The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[KipPotapych]

Presumably they're offering to stop passing additional packets of sanctions. So it's less of a "here's what we will pay" and more of "here's a stick we won't hit you with".

I believe everyone at this point understands though that there is very little, if any at all, space left to impose any additional sanctions without greatly, if not more, hurting oneself. This is on example, where the math is not going to work in EU’s favour, in my opinion:

There will be a lot more manure dumped in the European cities, I would think. And the main issue with this thought process is that while Russia is the largest fertilizer exporter in the world, I believe the value of export is only about $15B per annum. So this is not serious talk. And, again, the holding end of the stick probably hurts more than the hitting end in this case.

Furthermore, to curtail Russian efforts to rearm, if the regularly advertised fear is true, the existing sanctions should remain in place as well, regardless of the (likely) outcomes of this war. On the part of the EU, judging by their messaging, this is where the wind seems to blow. I can’t say, however, if the EU is (really) able to oppose the USA when push comes to shove though. There is a lot of uncertainty here, in my opinion, which is definitely not helpful. Again, this is because the incentive of “not having more sanctions imposed on you” is no longer credible due to the reasons I described above.

They are also currently “offering” something else in return, though with likely very little value to Russia as well:

I personally do not see how this can have any value for Russia in the current circumstances.

They went to Turkey and Zelensky waited for Putin. Putin didn't come.

You had never answered, why would Putin come? What would be the rationale behind it? Did he say he was coming? Is there any historic precedents for the attendance at this stage of negotiations (that are bound to go nowhere at this point)? The arguments may work for the Euro leaders (not really, but they have to keep up the appearance), but no rational person sees it that way.

Putin sabotaged the talks by not coming to face Zelensky and, hence, he is the one delaying “peace”. How dumb is that. He also appears to equate “ceasefire” with “peace”. In all seriousness, it really feels like a visit to an institution for mentally ill at this point. Macron also chimed in:

And I will say it once more, Putin didn’t “refuse to respond to the unconditional ceasefire proposal”. The Russians, including Putin himself, said long time ago that they find that proposal to be unacceptable. One would think the following (main) options exist: force Russia to accept your ultimatum, offer something else, do nothing and keep repeating the ultimatum that had already been rejected. Obviously, the latter was chosen by Europe because you do not have to do anything at all in that option, except for sending good vibes to Trump hoping he will do something in your favour, eventually. To note, at the same time these same people are in fear that the US would withdraw because no one is willing to do anything. Like I said, we are in the mental asylum territory here; and I am part of it because I am still discussing it here. I went for a walk not long ago and I laughed to myself (out loud, albeit quietly) a couple of times thinking about all this.

This lady (not a “nobody”) is exactly right:

It is extremely clear here that Europe has very little to offer on their own in order to oppose Russia and the American involvement is critical. From the horse’s mouth:

So next year, they will (presumably) be able to respond to a crisis in the Balkans or some third-world countries. This, in turn, suggests that there is also a very obvious incentive for Europe to stall the actual “peace talks” between Russia and Ukraine at this point, letting Ukraine get hammered while appeasing to Zelensky’s delusion and probably knowing full well that very significant concessions will have to be made in order to stop this war. No justice, no fairness, but reality (and Russian propaganda, I guess?).

Anyway, the question is not whether they want to negotiate or not: They don't have the power to start negotiations because they are constantly under attack from a superior enemy.
Only Putin can start negotiations, therefore he is the sole responsible for talking or not talking.

I always wonder, reading your posts, where you get your ideas from and how you come to these conclusions.

Negotiations are not started by those who beat the guy already on the ground (or nearly falling?). They usually beat the guy until they are satisfied. The one being beaten can hope that a passer-by would insert themselves in his defense or the one beating would run out if steam or get satisfied. The latter is asinine, provided you you know the desired level of satisfaction is rather high, and depending on the former is… Well, you can see how it is working out (I know, great success).

If we talk about the constant military losses, it's not endless. There will be a point when the war effort will be so insane that, even in Russia, they will have to re-question their policy.

Where do you imagine Ukraine to be at that point?

