nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Trump Asked Zelensky If He Could Strike Moscow If the US Provided Longer-Range Weapons.

Trump later denied that he was considering sending long-range weapons to Ukraine and said that Ukraine shouldn’t target Moscow

by Dave DeCamp | Jul 15, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/07/15/trump-asked-zelensky-if-he-could-strike-moscow-if-the-us-provided-longer-range-weapons/

President Trump has encouraged Ukraine to step up strikes deep inside Russia and even asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky if his forces were capable of striking Moscow if the US provided longer-range weapons, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday.

Sources told the FT that the conversation occurred during a July 4 phone call. “Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? . . . Can you hit St Petersburg too?” Trump asked. Zelensky replied that his forces could “absolutely” strike the Russian cities if the US provided the necessary weapons.

The report said that Trump signaled backing for the idea of providing long-range weapons in order to “make them [Russians] feel the pain” to pressure Moscow at the negotiating table. In comments to reporters, Trump later denied that he was considering providing Ukraine with long-range weapons and said that Zelensky “shouldn’t target Moscow.”

The White House confirmed that the conversation about striking Moscow took place, but insisted Trump wasn’t encouraging Ukrainian attacks inside Russia. A White House official told the BBC that Trump was “merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing. He’s working tirelessly to stop the killing and end this war.”

The FT report said that US officials have also provided Zelensky with a list of potential long-range weapons the US could supply. The Ukrainians have been asking for Tomahawk missiles, which have a range of over 1,000 miles, making them capable of hitting Moscow from Ukrainian territory.

Last year, the Biden administration gave Ukraine the green light to use ATACMS missiles in strikes on Russian territory. The ATACMS have a range of about 190 miles, which is not far enough to hit Moscow. Russia has made clear that attacks on its territory risk nuclear escalation since it lowered the threshold for its use of nuclear weapons in response to the US backing the ATACMS attacks.

The revelation about the Trump-Zelensky call came after the US president announced a new plan to provide Ukraine with “billions of dollars” worth of weapons by selling arms to NATO countries that will then transfer them to the war-torn nation. He also threatened major tariffs on Russia and its trading partners if a peace deal isn’t reached in 50 days, an ultimatum Moscow has rejected.

July 18, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump Announces Weapons Plan for Ukraine, Gives Russia 50-Day Deadline for Tariffs

Under the plan, the US will sell more weapons to NATO countries that will be transferred to Ukraine

by Dave DeCamp | Jul 14, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/07/14/trump-announces-weapons-plan-for-ukraine-gives-russia-50-day-deadline-for-tariffs/

President Trump on Monday met with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the White House and announced a plan to provide Ukraine with “billions of dollars” worth of US military equipment by selling US weapons to NATO countries that will be then transferred to the war-torn nation. The president also said that if a peace deal isn’t reached within 50 days, he will impose tariffs on Russia.

A source told Axios that the US is expected to sell $10 billion worth of military equipment to NATO countries in the first wave. Explaining the weapons plan to reporters, Rutte said the idea was to ensure that the US, which he described as the “police agent” of the world, is able to maintain its military stockpiles while also providing a “massive” amount of weapons to Ukraine.

“The US needs to make sure it can keep its hands on what the US needs to keep the whole world safe, because, in the end, you are the police agent of the whole world … but given that, the US has decided to indeed to massively supply Ukraine with what is necessary through NATO. Europeans [will be] 100% paying for that,” Rutte said.

Trump and Rutte said that they’d gotten commitments from European countries to purchase US weapons for Ukraine. “I will say that I spoke with Germany, spoke with most of the larger countries, and they are really enthusiastic about this, and they’re willing to go really far,” Trump said.

Trump and Rutte didn’t elaborate on the type of arms that would be sent, except to mention that more US-made Patriot air defense systems would be supplied to Ukraine. Sources told Axios that the weapons will also include long-range weapons that can strike deep inside Russia.

Regarding tariffs, Trump threatened to impose 100% tariffs on Russia and “secondary tariffs” that would target Moscow’s trading partners, which include China and India. “We’re going to be doing very severe tariffs if we don’t have a deal in 50 days,” he said.

While announcing measures to continue the proxy war, Trump is still trying to distance himself from the conflict, calling it a “Biden war” and a “Democrat war.” The president insisted that he still wants to bring the conflict to an end and that he hopes the new military aid and tariff threat will do that. “This is not Trump’s war. We’re here to get it finished and stopped,” he said.

Trump also expressed frustration with Putin, saying that he has nice conversations with the leader, but that missiles keep targeting Ukrainian cities. “My conversations with him are very pleasant, and then the missiles go off at night,” he said.

Russia has made clear that it won’t back down on its core demands for a peace deal: Ukrainian neutrality and the recognition of the four oblasts Moscow annexed in 2022 as Russian territory, which would require a Ukrainian withdrawal from the territory it still controls in those areas.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has refused to give up the territory and is unlikely to make concessions as long as the US and NATO continue to support his war effort. In the meantime, Russia continues to make gains on the battlefield and launch heavy missile and drone attacks across Ukraine.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine

The IAEA team at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) reported hearing hundreds of rounds of small arms fire last night, the latest sign of military activity potentially threatening nuclear safety and security, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today.

The large number of shots – repeatedly fired for about an hour from 10pm local time – was unusual, the team members reported.  

Conducting a site walkdown this morning, they saw numerous small calibre casings lying scattered on the ground near reactor units 5 and 6. There was no sign of broken windows or other physical damage.

The IAEA team at the ZNPP is seeking further information about the incident.

“Such military activity at or near a major nuclear power plant is clearly unacceptable,” Director General Grossi said.  

Saturday evening’s shooting came after a series of purported attacks and other incidents involving drones near the ZNPP and other nuclear facilities in Ukraine in recent months, including a report of a strike a few days ago in the city of Enerhodar, where most ZNPP staff live.  

Director General Grossi reiterated his deep concern about the apparent increased use of drones near nuclear power plants since early this year, saying such weaponry posed a clear risk to nuclear safety and security.

Any drone strike on a nuclear facility would violate the Seven Indispensable Pillars for nuclear safety and security during an armed conflict as well as the Five Principles to help ensure nuclear safety and security at the ZNPP, outlined by the Director General in March 2022 and May 2023, respectively.  

“We are seeing a clear escalation in drone strikes during this war, also affecting Ukraine’s nuclear power plants and potentially putting them in further danger. As I have repeatedly stated, any military attack on a nuclear site – with or without drones – jeopardizes nuclear safety and must stop immediately,” Director General Grossi said.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | incidents, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The phases of Ukraine – continued.

By Gordon Hahn – March 1 , 2025 – Source 
Russian and Eurasian Politics, Translated by Wayan, proofread by Hervé, for Saker Francophone.

– – ……………………..……………………………………………………..The collapse of the Ukrainian army

The collapse of the front is expected to occur simultaneously or shortly after the collapse of the Ukrainian army. The state of the Ukrainian army is indeed dire. It suffers not only from a growing shortage of weapons, but also from a shortage of personnel, discipline, morale, and capabilities, all crippled by corruption. The 2024 military mobilization failed. Desertion and refusal to obey orders are endemic, and corruption not only hinders recruitment but also promotes high levels of absence without leave, reducing the number of Ukrainian soldiers actually fighting at the front.

The military mobilizations of the past and present year are having a debilitating effect on the economy, and society is failing to replace current losses at the front with completely inexperienced recruits with low or zero morale. There are no more volunteers, and by spring, some Ukrainian officials report, the situation will be irremediable. Moreover, almost all of the new recruits are elderly or demotivated, reports The Economist .

Frontline commanders, such as the commander of the drone battalion of Ukraine’s 30th Mechanized Brigade, confirm that the 2024 mobilization was an absolute failure and that there are now too few men to replace combat losses. Mobilization is carried out through harsh, often violent, measures. Verkhovna Rada deputy Alexander Bakumov of  Zelenskiy’s 
Servants of the People party  said in a session that the mobilization in the Kharkiv region is forced, resembling a filtration of the Ukrainian population (referring to the practice of detaining, beating, and torturing citizens of the occupied areas in an ostensible search for fighters and collaborators), with exits from the city blocked by “recruitment   gangs  and lawyers for the mobilized men beaten. Small businesses are facing mass closures due to the lack of workers willing to leave for fear of being drafted into the army. Others have reported data falsification at recruiting offices to justify recruitment . There are numerous reports and videos of the violence used by recruiting gangs. Ultimately, what can be said of an army whose military system must force citizens to fight, even by forcibly seizing priests leading a religious procession and sending them to the front?

