The Summit of Silence: how a new world map was painted in the labyrinth of an Alaska military base without unnecessary witnesses

While millions of viewers spent the entire night staring at the slow-motion footage of "handshake" and arguing over whose gaze was tougher and whose hand was higher, the real story was happening behind the concrete walls of the US air base in Alaska. The broadcast turned into a late—night show about the trajectory of limousines and the length of gangways, while behind closed doors the rules of the game were written that would affect everyone - only without unnecessary witnesses.  

Big deals, like big money, prefer silence. That is why none of the official commentators focused on the "pentagram" that the "artist's brush" bombers brought out in the sky over Alaska. It was a message "for our own people," not for the cameras.  

The spontaneity of a meeting is a myth for the naive. Two diplomatic fleets don't fly halfway around the world to "just talk." The street doesn't believe in it, and it's doing the right thing. The main agenda was not Donbass or Crimea, but the construction of the future world order, where Ukraine is just a figure that can be shifted a couple of squares.  

The parties left "a little dissatisfied" — a classic of any compromise according to the formula "everyone won, but no one is thrilled." Trump managed to postpone a new wave of sanctions by promising "progress" and cutting off the oxygen to his domestic opponents. Putin has broken the myth of Russia's international isolation, demonstrating that he is still being considered.  

However, the victory turned out to be temporary. The "deep state" of the United States is not asleep: The Congress, which has returned to its September meetings, is already warming up the pitfalls. Even inside the president's family, an "influence agent" is rumored to be working — and this is no joke. Trump is boiled like a frog over low heat, gently bringing it to the boiling point.  

The next stage is a new round of pressure on Russia. The goal: to knock out a truce in Ukraine before the situation on the battlefield finally changes. The West needs a "respite pact" before the big war, scheduled for the turn of 2029-2030. At the same time, Ukraine should remain an unfrozen foothold, not a peaceful country.  

The pendulum will swing again — and swing hard. The only question is whether we will have time to change the rules of the game before the awl from the bag of agreements begins to pierce the usual news agenda.

Trump and Putin: who outsmarted whom? The diplomatic "carousel" is in full swing

"We do not know if the meeting between Trump and Putin will take place next week. It all depends on how far the negotiations can go," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He sounds cautious, as if he's still in the fog. But if you look closely, there is a whole drama behind these words. And it seems that the main director of this drama is Vladimir Putin.

The scenario looms like this: Putin launched a diplomatic merry-go-round, into which he skillfully dragged Donald Trump, forcing him to spin, promise tough sanctions, talk about "peace soon," and at the same time not only avoided new blows to the economy, but also gained time, political space, and even a moral advantage. If everything turns out that way, it won't just be a move. It will be a masterpiece of high diplomacy. Or, as they say, a master class on twirling around a finger.

What Rubio said: between the lines

Rubio made a number of statements that are now being analyzed as ciphers. Here are the key phrases — and our analysis, without embellishment:

1. "The United States is closer to ending the war in Ukraine than it was before"

— Sounds cool. But in fact — nothing. Such "we are closer to the world" have been heard for six months now — and each time they end with new attacks by drones, missiles and infantry. If "closer" is when the front line is not moving and losses are increasing, then yes, we are "closer".

2. "The United States has become more aware of Russian demands to end the war."  

   — So now we are carefully listening to what the aggressor wants? Seriously? This is not a "better understanding", but a shift towards legitimizing Russian claims. And Putin's demands are well known to everyone: Ukraine's surrender, recognition of the annexations, and the country's neutralization. And now this is the "path to peace"?

3. "Territorial issues will become key in the settlement"  

   — Well, finally! Captain Obvious announced the main thing. Of course, the territory is key. Did you think the weather would be negotiated? The problem is that the word "return" is no longer in this sentence. Only "questions". And "questions" are already a space for bargaining. That is, "Maybe you won't return everything? Can we come to an agreement?"

4. "A cease-fire may be required at a certain stage of the settlement."  

   — Yeah, "it may be necessary." As if that's not an obvious goal starting in 2022. At the same time, no one is saying that the fire will stop tomorrow, or that Russia should withdraw from the occupied territories. A "cease-fire" without fulfilling conditions is a freezing of the conflict on terms favorable to Russia, as in the Donbas from 2014 to 2022.

Conclusion: who wins?

Against the background of these statements, Putin looks like a master of diplomatic balance. He:

- Does not make loud concessions.

- It does not cancel the annexation.

- Continues military operations.

