Connexion
Peter Koenig
What we observe today in the Middle East, is Israel’s attempting expanding to the “great-greater Israel”, including Iran and possibly Iraq.
It is the Oded Yinon Plan, of the early 1980s, not known to most people, even Israelis. The plan goes way beyond the Greater Israel plan. Pursing this plan means endless war and bloodshed. Neither Israelis nor anybody else in the world wants this. So, its existence – let alone talking openly about – is mediately and politically silenced.
On the other side of the Atlantic, President Trump is attempting reviving and imposing the 1823 Monroe Doctrine 2.0, beginning with Venezuela and now also Colombia. All under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking.
He recently insulted Colombia’s President Petro, calling him a chief drug trafficker, and stopped all financial transaction with Colombia, including what he calls “aid” to Colombia.
The world however knows, or should know, that the US is by far the globe’s biggest drug (and human) trafficker. Even Trump, during his election campaign often referred to the US’s involvement in drug and human trafficking. That is one of the reasons why he was – and still is – so adamant in stopping immigration.
So, what you see in the Middle East and in the Caribbean is not what meets the eye.
The plan for “Greater-Greater Israel”, destruction of Iran (which in the original greater Israel was not included), which will also attempt blocking the Strait Hormuz, to cut off the rest of the western world of hydrocarbon energy, especially China (Israel does the dirty job for the US, supported with US weaponry and money).
Close to 35% of oil and gas – the main source of worldwide energy – is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.
China is clearly targeted. Number ONE for Trump and his handlers.
On the other hand, Trump is trying to take over Venezuela, with the world’s largest hydrocarbon resources, replacing those from the Gulf States, first for MAGA, of course, second for all those puppets who remain obedient to King Donald.
A perfect scenario.
To disguise his intentions, in his TrumpSocial platform, he is ramping against two oil-rich countries, US neighbors. He is now also accusing Gustavo Petro, President of Colombia, as being a drug trafficker. As long as much of Latin America still largely depends on the US-Dollar, the notorious dollar-sanctioning is still a major issue for many, if not most, Latin American Countries (LAC).
Mr. Trump and his economic advisors believe this, coupled with Trump’s wild and incoherent tariff policy, will also reverse the international monetary and trade flow in favor of the US, away from and against China.
This is a wrong concept, because the monetary / trade flow in favor of China involves not just the yuan, but all those local currencies of the BRICS and BRICS associates, commanding a total of 40% to 50% or world GDP. Many of them are closely linked to the Yuan and keep distancing themselves from the US-Dollar and its sanction policies.
Even if the BRICS have little else in common, they all want to trade outside of the UD-Dollar stranglehold, and stick to their local currencies and to the YUAN.
China has no problem getting energy from Russia, Kazakhstan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and other Asian / ASEAN associates.
Once Trump realizes that there is nothing left but a hot war with China, which means also with Russia, and all the SCO members, plus other China associates, the end game may begin, or explode.
Not even his self-declared “grandeur” has a chance to survive such a WWIII-type aggression.
That might be the final demise of the US / Trump Kingdom.
—–
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst, regular author for Global Research, and a former Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
US division of labor for Ukraine, announced by US Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth in February this year, requires placing the illusion of distance between the US and both its Ukrainian AND European proxies.
Sec. Hegseth specifically tasked Europe with convincing the European public bigger sacrifices would be needed and part of that game is achieved by posing as if the US is drifting away or even divided against Ukraine and Europe.
But remember this key first principle: Ukraine was, is, and will continue to be a US proxy war, fought by and for US interests entirely at the expense of both Ukraine and Europe.
It is also part of a broader global strategy the US is pursuing to maintain worldwide primacy.
Until this fundamental reality changes, which will not be anytime in the near, intermediate or even distant future (barring the US being physically forced to) the US is negotiating in entirely, 100% bad faith.
US Presidents and Congress do not determine US foreign policy. Unelected corporate-financiers interests working through think tanks do. If they haven’t changed their minds on Ukraine (and they haven’t) no US president nor will Congress change this policy.
What ensues is merely theater to sell an already painfully predictable outcome of continuity of agenda, stringing the public along and attempting to paint Russia and its allies into a corner.
Russia, we can only hope, understands this, that this conflict can ONLY be resolved fully on the battlefield and that agreement to other pointless “talks” simply affords the US an exit ramp if and whenever it decides to use it while avoiding extending to the US or Europe a provocation that enables them to mobilize toward wider war.
After listening, I found that this is a summary of a previous interview, so you may have seen it already. Nima doing a Danny. Oh boy!
From the US we are getting reports that Ukrainian war refugees are being sent back to Ukraine. Regular reports from European countries inform that the stipends and living expenses of Ukrainian war refugees are being cut, in an attempt to get them to return. With Russia liberating anything from one to three villages and towns per day, is there anywhere for them to return to? This forms a new group of fresh recruits that can be thrown into the Ukrainian meat grinder of people.
On a daily basis, I monitor the Russian SMO. As time moves on, the Ukrainian losses mount up to a level that is almost impossible to believe. Russia is demolishing the place, and despite the peace agreement language now in the case, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that Russia will continue demolishing the place until someone is wise enough to put up a white flag. Russia is fighting Ukraine, the EU, and NATO, without killing civilians. Ukraine is another country that is allowing its people to be slaughtered and even sending the people-hunters after anyone, catching them, to send them to the meat grinder.
The professional war reporters say that Russia has demolished the equivalent of + three conventional military forces. The loss of life or KIA (that which can be counted) now stands at + 1.3 million, and for the past week, the weekly number has increased by 10%. This does not include injuries and battle wounds. From the following report, you will note that for the past 24 hours, there were no Ukrainian counterattacks. You will also notice from the report that numbers of KIA are not counted. And yet, nobody on the EU or Ukrainian side has the intelligence to put up a white flag, and they are seemingly content for the last Ukrainian to be killed in action. These are barbarians, a word that is used more and more in Chinese circles.
This table shows the carnage:
Summary for the last 24 hours
During the day, the Armed Forces of Ukraine were defeated in 142 areas. No information was reported about any counterattacks by the militants in any direction.
Destroyed per day: 18 tanks and other armored vehicles of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, 72 vehicles, 117 drones. It is also reported that 39 artillery units and probably mortars were destroyed.
The daily losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine amounted to 1370 military personnel, including 410 in the Pokrovsk direction (Center), 240 in the Kupiansk direction (West), 235 in the Donetsk direction (South), 230 in the South-Donetsk direction (East), 160 in the Kharkiv-Sumy direction (North), and 95 in the Kherson direction (Dnieper).