Moreover, many men are fleeing the country in greater numbers to avoid Ukraine’s desperate and draconian forced mobilization measures, sometimes risking their lives and sociopolitical stability. More recently, Western governments have pressured Kyiv to extend mobilization to the 18-25 age cohort, which would lead to a near-catastrophic demographic collapse of a population already reduced by some 30 percent due to war deaths and emigration. Even the recruitment centers themselves are trying to avoid the draft. When Rada deputies proposed filling the personnel shortage by creating a brigade from among the mobilization gangs, the chairman of the mobilization centers claimed that there were not enough of them to form a full brigade. The low number of volunteers and the failure of mobilization are creating distortions in the force structure. ”   Zombie brigades  ” or ”  paper brigades  ” are partially manned units simply called brigades to impress Western donors and facilitate the corruption of commanders who  garnish salaries allocated to non-existent personnel.

The large number of desertions from the Ukrainian army, a phenomenon completely ignored by the Western media for three years, was finally revealed in November  to have exceeded 100,000 since the start of the war. This would perhaps represent more than 10% of the Ukrainian army at its current size, given that Zelenskiy recently claimed that it has 800,000 recruits. Moreover, more than half of these desertions took place in the first ten months of 2024 alone. This is already large-scale desertion and  includes mass desertions .

Military blogger Yurii Butusov, Servant of the People MP Maryana Bezuglaya, and others reported late last year  the desertion of an entire 1,000-man brigade trained in France upon their arrival at the front. This may have been a case of the commander’s failed attempt to form so-called ”   zombie brigades .” Indeed, military personnel have questioned the recent practice of creating new brigades when existing ones are woefully underequipped,  apparently suspecting the corruption scheme behind the practice. One Ukrainian commander  told a Polish newspaper that sometimes in combat there are more deserters than killed and wounded.

Desertions are one of the symptoms of lax discipline and, above all, low morale, increasingly plaguing the Ukrainian army. Commanders report that 90 percent of their frontline troops are newly mobilized men forcibly. Sources in the Ukrainian General Staff report the same . Thus, desertions are accompanied by unauthorized retreats, which are becoming increasingly frequent. For example, hundreds of people fled the battle at one point last fall in Vugledar (Ugledar) before the town fell. Vugledar was once a stronghold that, in 2023, Russian forces stormed dozens of times without success.

Ukrainian soldiers refuse to carry out operational orders because they amount to suicide operations and are beginning to surrender in entire units, in one case almost an entire battalion (for example, the 92nd Combat Squadron). Indeed, refusals to follow orders or undertake counteroffensive measures are increasing. In one recent case, the Azov Brigade’s chief of staff, Bogdan Koretich, accused a Ukrainian general of such poor command that he was described as responsible for more Ukrainian war deaths than Russians, forcing his dismissal. At lower levels, commanders are being dismissed in large numbers. At the same time, field commanders  publicly criticize senior commanders and staff for their strategic incompetence and negligence.

One reason for the disintegration of discipline and morale is that there is no relief for the troops, as there is no long-term demobilization or time away from the front other than that resulting from brief episodic troop rotations; a consequence of insufficient troop numbers. Soldiers and their families have been lobbying for over a year for a demobilization law that would allow long rotations for troops to return home, but no such law is in sight. This would likely lead to a deadly shortage of troops and the complete rout of the Ukrainian army on the battlefield.

However, perhaps the main problem in the Ukrainian military, as in the rest of the Ukrainian state and society, is corruption. It is endemic and pervasive in the production and procurement of weapons, mobilization (evasion of conscription through bribes), the purchase of leave and absences from the front, and the staffing of brigades. One Ukrainian defense minister told a journalist that the problem was ”  catastrophic .” Anna Skorokhod, an independent Rada MP, claims that only 15% (!) of rank-and-file soldiers serve at the front, with a large number either nonexistent (dead souls) in service or having bribed their way into hiding somewhere in the rear.

This is how Ukrainian officers describe the widespread corruption in the army. According to a Ukrainian army captain:

”  Due to false information about the presence of personnel, the commanders of the branches receive false information. And they operate with ‘dead souls’, developing combat plans. For example, at a point where the Russians have broken through a section of the front, the commander orders a certain brigade to send a battalion with an attached group as reinforcements. In fact, the battalion has long since left, its number is now only one company, some have bought their way to the rear or deserted. As a result, there is nothing to close the breakthrough, because of the threat, the flanks of neighboring brigades begin to collapse.  “

According to a source in the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces: ” 
If we take the number of Russian soldiers we have at the front on paper, then if the Russians have a numerical advantage, it is less than double. But that’s on paper. In practice, the situation is different. Let’s imagine a section separated from the front. According to the newspapers, there are 100 people on our side and 150 on the Russian side. In other words, the enemy’s advantage is insignificant. With such numbers, it is quite possible to maintain the defense. But in a real battle, the situation is radically different. At most 40 of our 100 people participate. And often even fewer. The rest are deserters, who simply refuse to fight, etc. And the Russians have 140 to 145 people out of 150 fighting. In total, the advantage has already more than tripled. Why does this situation exist?” Our army was initially based on a core of volunteers, ATO veterans, and highly motivated soldiers who went into battle without coercion and seized the initiative. The Russians had a major motivation problem from the very beginning. But they worked on this issue and gradually created their own system of military-repressive coercion. And it works by sending soldiers into battle and stopping cases of insubordination and desertion. We haven’t created anything like that. And I doubt we’re even capable of creating such a system. Our state system is too weak and corrupt for that. And now that the volunteers are dead, either from wounds or simply exhausted, and the army is replenished with fake conscripts who have close to zero motivation, there’s no way to force them to fight. A separate problem is the quality of the command staff and the combat management system. There are also some very big failures here, as many experienced commanders have died and worthy replacements do not always come after them .”

Moreover, corruption reaches the top of the Ukrainian military establishment (as well as the civilian establishment). The suspension of US aid to Ukraine until April and the investigation into US arms supplies to Kyiv announced by the new administration of President Donald Trump resonated in the Ukrainian capital, leading to the opening of an investigation into the procurement practices of the Defense Ministry and Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, whose predecessor, Aleksey Reznikov, had also been ousted on suspicion of massive corruption. Umerov immediately moved to fire the head of the procurement organization, but 
she refused to leave her office. There have been rumors for months that Zelenskiy was seeking to oust Umerov, and following the announcement of the investigation, calls for his resignation are growing . This adds crisis to crisis, dealing another blow to the military establishment at a pivotal moment in a catastrophic war.

Ukraine’s endemic and universal corruption has seen the artificial or outright absence of construction of fortifications at the front, bringing us back to the previous section on the collapsing front lines.

It is a state of corruption, low morale and incapacity reminiscent of Bashar al-Assad’s recently collapsed Syrian army.

This kind of Ukrainian army, or its collapse, poses a threat to both the Maidan regime and the Ukrainian state. The troops of a collapsed Ukrainian army will become a force that can be mobilized by a military or civilian leader to carry out a coup d’état and possibly a neo-fascist revolution, or by peripheral and local figures to establish separate fiefdoms. Recall that during the Maidan protests, leaders in Lvov and elsewhere first broached the idea of seceding from Ukraine, then controlled by Yanukovych. After the Maidan uprising and Yanukovych’s overthrow, it was Crimea and Donbass that moved toward separatism.