Here are a few questions for anyone who is willing to chime in with some thoughtful proposals:
- how do you see this end;
- what do you think is supposed to happen in the negotiations;
- what does an “honest” peace look like.

Yes but, IMO with different meanings.
"Drone defence": To protect their own drones (Mig35 escorting UAVs)
"Anti-drone defence": To protect yourself against enemy drones.

(As not be being a native English speaker, I can be wrong... just saying.)

When someone says “missile defense”, they do not refer to “protecting their own missiles”, but to the means of intercepting the said missiles.


Fredled, fyi, the context of the discussion that my last attachment referred to was this:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-start-european-troop-withdrawal-discussions-later-this-year-us-nato-2025-05-16/

The United States will begin discussions with European allies to reduce U.S. troops in Europe later this year, U.S. ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said on Friday.

Asked to comment on a report that the Trump administration is considering withdrawing troops from Europe, Whitaker said "nothing has been determined".

"But as soon as we do, we are going to have these conversations in the structure of NATO", said Whitaker.

"It will be certainly after the summit, sometime later in the year, we are going to start those conversations... All our allies are ready to do it", he added, referring to the NATO summit in The Hague in June.[…]

"It’s more than 30 years of U.S. desire (to reduce troops in Europe), President Trump just said, enough, this is going to happen and it’s going to happen now, this is going to be orderly, but we are not going to have any more patience for foot dragging in this situation... We just need to work through the practical consequences", Whitaker said.

 

[Fredled]

I believe everyone at this point understands though that there is very little, if any at all, space left to impose any additional sanctions without greatly, if not more, hurting oneself.

By sanctioning Russian agricultural products, the EU kills two birds with one stone:
1/ First they sanction Russian by making agricultural goods less attractive
2/ They protect the European agriculture. There were many protests against unfair imports from Ukraine, especialy in Poland. EU leaders then stressed out that Russian import quantities were at least as much as Ukrainian ones. These sanctions will address this problem while allowing to keep importing from Ukraine. Excellent move.

It goes without saying that this is not the only sanctions. The best sanctions will be against third coutry banks and companies not applying sanctions on Russia. There was also another black list update against companies and individuals.

You had never answered, why would Putin come? What would be the rationale behind it? Did he say he was coming?

It's Putin who first proposed "direct talks". By direct talks, it's understood that he will come personally to talk. Else it's not direct talks, by definition. And he was trapped by his own words.
Nobody thought that he would come (at best some analysts said that the chances were minimal.) But it was important to convince Donald Trump. Trump was ready to come to the talks if Putin came. Putin knew it but decided to reject Trump's offer to meet him. Very bad move.

Putin sabotaged the talks by not coming to face Zelensky and, hence, he is the one delaying “peace”. How dumb is that.

With you inverted logic, you should be invited to speak on Russian TV.

One would think the following (main) options exists: force Russia to accept your ultimatum, offer something else, do nothing and keep repeating the ultimatum that had already been rejected.

Problem is that "offering something else" is not going to guarantee peace, and the odds are higher that this "something else" will not bring peace and will be an incentive for the Russians to attack further west, either immediately or a little bit later. This is not only my opinion, it's the opinion of all east Europeans and the opinion of most experts and NATO officials. If you don't want to believe it, don't believe it, but don't tell those who live near Russia what they should think and what the real situation is.

Negotiations are not started by those who beat the guy already on the ground (or nearly falling?). They usually beat the guy until they are satisfied.

Yes. And in this case, nobody knows when the deranged man in the Kremlin will be satisfied. How many more people should die before he is satisfied? How much land does he want to steal before being satisfied? Will he be ever satisfied?

Our actions to stop him are very limited. Putin is totaly irrational, he is a criminal and he is mentaly deranged and he surrounded himself with similarly criminal or deranged people. All the others in Russia are afraid, the same way people around Stalin were afraid. And he has the power to press the "Nuke" button.
If not the nuke problem, we would have made our offer for a ceasefire "acceptable" to Putin very quickly. Unfortunately we are forced to do it slowlier.
(I already explained why he was irrational, I hope I won't have to repeat.)