The losses of the AFU fighters inside the equipment that burned down during the day were not counted. The officially registered losses of the AFU in the current year alone (since January 1, 2025) have exceeded 330,000 people, and over 1,300,000 people in total.
Weekly summary (7 days from August 9 to 15)
Weekly losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in equipment: 1 aircraft, 2 multiple rocket launchers, 10 tanks, 89 armored vehicles, which do not match by almost 10 percent from 370 (according to the weekly report) to 412 vehicles (according to the daily report), 2134 drones. Also destroyed, traditionally not matching – from 115 (according to the weekly report) to 261 artillery pieces (according to the daily report).
The losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine increased by more than 10 percent and amounted to 9,650 soldiers (8,725 a week earlier), of which 2,740 were in the Pokrovsky direction (2,725 a week earlier), 1,760 in Yuzhno-Donetsk (1,530), 1,710 in Donetsk (1,075), 1,590 in Kupyansk (1,615), 1,230 in Kharkiv-Sumy (1290), 620 on Chersonsky (490).
No information is available about the captured Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers.
Average daily losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine increased to 1379 military personnel (1246 a week earlier). Minimum losses were recorded on August 14 – 1315, maximum on August 15 – 1440.
The number of group and massive strikes on the rear regions of the former Ukraine has not been reported separately, apparently because the strikes were almost continuous. The losses of the Ukrainian Armed Forces were not counted.
These group strikes into the rear of the Ukrainian forces happen regularly up to 5 or 6 times per week.
Last night, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation carried out a group strike (https://t.me/mod_russia_en/22733) with long-range high-precision weapons, as well as strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles at an oil refinery supplying fuel to the AFU grouping on Donbass.
Air defence systems shot down (https://t.me/mod_russia_en/22735) three guided bombs, a U.S.-made HIMARS MLRS projectile, and 117 fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles.
The Geran-2 UAV teams destroyed (https://t.me/mod_russia_en/22732) an AFU forward command post near Birino in Chernigov region.
A society that allows this to be perpetrated can no longer receive any goodwill from anyone else in the world. It is time for these to be placed back in their own countries and to be walled off from those who are not barbarians. Back in 2014, most of us remember well how Victoria Nuland boasted about how the US fanned these flames. Jeffrey Sachs, ironically, with great sarcasm, notes in his latest speeches that this person is now teaching diplomacy at Columbia University.
NO Trump DEAL, Ukraine DONE | Mark Sleboda JOINS
(No, Sleboda does not join, but follows, and I have not listened to that. It is good to hear Pepe out). At the end he describes the pressures on Trump, but also his ‘escape route’ that we see beginning to play out.
Summary
Trump in a meeting with Mark Rutte (NATO) announced that the U.S. will impose 100% secondary sanctions on Russia and its trading partners if a ceasefire deal in Ukraine isn’t reached within about 50 days—that is, by the end of August.
Europe Will Now Pay for U.S. Weapons Sent to Ukraine via NATO. Basically the US will fill the European arsenals who will do the physical supply to Ukraine.
Rutte: “You want us to pay for Ukraine’s weapons. Which is totally logical.”
Trump explained why he’s threatening 100% tariffs instead of the previously proposed 500%.
According to him, a 100% rate can be imposed without needing new legislation, bypassing Congress entirely.
He added that both the 100% and 500% tariffs would have the same effect.
Trump stated that 17 Patriot missile systems are being prepared for shipment to Europe, with a significant number expected to be deployed on the battlefield in Ukraine. Eventually it was said that it a ‘full complement of weapons’.
More information will flow in during the day. The rest of this video is about how many problems Trump has solved in the world and then negative statements on Putin and lying about the SMO.
Europe wants to go to war. And Trump has just now given them wind in their sails (but this is not Trump’s war!). I really wonder how these people are going to cope when Russia blasts them out of the water (or the world)? Its worth listening to because in Trump’s view, the US has the best weapons in the world and Russia is 25 years behind.
If one looks at this with an analytic eye, Europe and NATO is not enthusiastically taking the role of the US Proxy for war against Russia. As Brian Berletic said so many times, it is simply a division of labor between the US and Europe and a strategic sequencing of wars. This is now screamingly obvious. We know about money laundering. Here the US is laundering a war.
Short comment by Brian Berletic
The Direction of US Foreign Policy…
It’s troubling to see even at this stage, people still arguing the US seeks to retreat from empire and accept multipolarism.
Nothing of the sort is happening…
Not even the US leaving Ukraine.
The US will fight to the last Ukrainian just as they promised they would, they themselves have said they will do so through “division of labor” and “strategic sequencing.”
It was never about defeating Russia, just extending it while the US made progress elsewhere (Syria for example which is now completely destroyed and captured by US proxies).
It is a mistake to underestimate US power and ambitions.
Months ago – before Trump took office – I warned that Trump would pick up right where Biden left off, not pivot toward multipolarism.
Since then, Trump took every Biden-era war and escalated them all.
All the fake division between “Trump” and Europe was purely to sell 5% GDP spending on NATO which is now underway.
Of course, regarding China, the US is more determined than ever.
Why would China be an exception when it is the HIGHEST of all US geopolitical priorities?
Some say nations tasked with confronting China have no motivation to comply to US demands.
But that’s not how it works.
If the US politically captures a nation, it installs a client regime that works for Washington and their own personal gain, not the nation they preside over, and will comply especially at the expense of the targeted nation.
That is why Ukraine and much of Europe are committing national suicide, and why nations in Asia likewise captured/even occupied by US troops will comply when tasked with hostility toward China even if it is self-destructive.
The Philippines is already decades behind the rest of ASEAN as a result of this process, Japan and South Korea play the same game as Europe of pretending to oppose US dictates time to time, but at critical junctures, they always comply.
This global conflict will continue until Russia, Iran, and China physically force the US to withdraw, not just itself, but overturn its client regimes as well – which will be more difficult, costly, violent, and time consuming than many people want to accept.
I understand why some people want to engage in wishful thinking, but now more than ever, especially people with influence, need to sound the alarm.
Marat Khairullin affords a rare view across the front line.
For the second day in a row, there have been no announcements about the liberation of settlements. Over the past few months, we’ve grown accustomed to our units advancing, freeing villages and towns – this is what activity on the front line has typically looked like.
However, deep and decisive breakthroughs are forged through unseen, methodical work. Tactical sectors see incremental gains: tightening control over key positions, suppressing enemy forces, regrouping, and distributing supplies. Potential energy gathers, and when conditions ripen, it erupts into kinetic action.
The attached map of the Zaporozhye and Pokrovsk (Krasnoarmeysk) directions highlights areas of RF activity and marks occupied Russian territory slated for liberation. Russian Forces operate along watershed lines, seizing commanding heights to observe, reconnoiter, and strike the enemy at operational depth – enabling assault groups to advance on the tactical level.