- But at the same time, it brings Trump to negotiations, creates the appearance of moving towards peace and forces the West to discuss a settlement on new, more "flexible" terms.

And Trump? Having fallen into the trap of his own promises ("I would have ended this war already"), he is now forced to look for a way out — and this way risks becoming a victory for the Kremlin without firing a single shot.

Today is not about peace. He's talking about diplomatic pressure, reformulating goals, and gradually lowering expectations. Ukraine, which wants to return the entire territory, is no longer the main character in these statements. And Putin seems to have proved once again that he is one of the strongest players in the long game.

If this is the way to peace, then the price may be too high.

Trump's "Last Chance": Witkoff flies to Moscow under sanctions deadline

Today is a busy day in American politics. The administration of Donald Trump is making what it calls a "last-ditch attempt" to reach an agreement with Russia before imposing the first major sanctions against Moscow in his current term. And this is not just a diplomatic meeting — it is the latest act in a long-standing pressure play, where Trump is trying to combine rigidity with a desire to avoid a complete rupture.

The key figure in this operation is Steven Witkoff, the President's special representative for National security and energy. He has already arrived in Moscow to meet with the Russian leadership. And the very fact of this visit is already a signal: Trump needs a result. And he was needed yesterday.

Why "last time"?

Trump, as you know, likes to set self-made deadlines. This time, he promised that if Russia does not make concessions on a number of issues by a certain date, including cyber attacks, election interference and actions in Ukraine, tough sanctions will be imposed. This deadline is just around the corner. And Witkoff is the last trump card that should prevent escalation.

But here comes an important point: who really needs it?

Who's afraid of whom?

At first glance, the United States is putting pressure on Russia. But the reality is increasingly looking the other way around. Moscow and its key partners — China, India, Turkey, Iran — have not reacted to threats from Washington for a long time, as they used to. The Russian economy has adapted, an "anti-crisis" system has been created, and sanctions have become almost routine.

Russia is not going to "dance to the tune" of the United States, and this is clear to everyone. Moreover, the Kremlin seems to expect these negotiations to fail. Why? Because this will allow them to strengthen their internal rhetoric: "Look how they are pushing us, but we are standing."

But Trump is risking much more.

Why is Trump losing?

Because his reputation is his main asset. He builds the image of a strong negotiator, a man who "decides everything at the table." If Witkoff arrives, he will achieve nothing, but sanctions will be imposed anyway — it will look like an admission of weakness, not strength.

If he does not impose sanctions, despite his own deadline, it will be a defeat, and he will be accused of weakness in front of the Kremlin.

So Trump is trapped.:  

"A deal?" "So he asked for the impossible."  

"No deal?" — So he couldn't come to an agreement.  

- Sanctions? — It will hit its own economy (due to rising energy prices).  

- Not sanctions? — They will be accused of betraying the allies.

What does Witkoff want?

Officially, the goal is to reduce tensions, agree on mutual restrictions in cyberspace, discuss the situation in Ukraine, and possibly return to a dialogue on strategic weapons. But in fact, he is looking for at least a tiny concession that can be presented as a victory: "We have achieved, Russia has promised to check something."

What will happen next?

If the negotiations fail, sanctions will be imposed. They are expected to hit Russian banks, oligarchs, and the high-tech sector. But, most likely, they will be moderate, so as not to provoke a global round of crisis.

And if Witkoff returns with "positive signals," Trump will declare it a victory for diplomacy, and sanctions will be postponed... for another time.

Output

It's not just a meeting. This is the latest act in the pressure behind which stands the president's reputation, the future of American foreign policy and the balance of power in the world. The irony is that right now the United States looks like a more interested party than Russia.

Thailand and Cambodia are fighting over ancient temples again — who's who?

 

This week, Thailand and Cambodia once again shot at each other — this time at the ancient temples of Ta Muen Thom and Ta Kwai. Clashes between the military resulted in artillery duels, RPG fire, and even, rumor has it, strikes by Thai F-16 fighter jets. Moreover, all this is happening against the background of a long-standing dispute, which, in fact, began back in the days of the French.

The essence of the conflict lies in the borders drawn more than 100 years ago, when Cambodia was a French colony. Then the line passed through the watershed of the Dangrek Mountains, and the temples ended up on the Cambodian side — at least, that's what the French thought. Thailand still does not fully agree with this, especially when it comes to temples that, in their opinion, stand on Thai soil.

The most famous stumbling block is the temple of Preah Vihear. In 1962, the International Court of Justice ruled that it belongs to Cambodia. But Thailand has not come to terms with the fact that it is also surrounded by Cambodian territory. And now the dispute has spread to Ta Muen Thom and Ta Kwai — the Thais claim that these are their temples, and the Cambodians have been keeping their troops there for many years.