Ukrainian regime splits, then falls

With the army in collapse or even on the verge of collapse, political instability can be expected to intensify, with internal infighting intensifying as what remains resembles a front line moves closer to Kyiv. Russian forces will reach the Dnieper River by this summer and may capture territory along much or all of its length this year. With the fall of industrial giants, such as the cities of Dnipro and Zaporozhe, rump Ukraine will be reduced to a country of Western Ukrainian traders in a decimated economy, society, and political regime, assuming the Russians decide to stop at the Dnieper. Already, HUR leader Kyryll Budanov and the head of the Office of the President (OP), Andriy Yermak, are at odds, with rumors circulating for months that Zelenskiy is preparing to fire Budanov. In late January, Ukrainskaya Pravda , a pro-Maidan newspaper, reported that Budanov shocked Rada deputies at a closed-door meeting by declaring that if peace talks did not begin soon, processes would begin that would lead to the destruction of Ukraine . There has been some cooperation in the opposition between Zelenskiy’s dismissed armed forces commander, General Valeriy Zaluzhniy, and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Both have been investigated for alleged treason by Zelenskiy’s prosecutors and the secret police, the SBU, and have been the subject of political attacks by the PO. The leader of the parliamentary faction of Zelenskiy’s ”  Servants of the People  ” party in the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada, David Arakhamiya, is reportedly on the way out and will soon be replaced as party faction chairman. Arakhmiya is one of the few Ukrainian figures to acknowledge that Ukraine almost reached a peace deal with Russia in March 2022 that would have brought a swift end to the war, but that the West scuttled the agreement by withholding security guarantees and urging Kyiv to fight. Recently, as the new Trump administration put peace talks back on the agenda, Arakhmiya appeared to encourage the process by noting that he was in contact with Kremlin-linked Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich and had good ties to Republicans in the United States, likely increasing Zelenskiy’s suspicions about his loyalty. https://lesakerfrancophone.fr/les-quatre-prochaines-phases-deffondrements-de-lukraine

These internal struggles are compounded by the unfulfilled revolutionary aspirations of its ultranationalist and neofascist wing, which led the Maidan takeover in the first place ten years ago in February 2024. More recently, the founder and former leader of the neofascist Right Sector group and advisor to former Ukrainian Army Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhniy, Dmitro Yarosh, 
repeated his call for the completion of the neofascist revolution on his Facebook page: “  
It turned out that during the Revolution of Dignity and the Russo-Ukrainian War, Ukrainian nationalists became the main factor in the Ukrainian national liberation struggle in the 21st century. I am a Ukrainian nationalist—this sounds proud both in Ukraine and around the world. The next power after the War of Independence should be nationalist.” Otherwise, we will once again be drawn into an unbreakable cycle of national humiliation, corruption, degeneration, moral degradation, economic decline, inferiority, and defeat. Therefore, after the War of Independence, the wise, courageous, and noble must reign in Ukraine. Glory to the Nation! ” The leader and commander of the neo-fascist Azov Brigade, Andrey Biletskiy, 
sounded the alarm about the army in December and called for far-reaching reforms, perhaps with the aim of taking over the leadership of the army and even the state. In short, the Zelenskiy government has opponents , even enemies, in all political camps, from the military to moderate nationalists to neo-fascists, even in his own largely discredited and corrupt Servant of the People party.

These developments within the elite are compounded by the collapse of Zelenskiy’s popularity and public trust. General Zaluzhniy is favored over Zelenskiy in the most recent opinion polls in Ukraine. Ukrainians’ trust in Zelensky 
has plummeted from 80% in May 2023 to 45% a year later, according to the US National Democratic Institute. A recent Ukrainian opinion poll conducted by the Kyiv-based Center for Social Monitoring shows that only 16% of Ukrainians are willing to vote for Zelenskiy in any future presidential election, and 60% would prefer him not to run. Meanwhile, Zaluzhniy, ousted by Zelenskiy, would lead in such an election and would have 27% support, the poll found. According to previous internal opinion polls by the Presidential Office, Zelenskiy would lose a presidential election to Zaluzhniy today. The dismissed general ranks as the 
most popular political and military figure in Ukraine, according to other recent polls (). In approval ratings, Zelenskiy has fallen to third place, after Zaluzhniy and the head of military intelligence (HRU) Budanov, whom the President’s Office is trying to fire . The stumbling block may be Budanov’s long-standing ties to US and Western intelligence services . In a more recent survey, Zaluzhniy (71.6%) and Budanov (46.7%) retained higher approval ratings than Zelenskiy (40.8%).

All of the above strongly suggests that the regime is fracturing behind the scenes and that Zelenskiy will be unable to maintain the situation as crises at the front and in the army intensify. The Maidan regime is threatened by a regime divided into competing factions, each putting forward its own claim to the sovereignty of the Ukrainian state or parts of it. Zaluzhniy’s reported contacts with opposition figure Poroshenko would mark the defection of a key actor from the Maidan regime to the political opposition to Zelenskiy. Such defections play a decisive role in regime transformations, whether transitional or revolutionary. It is sufficient to recall the effect that Eltsion’s defection from Mikhail Gorbachev’s reformist Soviet CPSU regime had on Soviet politics, exacerbating the polarization to both the ”  left  ” and ”  right  ” of Gorbachev’s perestroishchiki and leading to the sweeping August coup against both and ultimately the collapse of the USSR.

On top of all this, the regime’s stability is being undermined by the Trump administration’s push for peace talks with Moscow and, most recently, its implicit decision to remove Zelensky from the presidency to facilitate those negotiations. The February 2 call by Trump’s Ukraine peace envoy, Keith Kellogg, for presidential elections to be called by the end of the year appears to spell doom for Zelenskiy, given General Zaluzhniy’s far greater popularity. For Zelenskiy, an electoral defeat or a decision not to run would be a saving grace compared to other means by which he could be removed from power. But Kellogg’s mere suggestion, let alone an actual presidential campaign waged as the front and the army collapse, will intensify the power struggle, perhaps to the breaking point.

Then there is the very real potential for a popular uprising as the economy deteriorates and corruption becomes more publicized, especially as it is linked to the military’s difficulties. Ukrainians already view this as a greater threat than the Russian military, according to a recent poll conducted by the Kyiv-based sociological research group  Reinting . The poll showed that more Ukrainians cited price increases and the general state of the economy (32% and 33%, respectively) as more worrisome than the expansion of Ukrainian territory occupied by the Russian military (25%). Social discontent with the regime’s shortcomings, highlighted by the extravagant lifestyles visible online by Zelenskiy’s family, his inner circle, and the Ukrainian elite in general, is a time bomb waiting to explode.

This crisis of the Maidan regime is likely to trigger a state crisis, perhaps state failure and territorial collapse. Domestic infighting and instability could very well lead to military and/or palace coups, and even to internecine wars and the division of parts of the country by mutually antagonistic Ukrainian factions of one kind or another.

The Failure and Collapse of the Ukrainian State

The collapse of the regime could lead to the organizational and administrative collapse of the state, leaving no functioning central government. This would facilitate territorial dissolution through warlord-led secessions, regions dominated by ethnic minorities, and/or vengeful takeovers by foreign powers: Poland, Romania, not to mention Russia. All of this could be compounded by economic dislocation and social chaos, leaving both Europe and Russia with a major security problem on their borders. One need only recall the Ukrainian national separatism that arose in Lvov and other regions of western Ukraine during the Maidan protests. These initial separatist measures preceded those taken in Crimea and Donbass, but came months after the collapse of the Yanukovych regime and the victory of the Maidan uprising. Below, I review various aspects or phases of Ukraine’s potential collapse as a state: state disorganization and functional failure; territorial collapse on a Ukrainian nationalist and/or quasi-criminal basis; minority ethnonational separatism; and foreign national revanchism.

The Ukrainian state is vulnerable to organizational incapacity and administrative failure due to an increasingly dysfunctional economy and the almost total dependence of its economy and state budget on foreign aid, loans, and grants. I and others have noted the destruction of Ukraine’s energy grid and other infrastructure and the further debilitating effect of military mobilization on businesses.

Against the backdrop of such grave difficulties and what can only be greater economic dislocation caused by the buildup and advance of the Russian military, Ukraine’s largest donor, the United States, has frozen all foreign aid, excluding only Israel and Egypt from the decree, as announced by the Trump administration. This will soon leave the Ukrainian government without the necessary funding to govern, provide public goods, and so on. Ukrainians already view prices as a greater threat than the Russian military, as noted above.