We’ve often noted the “swing” tactic: destabilizing enemy defenses through alternating blows along the front. But the full arc of the Special Military Operation reveals another dimension – not just horizontal swings, but vertical ones. Strikes plunge into the enemy’s operational-strategic depths, hitting production, energy, and logistics nodes, while political blows target its leadership and allies. This struggle never ceases, only shifting in intensity and focus.
For the second week, the RF has struck economic and military targets across Ukraine’s entire depth. Simultaneously, tactical units regroup for the next phase. Political pressure escalates in tandem: Ukraine’s leadership and its allies suffer setbacks, and with the Iran-Israel conflict, they’re now stretched to the limit.
Another observation: Armchair experts and hype-drunk bloggers rage, “Why aren’t they destroying bridges and rail hubs?” But railway interdiction only matters in grand offensives like the Great Patriotic War. Today, a “major operation” means a reinforced company in motion. Everything is dispersed – the reserves of the Armed Forces of Ukraine provide for its maneuver on Ukroposhta trailers, individual cars, and railway platforms hooked on passenger trains. Blow a bridge, and they detour or ford a river. The payoff is fleeting.
So what’s happening? Our pressure has forced the enemy to commit nearly all combat units to the front, clustering reserves in forward staging areas. Now, the RF strikes factories, power grids, and rear depots – the very infrastructure sustaining those troops. The enemy is pinned down, under fire, with no room to maneuver or resupply.
Meanwhile, political pressure is being exerted and only the most frostbitten political regimes remain on the side of Ukraine, which do not act in the interests of their peoples, but according to the doctrine of “we just want to shit on the Russians.”
Given this, the current “lull” on the front will be short-lived, and soon, another verse of “Winged Swings” will be played.
They will fly in. Without fail.
*Winged Swings is a popular old song from the days of the USSR.
‘Ukraine’s negotiators said to my face — foreign partners are against the deal’.
Russia’s top negotiator Vladimir Medinsky reveals behind-the-scenes of peace talks in the premiere episode of RT’s flagship show ‘Sanchez Effect’ with Award-winning American journalist, Rick Sanchez.
Medinsky – a portrait of sanity – on negotiations with Ukraine.
Pepe Escobar: Worth quoting him at length:
“I feel that deep down, they [the Ukrainian side] are better than they want to appear. They even want to say something, but they can’t. I saw the opposite… Two-thirds of their delegation is in military uniform. They are military personnel. I look into their eyes. First of all, they are no different from Russians. They are exactly the same. I see in their eyes a reluctance to fight. They don’t want to fight and they don’t want to send their soldiers to their deaths.
They remind me a little of top managers hired by some giant corporation. They can make some decisions, but for fundamental ones, they have to consult with the board of directors.
I would divide the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian army, the soldiers, and those who suffer the most, those who are close to the front line and are under attack in one way or another, and a small part of the ruling elite. It seems to me that the Ukrainian leadership is beginning to remind me of Latin American dictators to some extent.
They were also good guys once, when they came to power and promised a lot during the elections. But then they gradually turned into dictators. And in order to remain in power forever, you need a constant enemy. You need a war that does not threaten you personally. And this war does not threaten your families either. Because all your families are abroad, with British passports, and they are doing very well. And you can no longer control the situation without war.
I will tell you one thing that I have probably never said publicly before. If Ukraine had wanted to, if it had been ready, if it had made its own decisions, we could have signed a peace treaty on February 28, 2022. At the first meeting. And its terms were softer than what we are offering today.
By and large, all we wanted was for Ukraine to refuse to join NATO and to refuse to allow foreign military bases on its territory. I told them: be like Austria. Let you have an army like Austria. Second, restore the Russian language and the Orthodox Church on an equal footing. And the third point was to recognize Crimea, because it cannot be ignored.
And the last proposal from our side was this. There are two territories: Donbass, two regions that do not want to be part of Ukraine. Previously, we proposed returning them to Ukraine with autonomous status, so that they could simply elect their own governor.
Ukraine refused and said: we will conquer them. They were unable to conquer them.
Then, on February 28, 2022, we proposed: well, you were unable to conquer them, and you will not be able to live with them, so leave them alone. We finally agreed for the first time in Istanbul, and we prepared a treaty.
On April 15, President Putin reviewed the agreement and made one or two legal comments — he is a professional lawyer. On the same day, I handed the document to Zelensky. Zelensky remained silent for two weeks.
We do not need war at all. Why did the situation for Ukraine get worse? Because referendums were held in four regions. And they are officially part of Russia. And Russia cannot leave there because it would betray all the people. It is impossible. They are enshrined in the Russian Constitution.
But if the conflict is stopped along the front line and no real peace agreement is reached — just some kind of truce, ceasefire, whatever — then that will be it. You know, there was this disputed region between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Karabakh? This region will turn into a huge Karabakh. After some time, Ukraine will join NATO, try to recapture it, and that will be the end of the planet, it will be a nuclear war.”
London Paul analysis: Paul discusses why the US is begging Russia to end the war and why this is an immensely complex issue. He further discusses the ongoing new Russian offensive now underway.
Foreign Ministry statement (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2019580/) on Kiev’s latest drone attack targeting Russian civilians (May 23, 2025)
[Latest from the Russian MOD: In the course of repelling a massive enemy drone attack (from 20:00 of 20 May to 8:00 of 23 May), the Russian air defence systems shot down (https://t.me/mod_russia_en/21397) 1,177 fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles, including 788 of them outside the special military operation zone.]
The Kiev regime is relentless in its terror attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure in numerous Russian regions, including Moscow.
According to the Defence Ministry (https://t.me/mod_russia_en), from May 20 to 8 am on May 23, the number of aerial attacks amounted to multiples of what it used to be with 788 strikes by fixed-wing UAVs and Western-made missiles targeting Russian territory outside the area of the special military operation. Our air defence forces destroyed 776 drones and missiles, though unfortunately, 12 UAVs made it through our defences and hit their targets.
Casualties have been reported. On May 22, an attack on the village of Panteleymonovka, the Donetsk People’s Republic, wounded eight people. On the same day, a drone strike in the Vasilyevsky Municipal District, Zaporozhye Region, killed a woman born in 1990 and injured four children aged 10, 9, 8, and 1.
On the night of May 23, a downed UAV triggered fire in an industrial zone of Yelets, Lipetsk Region, injuring eight people. Additionally, the Ukrainian forces launched two HIMARS missiles on civilian targets in the city of Lgov, Kursk Region, also resulting in casualties, including two children.