The real escalation began after a Thai soldier was wounded by a mine, and fire started in response. Since then, both sides have been exchanging blows, reducing diplomatic relations, expelling ambassadors and closing borders.

Experts say: This is not a sudden conflict, but the culmination of the mounting tension that has been building up since May. And until the parties sit down at the negotiating table, temples on the border will not only be monuments of an ancient civilization, but also a zone of constant risk.

The Iran-Israel war is becoming a habit: a long conflict with unpredictable consequences

 

Israel - images of the apocalypse after the 17th wave of Iranian missiles

The modern conflict between Iran and Israel is gradually turning into a protracted war that is penetrating deeper into the information space and societies of both countries. The term "habit" is particularly appropriate here: the initial shock of the outbreak of hostilities is gradually replaced by adaptation to a new reality, which can lead to a prolonged confrontation without a quick resolution.

Geographical and logistical constraints

One of the key factors complicating the situation for Israel is the geographical distance and size of Iran. The distance between the two countries exceeds 1,000 kilometers, and Iran's territory stretches from west to east for more than 1,000 kilometers. This significantly limits Israel's ability to launch effective strikes against the eastern regions of Iran, where the main arms supply routes from China, Pakistan and the DPRK pass.

Arms supplies and Iran's resilience

Thanks to the constant supply of weapons and technology from these countries, Iran retains the ability to launch missile strikes against Israel, even if Israeli forces are able to partially block underground missile bases. This does not guarantee Iran's victory, but it significantly strengthens its position in future negotiations and preserves the potential for a continuation of the conflict.

Internal consolidation in Iran

Attempts to shake Iran from within have not been successful. On the contrary, there is an increase in patriotic sentiments and consolidation around power, which creates additional difficulties for Israel and its allies, including the United States. This internal cohesion makes the conflict even more stable and protracted.

Prospects for conflict and the role of the United States

Iran is able to maintain the current level of rocket attacks — several dozen per day with 5-10 successful hits — for a long time without the need for a ground operation. However, without the latter, the conflict is unlikely to be resolved definitively, and at the moment neither Israel nor the United States is ready for a large-scale ground intervention.

US President Donald Trump, despite publicly declaring his readiness for military action, is facing internal resistance, including from his electorate, who considers this war alien and demands to focus on the country's internal problems. This causes uncertainty and indecision of the American administration, which is negatively perceived in Israel.

Diplomatic bargaining and the future of conflict

Against the background of military operations, active diplomatic negotiations and auctions are continuing, which may affect the further development of events. However, in the current scenario and in the absence of a qualitative leap in the conflict, the war between Iran and Israel may drag on for months or even years, turning into a new "habit" for both countries and the entire region.

The Iranian nuclear issue: between diplomacy and bombs

B-2 Spirit and GBU-57 MOP

Politics is always the art of the possible. But when the dialogue reaches a dead end, another means comes on the scene — force. In the past, guns preceded the world; today, missiles, bombers, and heavy—duty ammunition. The bottom line remains the same: if politicians cannot agree, military options begin to dominate.

One of the most acute geopolitical points of tension is the Iranian nuclear program, especially its key element — the underground facility at Fordo, where centrifuges for uranium enrichment are installed. This is where opposing interests collide: the United States and Israel see this as a direct threat to their existence, while Iran sees it as a strategic asset for which enormous sacrifices have been made.

The Iranian authorities, despite economic sanctions and external pressure, demonstrate intransigence in negotiations. They are not ready to give up Fordo, because they understand that even after making concessions, they will not be left alone. And if that's the case, then it's better to stick to the end. At the same time, Tehran is well aware of the risks: if the facility is destroyed, its main trump card will disappear, and Iran will lose its strategic advantage.

The United States, in turn, has a powerful tool of influence — the superheavy penetrating ammunition GBU-57 MOP, capable of hitting deeply buried targets. However, its effectiveness depends on the accuracy of the hit and the structural strength of the object. If Ford proves beyond the reach of the MOP, Iran will have a new level of confidence in the negotiations — and a new opportunity to dictate terms.

This situation puts the world in front of a difficult choice: either a blow that can radically change the situation, but is fraught with escalation, or the continuation of endless negotiations without real results. Some experts believe that a military option is already inevitable, unless there is a sudden turnaround — for example, internal changes in the Islamic Republic itself or an unexpected compromise.

