The Western media is rife with rumors and falsehoods regarding Russia’s stance on a potential peace settlement with Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. He urged journalists and the wider population to rely on official sources of information.

Peskov’s remarks come as the US continues to push for a peace deal between Moscow and Kiev. AFP reported on Monday that Ukrainian officials plan to propose an air and naval truce during talks with US representatives in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. Bloomberg earlier cited unnamed sources in Moscow as claiming that Russia was open to discussing a temporary truce if progress was made toward a final settlement.

The Kremlin spokesman, however, dismissed the claim on Tuesday, saying Western media was filled with “incorrect information” and “rumors that do not correspond to reality.”

The Kremlin spokesperson warned journalists against using unnamed sources, urging them to rely solely on “official sources of information and on specific statements by specific people.”

Multiple media outlets, including Reuters and Bloomberg, have also reported that US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, will visit Moscow this week to meet President Vladimir Putin. Bloomberg said the trip is timed to coincide with the US-Ukraine talks in Riyadh.

Peskov declined to confirm Witkoff’s visit, saying the public would be “informed in due course.”

READ MORE: Ukraine will have to give up territory – Rubio

Last month, the White House initiated efforts to broker a ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict. Since taking office in January, Trump has pushed for closer ties with Moscow and indicated on Sunday that “big meetings” were planned with both Russia and Ukraine. The approach contrasts with the more confrontational stance toward the Kremlin that was adopted by the administration of Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden.

https://www.rt.com/news/614024-western-media-false-information-kremlin/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Russian war correspondent shows rude response to USA's ceasefire proposal with Ukraine

 

Russia gives rude response to USA's 30-day ceasefire proposal 

 

"Great negotiations between the US and Ukraine. So, they're reopening the flow of weapons and intelligence again. Ukraine will stockpile everything for a month. And then Russia will be blamed for continuing the war?” Kots wrote.

In a follow-up post, Kots noted that Ukraine has historically proposed ceasefires during difficult moments on the battlefield and linked Kyiv's willingness to negotiate to recent Ukrainian setbacks in Russia's Kursk region.

"Shove your peace initiatives where the sun doesn't shine. You were given conditions for a ceasefire last year. You responded with an invasion. We got the message," Kots added. 

Ukraine Agrees to Temporary Ceasefire

Earlier, Ukraine accepted a US proposal for an immediate 30-day ceasefire, which could be extended if both sides agree and if Russia accepts and implements the terms. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed that the proposal calls for a total cessation of hostilities, not just a ceasefire at sea and in the air, as Kyiv had previously suggested.

Meanwhile, US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz announced that Washington was resuming military aid and intelligence-sharing with Ukraine, citing Kyiv's demonstrated commitment to peace while emphasizing that Russia must now agree to the ceasefire.

See more at https://english.pravda.ru/news/world/161786-russia-usa-ukraine-ceasefire/  

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

Sergey Karaganov: Russia must not fall into Trump’s ‘honey trap’
Western Europe might be led by ‘pygmies,’ but the Americans are smarter operators, the political scientist believes

As Washington revives talk of nuclear arms reduction, renowned Russian political scientist and former Kremlin advisor Sergey Karaganov dismisses the idea as a strategic deception aimed at weakening Russia while preserving American military dominance. In an interview with Moscow newspaper MK, Karaganov argues that nuclear deterrence remains Russia’s best guarantee against war, warns against repeating ex-Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev’s mistakes, and ridicules French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal for a Western European “nuclear umbrella.” He also outlines how Russia’s nuclear posture has already forced a shift in US strategy—pushing Washington to quietly retreat from its earlier hardline stance on Ukraine.

Below, Karaganov explains why he believes Russia must reject denuclearization, how nuclear weapons remain the ultimate equalizer, and why Western European leaders, in his view, need a reality check.

 

MK: If nuclear weapons are to be reduced, perhaps all members of the “nuclear club” should do so, not just Russia and China, which are designated as enemies of the United States in its military strategy?

Sergey Karaganov: These proposals, which I have been hearing from American strategists and experts for decades, elicit a good laugh and an unfriendly one at that. The US, with its dominant scientific, technical, economic and military potential, with its strong all-purpose armed forces, especially the navy, and with its advantage in space systems, is interested in reducing nuclear weapons. That’s because these weapons make their gigantic investments in all other military fields ultimately pointless, and balances out their economic and scientific-technical advantages. Also their demographic edge over us. By dragging us into trilateral and even multilateral negotiations, the Americans want to drive a wedge into our relations with a friendly China.