Notably, even after the Ukrainian forces had been ousted from the Kursk Region, they keep trying to infiltrate our territory and launch drone, long-range artillery, and missile attacks.
Under these circumstances, the President was compelled to make a decision on establishing a security buffer zone (https://t.me/MFARussia/25036) on adjacent territory in order to minimise the ability of the Ukrainian forces to infiltrate and to attack our border regions using various munitions.
The latest barbaric terrorist attacks by the Kiev regime were carried out in an attempt to thwart direct Russia-Ukraine talks facilitated by the US Administration, which are designed to settle the conflict definitively. They also appear intended to derail the implementation of initial agreements reached in Istanbul (https://t.me/MFARussia/24973) on May 16, including a massive prisoner exchange.
These attacks are part of the strategy pursued by Ukraine’s party of war, which also includes violations of energy and Easter ceasefires that Russia has strictly observed, as well as the unilateral ceasefire declared by us during the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory celebrations.
Without a doubt, Russia will deliver a matching response to barrages of terrorist attacks carried out by the Kiev regime.
Unlike the Ukrainian side, our targets will be strictly limited to military facilities and defence industry plants.
To reiterate, our fundamental commitment to a constructive search for a peaceful settlement through dialogue remains unchanged.
The featured image is random and for illustration only.
Most have wondered how on earth Ukraine can still keep fighting. All looks lost, and then it seems as if the sails on their ship find another gust of air somewhere to propel it – Not always in the right direction. The situation for them on the Ukraine front is so dismal. Smoothie in his video with Col Davis yesterday mentioned that Russia has devastated five full-on war forces. Here is where they find their forces.
SNAKE COMPANY? Ukraine deploys new foreign mercenary unit
Russian Telegram-channels report about a new Portuguese-Brazilian mercenary unit operating within Ukraine’s 3rd Assault Brigade (largely composed of Azov fighters).
Dubbed the “Snake Company”, these foreign fighters—many with combat experience—are increasingly spotted near Krasnoarmeysk and Chasov Yar.
This comes after Ukraine’s decision earlier this year to legalize foreign recruitment for the Ukrainian military.
While unofficial mercenary recruitment was already happening through embassies and private scouts, the new policy allows “legally” transporting & contracting foreign fighters to bolster frontline forces.
Nikolai Patrushev: the contours of victory in the Northern Military District are already clearly visible
From Tass and translated with Yandex
Assistant to the President of Russia and Chairman of the Maritime Board in an interview with TASS on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Victory said that today’s events are related to the times of the Great Patriotic War, when to wait for the end of the Naval war and what world changes will follow.
– Nikolay Platonovich, we are talking to you on the eve of a significant date — the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory. For Russians, it has a special, deeply symbolic meaning. And it is not surprising that many people associate this anniversary with hopes for historical changes. In this regard, the first and most important question is what to expect for our citizens in global, geopolitical terms.
— On the eve of the Victory Day anniversary, we bow our heads to the feat of the heroes of the Great Patriotic War who showed their best personal qualities to defend their Homeland, crush fascism and give peace. Their courage has become an example for all generations. Today, the participants of the special military operation, like their grandfathers and great-grandfathers, selflessly fight for the eradication of the anti-human ideology of Nazism. The contours of our victory are already clearly visible.
At the same time, as in the years of the Second World War, humanity is again faced with a choice — a new bloody massacre or a just world order, where every country has the right to sovereignty and security.
Desperate to resist global change, Brussels, Berlin, Paris and a number of other European capitals are once again following the shameful path of flirting with the Nazis, deploying a war machine against Russia and starting to rave about scenarios of a nuclear apocalypse.
For the second year in a row, NATO is conducting the largest exercises in recent decades near our borders, where it is working out scenarios of offensive actions over a long length — from Vilnius to Odessa, capturing the Kaliningrad region, blocking navigation in the Baltic and Black Sea, and preemptive strikes on the permanent bases of the Russian nuclear deterrent forces. [Keir] Starmer (Prime Minister of Great Britain-approx. TASS) threatens our country with the dubious power of the long-worn British fleet and the nuclear weapons on board its submarines. He is echoed by Ursula von der Leyen, Mark Rutte, and other functionaries.
London today is most zealously eager to enter the Black Sea region. Britain has already established a “mine action coalition”, and now plans to escort merchant ships with ships of its Navy.
Westerners categorically do not want to admit that the world, contrary to their scenarios, is undergoing transformation. The unipolar West-centered world has outlived its usefulness. Multipolarity is emerging. The de facto economic and political agenda is already formed by countries that represent the global majority and whose opinion has been ignored by the West for many years. The BRICS and SCO associations are growing in popularity.
We consider the UN reform to be a logical consequence of the new world order process. The organization’s Security Council can be changed to reflect the interests of the entire international community
— Negotiations between Moscow and Washington aimed at resolving the Ukrainian crisis and ensuring security in the Black Sea have resumed. Can we expect serious improvements in the shipping situation in the near future?
— Your question is rather complicated. I would like to note that both Moscow and Washington are interested in ensuring the safety of navigation in the Black Sea and will pursue this goal. The next step should be taken by Kiev. At the same time, as we know in practice, Kiev has repeatedly demonstrated its complete inability to negotiate. It is equally obvious that the main factor of destabilization in the Black Sea region remains the actions of the Ukrainian army and the mercenaries fighting on its side.
— There is a version circulating in the public space that Ukrainian ports may also be the subject of discussion at future Russian-American negotiations. Does Russia claim them?
— Our country respects the will of the people. This is evident from the experience of Crimea, Sevastopol, Donbass, and Novorossiya becoming part of Russia. Residents of the regions of Ukraine, including the Black Sea regions, should determine their own future. And they are unlikely to link their fate with neo-Nazism. They do not want to submit to Kiev’s illegitimate authorities without any will.
Take a look at Odessa, the city founded by the Russian Empress Catherine II. For more than two centuries since its foundation, it has been an outpost of Russia on the Black Sea, occupying one of the leading places in the country in terms of population and level of economic development. For the heroism shown by its inhabitants during the Great Patriotic War, on May 1, 1945, Odessa was awarded the honorary title of hero city. And 69 years later-on May 2, 2014-this city became an arena for cold-blooded murders, unpunished crimes on a national basis. The worst” achievement ” of the neo-Nazi regime was the burning of people in the House of Trade Unions. The port of the glorious hero city has been turned into a hub for the transfer of weapons, a base for naval saboteurs. I believe that Odessa and the vast majority of its inhabitants have nothing in common with the Kiev regime.
— During the Great Patriotic War, Sevastopol, Kerch, Novorossiysk, Odessa became an example of courage and bravery in resisting the fascist invaders.