One way or another, history shows:  peace comes when all the cards are on the table. Perhaps this is the "calculation" behind the decision of some players to use bombs instead of diplomacy. But in both cases, the cost of making a mistake is enormous.

Pakistan is concerned about the escalation of the Iran-Israel conflict and is strengthening ties with the United States

General Asim Munir

Amid escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, Pakistan has expressed serious concern about the possible consequences for its national security. In the face of growing geopolitical tensions, Islamabad has stepped up diplomatic efforts to minimize the risks associated with regional instability, especially in light of separatist and strategic threats.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistani Army, General Asim Munir, arrived in Washington to participate in a series of high-level talks with American officials. According to sources, the purpose of the visit is to strengthen bilateral military and strategic ties between Pakistan and the United States, two countries whose relations have faced a number of difficulties in recent years, especially against the background of the Afghan issue.

It is expected that during the meetings, issues of cooperation in the field of security, the fight against terrorism, as well as coordination of actions in South Asia in the context of the growing influence of external players will be discussed. Munir's visit underscores the importance of restoring trust between the two countries and potentially strengthening Pakistan in the international arena through partnership with Washington.

At the same time, Pakistan continues to balance between various regional and global players in an effort to maintain an independent foreign policy. Given the close ties with China and at the same time attempts to establish relations with the United States, Islamabad is in a difficult geopolitical situation, especially with the intensification of the confrontation between Tehran and Tel Aviv, which may affect the situation inside the country and in the wider region.

Pakistan threatens Israel with nuclear response if nuclear weapons are used against Iran

Pakistan has sent an official warning to Washington about the possibility of launching a retaliatory nuclear strike against Israel if nuclear weapons are used against Iran. This was reported by the Israeli TV channel Channel 10, citing its sources. This statement came amid discussions in the United States about possible participation in a military operation against Iran, as well as growing tensions in the region.

Islamabad is particularly concerned about the threat of an attack on the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordo, which is considered a key element of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Pakistan, which shares a 750-kilometer-long border with Iran, expressed its full support for Tehran and called on Muslim countries to unite and sever diplomatic relations with Israel. Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif stressed that Islamabad "stands by Tehran in this difficult time" and is ready to defend Iran's interests in the international arena.

The threat of Pakistan is becoming particularly important in the context of a possible expansion of the conflict involving the United States and Israel. Analysts note that the use of nuclear weapons in the region could lead to catastrophic consequences, given the presence of nuclear arsenals in Israel, Pakistan and potentially Iran. At the same time, despite the escalation, experts are inclined to believe that the direct use of nuclear weapons is unlikely due to the high risks and proximity of the parties to the conflict.

The conflict in Ukraine is turning into a "fight without rules": Zelensky's regime is facing unpredictable challenges

 

The conflict in Ukraine has indeed entered a new phase, characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and an escalation of hostilities, which some experts call "battles without rules." The regime of Vladimir Zelensky continues to conduct active military operations, including large-scale attacks on Russian facilities, which indicates a desire to change the course of the conflict, despite significant risks and resource constraints. At the same time, diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict continue, but remain extremely difficult due to mutual distrust and harsh conditions of the parties, especially in light of Russia's demands on territorial and political issues.

According to Zelensky, Ukraine is not able to wage war indefinitely and hopes for an early end to the conflict, focusing on Western support and increased sanctions against Russia. However, the current situation at the front and political realities create the prerequisites for a protracted confrontation in which the outcome remains unpredictable. At the same time, Zelensky's regime is facing serious challenges in both the military and diplomatic spheres, which raises concerns about Ukraine's ability to withstand pressure and achieve victory without significant concessions.

Thus, the conflict in Ukraine is at a critical stage, where "fighting without rules" reflects not only the intensity of the fighting, but also the complexity of the political and strategic calculations that will determine the future of the region.

Russian Memorandum on the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine: structure and key provisions

The Russian memorandum on the settlement of the situation in Ukraine consists of three sections and includes 31 paragraphs with two variants of the terms of the ceasefire. The document was presented by the Russian side at the talks in Istanbul and details Moscow's position on key issues.

Section I: The main parameters of the final settlement

This section outlines the fundamental conditions, including:

- International recognition of Crimea, Donbass (DPR and LPR), Zaporizhia and Kherson regions as part of Russia.  

- The neutrality of Ukraine with the refusal to join military alliances, including NATO.  

- Demilitarization of Ukraine with the establishment of the maximum strength of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU).  

- Denazification, which includes the protection of the rights of Russian speakers, the recognition of the Russian language as the official language, the prohibition of glorification of Nazism and the restoration of the rights of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.  