Thus, Ukraine’s loss of sovereignty to the West, primarily Washington, means a complete collapse with the withdrawal of funding. This is already evident in the most transparent of USAID corruption revelations, which revealed that 85% of Ukrainian media outlets will have to close without USAID funds. One can imagine the destructive impact on other sectors of Ukraine’s lifeline of Western aid: the economy, healthcare, social benefits, and so on. One can then expect regional governments, supported by ambitious oligarchs opposed to the Zelenskiy government or even the entire Maidan regime itself, to become separate fiefdoms for said oligarchs, paving the way for regional hoarding of key assets and possibly even separatism.

Furthermore, Ukraine suffers from an ethnically based “state problem,” driven by regions populated by ethnic minorities and foreign legacies encompassing most of western Ukraine. These regions became part of Ukraine following the Soviet defeat of Nazism in the Great Patriotic War and the occupation of these regions by the Red Army, which were subsequently incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union. As I wrote in my book ”  
Ukraine on the Brink : Russia, the West, and the ‘New Cold War’  ” (McFarland, 2016), today’s Ukrainian state was built by Lenin, Stalin, and later Khrushchev (Crimea). Thus, in the Transcarpathian region of western Ukraine, there are subregions with large Romanian and Hungarian populations whose lands previously belonged to Romania and Hungary, respectively, then allies of the Nazis. These populations were already subjected to linguistic and other forms of discrimination at the hands of the state and its Ukrainian ultranationalist and neofascist allies before Russia’s invasion in 2022. Now, they are being brutalized by Zelenskiy’s military mobilization gangs, perhaps disproportionately compared to ethnic Ukrainian areas. This may fuel a desire to return to their national homelands by enlisting their aid by incorporating them into Romania and Hungary, respectively. Territorially speaking, this is a far lesser danger than the potential for Polish revanchism, which would mean the dissolution of the Ukrainian state. Fortunately for Kyiv, such developments are for the time being a remote possibility. But if the Ukrainian state begins to disintegrate, let alone experience internecine warfare or an incipient civil war, the potential for external revanchism will become more kinetic.

Conclusion

There is nothing inevitable about the cascade of collapses proceeding at full speed. Regime collapse can still be avoided, but regime collapse will quickly follow that of the front and the army. The only ways to fully prevent this cascade of collapses are a ceasefire, a full-fledged peace agreement, a full-scale NATO military intervention, or the conquest of all of Ukraine by Russia. Of these, only a ceasefire agreement is theoretically possible this year, and as early as April, a ceasefire could come too late or prove ineffective in stopping several of these collapses, holding the front line but unable to prevent the collapse of the army, the regime, and the state. Roving bands of idle soldiers on little or no pay will remain a combustible force, and a ceasefire could force the equally combustible crucible of presidential and parliamentary elections. In this, one can agree with HUR leader Budanov, who stated that if Ukraine does not begin peace talks by the summer, processes could begin to destroy the country. And Budanov’s assertion may be an understatement of the urgency. Trump must place Ukraine at the top of his agenda and pursue a settlement with maximum effort, using all the levers of persuasion Washington still possesses. Otherwise, Ukraine could explode. The fact that Kellogg’s call for elections produced a statement the very next day from Zelenskiy finally supporting negotiations with Moscow and thus seeking to break off direct US-Russian talks ”  on Ukraine without Ukraine  ” and without Europe is a demonstration of how pressure on the increasingly politically weak and emotionally damaged Zelensky could produce rapid results. But time is running out, and Ukraine’s four collapses are approaching.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The next four phases of Ukraine’s collapse.

Now, a major collapse of Ukraine’s defense fronts along the entire or nearly entire battle line—which stretches from Kherson just north of Crimea in the east, then north through Donetsk to Kharkiv and Sumy—is imminent

by Gordonhahn, July 14, 2025, https://gordonhahn.com/2025/07/14/les-quatre-prochaines-phases-deffondrements-de-lukraine/

*Translated by Wayan, proofread by Hervé, for Saker Francophone .

I wrote some time ago  : “  With the collapse of the front and the army on the verge of dissolving, Zelenskiy’s post-Maidan regime is deeply divided and in danger of dissolution, which could lead to state collapse, internecine warfare, and widespread chaos .” Below, I detail these four imminent or potential collapses—collapses of the battlefront, the Ukrainian army, the Maidan regime, and the Ukrainian state itself—because this issue is of crucial importance to the question of war or peace in Ukraine and to the challenges that will be faced in any reconstruction.

A dysfunctional Ukrainian army, regime, and state will prevent Kyiv from concluding any peace process and treaty that U.S. President Donald Trump or others might develop. In fact, the peace effort Trump is beginning to enlist Russian President Vladimir Putin in will almost certainly be thwarted by a cascade of two or more of the four major dysfunctions, collapses, and crises that appear to await Ukraine unless the war ends or a radical shift occurs in the correlation of Russian and NATO-Ukrainian forces. The first two of these collapses, of the front and the army, will almost certainly occur this year. The last two—of the Maidan regime and the Ukrainian state—may be postponed until next year.

The collapse of the military front in Ukraine

Ukraine’s defensive fronts have slowly weakened and increasingly collapsed over the past year. Throughout last year, Russian territorial gains and, for most of this year, Ukrainian losses increased monthly,  just as I predicted  more than a year ago. The infamous  Institute for the Study of War , a Washington-based organization that relies on Ukrainian propaganda and turns itself into “  data ,”  falsely claimed  : “ Russian forces gained 4,168 square kilometers (1,609 square miles, GH), largely consisting of fields and small settlements in Ukraine and Kursk Oblast, at a reported cost of more than 420,000 casualties in 2024. Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi said on December 30 that Russian forces suffered 427,000 casualties in 2024. ISW observed geotagged evidence to estimate that Russian forces advanced 4,168 square kilometers in 2024, indicating that Russian forces suffered approximately 102 casualties per square kilometer of Ukrainian territory seized .”

The propaganda element here lies primarily in the claim that Russia’s territorial gains were ” largely fields and small settlements ” and in the figures for Russian losses. The Russians seized ”  largely fields and small settlements  ” because the landscape of Ukraine, like that of any country, is largely made up of arable land and small villages.

However, Russia did capture several small towns and the main Ukrainian strongholds of Avdiivka, Vuhledar, Kurakhove, Selydove, Novosilevke, Toretsk, and almost all of Chasov Yar. The Russians may not have suffered 420,000 casualties over the course of the entire war, let alone in 2024. For 2024, the Mediazona institute—which, in affiliation with the BBC and the Russian opposition outlet  Meduza  , scours internet sources, social media, obituaries, and regional government announcements—counted 120,000 Russians killed in action between the start of the country’s ”  special military operation  ” in February 2022 and the end of 2024.  It found  that at least 31,481 Russian soldiers died between January 1, 2024, and December 17, 2024. Even if we increase this figure by 50%, taking into account the typical 1:3 ratio of killed to wounded, we still arrive at a figure of only about 180,000 Russian casualties in 2024, half of the reported Ukrainians/ ISW .

What is going on here? The acceleration of what I have called  Russia’s  ” attrition and advance ” strategy has been downplayed by  ISW  by accompanying it with data on territorial gains from the Ukrainian Defense Minister and other Ukrainian military sources on Russian losses in order to give the impression of massive Russian losses disproportionate to the ”  modest ” territorial gains. This is done to support the Western myth that Russia is throwing away the lives of its soldiers in ”   human wave ” attacks.  

ISW carefully avoids the prospect of negative comparison by omitting any mention of Ukrainian casualties, mimicking the Ukrainian Defense Ministry and  US-funded  ”  Ukrainian ”  news outlets  such as  Ukrainskaya Pravda .

The raw data show that Russian territorial gains have indeed increased throughout the year on a nearly monthly basis, with the possible exception of December, which saw a decline compared to November. As Western media outlets finally began to expose the fallacy of the “  Ukraine is winning  ” propaganda line in the fall of last year, the   New York Times  referenced data from a military expert with the Finland-based Black Bird group, Pasi Paroinen.