– The sailors of the Black Sea Fleet have become a symbol of unyielding will. It is important to always remember that the sailors, defending Sevastopol for 250 days, stood to the death, defending every inch of their native land. Just like today in Ukraine, the Marines terrified the Nazis with their courage and determination. Berlin was reached not only by the Soviet land armies, but also by the Dnieper Flotilla.
There are many examples of the exploits of Soviet sailors. Yes, during the Great Patriotic War there might have been a shortage of ships, planes and weapons, but the naval talents and personal courage of our soldiers were present in full. Under the skilful leadership of Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov, a system of operational interaction between fleets was established, which made it possible to instantly respond to threats and coordinate actions with the ground forces. Thousands of sailors and officers literally worked wonders on the sea, land and rivers.
In the heroic chronicle of the history of the Great Patriotic War, battles in the northern seas are forever inscribed. Let’s remember how the barely armed Sibiryakov was not afraid to engage the newest German heavy cruiser Admiral Scheer, which was then forced to retreat from Dixon under the fierce fire of several coastal guns.
The Baltic Fleet played a key role in the defense of Leningrad. The ship’s artillery effectively stopped attempts to bombard the city by fascist troops, and the sailors participated in the construction of defensive fortifications. The Ladoga flotilla provided communication with the mainland along the Road of Life, which saved a huge number of Leningraders.
The Navy fought the enemy from the first days of the war until the victorious May. Just two weeks ago, it was 80 years since the German submarine Goya was sunk by the L-3 submarine. On April 24, 1945, the Pillau naval base was stormed, today it is the city of Baltiysk. And on May 9, after Berlin signed the act of unconditional surrender, the Marines of the Baltic Fleet liberated the Danish island of Bornholm from the Nazi invaders.
Let’s not forget that Soviet sailors also performed feats far from their shores. Very soon, on the eve of Victory Day, a monument to Soviet submariners will be unveiled in Panama. It will perpetuate the memory of their passage from the Far East to the Northern Fleet through the Panama Canal, near which one of the boats was killed by an enemy torpedo. The construction of the monument was made possible thanks to the enthusiasm of our compatriots, who honor the memory of the great soldiers who defended the world.
— Monuments in honor of the feat of Soviet sailors also continue to appear in our country?
— In the anniversary year, it is planned to erect new monuments to military sailors in Tatarstan, Irkutsk, Murmansk and a number of other regions. At the beginning of the year, monuments to the founders and former commanders-in-chief of the Navy appeared in the Moscow Region, and a monument to sailors of all generations was opened in the Lipetsk Region.
In addition, on the eve of the 80th anniversary, much attention is paid to the reconstruction of monuments to military sailors, merchant seamen and shipwrights who contributed to the Victory. For example, only on the territory of Severodvinsk there are 33 memorable objects associated with the Great Patriotic War, many of them were renovated in recent years. In 2025, the memorial “In memory of the soldiers of the 13th separate ski Brigade of the 2nd Shock Army of the Volkhov Front” will be reconstructed. It is located on the island of Jagry in Severodvinsk. There are many such examples.
— During the war, the entire country provided naval power.
– Sea battles during the Great Patriotic War became not only a confrontation of ships, but also a battle of technology, tactics and resources. We must pay tribute to the genius and perseverance of Soviet shipbuilders, who made many technical breakthroughs. Research laboratories and development bureaus have provided significant support to seafarers with their developments.
For example, the Leningrad Shipbuilding Institute, in the most difficult conditions of the besieged city, developed new technological processes necessary for the production of ship steam turbines and repair of internal combustion engines. In the educational and production workshops of the university, equipment for the manufacture of anti-aircraft shells was produced. The Institute’s specialists created projects for new landing boats and flatboats in the shortest possible time, and ensured the completion of the Petropavlovsk cruiser.
The legendary Sevmash built combat boats during the war, including sea hunters, which were used for landing troops, escorting submarines, and protecting transport convoys. The most complex military orders were carried out by Admiralty Shipyards, Sredne-Nevsky Shipyard, Rybinsk Vympel ,Arkhangelsk Krasnaya Kuznitsa and many others.
— It is known that close cooperation was also established with the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition.
— The Soviet people in the fight against fascism were really supported by the naval forces of foreign countries. The memory of their feat is sacred to us along with the memory of all Soviet people who gave their lives in the war against Nazism. At the same time, it is important not to forget that the main burden of the war was borne by the USSR.
We received most of our aid under lend-lease through the North Seas. But in addition to the polar convoys, there were other, less well-known destinations, such as across the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean and Iran.
— Your father, Platon Ignatievich, provided convoy escort during the war.
— Yes, he participated in many convoy operations, served on the destroyer “Active”. The destroyer was lost at the end of the war, only seven people from the entire crew were saved. My father survived by a miracle, as at that tragic moment he was in Leningrad.
The Foundation for the Preservation of Historical Memory “International Center for Northern Convoys” is working to perpetuate the memory of sailors of polar convoys. This is an important and necessary work that deserves sincere gratitude from the descendants of brave Soviet sailors. In the future, a separate museum dedicated to the history and heritage of the northern and other Allied convoys will be created in St. Petersburg on the alluvial areas of Vasilievsky Island. Now there is a mobile exhibition where documents, photographs and personal belongings of officers and sailors who participated in the battles in the northern seas are presented.
I believe that the topic of allied convoys can become a good basis for resuming contacts with museum, educational and veterans ‘ organizations of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition.
The memory of the courage of the participants in the war remains even in states where Russophobia is rampant today. For example, in the UK, in the city of Londonderry, there is a monument in honor of Arctic convoys, which mentions the contribution of Soviet sailors.
— At the same time, the shameful war with monuments to Soviet soldiers continues in many European cities.
— During the Second World War, some Europeans joined the Allied fleets to lead convoys to Murmansk, and others put on SS uniforms and went to Russian soil to burn villages. So it is today: there is no common position in Europe regarding the rejection of Nazism and the preservation of the memory of the joint struggle against it. Cases of vandalism and desecration of monuments are constantly surfacing in Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Bulgaria, and the Baltic states. Military monuments in Ukraine have been demolished or desecrated. Thus, the ship Zheleznyakov, installed as a monument in Kiev in 1967, became a refuge for marginals.
In Britain and the European Union, multi-volume books about the Second World War are published, which cynically ignore the atrocities of the German invaders, the losses of the Soviet Union, and belittle the role of the USSR in the Victory over fascism.
When voting on the UN platform on the resolution prepared by Russia to combat the glorification of Nazism, a number of Western countries voted against it. However, most of the world’s states supported the document — and we consider this trend to be very important. By the 80th anniversary of the Victory over Fascism, Russia is striving to consolidate the efforts of the international community to develop a stable immunity to Nazism and its manifestations. To prevent a repeat of the catastrophe of the Second World War.
Belittling the heroic feat of the USSR is unacceptable, since it insults the entire multinational people of our country. While preserving historical memory is the key to a peaceful future. To this end, Russia has become more active in publishing documents confirming the crimes of the Third Reich and those who supported it financially, politically and ideologically.
I believe that all those who are currently reviving the ideas of Hitlerite fascism deserve international censure and criminal punishment today
We must remember the lessons that the Second World War taught us. For the further development of our country and ensuring its security, for predicting a stable future, we must use all the past experience.
— This also applies to the further development of the Russian Navy?
— 80 years ago, naval art was different, not to mention the level of technical development. However, the most fundamental principles of the maritime strategy remain unchanged.
The accumulated experience, including those gained in a special military operation, as well as the forecast of the military-political situation are taken into account in the draft strategies for the development of the Navy and the FSB ship staff for the period up to 2050. They are based on a conceptual view of the role and place of the Navy in the current realities. Their implementation will create a new image of the Navy, provide a significant scientific and technical reserve, preserve the status of a great maritime power for our country, increase the combat power and operational capabilities of the Navy.
— The breakthrough development of the Navy during the Great Patriotic War formed the foundation of our country’s naval power for many decades to come. Is the navy ready to deal with military threats today?
— Today, the Navy, together with other branches and branches of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, reliably ensures the strategic security of our country. Nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles on board from the Northern and Pacific Fleets, along with the Strategic Missile Forces and the VKS, form a strategic nuclear triad. Marines of all fleets and the Caspian Flotilla show courage and heroism during a special military operation.
Ships, submarines and naval aviation of the Black Sea Fleet and the Caspian Flotilla strike at military facilities and armed formations of Ukraine. The ships are equipped with modern missile and artillery weapons, electronic warfare, counteraction to unmanned boats and unmanned aerial vehicles. And their high combat readiness is ensured by the professionalism of military seamen who hone their skills during exercises and campaigns, including with the naval forces of friendly states.
World history teaches that for the safety of sea shipping routes, foreign economic relations, and cargo transportation, it is necessary to have a strong navy that does not allow hostile encroachments. The military-political situation on the world stage, as well as the forecast of the situation in the world, dictate the need to further strengthen the naval power of our state, which corresponds to the geographical location of our country and national interests. That’s what we’re going to do. Only in the last few months, the Navy has received a new nuclear submarine “Arkhangelsk”. The Perm submarine, the first carrier of hypersonic Zircon missiles, was launched from the Sevmash boathouse. The state pays special attention to the construction of modern ships.
– Nikolai Platonovich, the Russian Navy has its own traditions of naming ships. Are there any plans to perpetuate the memory of SVO in the names of ships of the Russian Navy?
— The special military operation has already gone down in history as an important stage in Russia’s struggle for its security and a necessary step to protect its compatriots. There is no doubt that the memory of these events will remain not only in memorials, but also in the names of military equipment.
New Russian ships should be named after the heroes and events of the special military operation. I believe, for example, that the fleet can get cruisers with the names “Donetsk”and ” Lugansk”. This will be a logical continuation of the glorious tradition, demonstrate respect for the feat of defenders of the Fatherland.
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2011803/
The video is available at the link and it is Mr Lavrov in English. This was not a friendly interview.
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 U.S.-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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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. U.S. intelligence says battlefield trends are in Russia’s favour. So if that’s the case, why should the U.S. 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 Whitkoff is negotiated?
Sergey Lavrov: We’re always in favour 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 Whitkoff 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.N. 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 U.S. 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, U.S. intelligence says…
I was listening to President Trump about his views of what is the list of achievements of U.S. 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.
By Brian Berletic for NEO
The survival and success of multipolarism depends on the multipolar world cooperating against US attempts to reassert American primacy – not only through direct and proxy war, but also through economic coercion and political interference – and to understand that a US war on Russia in Ukraine or a proxy war waged against Syria in the Middle East – is, in fact, a war against the rise of multipolarism altogether and the promise of peace and prosperity it offers.
Recent comments from current US Secretary of State Marco Rubio have signaled Washington’s intent to abandon peace efforts if progress isn’t made between Russia and Ukraine.
CNN in a recent article has reported that:
The United States could end its efforts on ending the Ukrainian conflict within “days” if there are no signs of progress, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Friday.
“If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on,” he told reporters before departing Paris, where he had held high-level talks with European and Ukrainian officials. “We need to determine very quickly now, and I’m talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable,” he said.
The Trump administration and the Biden administration before it never had any intention of addressing the actual cause of the conflict in Ukraine – NATO’s expansion up to and all along Russia’s borders
This is framed as if the US is serving as some sort of mediator between Russia and Ukraine. In reality, the US is one of two primary parties to the conflict – the other being Russia, with whom this war was provoked.
A US War on Russia Since the Cold War Ended…
The US had since the end of the Cold War invested billions of dollars in political interference within Ukraine, including regime change operations attempted in 2004 and successful regime change finally taking place in 2014. From 2014 onward, Ukraine was transformed into a military proxy of the United States aimed specifically to threaten the Russian Federation, just as a politically captured Georgia in 2003 was used to attack Russian peacekeeping forces in 2008.
The growing security threat this posed to Moscow precipitated the launching of Russia’s February 2022 Special Military Operation (SMO) and the subsequent fighting that has continued ever since.
A series of articles from the Western media itself has revealed over recent years the degree to which the US had not only politically captured Ukraine, but also institutionally captured its military and intelligence agencies, reconfiguring them to operate as armed extensions of the US along Ukraine’s border with Russia, and even across it within Russia itself.
Among these admissions is the New York Times’ February 2024 article titled, “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin,” which admits to, “a C.I.A.-supported network of spy bases constructed in the past eight years that includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border.”
The article would also admit:
Around 2016, the C.I.A. began training an elite Ukrainian commando force — known as Unit 2245 — which captured Russian drones and communications gear so that C.I.A. technicians could reverse-engineer them and crack Moscow’s encryption systems. (One officer in the unit was Kyrylo Budanov, now the general leading Ukraine’s military intelligence.)
And the C.I.A. also helped train a new generation of Ukrainian spies who operated inside Russia, across Europe, and in Cuba and other places where the Russians have a large presence.
While the New York Times tries to insist the CIA did not help Ukrainians conduct offensive lethal operations, it later admits CIA-trained Unit 2245 not only conducted lethal operations, but did so within Russian territory, claiming:
At the time, the future head of Ukraine’s military intelligence agency, General Budanov, was a rising star in Unit 2245. He was known for daring operations behind enemy lines and had deep ties to the C.I.A. The agency had trained him and also taken the extraordinary step of sending him for rehabilitation to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland after he was shot in the right arm during fighting in the Donbas.