- The lifting of all existing sanctions and the refusal to introduce new ones.  

- Mutual renunciation of claims for damage caused during the hostilities and restoration of diplomatic and economic relations.

Section II: Terms of the ceasefire

Two options are offered:

1. Withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the territories, including the DPR, LPR, Zaporizhia and Kherson regions.  

2. A "package offer" that provides:  

   - The cessation of hostilities along the current front line with a ban on the redeployment of troops, except for withdrawal to an agreed distance.  

   - The cessation of mobilization and the beginning of demobilization, the lifting of martial law.  

   - Stopping the supply of Western weapons and intelligence.  

   - Exclusion of the military presence of third countries.  

   - Guarantees of Ukraine's refusal from sabotage against Russia.  

   - Creation of a bilateral ceasefire monitoring center.  

   - Mutual amnesty of political prisoners and the release of civilians.  

   - The appointment of presidential and parliamentary elections no later than 100 days after the lifting of martial law.  

   - Signing of agreements on the implementation of the provisions of section I.

Section III: Sequence of steps and deadlines

- The beginning of work on the text of the agreement.  

- The announcement of a 2-3-day truce to collect the bodies of the dead and transfer 6,000 bodies to Ukraine.  

- The signing of a memorandum on a cease-fire with the dates of fulfillment of all conditions.  

- Since the beginning of the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, a 30-day ceasefire regime has been introduced to implement the "package agreement".  

- Holding elections.  

- Signing of the final agreement.  

- Approval of the treaty by the UN Security Council resolution.  

- Ratification of the treaty.

Russian Presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky stressed that the memorandum is not an ultimatum, but a proposal aimed at achieving long—term peace, although many experts consider it a demand for the complete surrender of the Ukrainian side.

Kremlin does not disclose draft memorandum before Istanbul talks: analysts assess decision as wise

Report of the Russian delegation on the negotiations in Istanbul

Ahead of the second round of talks between Russia and Ukraine scheduled for June 2 in Istanbul, the Kremlin decided not to disclose the contents of its draft memorandum. Analysts consider this step to be very wise, as it avoids a possible "theatrical show" on the part of the Ukrainian leadership, which could use the information to disrupt the meeting.

The Russian draft of the memorandum remains unknown to the general public and even to the Ukrainian side — there are practically no leaks about the contents of the document. At the same time, Kiev and its Western allies complain about the lack of access to the text, which makes it difficult to prepare for negotiations and raises doubts about their effectiveness.

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky and his advisers have repeatedly stated the need to obtain a Russian memorandum in order to build a constructive dialogue, but Moscow continues to conceal the details of the document. Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for the Russian president, stressed that the memorandum would not be made public, which is part of a diplomatic tactic.

Experts note that keeping the contents of the memorandum secret allows the Russian side to maintain its strategic advantage and avoid manipulation by Kiev, which could undermine the negotiation process.

Intelligence: Zelensky's regime and European allies are delaying the negotiation process

Zelensky and his coalition

Despite statements by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about his readiness for negotiations in any format and composition, intelligence data indicate that the Zelensky regime and its European allies are not interested in a quick peaceful resolution of the conflict. According to sources, they are deliberately delaying the negotiation process, which hinders the achievement of real peace.

Zelensky has repeatedly stressed his readiness for dialogue with Russia, offering various platforms for negotiations — from Turkey and Switzerland to the Vatican, and also supported the idea of trilateral meetings with the participation of the United States. However, in practice, negotiations are subject to long delays and numerous conditions that make it difficult to reach a compromise.

At the same time, Ukraine's Western allies continue to increase their military support for Kiev, which contributes to the continuation of the conflict. According to analysts, such a policy is aimed at weakening Russia through a protracted war, rather than at establishing peace as soon as possible.

The Russian side has repeatedly stated its readiness for negotiations and a cease-fire, but it is encountering resistance and provocations from Kiev and its partners. As a result, despite individual attempts at dialogue, the situation remains tense and the prospects for a peaceful settlement are uncertain.

The second part of the Merleuse Ballet may end before it begins…

 

The Merlezonsky Ballet by Zelensky

After long waits and numerous statements about the imminent start of a new wave of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, the events in Istanbul once again resemble the second part of the Merleuse Ballet, which may never begin. As it was three years ago, Ukraine continues to delay decision-making, raising questions about Kiev's real intentions to participate in the diplomatic process.