But I agree that to expect an irrational person to take a rational decision is irrational.

nothing has been determined

Thanks.

More important is where the reductions will be. Talks are about reducing in western Germany and other western countries, not in Eastern Europe. (The US has even troops in Spain, I think.)

 

[rsemmes]

With you inverted logic

It is extremely amusing to read you posting about "inverted logic", specially when, at the same time, in your universe, "direct talks" has a very creative and limited meaning.

 

[Karl Franz]

So we have the list of Russian demands (Bloomberg published them, probably other sources as well) for cease fire/peace:

1. Ukraine must adopt a neutral status without the presence of foreign troops or weapons of mass destruction on its territory.

2. Kiev must renounce its demands for reparations from Moscow.

3. Ukraine must come to terms with the loss of Crimea and four other regions.

4. Putin will agree to a ceasefire only after Ukraine withdraws its troops from these regions.

5. The Kremlin wants all five regions to be recognized as Russian at the international level.

Ukrainian and Western press are already calling them hard line however I see a lot to work with here. First and second demand are standard and should have been expected. NATO expansion is probably the reason this whole thing started and the victor doesn't pay war reparations, this is standard practice. Third, fourth and fifth demand are basically the same, recognizing Crimea plus 4 regions as Russian. This is also expected, however there could be wiggle room here for negotiations.

If I were advising Ukraine, I would propose Ukraine keep city of Kherson and all the land on its side of the Dnieper river as well as Zaporozhye city proper and the land west of it (relinquishing the rest of Zaporozhye to Russia) while on the other hand offering lands in Dnieper Petrovsk (scarcely populated although territorialy significant) and Kharkov region (probably the city of Kupyansk and land to the Oskil river making it a border). This way Ukraine keeps Dnieper as its border and keeps major population centers under its control while Russia gains more land than it would previously including the hard fought regions around Kupyansk any Lyman.

Whether anyone likes it or not Russia is going to expand its territory and even according to Ukrainians there is a major summer offensive coming after which we could be speaking about Crimea plus six regions so Ukraine needs to negotiate now and get a better deal than it would be towards the end of the year.

Noticeably absent are Russia's demand for denazification and demilitarization. The first is Russia's signal that it would not have any say in future Ukrainian government (Zelensky can stay in power). This is an olive branch to Zelensky, and the second allows Ukraine to have as much troops and equipment as it wants/can get, placing no restrictions on them (apart from WMD), which is an olive branch to Ukrainian right wing hardliners.

Overall, even if it looks harsh on the first glance, there is much to work with here, nobody should expect the terms after three years of war to be mild.

 

[KipPotapych]

By sanctioning Russian agricultural products, the EU kills two birds with one stone:
1/ First they sanction Russian by making agricultural goods less attractive
2/ They protect the European agriculture. There were many protests against unfair imports from Ukraine, especialy in Poland. EU leaders then stressed out that Russian import quantities were at least as much as Ukrainian ones. These sanctions will address this problem while allowing to keep importing from Ukraine. Excellent move.

In the meantime, in the real world:

Despite the war and the sanctions, over the last two years the size of Russia’s agri-food exports has continuously risen, although the pace of this increase has now slowed down. In 2023, the value of supplies delivered to foreign markets stood at around $43.5 bn, which accounted for around 10% of the Russian Federation’s (RF) total export revenues. Alongside this, the importance of the European Union’s market has gradually decreased. At present, the EU member states receive around 6% of Russian agri-food exports[…]

So about what, $2.5B or so. Surely at least as much as Ukraine’s exports to the EU.

An increase in Russia’s agri-food exports

Despite the war and the sanctions, over the last two years the size of Russia’s agri-food exports has continuously risen, although the pace of this increase has now slowed down. In 2023, the value of supplies delivered to foreign markets stood at around $43.5 bn, which accounted for around 10%...

www.osw.waw.pl

In addition, Russian fertilizer imports:

EU farmers have already taken to the streets over rising costs and tough new green rules. Another spike in fertilizer prices could spark fresh rounds of protests — think tractors blocking roads and paralyzing capitals. That’s a political nightmare Brussels wants to avoid.