It turned out that Russian gains were being made all along the front line, from the north at Kharkiv to the south at Zaporozhye. Paroinen’s measurement of Russia’s overall gains in the first ten months of 2024 confirmed my own expectation of an intensified Russian advance. Russian advances during this period amounted to over 1,800 square kilometers and were made at an increasingly accelerated pace:

“ Half of Russia’s territorial gains in Ukraine so far this year have been made in the last three months alone. In August, Ukraine’s defensive lines buckled and Russia quickly advanced 16 km. In October, Russia made its most significant territorial gains since the summer of 2022, as Ukrainian lines buckled under sustained pressure. October’s gains amounted to over 257 square km of land in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region alone .” Russian forces advanced 2,356 square kilometers in September, October, and November 2024, making 56.5% of their 2024 territorial gains   during this period . November   proved  to be the most successful month for Russian forces in terms of territorial gains in 2024, “   advancing at the significantly higher rate of 27.96 square kilometers per day  ” during that month.

ISW  was careful not to compare Russia’s territorial gains in 2024 with those made in 2023, so as not to highlight the crucially important trend of accelerating Russian advances and Ukrainian retreats, but   France 24 television  picked up the slack . It noted that the Russian military had advanced in 2024 “  seven times more than in 2023 ,” taking “   610 square kilometers in October and 725 square kilometers in November. These two months saw the Russians capture the most territory since March 2022, in the opening weeks of the conflict. Russia’s advance slowed in December, reaching 465 square kilometers in the first 30 days of the month. But it is already nearly four times greater than in the same month last year and two and a half times more than in December 2022.  ”

Now, a major collapse of Ukraine’s defense fronts along the entire or nearly entire battle line—which stretches from Kherson just north of Crimea in the east, then north through Donetsk to Kharkiv and Sumy—is imminent. Some fronts may hold out longer, but they are unlikely to survive 2025. Russian forces are beginning to encircle the crucial industrial, mining, and transport center of Pokrovsk. After its fall, perhaps in two months, Moscow’s army will have a relatively unimpeded march toward Dnipro, Zaporozhye, and other points less south of the Dnieper. After that, the territorial advance will continue to accelerate at an ever-increasing pace and could lead to major breakthroughs across the Dnieper at any moment now, given the already dire and deteriorating state of Ukraine’s armed forces.

The collapse of the Ukrainian army

To read further: https://lesakerfrancophone.fr/les- quatre-prochaines-phases-dplombs-de-lukraine

July 15, 2025 Posted by | spinbuster, Ukraine | 1 Comment

Trump to Ukraine: ‘Squander another half million casualties to prevent defeat on my watch’ 

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL. 13 July25

Most esteemed observers put Ukraine’s dead and wounded at north of a half million in their lost war with Russia. Several million young Ukrainian men have fled conscription while stragglers are rounded up like stray dogs to be thrown into the meat grinder of warfare they’re totally unprepared to fight.

But the war is much more than Ukraine defending itself from a Russian invasion. It’s America’s proxy war to weaken, Russia from Western European political economy. Its origins go back 17 years when the US pitched NATO membership to Ukraine to achieve that senseless goal. It virtually guaranteed war after the US engineered the 2014 coup against Russian friendly Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych. It ignited a civil war between the Kyiv government and the Russian cultured Ukrainians in the Donbas on Russia’s border. Russia tried diplomacy for 8 years to no avail before invading both to keep Ukraine out of NATO and end protect the beleaguered Donbas Ukrainians. Just before the invasion the US stupidly told Russia that NATO membership for Ukraine and Russia’s security concerns were not subject to diplomacy.

America’s best laid plans to prevail failed spectacularly. Now Ukraine will never join NATO but Donbas Ukrainians are largely safe and thrilled to be under Russian protection from the terrors imposed by Kyiv. Ukraine’s fate was sealed once Biden announced he’d only waste US treasure for weapons but not one drop of US blood for Ukraine’s defense. Three and a half years and over $200 billion in US/NATO weapons have simply put Ukraine on US/NATO life support. 

Biden was able to keep Ukraine in the fight for nearly 3 years, squandering a half million of its finest, so he could pass the war on to successor Trump. After being eviscerated by the US national security class for his admitting defeat and withdrawing from the 20 year Afghan war, Biden was loathe to incur another defeat on his watch. So he loaded up Ukraine with tons of weapons in his last months to ensure Ukraine would not collapse before his leaving.

 Even before retaking office, clueless Trump bragged he’d end the war in one day. He tried to browbeat Ukraine President Zelensky to negotiate war’s end, even humiliating him before the world in the Oval Office. One hundred seventy-five days in Trump is facing his own Afghanistan style defeat as Ukraine nears collapse.

 To stave off impending defeat he reversed the Pentagon’s withdrawal of new weapons based on US stockpiles running low. But all he could sputter was that he’s releasing “defensive weapons” only which will do no good with Ukraine running out of cannon fodder to fire them.

For Trump that’s A-OK. ‘Fight on Ukraine…I’ve only got three and a half years to keep this going till I can pull a Biden and pass it on the next clueless idiot trying to defeat an undefeatable Russia.’ The real issue is not whether Trump will succeed. He can’t. The ominous issue facing the US, indeed peoplekind, is whether Trump’s plan to avert defeat will lead to nuclear war that has been a possibility every day in Ukraine for the past three and a half years. 

July 14, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Zaporizhzhia loses off-site power for first time in 19 months

 7 July 2025, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/zaporizhzhia-loses-off-site-power-for-first-time-in-19-months

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant lost its off-site power supply for more than three hours on Friday, having to rely on its emergency back-up diesel generators for the first time since December 2023.

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said: “What was once virtually unimaginable – that a major nuclear power plant would repeatedly lose all of its external power connections – has unfortunately become a common occurrence at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Almost three and a half years into this devastating war, nuclear safety in Ukraine remains very much in danger.”

The 18 emergency diesel generators started operating when the external power supply was lost. The power is needed to cool the cores of the reactors – which are all currently shut down – and the used fuel pools. Ten days worth of fuel for the back-up generators is stored at the plant, and the generators were turned off after the power supply returned.

July 13, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Seizing Zaporizhzhia: A Meltdown in Nuclear Governance

By Robert Schuett – 30 June 2025, https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/30/06/2025/seizing-zaporizhzhia-meltdown-nuclear-governance

This is not just about Ukraine. Robert Schuett argues that Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant signals a broader unravelling of global nuclear governance—one that must urgently be addressed.

“There cannot be a crisis next week,” Henry Kissinger once quipped. “My schedule is already full.”

Decades later, the line reads less like a joke about the work ethic and demands of high office, and more like a grim diagnosis of the current global condition. From the ongoing war in Europe—where Russian armed forces continue their relentless aggression, with recent escalations in Kyiv and Odesa—to the deepening geopolitical fracture in the Middle East, international society is not short on crises, violence, and human suffering. 

The real strategic risk for global policy is that when pre-emptive force becomes the de facto tool for upholding non-proliferation principles, the entire framework of nuclear governance begins to fracture.

Yet among them, one threat quietly festers in a war zone on the east bank of the Dnipro River: the occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP)—after all, the largest in Europe—located in the city of Enerhodar, in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Overshadowed by battlefield developments and Russia’s broader diplomatic brinkmanship, this overlooked flashpoint risks unravelling the foundational norms of nuclear safety, civilian infrastructure protection, and international law itself. 

Captured by Russian forces in March 2022, the facility has become a symbol of everything that should not happen in modern warfare. Russia has consistently ruled out transferring control of the ZNPP—either back to Ukraine, the US, or any international authority. The Kremlin maintains a posture of legal reinterpretation, insisting on its operational authority despite international condemnation.

Although all six reactors remain in cold shutdown, the risk is far from neutralized. The plant now depends on a single functioning high-voltage line to power critical cooling and safety systems, which is a stark contrast to the ten off-site lines it had before the illegal Russian war of aggression. The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in 2023 eliminated its primary cooling reservoir, forcing the plant to rely on makeshift groundwater wells.

Russian forces have reportedly deployed military assets within the facility, further compromising its integrity. While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) maintains a presence onsite, its ability to enforce safety protocols is severely limited under conditions of foreign military occupation.

As IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi recently warned, the power supply to Zaporizhzhia remains “extremely fragile,” placing the site, and the entire region, at persistent risk.

This is not merely a technical or regional issue, however. Russia’s nuclear blackmail is a serious threat to global nuclear order.

Russia’s occupation of ZNPP constitutes a rupture in the international legal and regulatory architecture that safeguards civilian nuclear infrastructure. For decades, global norms and laws—rooted in instruments like the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and IAEA guidance—have treated nuclear power plants as protected, non-military assets. Seizing or attacking them was once unthinkable. Russia’s actions have shattered this principle, undermining legal norms from which it has historically benefited.