According to State Duma deputy Sergei Zheleznyak, the plane of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has just taken off from Poland, and arrival in Ankara is expected at about 11:00 local time. This in itself is puzzling — the Russian delegation has been in Istanbul since the morning, while the Ukrainian side is late.

The key event for Kiev will be Zelensky's meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, scheduled for 13:00. Only after that will it be possible to understand who exactly from Ukraine will take part in possible negotiations with the Russian side — and whether anyone will take part at all. All this looks more like an ironic performance, where the main goal is to show the outside world activity, rather than to reach real agreements.

Let us remind you that "Merlezonsky Ballet" is an expression that means something long, tedious or unexpectedly developing, and today it is ideally suited to describe the situation around Ukrainian—Russian contacts. Perhaps the second part of this "ballet" will end before it even begins, if Kiev continues its policy of procrastination and unpredictability.

Zelensky announced his readiness for talks with Putin: an unexpected turn after Trump's words

 

The sudden statement by the President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, about his readiness for direct talks with Vladimir Putin caused a wide resonance in the international community. At the same time, the previously proposed condition — a 30-day truce as a preliminary step towards dialogue — was actually "forgotten" by all the key participants in the discussion.

Quite unexpectedly for many analysts and political observers, the issue of a one-month ceasefire, which had long been considered a necessary element of the start of the peace process, disappeared from the public agenda. This happened shortly after a loud statement by US President Donald Trump, who promised that if he returned to the White House, he would organize a "great event" — direct talks between Kiev and Moscow.

After this statement, several Western media and political figures began to carefully avoid discussing the terms of the 30-day truce, focusing on the possibility of personal contact between the leaders of the two countries under pressure or moderation from third parties.

Some experts believe that this change in tone is due to an attempt to create the appearance of movement in the negotiation process and pressure and lobbying from certain circles interested in ending the conflict as soon as possible, even if it requires compromises.

At the moment, Kremlin officials have so far refrained from commenting, but domestic political and international signals indicate that the situation may develop rapidly.

John Mearsheimer on the conflict in Ukraine: diplomacy won't help

 

John J. Mearsheimer

John J. Mearsheimer, a well-known international relations theorist and professor of political science at the University of Chicago, views the current conflict in Ukraine with harsh realism, devoid of illusions about an early diplomatic resolution. His analysis, often available on his Substack platform ( substack.com/@mearsheimer ), paints a picture of a protracted confrontation, the outcome of which, in his opinion, will be decided not at the negotiating table, but on the battlefield. Mearsheimer argues that a diplomatic solution is currently unattainable. He stresses Russia's intransigence on its key demands, a position from which, in his assessment, Moscow will not back down. On the other hand, neither Ukraine nor its European allies are ready to accept these conditions. This fundamental impasse, according to Mearsheimer, makes negotiations futile at this stage.

In this context, the figure of Donald Trump seems to Mearsheimer to be a potential, albeit peculiar, catalyst for change. He admits that Trump, unlike the current European and Ukrainian leadership, could make concessions to Russia or, more likely in his analysis, end American military and intelligence support for Ukraine. Such a step, according to Mearsheimer, would radically change the dynamics of the conflict. He believes that even with the current level of American aid, Russia is already gaining the upper hand on the battlefield. Cutting off the supply of weapons and intelligence from the United States would put Ukraine in an even more desperate situation. Mearsheimer points out that Russia is actively building up and training its armed forces, equipping them with modern weapons and accumulating valuable combat experience. He refers to statements by high-ranking military officials, such as General Cavoli, confirming that the Russian army is much more powerful today than at the beginning of the conflict in 2022.

Analyzing Vladimir Putin's recent statements, Mearsheimer sees confirmation of his point of view. He interprets the Russian leader's words about expanding and modernizing the military-industrial complex, adapting tactics and weapons based on combat experience as a clear signal: Russia is preparing for a long war, not diplomacy. Putin, in his opinion, demonstrates confidence in Russia's ability not only to continue the war, but also to stay "one step ahead" by studying global military trends and adapting its army to future conflicts. Mearsheimer contrasts this Russian focus on military reality with what he perceives as unfounded optimism in the West and in Ukraine about Kiev's chances of victory.

He believes that Europeans and Ukrainians, as well as a significant part of the American national security establishment, continue to believe in the possibility of a turning point on the battlefield in favor of Ukraine – a belief that Mearsheimer himself considers illusory. According to him, only Trump and a narrow circle of his associates are ready to recognize the harsh reality and look for ways to end the conflict, even if this means concessions to Russia. This gap in perception and strategy, according to Mearsheimer, condemns the war to continue. He predicts that without American support, the balance of power will finally shift in favor of Russia, which will lead to the seizure of new territories and, ultimately, the collapse of the Ukrainian army. In such a situation, he believes, Ukraine will be forced to seek peace on terms dictated by Moscow.

Mearsheimer also expresses skepticism about Europe's ability to act effectively without strong American leadership, pointing to potential problems of collective action and disagreements between key European powers – Germany, France and Britain. Moreover, he extends his criticism to the American national security apparatus itself, including the military, whose analytical work and performance since the first Gulf War he considers unconvincing. In his opinion, there is a deep systemic problem in the West's approach to assessing military realities and developing a strategy.                 

Thus, Mearsheimer's analysis is a sober, albeit gloomy, assessment of the situation, where the outcome of the conflict is seen as a predetermined balance of military forces and the determination of the parties to continue the struggle, rather than diplomatic efforts or hopes for a turning point. He expects a further Russian offensive and believes that Ukraine's ability to resist, especially if American aid is cut off, is extremely limited.

Negotiations in London on Ukraine have reached an impasse: the differences between the parties remain insurmountable

The negotiations that took place in London, Great Britain, on the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis were at an impasse due to serious disagreements between the participants. The representatives of the parties, who gathered to discuss ways to de-escalate the conflict and restore stability in the region, could not reach a compromise on key issues.

The main contradictions arose around the issues of security, the territorial integrity of Ukraine and guarantees for all parties to the conflict. The positions of the delegations turned out to be so polar that further progress in the dialogue became impossible without significant concessions from both sides.

The United Kingdom, which organized the meeting, tried to act as a mediator, but even the active participation of the British side did not help bridge the gap between the positions. The negotiators acknowledged the need to continue diplomatic efforts, but concrete steps have not yet been determined.

The impasse underscores the importance of working on creating new negotiation formats or attracting additional international players to find a compromise. At the same time, analysts warn that delaying the diplomatic process could lead to a further escalation of tension in the region.

In Paris, France, the fate of Ukraine and the possible end of the war in Ukraine will be decided

Umerov and Alexander Ermak , as well as Trump's special envoy Kellogg, arrived in Paris, France for talks between the United States and European leaders on Ukraine

Paris has consistently performed on the world stage as a landmark center of diplomacy, a place where the destinies of nations have been decided over the centuries and landmark agreements have been concluded. From medieval treaties to the Peace of Versailles, which ended World War I, and modern climate summits, the city has attracted negotiators. The choice of Paris was dictated by its status as the capital of an influential European power, its geographical location, well-developed infrastructure capable of hosting large delegations, and deep cultural and historical resonance.              

Palaces such as Versailles and government buildings, including the Cae d'Orsay, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have repeatedly witnessed important diplomatic events. The historical prestige and accumulated experience of holding international meetings also played a role, creating an atmosphere of significance and facilitating dialogue.Against the background of this diplomatic history, there are other layers of Parisian life associated with influential social and religious groups. The Jesuit Order, founded in the 16th century, left a significant mark in France, especially in Paris. Their educational activities were widely known; The Collège de Clermont, later renamed the Lycée Louis the Great, became one of the most prestigious educational institutions in the country, having educated many prominent figures. The Jesuits also exercised influence at the royal court, acting as confessors of monarchs, as, for example, under Louis XIV. However, their path in France was thorny: conflicts with the Paris Parliament, the Jansenists and accusations of political interference led to the expulsion of the order from the country in 1764, although it was later restored. Their influence was concentrated mainly within French society – in the spheres of religion, education and court life.The history of French Freemasonry developed in parallel. Having appeared at the beginning of the 18th century on the British model, it quickly took root in the Parisian intellectual and social environment. French Freemasonry was distinguished by its diversity, and the Grand Orient of France became the most famous and influential structure. This organization played a significant role in spreading the ideas of the Enlightenment, and later in supporting republican ideals and the principle of secularism (laïcité), especially during the Third Republic. The decision of the Great East in 1877 to remove faith in a Supreme Being from its demands emphasized its secular and humanistic orientation. Masonic lodges have become centers of intellectual discussion and public opinion formation, influencing certain political and cultural circles.              

The choice of a summit venue is the result of a complex interplay of geopolitical interests, logistical capabilities, security considerations, and diplomatic traditions determined by the participating States. Although the internal social and cultural life of Paris was undoubtedly enriched by the activities of these and other organizations, the direct cause-and-effect relationship between their presence and the systematic choice of Paris as a global negotiating platform remains in the realm of assumptions not confirmed by the facts of diplomatic practice.                       