At the same time, the slow rollout frustrates European fertilizer producers, who say Moscow is being given more time to keep on flooding the market. Last year [2024], the EU imported 6.17 million metric tons of Russian fertilizer worth €2.12 billion — the highest volume since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, according to Eurostat and customs data.

EU fertilizer dilemma: How to kill Putin’s profits without hitting farmers

Tariffs on Russian fertilizers aim to hit Moscow’s war machine. Europe’s growers are still angry.

www.politico.eu

To note, there was already a tariff of 10% on Russian fertilizer exports in certain circumstances. The nuance is that it was a Russia imposed tariff on fertilizer exports since late 2023 till the end of 2024, I believe. That’s because they can.

Like I mentioned in my previous post, Russian fertilizer exports were worth about $15B in total last year, with about $2.1B heading to the EU, or about 15%. Let’s take a look at the EU fertilizer imposts though:



So about a third of its fertilizer imports come from Russia. I am going to pass on my “inverted logic” conclusions here and let you work it out.

You can also find (or plot one yourself) a correlation graph between fertilizer production costs and quantity, imports, and energy prices. Some shoot themselves in one foot and then aim for the other. That’s just how she goes.

Of course, also note that we are talking about a mere $4-5B worth of goods to be partially sanctioned. Then transfer this amount into what the Russian state actually collects from this amount into its coffins and you may find yourself laughing along with this guy:

It goes without saying that this is not the only sanctions. The best sanctions will be against third coutry banks and companies not applying sanctions on Russia.

This is unlikely to happen for obvious reasons.

There was also another black list update against companies and individuals.

This will happen, but no one cares, except for some of the individuals affected, perhaps.

It's Putin who first proposed "direct talks". By direct talks, it's understood that he will come personally to talk. Else it's not direct talks, by definition.

Yes… Because when, for example, they talk about direct talks between Iran and the United States, they certainly mean that Trump must fly somewhere to meet Ayatollah himself. I mean this is by “definition”.

In the real world, in the meantime, “direct talks” refer to the direct contacts between two (or more) parties without the mediators or intermediaries.

Look at an example of rational discussion:

The first high-level talks between Russia and Ukraine since the early months of Moscow's 2022 invasion showed they are far from agreement on steps needed for a ceasefire, even though they promised a major swap of prisoners of war.

“Steps needed for ceasefire” because “unconditional ceasefire” is a pile of horse excrement intended for the lemmings.

The negotiators' promises to release a thousand prisoners of war, to meet again for talks and to present their vision for a ceasefire were "substantial steps", said Peter Slezkine, a senior fellow and director of the Russia program at the Stimson Center.

“Present their vision for a ceasefire” and “substantial steps” because there is always a natural progression in the process. Unless the one on the ground has had enough and capitulates.

"I do think that they are a very hopeful sign, because the two sides coming into direct contact is an important development," he said.

So the “definition” is not a definition after all? Who would have thought?!

One of the senior Ukrainian officials who took part in the abortive series of 2022 talks with Russia that failed to stop the all-out war told Reuters that the outcome of the renewed engagement in Istanbul had panned out entirely as expected.

"Every journey begins with a single step. This is the beginning of the journey. Demands are always exaggerated at the start of any negotiations. That's classic," the source said.

So there is a journey and a process of negotiations, not some idiotic public ultimatums (that are not acted upon), eh?

And so on. The excerpts were taken from this Reuters article:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/istanbul-peace-talks-laid-bare-chasm-between-ukraine-russia-2025-05-17/

And he was trapped by his own words.

See him laughing above. Zelensky showed his irrationality once again. Euros had no choice but to follow. Lemmings cheered because they have little understanding of how things work in the real world, they are not connected to reality.

But it was important to convince Donald Trump. Trump was ready to come to the talks if Putin came. Putin knew it but decided to reject Trump's offer to meet him. Very bad move.

So Trump decided to have direct talks with Putin instead, while Euros keep threatening American actions.

With you inverted logic, you should be invited to speak on Russian TV.

I’d be glad to get paid for my posts. Any idea whom I can contact to sort the contract out? People say I am fairly good at this.

Problem is that "offering something else" is not going to guarantee peace, and the odds are higher that this "something else" will not bring peace and will be an incentive for the Russians to attack further west, either immediately or a little bit later. This is not only my opinion, it's the opinion of all east Europeans and the opinion of most experts and NATO officials.

The other two options included were: do nothing or act on your threats and make them. Do nothing was chosen. Again.

If you don't want to believe it, don't believe it, but don't tell those who live near Russia what they should think and what the real situation is.

I had never told anyone what they should think (or believe). That’s preposterous. The real situation is not necessarily what anyone in particular thinks though, myself including. Also, “believing” is not a rational concept.

Yes. And in this case, nobody knows when the deranged man in the Kremlin will be satisfied. How many more people should die before he is satisfied? How much land does he want to steal before being satisfied? Will he be ever satisfied?

So offer something acceptable or make him stop.

Our actions to stop him are very limited.[…] And he has the power to press the "Nuke" button.
If not the nuke problem, we would have made our offer for a ceasefire "acceptable" to Putin very quickly. Unfortunately we are forced to do it slowlier.

Ahh, so making him stop is not entirely feasible. Well, then offer something acceptable or do nothing are the remaining options?

(I already explained why he was irrational, I hope I won't have to repeat.)

Please, don’t put more effort into typing and spare us from repeating your explanation. At least I got your point long ago.

More important is where the reductions will be. Talks are about reducing in western Germany and other western countries, not in Eastern Europe. (The US has even troops in Spain, I think.)

You keep signing your song. As I outlined previously, the reported plans involve decreasing the US presence in Poland, Baltic States, and Germany, in particular.

Your “singing” is a prime example of why, three years after the start of the biggest and most brutal war on the European continent with hundreds of thousands dead or mutilated, millions displaced, Europe will be ready next year for “contingencies” in the Balkans and third-world countries.

 

[KipPotapych]

Also, a small dose of Russian propaganda:



Via Google translate:

"I have never received more stupid tasks than in the current direction. I will tell you the details sometime, but the loss of people was stupid, trembling before the stupid generals, except for failures, does not lead to anything. All that they are capable of - reprimands, investigations, imposition of penalties...

"Political" games and assessment of the real state of affairs do not correspond to either reality or possibilities. They played.

The corresponding report has been written, I hope I will be removed in the near future, so I will soon be ready to tell some moments to my journalist friends."

Комбат 47-ї бригади звинуватив командування в “дебільних задачах” на Курщині

Командир батальйону 47-ї окремої механізованої бригади “Маґура” Олександр Ширшин звинуватив командування в “дебільних задачах” і невиправданій втраті людей, а також написав рапорт з проханням усунути його з посади.

www.pravda.com.ua

So no epic victories and winning in Kursk? Who would have thought?!


Another bit of Russian propaganda:

Kyiv's all-out defensive war against Russia is forcing the country's soldiers to rely less on heavy armored vehicles and more on civilian pickup trucks. And the trucks they favor tend to be tough vehicles like the Toyota Hilux, the Nissan Navara (which ended European production in 2021) and especially the Mitsubishi L200, also discontinued four years ago.

“I would say the L200 is the best of them all, objectively, even despite the grim 200 in its name,” said Andriy Ivanov, commander of the Evil Peregrine Unmanned Systems Battalion. (Cargo 200 is Soviet military jargon for transporting dead soldiers.) “Despite the name, that car has saved many lives,” Ivanov said.[…]

The use of non-military trucks is becoming a hallmark of the war.

“Cars are everything! It’s the way you resupply weapons to the positions; it’s how you evacuate the wounded from encirclement. Mobile air defense units use civilian pickup trucks when chasing Russian drones,” Andriuk said.

“You can transport up to 10 people, depending on the pickup model. And it's way easier to repair them. They are lighter than armored vehicles and easier to evacuate from in case of an attack,” he added.

Russia has adopted a similar policy, with its invading troops often relying on private vehicles and even motorbikes to swiftly navigate the front lines while avoiding the clouds of Ukrainian drones that quickly zoom in on tanks and armored personnel carriers.