The twist is as alarming as it is cynical. Russian state entities like Rosatom, which in peacetime present themselves as responsible global stewards of nuclear safety, are now party to an act of strategic subversion and tool of ruthless state power. Rosatom and its subsidiaries regularly construct and operate nuclear plants abroad, complying with international standards and cultivating an image of professionalism. But at Zaporizhzhia, the same actor has helped transfer control of the facility to a newly created Russian-operated entity. The contradiction is jarring: the self-proclaimed guarantor of global nuclear norms is now violating them in pursuit of pseudo-geopolitical gain. Rosatom has recently confirmed its long-term intention to restart ZNPP, despite the unresolved security, political, regulatory, and moral challenges on the ground.

At a strategic level, this selective application of international rules and norms sets a dangerous precedent. If civilian nuclear infrastructure can be seized and operated by military force—while cloaked in the language of regulation—it opens the door to the normalization of impunity. The rulebook governing civilian nuclear conduct risks becoming a tool of expedience rather than a binding constraint. Such erosion undermines not only nuclear safety but also the predictability and trust that underpin broader technical agreements, from arms control to climate-related energy cooperation.

The longer Zaporizhzhia remains a “nuclear hostage,” the more the world risks sleepwalking into disaster. The plant is not operational, but that is no guarantee of safety. The worst-case scenarios, ranging from damage to spent fuel pools, sabotage of safety systems, or collapse of staff morale, are not theoretical. The ongoing uncertainty erodes public trust in nuclear energy, destabilizes non-proliferation efforts, and sends dangerous signals to other regimes watching how the world responds.

Moreover, the moral implications cannot be ignored. Civilian nuclear facilities were never meant to be pawns in geopolitical contests. They exist to serve public needs, not strategic or revanchist ambitions. Allowing one state to weaponize this infrastructure risks eroding the civilian character of nuclear energy itself.

What’s at stake is far more than a single nuclear plant—or even the authority of one international watchdog. This is a stress test for the entire system of rules that keeps the world from tipping into chaos. If the norms protecting nuclear safety can be so casually violated, what’s to stop similar breaches in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, climate regulation, or space?

The responsibility now lies with the international community not only to condemn, but to act. Diplomatic actors—especially those in Europe and within multilateral institutions—must ensure that the Zaporizhzhia crisis remains at the forefront of international attention. It cannot be allowed to drift into the background of conflict fatigue or be buried beneath newer headlines.

Sustained diplomatic pressure, public engagement, and policy innovation are essential to prevent normalization of the unacceptable. The defense of global norms must not be reactive or selective. Rather, it must be proactive, persistent, and principled.

If international society won’t defend longstanding rules at Zaporizhzhia, it may find itself unprepared when those rules collapse everywhere else.

Robert Schuett is co-founder and managing partner at STK Powerhouse, a global risk advisory firm. A former Defence civil servant, he also serves as Chairman of the Austrian Political Science Association and is a long-standing Honorary Fellow at Durham University.

July 2, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

How Trump dumped the Ukraine war into Europe’s lap

it appears clear that any future Ukrainian purchases of American military materiel, if they happen, will in any case be made with European money…………… , Rutte appears single handedly trying to keep the European gravy train chugging forward.

 President Zelensky has not given up on his aspiration for Ukraine to join NATO which renders any peace deal, and possibly any durable ceasefire with Russia, impossible.

One thing is clear, U.S. defense contractors will arguably benefit the most from The Hague Summit.

Daddy says, ‘spend more on defence, pay for the war yourselves, but buy American kit’

Ian Proud, Jun 28, 2025, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/how-trump-dumped-the-ukraine-war?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=166996238&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The NATO Summit was a coup for Trump. Cajoling the Europeans into upping defence spend to 5%, something most countries, Britain included, can’t afford. I was pleased therefore to see that Lord McDonald, the former Head of the Diplomatic Service, coming out today to suggest that the 5% target might wreck the UK economy.

Either way, it would take most countries time to ramp up their spending and military industrial capacity to even near this level. But it does raise questions about whether, as Mark Rutte suggested in his meeting with Zelensky, that NATO can fund the war in Ukraine for another decade.

That statement was far more concerning that his calling Donald Trump ‘daddy’, given the continued losses Ukraine is facing on the battlefield. And its ongoing quest to force unwilling Ukrainian men into fighting. More videos continue to emerge of recruitment officers fighting off mothers and wives in the street, as they force more recruits into minibuses headed for the front. How many men would Ukraine have left if NATO kept the fight going for another decade?

Really not clear that Rutte has considered that, which is disgraceful.

The aerial war between Israel and Iran over the past two weeks sucked most of the world’s attention away from the war in Ukraine.

The Hague NATO Summit confirms that President Donald Trump now sees paying for the war as Europe’s problem. It’s less clear that he will have the patience to keep pushing for peace.

One of the biggest diplomatic casualties of Israel and Iran’s aerial war was U.S. focus on and media coverage of the war in Ukraine. Despite continued exchanges of dead bodies and prisoners of war, there has been no further progress in peace talks between both sides that commenced in Istanbul in early June.

However, there has been talk of a third round of talks as early as next week. Before then, The Hague NATO Summit offered an opportunity to keep Ukraine on the U.S. radar. It didn’t quite happen that way.

Instead, if the NATO Summit showed any real purpose, it was to lock in European allies’ commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defense, a key priority for President Trump since he assumed office.

Mission accomplished. With the exception of Spain, NATO allies have now made that commitment.

Chipper as ever, NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, sent a message to President Trump, so eye-wateringly obsequious that it might even make some pro-war neocons cringe and reach for a sick bag. “Mr President, dear Donald… you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world. You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.” He was then chided for making remarks like he was calling Trump “daddy” at the summit.

But there was nevertheless no escaping the feeling that Ukraine has fallen some way down Trump’s priority list, and therefore NATO’s.

While the 2024 Washington Summit Communique ran to over 5300 words rich in normative intent and bureaucratic babble, the 2025 Hague Summit Declaration ran to a pithy 425 words focused almost exclusively on the NATO spending goal.

Whereas, the Washington Communique said, “we will continue to support it [Ukraine] on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership,” The Hague Declaration did not, which has already been seized upon as a softening of NATO’s stance by some mainstream commentators.

European ire was further provoked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s indication that the U.S. would not support further Russia sanctions at this time.

The declaration simply said, “Allies reaffirm their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine, whose security contributes to ours, and, to this end, will include direct contributions towards Ukraine’s defence and its defence industry when calculating Allies’ defence spending.”

For those not familiar with interpreting the subtleties of communique language, this language said two things. First, including the word “sovereign” means that while some allies may make sovereign choices to fund Ukraine, others may choose not to.

This is a clear indication of what we have observed for some time, that President Trump sees paying for the Ukraine war as Europe’s problem, not America’s. Second, and more obviously, that funding for Ukraine can contribute to Allies’ 5% target although, at least for the UK, this is already the case.

During their meeting, it is understood that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asked President Trump about the possibility of purchasing additional Patriot missiles. While Trump was non-committal on this point, it appears clear that any future Ukrainian purchases of American military materiel, if they happen, will in any case be made with European money.

For his part, Rutte appears single handedly trying to keep the European gravy train chugging forward. Speaking ahead of the Summit, he referred to pledges of $35 billion in additional support to Ukraine so far this year without providing specifics.

However, we do know that over half of the earlier April pledge of $24 billion included funds from Germany to be paid over 4 years. In reality, therefore, NATO has only, so far, secured a maximum total of $22 billion for 2025, adding further pressure to Ukraine’s huge war financing needs.

What we haven’t seen in The Hague is any impetus behind efforts to bring the war in Ukraine to a close. Instead, and on the back of a Hague Declaration that rowed back any condemnation of Russia, Sir Keir Starmer continues to insist that allies remain resolved to “push again to get Putin to the table for the unconditional ceasefire.”

Like the proverbial scratched record, the British Prime Minister still believes that with U.S. offering no new money, with Ukraine continuing to lose ground on the battlefield, and with Europe struggling to make up the difference, that Russia will make unconditional concessions from a position of strength.