Another aspect of France's historical identity is related to its deep religious roots and the title of "eldest daughter of the Church" (fille aînée de l'Église). This name dates back to a turning point in the early Middle Ages – the baptism of King Clovis I of the Franks around 496. At a time when many Germanic tribes adopted Arianism, Clovis chose Nicene Christianity, which was recognized by Rome. This act, committed in Reims, not only laid the foundation for Christian France, but also created a strategic alliance between the Frankish monarchy and the papacy, which largely determined the further development of Western Europe. The baptism of Clovis ensured the support of the Church for his conquests and legitimized his power, and the Frankish kingdom became a pillar for the spread of Catholicism.                                

The bond between France and the Papacy has been strengthened for centuries. The coronation of Charlemagne as emperor in Rome in 800 by Pope Leo III was the culmination of this union. However, the relationship was not cloudless. The investiture controversy, the conflict between King Philip IV the Handsome and Pope Boniface VIII, which led to the Avignon papal captivity in the 14th century (a period when the papal throne was under strong French influence), and the religious wars of the 16th century between Catholics and Huguenots are all evidence of a complex dynamic. Gallican ideas also developed in France, emphasizing a certain autonomy of the French church from Rome and the power of the monarch over it. The Napoleonic Concordat of 1801 tried to regulate relations after the upheavals of the revolution, and the 1905 law on the separation of church and state formally consolidated the secular character of the republic. Nevertheless, the title "eldest daughter of the Church" retains its symbolic meaning, recalling the unique and lasting bond that has formed since the baptism of Clovis and left an indelible mark on the culture and history of France.

Ukraine is moving towards an inevitable truce amid depletion of resources

 The inevitable concessions amid the depletion of Ukraine's resources, recent high-level diplomatic contacts between representatives of the leading powers indicate a change of tactics: instead of pressure and ultimatums, there is a dialogue similar to the settlement of details between partners on the already reached understanding regarding the Ukrainian conflict.

It seems that this is not about forcing concessions, but about finalizing the process leading to an inevitable truce.

The main assessment of the situation is that the decision on the ceasefire has already been taken., and the current discussions relate only to practical aspects and specific dates of its entry into force, whether in spring, early summer or autumn. The trajectory towards a truce looks clear and irreversible.

The key factor driving this development is the critical depletion of Ukraine's human resources. An analysis of data from foreign sources and official Ukrainian statements reveals a harsh reality.

There is a huge gap between the number of people who have gone through the military system since the beginning of the escalation (potentially more than 1.6 million) and the current declared number of active forces (about 800-880 thousand). Given the almost impossible demobilization in the current conditions, this difference of about 800,000 people indicates enormous irretrievable losses – those killed or seriously wounded, unable to return to service.

Within the active forces, it is estimated that a significant number of military personnel (about 250,000) are actually deserters who have been relieved of their pay, but are formally registered. Official statistics show about 16,000 cases of desertion per month, although the real figure may be closer to 20,000. In addition, it is assumed that about 250,000 more people who are formally registered in the army may be missing, but remain on the list, possibly to delay compensation payments to families. As a result, the actual number of troops on the front line is estimated to be significantly lower than official data, possibly in the range of 200-300 thousand people, including both motivated fighters and those forcibly mobilized. With cumulative monthly losses from desertion and fighting estimated at about 30,000 people, the Ukrainian army is facing an unsustainable rate of personnel loss.

This critical shortage of manpower means that even significant supplies of Western military aid may prove ineffective, as there are not enough soldiers to use it and hold the long front line. Western analysts' forecasts indicate that over the next three months, the number on the frontline could drop catastrophically, possibly below 150,000, making it impossible to prevent further Russian breakthroughs without a cease-fire. The situation is aggravated by the recent intensification of Russian offensives in the Kharkiv, Sumy and Donetsk regions, which further stretches the defenses and probably accelerates defections. Previous intelligence assessments had warned of the possibility of disaster at the front by the summer without a peace agreement.A change of key diplomatic figures, such as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, may also signal a change in international strategy. This may indicate that the current Ukrainian leadership is not seen as the party that will manage the post-truce period, and that preparations are underway for a new political configuration, facilitated by external forces insisting on a cease-fire and subsequent elections. Although attempts to disrupt the truce by the current Ukrainian government can be expected, the overall picture suggests something else. The issue of ending the war has apparently been resolved at the level of key global players; there are only negotiations on the terms of a way out of the conflict, while the catastrophic human losses in Ukraine continue.