In the first two years of the war, Ukraine imported more than 100,000 mostly used cars for soldiers, forcing the government to slash red tape for vehicle registrations and to classify them as humanitarian aid.

“Nowadays it’s mostly the U.K., maybe Norway. We drained all the used car markets in Poland in the first months of 2022,” said Mariia Ksondzyk, CEO of Nesemos. “But it’s better to hunt for those trucks among farmers in the U.K.”

Ukraine’s war effort relies on old pickup trucks

Ukrainian volunteers scour the used car markets of Europe to supply vehicles for the troops.

www.politico.eu

And the last one for the time being:




One more thing I will add here because I found it interesting (and there is space to attach one more image). So this guy hasn’t lived in Russia for a while, anti-war, anti-Putin, wanted by the RU state, etc. He runs Agentura.ru. I, personally, do not find him all that interesting (never did).

 

[KipPotapych]

To add to my previous post regarding the “debate” on Russian and Ukrainian imports to the EU. Here is a visualization of EU agricultural exports/imports:

In numbers:

Brazil led EU agricultural imports with an 8.8% share (€17.1 billion or $19.2 billion), followed by the United Kingdom at 8.5% (€16.6 billion or $18.6 billion), with Ukraine’s €12.1 billion ($13.6 billion) outpacing the United States (6.1%, €12.0 billion or $13.4 billion) and China (5.1%).[…]

The EU’s agricultural exports reached €234.1 billion ($262.4 billion), with imports at €194.9 billion ($218.4 billion), yielding a €39.2 billion ($43.9 billion) surplus, up 2.8% and 6.7% respectively from 2023.

As cited in the previous post above, dollar-value of the Russian agri-food exports to the EU is about $2.1B, or about 1% of the total EU agricultural exports vs 7% coming from Ukraine. So the “quantities” are not exactly “at least as much”, as I stated above. Just figured some hard numbers would show the actual real world situation. Also note that the EU still exports about $6B worth of agricultural products to Russia (from the graph above).

Overall, I am rather amazed by the amount of completely wrong and unsupported by facts (or rational arguments) information Fred provides. When corrected, he usually avoids it (instead of saying something like “I stay corrected” or “thanks”) and then repeats the same rubbish later at his convenience -> being referred to the previous corrections-> completely avoids again -> …. Oh well, what are you gonna do.


On a different subject matter. Are there any Italians here? Or someone who has a good grip on the Italian affairs and sources of information? The reason I ask is that I see there are reports in various Ukrainian outlets (and garbage western outlets, like Visegrad, for example - unless that is also a UA outlet? but I don’t think so) talking about Italy’s plan to supply Ukraine with 400 M113s. For instance:

https://english.nv.ua/amp/ukraine-ranks-third-among-exporters-of-agricultural-products-to-european-union-50514168.html

Above, they are citing some “authoritative Italian publication Il Messaggero, citing its own sources in the government”. I know next to nothing about the Italian media space, so I was wondering if someone “in-the-know” wants to chime in. I find it extremely hard to believe that Italy is going to send 400 M113s to Ukraine. Thoughts?


In other news, it appears Hawks are back to flying over the Black Sea:

https://defence-blog.com/massive-us-spy-drone-returns-to-black-sea-patrols/

Is it their first appearance in about a year now? Or is my memory failing me?


From Ribuio’s interview to CBS News (I want to paste the entire bit relevant to this thread):

MARGARET BRENNAN: The Russian Foreign Ministry is saying that you initiated a call to your Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, on Saturday. What was that about? Are you talking about lining up that face-to-face meeting between President Putin and President Trump?

SEC. RUBIO: Well, we talked about a variety of things. We did talk about- I wanted to get his readout on his view of how the talks went yesterday. There- they were not a complete waste of time. For example, there were 1,000 prisoners that are going to be exchanged, and that, from a humanitarian standpoint, is very positive. He explained to me that they are going to be pre- preparing a document outlining their requirements for a cease-fire that would then lead to broader negotiations. So obviously, the Ukrainian side is going to be working on their own proposal, and hopefully that will be forthcoming soon. And if that does happen, and the proposal that comes forward from the Russian side and- and for that matter, from the Ukrainian side, are proposals that are serious and viable, then there's been real progress, and we can work off of that. So we'll have to wait and see. But he wanted me to know, and he communicated in our call, that they are- their side will be working on a series of ideas and requirements that they would have in order to move forward with a cease-fire and further negotiations. So we'll await that, and hopefully it's one- it's a document that is close enough to what the Ukrainians want to be able to get to that point and maybe work out those differences.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You've said repeatedly it's just a matter of days, though, in terms of the waning patience that the U.S. has for this diplomacy to succeed. So are- are they just tapping you along, as President Trump has said? Are they just seeking to talk- Are they just seeking to continue to talk to buy time?

SEC. RUBIO: Well, that's what we're testing. And that's what we'll know. Look, at the end of the day what I've said, and it's happening now, we're no longer flying all over the world trying to set up meetings. We're responding to meetings that are set up and we're willing- we always said we're willing to do whatever it takes to bring them together if the opportunities present themselves. So I think your question is, are they tapping us along? Well, that's what we're trying to find out. We'll find out pretty soon. They met last- yesterday or the day before in Turkey. From that they agreed they're going to exchange paper on ideas that get to a cease-fire. If those papers have ideas on them that are realistic and rational, then I think we know we've made progress. If those papers, on the other hand, have requirements in them that we know are unrealistic, then we'll have a different assessment. So, we're going to try to find that out. And there's a combination here. On the one hand, we're trying to achieve peace and end a very bloody, costly and destructive war. So there's some element of patience that is required. On the other hand, we don't have time to waste. There are a lot of other things happening in the world that we also need to be paying attention to. So we don't want to be involved in this process of just endless talks, there has to be some progress, some movement forward. And if at the end of this, in the next few days, we get a document produced by both sides, and it shows that both sides are being- making concessions and being realistic and rational in their approach, then I think we can feel good about continuing to remain engaged. If, on the other hand, what we see is not very productive, perhaps we'll have a different assessment. I also agree that ultimately, one of the things that could help break this log jam, perhaps the only thing that can, is a direct- direct conversation between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. And he's already openly expressed a desire and a belief that that needs to happen, and- and hopefully that'll be worked out soon as well.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You're planning on that?

SEC. RUBIO: Well, I don't know. We're- we're certainly made the offer. The president's made that offer already publicly. The mechanics of setting that kind of meeting up would require a little bit of work, so I can't say that's being planned as we speak in terms of picking a site and a date. But the president wants to do it. He wants to do it as soon as- as feasible. I think the Russian side has also expressed a willingness to do it. And so, now it's just a question of bringing them- bringing everyone together, and figuring out where and when and that meeting will happen and what it will be about.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, I- I want to move on to other topics. But lastly, your- your Senate- former senate colleague, Lindsey Graham, was next to you in that meeting with the Ukrainian foreign minister. He has a- he has a veto-proof majority on this bill to put sanctions on Russia. How quickly do you want the option for more sanctions on Russia? Or are you asking him to wait?

SEC. RUBIO: No, we're not- look, the Senate is going to act, ultimately. I mean, I think in the past, we've act- asked to give us a little time to see if we can make some progress on our talks. But we've also been pretty clear with the Russian side for weeks now, going back six or seven weeks. We've been communicating to the Russian side that this effort was- was being undertaken. That we anticipated that when all was said and done, it would have close to 80 cosponsors in the Senate, and I imagine a comparable percentage of support in the House, that that was an effort we couldn't stop and don't control, that ultimately, Congress and particularly the Republicans in the House and Senate, have tried to give the president space and time to negotiate something here. But we've- we've advised the Russians repeatedly now for almost two months that this was coming if no progress was made. So I think that's just coming to fruition now. And it's one of the- one of the things that I confirmed, again, being with Lindsey Graham this week in Turkey, is they're now up to 77. He thinks they could get close to 80 or more. And that's just- that's just a fact, and something we've told the Russians about for weeks was coming.

Dies anyone actually believe that there are 77 people in the US Senate that would vote for 500% tariffs on the countries buying Russian hydrocarbons? China, in particular? Especially provided how the recent tariff debacle imposed by Trump (and his eventual fold) worked out? Overall, during the “hundreds of deals to be made” and “dozens of countries begging for deals” trade negotiations? Hmm… I would insert the “I don’t believe you” gif here. I would think Russians think the same.

Last thing: the way he talks about it here and other interviews (and not only him) about the withdrawal of the US if there is no deal achieved, it certainly appears that this what they actually mean: complete withdrawal.

 

[KipPotapych]

Apologies for flooding the thread, but to follow up on my Italian question. A few people who know better have now chimed in:







Link to the discussion: https://x.com/Jeff21461/status/1923744105667907928

I would still appreciate any contribution from the Italian members of the forum (or those who know better).


Since I am posting anyway, not to waste space, the latest report on the Shahed use:



It appears that the improvement of the drone, new tactics by Russia, probably accompanied by depletion of the Ukrainian AD arsenal and personnel transfers, are all really working in the Russian favour here.

On the latter, and improvements in particular, I wonder if Russia shares those with Iran. There is quite a bit of potential here as far as (future) sales are concerned, along with the appropriate threat from the “undesirable” states to various militaries in the world. It’s relatively cheap and clearly effective after a couple of years of actual use in the war zone and, likely, still plenty of room for further improvement.

 

[rsemmes]

Drone Saturation: Russia’s Shahed Campaign 13 05 2025

Drone Saturation: Russia’s Shahed Campaign

Starting in September 2024, Russia significantly ramped up its use of Shahed drones, increasing from approximately 200 launches per week to more than 1,000 per week by March 2025 as part of a sustained pressure campaign.

www.csis.org

Consequently, Ukraine has increasingly relied on electronic warfare tactics, prioritizing reducing drone accuracy rather than direct interception owing to the sheer number of Shaheds launched each night.
Starting in September 2024, Russia significantly ramped up its use of Shahed drones, increasing from approximately 200 launches per week to more than 1,000 per week by March 2025 as part of a sustained pressure campaign.
The weekly number of successful drone hits reached approximately 110, nearly 10 times higher than the previous year’s average.
There are reports that China is manufacturing Garpiya-3 drones for Russia, which have a 2,000 kilometer (1,200 mile) range with a 50 kilogram (110 pound) payload. Moscow has also started production of a jet-powered variant of the Shahed, the Geran3, which has a range of 2,500 kilometers (1,533 miles) and can travel at speeds up to 550–600 kilometers per hour, making it much harder to intercept.

Russia is targeting Ukraine's infrastructure (that is war), Ukrainian AD (EW) is increasing Ukrainian collateral damage.

 

[rsemmes]

Will we ever see despots like Putin in court? It’s unlikely,and that’s the west’s fault too
The US, UK and others routinely flout international law. That’s why there’s scant hope for a new tribunal on crimes against Ukraine

Will we ever see despots like Putin in court? It’s unlikely – and that’s the west’s fault too | Simon Tisdall

The US, UK and others routinely flout international law. That’s why there’s scant hope for a new tribunal on crimes against Ukraine, says Guardian foreign affairs commentator Simon Tisdall

www.theguardian.com

Autocratic allies like China’s Xi Jinping, rightwing extremists like Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and powerful states like the US also reject international jurisdiction.
Dictators and authoritarian regimes rarely stick to the rules. Yet democratic states such as Britain and the US, which should set an example, often do the opposite -most notoriously with the precedent-setting, illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The UK is arguing in court that supplying Israel with components for combat jets used in Gaza is acceptable because, it claims, there’s no proof that genocide is occurring there. Such shameless sophistry ignores Britain’s unambiguous legal obligation, under the genocide convention, to prevent and pre-empt genocide -not hang about until it has already happened.

And that is reality. We could also mention the assassination of an Ukrainian diplomat (Istanbul 2022) by Ukraine or the treatment of "collaborators" in those areas reoccupied by Ukraine.
For some reason, I don't think the "International Community" is going to be that interested in those crimes.