For his part, President Zelensky has not given up on his aspiration for Ukraine to join NATO which renders any peace deal, and possibly any durable ceasefire with Russia, impossible.

If the Hague Summit proved one thing, it may have been that getting European allies to spend more on defense is a bigger priority to President Trump than bringing peace to Ukraine. More focussed on the conflict in the Middle EastPresident Trump has once again conceded the difficulty of bringing the war in Ukraine to an end.

“It’s more difficult than people would have any idea,” he said. “Vladimir Putin has been more difficult, and frankly, I had some problems with Zelensky, you might have read about them. It’s been more difficult than other wars.”

One thing is clear, U.S. defense contractors will arguably benefit the most from The Hague Summit. To hit 5% of GDP, Britain would need to increase its spending by around $114 billion per year by 2035 and Germany has already pledged to hit the 5% target six years early, in 2029, hiking spending by $128 billion per year.

To kick off the spending spree, the UK has agreed to purchase twelve of the most modern F35A aircraft at a cost of $700 million. The F-35A is capable of delivering U.S. provided B61 nuclear bombs that were first designed in 1963. Keeping us safer, in this regard, relies on aircraft being able to fly far enough into Russia through its sophisticated air defences, to deliver a gravity nuclear bomb to target.

The most recent upgrade to the B61, during the Obama Administration, involved addition of a tail assembly to provide limited stand-off capability; it was so over-priced that every Sixties-era nuke is now worth more than its weight in gold, perhaps, the perfect allegory for Western defence spending.

With the fanfare of The NATO Summit starting to subside, the big question now is how much patience President Trump will have to push a peace agenda in Ukraine now that European allies have stepped up to spend more and buy American kit? My worry is, not much.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Zelensky clings to NATO hopes as Trump meeting looms

The Ukrainian president on Tuesday insisted the alliance would benefit from Kyiv’s joining, even as Washington has so far ruled out its bid.

By Victor Jack, Politico, 24 June,25

THE HAGUE — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is forcefully pushing Kyiv’s NATO bid as he gears up for a high-stakes meeting with Donald Trump in The Hague on Wednesday.

The U.S. president will join his fellow leaders from the military alliance for a state dinner on Tuesday evening as the organization hosts its annual summit — where countries will agree to ramp up their defense spending to 5 percent of economic output by 2035.

Last year’s summit in Washington ended with a pledge to back Ukraine’s “irreversible path” to NATO. But this year’s declaration will focus instead on a broader vow of continued support for Kyiv, alliance officials said

Zelenskyy on Tuesday insisted that his country is still looking to join the alliance. While flanked by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, he said: “This direction is not changing.”

The alliance chief emphasized the organization was also working on “building that bridge” for Ukraine, while highlighting that European and Canadian members have pledged €35 billion in aid for Kyiv so far this year.

The U.S. under Trump has not requested any new military aid for Ukraine.

Zalenskyy also underlined that Ukraine’s accession was a “mutual opportunity” for the alliance, arguing his country now has the capacity to produce 8 million drones each year.

“It is an advantageous proposal for NATO today to have an ally like Ukraine, with NATO weapons, with new technology,” he told Sky News. “We have no secrets, and experienced people with 10 years of different types of fighting.”

Still, Trump and his administration have ruled out allowing Ukraine to join NATO. That’s a topic that could arise when the two leaders meet at The Hague………https://www.politico.eu/article/zelenskyy-trump-nato-hague-rutte-ukraine-russia-war/

June 30, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

EU and UK make contributions to EBRD-managed Chornobyl ICCA fund


 EBRD 26th June 2025,

https://www.ebrd.com/home/news-and-events/news/2025/eu-and-uk-make-contributions-to-ebrd-managed-chornobyl-icca-fund.html

  • EU and United Kingdom pledge up to €31.7 million to EBRD-managed International Chernobyl Cooperation Account
  • Contributions will help fund emergency repairs to New Safe Confinement
  • Total cost of emergency repairs could exceed €100 million

The European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom will make contributions to the EBRD-managed International Chernobyl Cooperation Account (ICCA) as part of ongoing international efforts to support the restoration of the key functions of the New Safe Confinement (NSC) at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant (ChNPP) in Ukraine.

The EU will contribute up to €25 million, while the United Kingdom will contribute up to €6.7 million, with both pledges being made at today’s ICCA Assembly meeting in London. The money will be used to fund emergency repairs to the NSC following the Russian drone attack in February 2025.

That strike has severely affected the NSC’s two primary functions: (i) containing radiological hazards and (ii) supporting long-term decommissioning. Key systems designed to ensure the NSC’s 100-year lifespan have been rendered non-operational, with a significant risk of further deterioration in the absence of swift emergency repairs. While it is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the cost of repairs to the NSC at the moment, the scale of the damage and the complex radiological environment suggest that the total cost of the emergency works could exceed €100 million.

Balthasar Lindauer, EBRD Nuclear Safety Department Director, said, “These new pledges to the ICCA are a manifestation of the international community’s unwavering support for Chornobyl and its togetherness in the face of the major radiological threat that the damaged NSC poses. We are grateful to the EU and the United Kingdom for their contributions to the ICCA.”

The ICCA was established by the EBRD in November 2020 at the request of the Ukrainian government. It was set up as a multilateral fund to support the development of a comprehensive plan for Chornobyl. The EBRD manages the ICCA, which currently holds some €25 million in donor funds. Following the occupation of the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) at the start of Russia’s war on Ukraine, the scope of the ICCA was broadened to support the restoration of safety and security within the CEZ, as well as wider nuclear safety measures across Ukraine.

The international community has contributed around €2 billion to EBRD-managed programmes in Chornobyl since 1995. In addition, the Bank has made more than €800 million of its net income available for Chornobyl-related projects.

June 28, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Zelensky’s spectacular Operation Spiderweb has backfired spectacularly

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL , 11 June 25

The June 1 Ukraine drone attack on air bases deep in Russia was spectacular only insofar as it galvanized the Ukraine war dead enders to proclaim Ukraine can prevail in the war Ukraine lost on Day One.

The attack was strategically insignificant for Ukraine. Russia, as expected, launched devastating retaliatory attacks that will dramatically weaken Ukraine’s ability to keep fighting.

What was Ukraine President Zelensky thinking in allowing an attack that had no strategic importance but guaranteed to bring a strategically devastating response?

A likely explanation is Zelensky’s hope that the Russian retaliation might shame Trump into expanding his military aid to Ukraine rather than reduce or even end it. That desperate gambit will likely fail. Trump is determined to end the war so he can continue the process of withdrawing from European defense. Trump prefers expanding the US military Asia pivot to counter China’s growing regional dominance there. Trump also needs his highly stretched military resources for possible war with Iran. If that’s the worst possible reason for ending the war, so be it.

Zelensky has been on a reckless suicide mission with Russia virtually guaranteeing a Ukraine military collapse ahead of Ukraine’s descent into a weakened rump state.

Zelensky has been pursuing this self destructive policy for all 1,200 days of this war. And every time he attacks deep into Russia, he’s guaranteeing Russia will expand the buffer zone they’re creating in Ukraine to prevent such attacks.

Zelensky has been Ukraine’ worst enemy thruout this senseless war. Filled with delusions of grandeur, he keeps fighting to win back all 45,000 square miles of lost territory he could have avoided by signing the Istanbul Agreement 3 years ago. He even demands return of Crimea lost in 2014 after a US inspired coup disposed Russian friendly Ukraine President Yanukovych. That madness is not only destroying Ukraine, its keeping the world in fear this now escalating war could possibly go nuclear.

To save the remainder of Ukraine, Zelensky must be pushed out, replaced by sensible leaders willing to make peace on the best terms possible, none of which are recognized by Zelensky.

And Trump must stop waffling and withdraw all US military support that squandered nearly $200 billion of US treasure on a lost war.

If both happen, not only will the war end, the three and a half year threat of nuclear war over Ukraine will end as well.

We must never abandon that hope.

June 12, 2025 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Paris wants to manufacture drones in Ukraine

9 June 25 https://www.rt.com/news/618818-paris-renault-produce-drones-ukraine/

The French Defense Ministry has asked Renault to set up military production for Kiev.