But many people in our country also believe that the fewer nuclear weapons, the better. This comes from the American logic of strategic thinking. Yes, we don’t need a surplus of nuclear weapons. But we do need a sufficient number of nuclear weapons so that no one would ever think of starting a war against Russia and its closest allies, or any major wars for that matter.

At some point in history, we ourselves have forgotten many of the functions of nuclear deterrence, which exists not only to prevent nuclear aggression but also to prevent any war.

It cancels out all advantages: demographic, economic, military-technical advantages of any adversary.

We have just seen that by not using nuclear deterrence in the early stages of an armed conflict we got what we got in Ukraine.

But thanks to the intervention of the most talented members of our expert community, we activated our nuclear deterrent capabilities, changed our doctrine and began, albeit not actively enough, to move up the so-called ladder of escalation of nuclear deterrence.

MK: What is behind the change in our nuclear doctrine?

Sergey Karaganov: At the beginning of last summer there was a discussion about the need to increase reliance on nuclear deterrence, and then we changed our nuclear doctrine and moved up a few rungs on the ladder of escalating nuclear deterrence. This convinced our adversaries of our willingness to use nuclear weapons. The continuation of the war began to threaten the Americans with consequences where they would not be able to use their economic and other advantages.

They would be faced with either an ignominious defeat or nuclear strikes on their allies and their overseas bases. 

At first they said that Russia would never use nuclear weapons, so they could continue the war to the last Ukrainian and to the exhaustion of Russia. Then, after receiving signals from Russia, they stopped talking about that and started talking about the need to avoid World War III, the need to stop the escalation. This was at the end of the Biden administration in the US, although in the end it tried to impose the continuation of the war and to pass the responsibility for it on to the next administration. We and Trump did not fall into the trap, he just took up the baton to get out of a lost war.

It’s a pity we didn’t launch the nuclear deterrent mechanism earlier, then we would have achieved victory sooner. 

MK: So the situation changed under Biden?

Sergey Karaganov: Yes, they realized that they could not win the war. We are restoring our economic and military-technical potential, but we are still seriously backward demographically and economically. That is why we have emphasized nuclear deterrence, which should prevent any war, make it unlikely and make its cost prohibitive for the aggressor.

We can talk about limiting certain types of weapons, such as biological weapons, which are now being widely developed, space weapons, or long-range missiles and drones - they will increasingly threaten normal human life. The scientific and technological revolution that has made missiles and drones possible puts people at great risk. They can also be used by terrorists. 

But nuclear weapons cannot be reduced under any circumstances. We have a number of people who have been brought up in the American ideological framework and who are in favor of any disarmament, who will take Trump’s words at face value. But they are a deception. They are a honey trap. An attempt to repeat the [Ronald] Reagan trick with the dim-witted [Soviet leader] Mikhail Gorbachev. Although he was a good man personally. And I hope that our American adversaries, and hopefully in the future our partners, will realize that there will be no positive response to their proposals.

MK: Are Europeans afraid of nuclear war?

Sergey Karaganov: One of the unfortunate consequences of the relatively peaceful period since the early 1960s (although there have been localized peripheral conflicts) is the loss of fear of nuclear war. The Americans propagandized that it was not scary until very recently. In Western Europe, ‘nuclear parasitism’ - the lack of an existential fear of war - is most deeply rooted.

We need to use nuclear deterrence to push the Western Europeans as far away as possible, as fast as possible. Or defeat them completely.

MK: Is French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal for a “nuclear umbrella” for the EU realistic? 

Sergey Karaganov: I will not insult the great country of the past. But the possibility of extending the ‘French nuclear umbrella’ to other countries provokes Homeric laughter. I have written many times, and American experts have never contradicted me: under no circumstances will the United States use nuclear weapons against Russia in the event of a war in Europe. This is an axiom. Although American doctrine provides for such use, it is a 100% bluff.

What Macron is saying is humiliating stupidity for a great France. I have often written and said that no American president, unless he is insane and hates America, would use a nuclear weapon to ‘defend’ Poznan and risk Boston. What now – the French president is going to sacrifice Paris for the sake of Berlin? It seems that it is time for the French ‘deep state’ and the French people to get rid of idiots from important positions. 

But no one is attacking Western Europe. We are responding to NATO’s long-standing military and political aggression. The best way to ensure broader European security is to respect Russia’s interests and even to be friends with it. But so far the pygmies at the top of Europe have failed to realise this. It is time to change or defeat them

By Ionna Kovaleva, correspondent for MK.ru.

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/614051-sergey-karaganov-russia-trump/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

Following the high-level talks between US and Ukrainian delegations in Saudi Arabia, two major developments have dominated the media landscape. First, Russia has been proposed to agree to a 30-day ceasefire. Second, Washington is resuming military aid and intelligence support for Kiev. How Russian politicians, experts, and journalists are responding to this latest turn in negotiations – our report has the details.

Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs:

The final statement of the [Ukrainian and American] delegations shows that the meeting in Saudi Arabia has gone according to the US plan. The White House aimed to pressure Ukraine into acknowledging the need to align with its demands for a swift cessation of hostilities (a full ceasefire rather than the partial one mentioned by Kiev). In return, Washington promised to resume military assistance to Ukraine, which was previously suspended: agree to a ceasefire, the US said, and you’ll get back what you had before. 

There’s some ambiguity regarding the agreement on resources, which may need to be revised and approved. And there’s still no clarity on security guarantees for Ukraine. It seems both issues are still being considered, as negotiations continue. The suggestion that Europe should be involved in the peace process indicates that Ukraine won’t be left all alone. 

Overall, Ukraine has swallowed its shame (and Zelensky’s humiliation) and capitulated by expressing “the Ukrainian people’s strong gratitude to President Trump, the US Congress, and the people of the United States for facilitating meaningful progress toward peace.” It didn’t express gratitude for US support, but rather for facilitating progress towards peace. As Rubio noted, the ball is now in Russia’s court, which aligns with US intentions. Ukraine has complied, and now, Russia is expected to enter the game. 

US National Security Advisor Michael Waltz has hinted that there are certain undisclosed agreements, but for now, we can only speculate about them. If we focus on the published text, the proposal in its current form contradicts Moscow’s repeatedly stated position that no ceasefire will occur until the parameters of a comprehensive agreement ensuring lasting peace are established. In other words, the fighting will continue until a viable resolution is devised. 

However, since the US publicly shifted its stance from being a side in the conflict to an assertive mediator (something Trump announced during his memorable meeting with Zelensky), it has become apparent that the dynamics have changed. The Roman numerals seem to have switched places: the XXI century looks more like the XIX century as personal diplomacy between monarchs takes center stage, overshadowing ideological commitments and even military achievements. The outcome will depend on their personal agreements or the lack thereof – in any case, we will soon see the result. As for the royal persons holding these discussions, it is clear whom we are talking about.

Vice Speaker of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev: 

The outcome of the US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah reveals a clear truth: Zelensky’s attempts to make “the tail wag the dog” may have worked with Biden, but not with Trump. 

The terms are set by the Americans, not the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians merely agree with what they are told, bowing and scraping. Just look at the absurdity of the following statement, “We’ll sign the resource agreement when it suits Washington”! Zelensky is backed into a corner. As White House press secretary said, “Trump put Zelensky in his place.” 

Russian troops are advancing, and so, dealings with Russia will be different. Any agreements (and we recognize the need for compromises) will come on our terms, not America’s. This isn’t just bravado; it’s an acknowledgment that real agreements are still being forged on the front lines – a fact Washington should understand. 

For now, the main thing is not to let any extraneous comments disturb US-Russia negotiations. Let the negotiators do their job. Victory will be ours.

Head of Rossotrudnichestvo Evgeny Primakov:

What’s ours is ours, and what’s yours – we’ll talk about that later. That’s pretty much Trump’s famous “art of the deal” in a nutshell. So, it’s hardly surprising that the proposed ceasefire in exchange for renewed military aid and intelligence for Ukraine comes off as blatant manipulation. But I believe the game is much more complex.

First, starting with a door-slam approach is simply unprofessional. As they say in Odessa, that’s not how business is done.

Secondly, let’s consider the pause that the Americans have subtly suggested. Nowhere did they explicitly state that they expect an immediate ceasefire from Russia. A special envoy from Trump, Steve Witkoff is heading to Moscow; the US announced plans for a phone call between Trump and our president, and new negotiations with Russian officials have been announced.

What might this indicate amidst the rapidly changing situation on the Kursk front, where our forces are driving out Ukrainian occupiers and liberating one settlement after another? Trump himself has mentioned that the Ukrainian forces are retreating, so it’s clear the White House understands what this pause means for the situation on the front. I suspect that the unstated part of this deal involves pushing Ukrainian forces out of Kursk region.

Thirdly, what is clear and directly follows from President Putin’s statements, is that we have very specific conditions for any peace agreement. A mere ceasefire won’t satisfy us; we need a resolution that addresses our interests and acknowledges the fundamental reasons behind the conflict.

These include Ukraine’s neutral status, the rights of ethnic Russians, and our territories in the Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions. Under any circumstances, Ukraine must not pose a threat to Russia. This means we must prevent any risks of revanchism, which logically entails that Ukraine should not maintain offensive military capabilities or embrace an aggressive Nazi ideology aimed against Russia. Therefore, it will be necessary to dismantle several political and social institutions of the current Ukraine, and the education system must also be reformed. How willing is the US to include these issues in the negotiations? In any case, we have already outlined these conditions from our side.

And if we’re talking about dismantling Ukraine’s future military potential and ensuring its neutrality, then both these points completely contradict the idea of sending military supplies or placing NATO “peacekeepers” there.

Political analyst Sergey Markov:

Reasons why Russia might refuse a ceasefire:

1. A ceasefire would be exploited by the West and Ukraine to halt the advance of the Russian army, strip it of its initiative, supply the Ukrainian army with more weapons, continue extensive mobilization in Ukraine, and strengthen the repressive and anti-Russian nature of the Ukrainian political regime

2. The experience of the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements clearly demonstrates this pattern

3. The consistent dishonesty of Western politicians and media regarding the conflict, as well as their refusal to acknowledge their own and Ukraine’s culpability, strongly suggests that history will repeat itself 

4. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly stated that what Russia needs is lasting peace, not just a temporary ceasefire

5. The West cannot really be trusted 

6. Russia is advancing.  A ceasefire always benefits those who are retreating.

Journalist and VGTRK contributor Andrey Medvedev:

Here’s a proposed negotiation position: establishing a 30-day ceasefire, but Ukraine must guarantee free exit from the country for all categories of citizens. 

Another requirement could be the withdrawal of all Ukrainian armed forces units beyond the borders of Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, along with the transfer of all territories to Russian authorities and the deployment of our military units. Essentially, this would align the situation on the ground with the norms of the Russian Constitution. They could pull back in a week and our troops could move in within another week, followed by two weeks for securing and fortifying the borders. 

While we probably won’t see such a scenario unfold, it would be an ideal option. Because this kind of ceasefire would lead to irrevocable consequences for what remains of Ukraine. I know it’s not very probable, but it’s nice to dream.

Philosopher Alexander Dugin:

Trump is eager to end the war in Ukraine because his opponents from the Deep State have regrouped and launched a massive counterattack against him and Elon Musk. However, he has no clear plan on how to achieve this; he is simply not ready to withdraw from the war unilaterally yet. This is precisely the trap laid by the Democrats. Without resolving the Ukraine issue, Trump risks getting increasingly bogged down. That’s the swamp for you. 

A ceasefire is not a serious proposition, especially when Ukraine is clearly starting to lose. But it will take time for everything to fall into place.

Valentin Bogdanov, Head of VGTRK Bureau in New York:

What does a 30-day ceasefire really mean? This is where things get tricky. Waltz claims that Ukraine is supposedly ready for peace. The problem is that in Kiev, the word “peace” often comes with various adjectives (the most popular being “just”) that twist it into something Orwellian – a peace that quickly turns into war. This was evident the night before the negotiations, as Moscow faced a massive drone attack, which was followed by the good news of the liberation of Sudzha. For the Armed Forces of Ukraine, taking a 30-day pause to recover from setbacks in Kursk region is an ideal strategy, especially considering their experience in undermining numerous other ceasefires since 2014. This is particularly true if America continues to send weapons and provide intelligence support to Ukraine. 

Does Trump understand this? He probably does. That’s why, asserting control at this interim stage, he first states that it takes two to tango (once again excluding Ukraine) and then indicates that he will soon call Putin. According to Trump, the Russian leader giving his agreement to the US offer would bring the parties “75% of the way”, and dealing with Russia is “easier”. However, success doesn’t come from nowhere; an agreement still needs to be reached. Therefore, a subsequent round of negotiations is expected in Moscow, where, according to Axios, special envoy Witkoff is about to arrive.

Washington has yet to present any concrete proposals. Moreover, discussing proposals with subordinate proxies (an accurate description of the Kiev regime based on Rubio’s recent comments on the nature of the Ukraine conflict) is hardly productive. Given that Russia’s fundamental conditions are well-known – chiefly, lasting peace that considers our interests and demands – it’s clear that achieving such peace requires addressing the root causes of the conflict.

If Trump manages to resolve these issues within 30 days, that would be fantastic. In three days it would be even better; three hours would be nothing short of spectacular. But there’s also a chance he might not succeed at all. In that case, the ball – which Rubio has confidently claimed is now in Russia’s court – could easily turn into a weight dragging him and Trump down. 

By Georgiy Berezovsky, Vladikavkaz-based journalist

https://www.rt.com/russia/614082-russia-ukraine-ceasefire-experts/

 

GUS LEONISKY: TRUMP (AND HIS BACKERS IN THE DEEP STATE) IS/ARE DESPERATE TO AVOID A (FULL) RUSSIAN VICTORY IN UKRAINE... 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.