Disguised in Russian uniforms, then-Lt. Col. Budanov led commandos across a narrow gulf in inflatable speedboats, landing at night in Crimea.
But an elite Russian commando unit was waiting for them. The Ukrainians fought back, killing several Russian fighters, including the son of a general, before retreating to the shoreline, plunging into the sea and swimming for hours to Ukrainian-controlled territory.
In other words, the US was training, equipping, arming, and directing deadly operations out of Ukraine into Russian-held territory before Russia launched its 2022 SMO.
The same article admitted that these CIA officers deployed to and overseeing operations in Ukraine began playing a central role after Russia launched its SMO in 2022.
The NYT would admit:
Within weeks, the C.I.A. had returned to Kyiv, and the agency sent in scores of new officers to help the Ukrainians. A senior U.S. official said of the C.I.A.’s sizable presence, “Are they pulling triggers? No. Are they helping with targeting? Absolutely.”
Some of the C.I.A. officers were deployed to Ukrainian bases. They reviewed lists of potential Russian targets that the Ukrainians were preparing to strike, comparing the information that the Ukrainians had with U.S. intelligence to ensure that it was accurate.
Subsequent articles by the New York Times would expand upon just how deeply involved the US has been in the fighting – making the war for all intents and purposes an American war fought through the Ukrainians.
Washington’s War on Russia
A March 2025 New York Times article titled, “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine,” would explain that not only has the US provided tens of billions of US dollars worth of military equipment, weapons, and ammunition, including, “a half-billion rounds of small-arms ammunition and grenades, 10,000 Javelin antiarmor weapons, 3,000 Stinger antiaircraft systems, 272 howitzers, 76 tanks, 40 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, 20 Mi-17 helicopters and three Patriot air defense batteries,” but that the US military itself has been (and still is) playing a central role in picking and striking at targets on both sides of the Ukrainian-Russian border.
It admitted that it was US intelligence used to carry out many of Ukraine’s most successful attacks on Russian military headquarters including at the Crimean port of Sevastopol which had been under Russian control even before the 2014 US overthrow of Ukraine and Crimea’s subsequent reunification with Russia.
Much of Washington’s control over the conflict was coordinated through a mission command center established in Wiesbaden, Germany. While many of Ukraine’s military operations were attributed to Ukrainian planning, the New York Times has since revealed it was instead overseen by the US and other NATO members through Wiesbaden.
The article would explain:
Side by side in Wiesbaden’s mission command center, American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv’s counteroffensives. A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.
One European intelligence chief recalled being taken aback to learn how deeply enmeshed his N.A.T.O. counterparts had become in Ukrainian operations. “They are part of the kill chain now,” he said.
The New York Times also admitted:
Military and C.I.A. officers in Wiesbaden helped plan and support a campaign of Ukrainian strikes in Russian-annexed Crimea. Finally, the military and then the C.I.A. received the green light to enable pinpoint strikes deep inside Russia itself.
The article admits that Western military officers – not Ukrainians – made the final decision regarding what targets would be hit and how.
This included the use of US-provided M777 howitzers and the HIMARS multiple launch rocket system.
The New York Times admitted:
Wiesbaden would oversee each HIMARS strike. [US] General Donahue and his aides would review the Ukrainians’ target lists and advise them on positioning their launchers and timing their strikes. The Ukrainians were supposed to only use coordinates the Americans provided. To fire a warhead, HIMARS operators needed a special electronic key card, which the Americans could deactivate anytime.
Every large-scale Ukrainian operation, including the 2022 Kherson and Kharkov offensives as well as the failed 2023 offensive, were planned, organized, and directed by US military officers from Wiesbaden. This also included the creation of new Ukrainian brigades, the New York Times admits was overseen by US Lieutenant General Antonio Aguto Jr.
It is also revealed that it wasn’t Ukraine who asked for longer range weapons like the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), it was US generals.
The New York Times admits:
Generals Cavoli and Aguto recommended the next quantum leap, giving the Ukrainians Army Tactical Missile Systems — missiles, known as ATACMS, that can travel up to 190 miles — to make it harder for Russian forces in Crimea to help defend Melitopol.
It was also revealed that Ukrainian commanders realized the US-planned and directed 2023 offensive was doomed during its earliest phase, yet US commanders demanded Ukraine “press on.”
Various options were formulated to try to salvage the failed offensive, with the New York Times attributing its failure to a number of factors, including infighting among Ukrainian commanders and even tension between Ukrainian commanders and their US handlers. In reality, the offensive failed because of the realities of material limitations on Western military industrial production and their inability to fight the type of war of attrition Russia had prepared for years in advance and imposed on them.
Toward the end of the New York Times article, it admitted that, “the coalition simply couldn’t provide all the equipment for a major counteroffensive. Nor could the Ukrainians build an army big enough to mount one.”
Various operations were described throughout the article including US-British attempts to destroy the Kerch Bridge connecting Crimea to the rest of Russia, which all ended in failure.
While the article attempts to blame the gradual draw down of US support for Ukraine on the election of President Donald Trump and his desire for “peace,” it is clear the US simply exhausted the means to continue waging a proxy war against a Russian military much better able to replace its losses than Ukraine and its Western sponsors.
The New York Times essentially admits this was a US war waged against Russia, simply using Ukraine as intermediaries.
Every major military operation down to specific targets to be struck and which US-European-made and provided weapon system to use to strike it with was made by American – not Ukrainian generals.
Playing “Mediator” While Seeking to Freeze a Failed Proxy War
Today, the US government is attempting to play the role of a frustrated mediator trying to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia, when in reality this was always a war between the US and Russia.
In reality, current US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, in a February 12, 2025 speech, discussed “European and non-European troops” being sent into Ukraine as a “security guarantee” which would in practice either freeze the conflict or precipitate direct hostilities between Russia and Europe.
Secretary Hegseth also instructed Europe the next steps regarding Ukraine would be “donating more ammunition and equipment” to Ukraine, as well as “expanding your defense industrial base.”
What Secretary Hegseth actually laid out was a directive not toward peace in Ukraine, but to once again freeze the conflict as the US and Europe did during the Minsk agreements, during which the US and Europe could expand their own military industrial bases to match or exceed Russian production and rearm and reorganize Ukrainian forces to resume hostilities again in the future when factors lean in Washington’s favor, not Moscow’s.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s predictable boredom with peace talks with Russia signals the US’ readiness to transfer responsibility for its proxy war fully onto Europe as it pivots toward a much more dangerous confrontation with Russia’s ally to the east – China.