Paris is pushing France’s largest automaker, Renault, to establish a military drone production operation in Ukraine, the company has confirmed. Kiev has been significantly intensifying drone attacks on Russian infrastructure.

During the final week of May, 2,300 Ukrainian UAVs were shot down after being sent across the border to target Moscow and other regions, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

“We have been contacted by the [French] Defense Ministry about the possibility of producing drones,” Renault said in a statement to several media outlets, including Reuters, on Sunday. Although “discussions” on the issue have taken place, the company insisted that “no decision has been taken at this stage,” and that it is awaiting further details from the ministry.

French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu first revealed the plan on Friday, describing it as an “unprecedented partnership” in an interview with broadcaster LCI.

“We are going to embark on a completely unprecedented partnership… to equip production lines in Ukraine to… produce drones,” Lecornu said, noting that the project would involve both a major carmaker and a smaller defense contractor.

Renault could be tasked with setting up drone assembly lines “a few dozen or hundreds of kilometers from the front line” in Ukraine, France Info reported on Sunday.

According to the newspaper Ouest-France, the project could also involve Delair – a Toulouse-based drone manufacturer that supplies UAVs for border surveillance, reconnaissance, intelligence, and special operations forces. The company has previously delivered kamikaze drones to the French Defense Ministry, which were later sent to Ukraine.

Lecornu described the initiative as a “win-win” for Paris and Kiev, claiming no French personnel would be deployed to Ukraine.

The production lines would be operated by Ukrainian workers, and the drones built for the country’s military would also be used by the French Armed Forces for “tactical and operational training that reflects the reality” of modern warfare, he said.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov condemned the strikes as deliberate attempts to sabotage peace talks. Moscow has repeatedly warned that any weapons production facilities in Ukraine are considered legitimate military targets and subject to “unequivocal destruction.”

June 10, 2025 Posted by | France, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Will Russia’s Retaliation To Ukraine’s Strategic Drone Strikes Decisively End The Conflict?

Andrew Korybko, Jun 02, 2025, https://korybko.substack.com/p/will-russias-retaliation-to-ukraines

Tonight will be fateful for the conflict’s future.

Ukraine carried out strategic drone strikes on Sunday against several bases all across Russia that are known to house elements of its nuclear triad. This came a day before the second round of the newly resumed Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul and less than a week after Trump warned Putin that “bad things..REALLY BAD” might soon happen to Russia. It therefore can’t be ruled out that he knew about this and might have even discreetly signaled his approval in order to “force Russia into peace”.

Of course, it’s also possible that he was bluffing and the Biden-era CIA helped orchestrate this attack in advance without him every finding out so that Ukraine could either sabotage peace talks if he won and pressured Zelensky into them or coerce maximum concessions from Russia, but his ominous words still look bad. Whatever the extent of Trump’s knowledge may or may not be, Putin might once again climb the escalation ladder by dropping more Oreshniks on Ukraine, which could risk a rupture in their ties.

Seeing as how Trump is being left in the dark about the conflict by his closest advisors (not counting Witkoff) as proven by him misportraying Russia’s retaliatory strikes against Ukraine over the past week as unprovoked, he might react the same way to Russia’s inevitable retaliation. His ally Lindsey Graham already prepared legislation for imposing 500% tariffs on all Russian energy clients, which Trump might approve in response, and this could pair with ramping up armed aid to Ukraine in a major escalation.

Everything therefore depends on the form of Russia’s retaliation; the US’ response; and – if they’re not canceled as a result – the outcome of tomorrow’s talks in Istanbul. If the first two phases of this scenario sequence don’t spiral out of control, then it’ll all depend on whether Ukraine makes concessions to Russia after its retaliation; Russia makes concessions to Ukraine after the US’ response to Russia’s retaliation; or their talks are once again inconclusive. The first is by far the best outcome for Russia.

The second would suggest that Ukraine’s strategic drone strikes on Russia’s nuclear triad and the US’ response to its retaliation pressured Putin to compromise on his stated goals. These are Ukraine’s withdrawal from the entirety of the disputed regions, its demilitarization, denazification, and restoring its constitutional neutrality. Freezing the Line of Contact (LOC), even perhaps in exchange for some US sanctions relief and a resource-centric strategic partnership with it, could cede Russia’s strategic edge.

Not only might Ukraine rearm and reposition ahead of reinitiating hostilities on comparatively better terms, but uniformed Western troops might also flood into Ukraine, where they could then function as tripwires for manipulating Trump into “escalating to de-escalate” if they’re attacked by Russia. As for the third possibility, inconclusive talks, Trump might soon lose patience with Russia and thus “escalate to de-escalate” anyhow. He could always just walk away, however, but his recent posts suggest that he won’t.

Overall, Ukraine’s unprecedented provocation will escalate the conflict, but it’s unclear what will follow Russia’s inevitable retaliation. Russia will either coerce the concessions from Ukraine that Putin demands for peace; the US’ response to its retaliation will coerce concessions from Russia to Ukraine instead; or both will remain manageable and tomorrow’s talks will be inconclusive, thus likely only delaying the US’ seemingly inevitable escalated involvement. Tonight will therefore be fateful for the conflict’s future.

June 8, 2025 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

RAY McGOVERN: Putin Would Not Rise to the Bait

June 4, 2025, https://consortiumnews.com/2025/06/04/ray-mcgovern-putin-would-not-rise-to-the-bait/

The black-eye given Russian security services will eventually heal while the artful destruction of a handful of bombers – like earlier high-profile, but misguided operations – will have zero effect on the war in Ukraine.

By Ray McGovern, Consortium News

Ukraine’s drone attacks on air bases deep inside Russia on Sunday were timed to provoke Russia into shunning the Russia-Ukraine talks set for the next day in Istanbul. Volodymyr Zelensky and his European puppeteers also may have thought they could provoke Vladimir Putin to escalate attacks on Ukraine to such a degree that the U.S. could not “walk away” from Ukraine without appearing cowardly.

The PR benefits of destroying Russian aircraft far from Ukraine was part of Kyiv’s calculus. It was a huge embarrassment and a tactical victory in a short-lived, narrow sense.

But the black-eye given Russian security services will eventually heal. Most important, the artful destruction of a handful of bombers – like earlier high-profile, but misguided operations – will have zero effect on the war in Ukraine.

Doing Diplomacy For Once

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio immediately after the drone attacks on the Russian air bases and the sabotage/destruction of two rail bridges in Russia earlier that day.

The Russian readout said that Secretary Rubio “conveyed sincere condolences on the civilian casualties from the rail infrastructure blasts in Russia’s Bryansk and Kursk regions.” This is a sign that Lavrov did not come in with accusatory guns blazing, so to speak.

It does seem certain that Lavrov asked Rubio whether he knew of the drone attacks beforehand. And what did President Trump know?

In my view, it is conceivable that neither had prior knowledge. When the drone operation was planned the geniuses working for Joe Biden were in charge of such things – the ones who destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines.

Most likely the U.S. was kept informed, but the operation itself bears the earmarks of the sabotage the British are so fond of carrying out – with particular lust after bridges.

They did so famously during World War II and they are quite good at it. Then, as now, such sabotage had little-to-no effect on the war – merely a transitory strengthening of their proverbial upper lip.

The Talks Went On, and Will Continue

Putin and Donald Trump wanted the negotiations in Istanbul to proceed, and those were their instructions to Lavrov and Rubio. They did, and with some tangible progress on small, but significant matters like the exchange of bodies. There was a highly important exchange of papers on the terms sought by each side, and a pledge to study them before the next meeting.

Bottom Line

The driving issue is bigger than Ukraine. Both Trump and Putin want improved U.S.-Russia relations. Other matters, including Ukraine, are secondary. As of now, at least, both sides seek a negotiated settlement to the war as the primary option.

And each side will do its best to avoid escalation and show a measured flexibility – and even patience – until such time as Ukraine’s army disintegrates.

It appears that this will happen soon. I believe that, at that point, Putin will be happy to supply as much lipstick as may be needed to conceal the pig of defeat for Ukraine-and-the-West.

Ray McGovern’s first portfolio as a C.I.A. analyst was Sino-Soviet relations. In 1963, their total trade was $220 MILLION; in 2023, $227 BILLION. Do the math.

June 7, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment