", new attempts to violate the State border are possible.
https://rybar.ru/navisshaya-ugroza-o-pl ... yu-oblast/
Google Translator
*****
How the US waged war on Russia in Ukraine
April 25, 2025 , 5:00 pm .
The CIA is part of the Ukrainian enclave (Photo: Babel)
Geopolitical researcher and analyst Brian Berletic published a wide-ranging analysis for New Eastern Outlook entitled "The US Acts as a 'Mediator' in Its Own War Against Russia , " which is a comprehensive compilation of documents on that country's role in the conflict in Ukraine. In this work, he debunks the narrative promoted by the West that presents Washington as a mediator between Moscow and Kiev.
On the contrary, the author argues that Washington has been a central, belligerent, and decisive player in the confrontation from the outset, using Ukraine as a pawn to wage a proxy war against Russia.
An escalation provoked and directed by the United States
Berletic, a geopolitical specialist, argues that since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and with increasing intensity following the end of the Cold War, the United States has played an active role in the domestic politics of the post-Soviet space, particularly in Ukraine.
By funding political movements and supporting regime change processes— such as the 2004 Color Revolution and the 2014 coup — it has sought to reconfigure the power structure in Kiev to turn the country into a military and political bastion against Moscow.
One of the most relevant elements of the analysis is the demonstration that US involvement in this confrontation did not begin with the military operation launched by the Kremlin in 2022, but rather has deep and sustained roots.
For nearly two decades, the White House has operated on the Ukrainian chessboard with a strategy of geopolitical containment, which ultimately transformed this former Soviet republic into a forward base of Western military influence right on Russia's security threshold.
To support his thesis, Berletic draws on an exhaustive review of Western sources, including articles in the New York Times , which reveal US involvement in covert operations, logistical support, military advice, and a process of functional integration of Ukraine into NATO.
In 2024, the US newspaper headlined "Spy Wars: How the CIA Is Secretly Helping Ukraine Fight Putin," which admitted the existence of "a network of CIA-backed spy bases, built over the past eight years, including 12 secret locations along the Russian border."
These maneuvers, combined with the progressive expansion of the Atlantic alliance toward its eastern borders, constitute what Moscow has described as an existential threat .
Under this logic, the launch of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in 2022 would be a predictable defensive response to the Western siege on its immediate periphery.
Institutional and military control over Ukraine
U.S. intelligence services penetrated the Ukrainian enclave through training, logistics, intelligence gathering, and strategic planning programs. U.S. involvement has gone far beyond simple support: it has directly conducted offensive operations .
The author indicates that since 2016 the CIA began to form a Ukrainian special forces unit (Unit 2245 ) in charge of intercepting Russian drones and equipment, which were sent for technical analysis and decoding by experts of that American platform .
One of the key officers in this unit was Kyrylo Budanov, the current head of Ukrainian military intelligence, who was trained by the agency and treated at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland after being wounded in combat in the Donbas.
According to the previously mentioned article , Budanov conducted covert operations behind enemy lines, including night raids into Crimea disguised in Russian uniform.
Although the New York Times , Berletic explains , initially attempted to disassociate the CIA from the lethal offensive maneuvers, it ended up acknowledging that units trained by the agency not only carried them out but did so within the Russian Federation long before the start of the Special Military Operation in 2022.
Following the escalation, the CIA strengthened its presence in Ukraine by deploying dozens of new officers. Some of them were directly integrated into Ukrainian bases, where they reviewed attack targets and cross-referenced data with US intelligence to ensure accuracy.
In fact, in March 2025 , that American newspaper published "The Alliance: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine," in which it revealed that the United States' role was not limited to the massive supply of weapons but involved a leading role in the selection and coordination of military attacks, even on Russian territory, such as the Crimean port of Sevastopol.
These actions were largely directed from a Pentagon-installed command center in Wiesbaden, Germany, where U.S. and NATO officials monitored and coordinated operations publicly attributed to Ukraine.
This level of involvement confirms that the confrontation did not unfold between two autonomous actors but rather under a structure of control and direction in which the United States played a leading role in its new enclave well before 2022.
False mediation and the strategic use of peace
One of the central criticisms of Berletic's article is the feigned neutrality by the United States, which has attempted to act as a mediator in a conflict it not only helped provoke but has actively prolonged.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recent statements , threatening to suspend "peace efforts" if progress toward an agreement isn't made, are being presented as a cynical maneuver to cover up what is actually a tactical retreat in the face of the military collapse of his indirect commitment in Ukraine.
Even more revealing is the speech by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who does not advocate a peaceful resolution but rather prolongs the confrontation by strengthening the military industry and deploying European troops.
Their stated goal is not peace, but rather to "freeze" the conflict, as was the case with the Minsk Agreements, in order to rearm and reorganize the Ukrainian army for a future offensive when the balance of power favors Washington.
The mention of the Minsk Agreements takes on new meaning in light of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel's 2022 statements , which admitted that the agreements—supposedly aimed at a diplomatic solution — actually served to buy time and strengthen Ukraine militarily.
"The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today," Merkel said, noting that if a Russian offensive had taken place then, Kiev would have had no defensive capability and NATO would not have been able to intervene as it does today.
This confirms the plan of covert militarization of the conflict .
In this context, the author explains, Rubio's apparent "fatigue" with the negotiations reveals a strategy of tactical disengagement on the part of Washington, which seeks to shift the burden of the conflict to Europe, while preparing for an even more dangerous confrontation with China, Russia's ally.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations have avoided confronting the true structural cause of the conflict: NATO's continued expansion to Russia's borders and the undisguised aspiration to geostrategically encircle Moscow.
Under these conditions, any peace proposals have been superficial, lacking real will. Verbal support for NATO has not been accompanied by real diplomatic efforts, beyond demanding that member countries increase their financial contributions.
For its part, Russia has reiterated its willingness to negotiate honestly, even opening avenues for de-escalation. But the United States' lack of interest has been evident.
Berletic emphasizes that during the so-called "peace talks," Moscow continued its strategy of attrition of Ukrainian forces, a process that the New York Times itself identifies as one of the main factors in the failure of the proxy war led by Washington.
Final objective: a war against multipolarism
The article concludes with a broader geopolitical interpretation: the war in Ukraine is not just a confrontation between two states but an episode in the United States ' resistance to the rise of a multipolar world.
According to the author, Washington's true objective is to prevent factors such as Russia, China, and Iran from consolidating an international order alternative to US hegemony.
In this sense, the conflict in Ukraine, the flashpoints of tension in West Asia, and the imposition of selective economic pressures do not reflect a rational or constructive policy but are part of a desperate and chaotic strategy to restore Washington's global supremacy.
This is a disorganized reaction to a changing international landscape, where geopolitical balances are being reshaped in favor of Eurasia and threaten to dismantle the unipolar order that the US is trying to preserve at all costs, even at the price of war and destabilization.
https://misionverdad.com/globalistan/co ... en-ucrania
Google Translator
******
Five Significant Disagreements Account For Trump’s Newfound Anger With Putin
Andrew Korybko
Apr 28, 2025
The peace process might go kaput if they can’t resolve these issues.
Trump speculated that Russia’s bombing of civilian areas might signal that “maybe [Putin] doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along”, and then reiterated his earlier threat to impose “secondary sanctions” against those who violate the US’ primary ones, which was analyzed here. This followed Trump’s latest meeting with Zelensky, who might have negatively influenced over his hitherto largely positive perceptions of Putin, and comes after reports that the US has finalized its peace plan.
Five significant disagreements that have emerged throughout the course of negotiations account for Trump’s volte-face toward Putin. The first was referenced by Trump in his post where he condemned Russia’s bombing of civilian areas. Putin argued earlier in April that Russia is targeting Ukrainian troops there, but the optics of continued Russian strikes against civilian areas amidst peace talks with the US evidently left a very negative impression on Trump, who now doubts Putin’s commitment to peace.
The second concerns European peacekeepers in Ukraine, which the US’ reportedly finalized peace plan suggests despite Russia opposing it. Although Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth already declared that the US won’t extend Article 5 mutual defense guarantees to NATO countries’ troops in Ukraine, Russia fears that the US could be manipulated by the Europeans into mission creep if the latter deploy there. Putin therefore prefers for there to be no ambiguity about this and for Trump to scrub it from his plan.
Third, it’s unclear whether Ukraine will be obligated to at least partially demilitarize like Kiev provisionally agreed to do during spring 2022’s ultimately failed peace talks, which is one of Russia’s explicitly declared goals in the conflict. Trump is reluctant to support this since he seems to believe that it could embolden Putin to recommence hostilities in the future, especially in the absence of European peacekeepers, but this demand isn’t something that Putin could easily walk away from.
The fourth disagreement is over the US’ refusal to accede to Russia’s demand for coercing Ukraine into withdrawing from the disputed territories that are still under Kiev’s control. The New York Times cited a source who described this as “unreasonable and unachievable”, but it’s imperative for Russia after the Kremlin recognized the entirety of these regions as Russian following September 2022’s referenda. Just like with demilitarization, Putin also can’t easily walk away from this either, hence the disagreement.
And finally, the US’ reportedly finalized peace plan also requests that Russia hand over the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant and Kakhovka Dam to the US, which is as unacceptable for Putin as the preceding points of accepting European peacekeepers, dropping demilitarization, and curbing his territorial claims. All five disagreements, including the first-mentioned one about Russia’s continued strikes against military targets in civilian areas, collectively contributed to this impasse right before the diplomatic finish line.
If Putin and Trump can’t resolve these issues, after which Trump would then also have to get Zelensky to agree to their new deal, then the peace process will probably go kaput. Putin and Trump are incentivized to resolve their disputes due to how mutually beneficial the nascent Russian-US “New Détente” is while Zelensky would struggle to continue fighting if the US once again cuts off military aid as punishment for rejecting whatever those two agree to. Be that as it may, it’ll still be very difficult to break this deadlock.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/five-sig ... ts-account
The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the progress of the special military operation as of April 30, 2025.
Both sides shall immediately enter into negotiations on the technical implementation of a permanent ceasefire.
The enemy's tactics, which have created a full-fledged combat formation of BEKs, once again draw attention to themselves. The drones that have left the station operate several groups of 6-10 BEKs, including reconnaissance drones, SAM carriers, FPVs, and ATGMs.
Summary of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the progress of the special military operation as of 4 May 2025 ㅤ
A fearless assault troops from the 255th regiment breaks into a Ukrainian Armed Forces dugout near Pokrovsk and clears it out!