The Trump administration and the Biden administration before it never had any intention of addressing the actual cause of the conflict in Ukraine – NATO’s expansion up to and all along Russia’s borders with every intention of inevitably absorbing Russia itself. Because of this, genuine peace was never possible regardless of the Trump administration’s public rhetoric and empty gestures toward Russia.
While the Trump administration has paid lip service to NATO expansion, its only decision regarding NATO specifically has been to demand NATO members more than double funding for NATO.
Russia, for its part, has left the door open for honest negotiations and has provided the United States ample exit ramps from both an unwinnable proxy war and indefinite confrontation with Russia into the future. The US is obviously not interested. Russia had, throughout “peace talks” with the US, continued its war of attrition against Ukrainian forces, continuing the process the New York Times describes as the central contributing factor for the proxy war’s current failure.
The real question that remains is whether or not Russia can continue this process at a faster and more effective rate than the US and Europe can continue “donating more ammunition and equipment” to Ukraine while attempting to expand their “defense industrial bases.” Only time will tell for sure.
As Syria has demonstrated, a proxy war the US has lost one moment can be frozen, revisited, and eventually won if it is able to overextend designated adversaries like Russia and Iran for long enough and extensively enough elsewhere. The US has already embarked upon armed conflict with Yemen and is threatening war with Iran – forcing Russia to once again make difficult decisions regarding where it invests finite military resources versus the seemingly infinite US capacity to create instability and conflict wordwide.
The survival and success of multipolarism depends on the multipolar world cooperating against US attempts to reassert American primacy – not only through direct and proxy war, but also through economic coercion and political interference – and to understand that a US war on Russia in Ukraine or a proxy war waged against Syria in the Middle East – is, in fact, a war against the rise of multipolarism altogether and the promise of peace and prosperity it offers.
Larchmonter posted a comment on Smoothie’s site and has given me permission to repost it here. First, I agree with him. Second, nothing here is at all critical of Smoothie. Then, the context in which this comment is made is not essential for this discussion. The post is here: http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/04/glenn-diesen-and-yours-truly.html#disqus_thread
Larchmonter writes:
War is politics by other means. The goals of the SMO were Political. From what we see, those core issues are not completed. They are near for the military. But we know the SMO has begun to turn into a Terror war by Ukraine. And the SMO in some places turned into a CTO. Then there is nazism. It is far from destroyed.
So, I don’t see how the War is Won. Zhukov is still at the Oder. Berlin is four months away. And the commitment from Stalin was to take Berlin. Presently, Gerasimov is at the Dneiper. We have no sense of a strategy to take anything, merely to grind the enemy. Can anything stop the Russians? No. We see they have broken the military of the proxies (Ukraine and NATO). Russian can do as it wishes.
However, the goals have not been met as yet. It appears, politics by other means could mean not military but diplomacy, economics, geopolitical alignments, counter-terrorism, disintegration of Ukraine dispersed into four neighboring nations. All of which requires more war until matters are actuated in place.
and then later he writes:
The idea is to get some discussion of the other means that may come into play.
I’d like his (Smoothie’s) take and other cogent thinking on the specifics.
He may tell me to stand in the corner or not to answer.
I know what he has stated, I just don’t see a sudden stop or that it is ‘won’.
If Russia was masterful in media and the world understood what has transpired, that would be different.
Without achieving the goals, how is that winning?
I don’t see how the War is Won. If a war is won politically, this war is not won. We are 3+ years in (February 2022), and this war is continuing militarily. A war is won when the political objectives are reached and the weapons are silenced – usually in that order. So militarily, Russia is still fighting, and the butcher bill is still adding up daily, the drones are still flying daily, and fierce battles are still being fought.
The first and most crucial objective (arguably) was to get Ukraine to commit to a non-nazi administration and leadership. All we have seen is the growth of nazism, although I cannot define if the depth and depravity of the nazi ideology were uncovered, and I did not know the extent of it, or whether it grew during the time.
Mr Lavrov states: What is there behind this? Germany is undoubtedly out to regain its erstwhile grandeur, with the old Nazi instincts breaking out at the genetic level as something that might come in handy in this regard. As for the rest of European countries, some of them want to finally delete from history the pages of their national disgrace, collaborationism and connivance at the Nazis, while others regard the Nazi ideology as a new tool for keeping their positions on the European political scene. We will fight this. … half of Europe or even the whole of Europe would again be collected under the standard of Nazism and neo-Nazism and committed against our country, as, properly speaking, it is happening today.
The second most important objective was a new security architecture as a result of NATO expansion to the East. There is no sign of this objective being met. On the contrary, all of the European poodles are NATO-ITES.
The third most important objective was the existence of NATO itself. Those of us who watch the East know that NATO is not dead. It may be a joke, but it is not dead.
We have no idea what Russia’s current short-term or longer term objectives are. Militarily, they are (given some territory) where they need to be with the Donbas areas in Russian hands. It is said that Russia demolished at least four combined arms militaries. But weapons and fighters are still streaming into Ukraine. Russian soldiers are still dying for the SMO.
The US ‘cease-fire’ is a worthless effort, although Russia is using it to re-establish diplomatic and consular work. (Russia is also inviting US investment, and even here, it is opaque. Are they using this as a pretext to make sanctions go away? Or perhaps to buy time until a different economic model in the world is more established?)
I don’t need to say too much more; we all know this. In my view, the only current creation of the SMO (separate from Russia’s military mastery, astonishing weaponry, and financial and economic growth) is that Ukraine is now somewhat of a second ISIS, given Ukrainian actions in Africa.
I don’t see progress on a new security architecture. NATO is still howling at the moon, and the US has just announced that it actually likes NATO and will stay. I don’t see any progress on the eradication of nazi ideology, and the talk of a Ukrainian election is gaslighting as such an election would be.
The sheer idiocy of Europe bears no discussion. Yet, the objective of making war against Russia is strong in the blood of these pirates. They are raiding citizen piggy banks to pay for something.
Russia is united, and that statement can even be couched. There are problems, but there is time for them to be resolved. (Some hints: Ask yourself what exactly the man called Dugin is doing in relation to BRICS? As I said, there is time. Ask yourself what exactly is South Africa’s ANC doing in relation to BRICS?)
In conclusion, all I see is that Ukraine is now part of the perpetual war, and from this perspective, Russia wins militarily and loses politically and diplomatically at this moment. If this SMO continues on the political axis, the physical war making will continue. This is a millstone tied firmly around the Russian foot in relation to the world. Something has to give, and all we have at the moment is the continual SMO grind. We cannot say Russia has won.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)