Putin will attack Lithuania next if he beats Ukraine, former CIA boss warns as Zelensky slams Vlad for ‘stalling talks'
VLADIMIR Putin will launch an assault on Lithuania next if he conquers Ukraine, an ex-CIA boss has warned.
The caution comes as Zelensky slammed the Russian despot for "stalling peace talks" following his dismal attempts to get to the negotiating table.
7
7
David Petraus, a retired US general and director of the CIA, warned an attack on the Baltic state would not be an isolated event but part of a longer-term plan to test the West.
Speaking at the Policy Exchange Think-Tank in London, Petraeus said Lithuania has "featured prominently" in Putin's speeches meaning he might turn on the NATO state for his next assault.
After mad Vlad has installed a "puppet leader to control all of Ukraine" there's a strong chance he will turn his "focus on one of the Baltic states," he added.
Taking aim at Trump, he said the US had dithered too much on "individual decisions" and was giving the Russian president too many second chances - causing immeasurable losses for Ukraine.
He said: "What we've seen is three incidences where the US President has threatened that in two weeks we'll have to take a different approach.
"We'll see this time what actually happens. The US also temporised far too long over individual decisions such as M1 [Abrams] tanks.
"A blind man on a dark night could see it had to be the F-16 (a multi- role fighter aircraft)."
Ukraine responded yesterday saying: "The Russians' fear of sending their 'memorandum' to Ukraine suggests that it is likely filled with unrealistic ultimatums, and they are afraid of revealing that they are stalling the peace process."
His comments come after Trump issued Vlad with a two-week deadline for a ceasefire following Russia's deadly attack on Ukraine earlier this week.
Trump said in the Oval Office on Wednesday: 'I'm very disappointed at what happened a couple of nights now where people were killed in the middle of what you would call a negotiation."
He added: 'When I see rockets being shot into cities, that's no good. We're not going to allow it.'
Trump gives Putin two-week ceasefire DEADLINE - but can talks stop bloodbath?
When asked if Putin really wants to end the war, Trump replied: "I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks.
"Within two weeks. We're gonna find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not.
"And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently."
One of the largest stumbling blocks which is delaying any peace deal is said to be over Putin's desire to control his former Soviet states and keep them away from Nato.
7
7
7
This includes Ukraine themselves with the Kremlin always saying Kyiv gaining access to the group is a complete no go under any circumstances.
Kyiv has repeatedly said that Moscow should have no say in its sovereign right to pursue Nato membership however.
He declared he will only call off the war in Ukraine if the West vows to keep its hands off Russia's prized former Soviet states.
Putin even demanded he got the assurances in writing.
The Russian president said he wants a "written" pledge from Western leaders to stop Nato's expansion to countries eastward, top Russian officials revealed to Reuters.
The eastward expansion refers to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and other former Soviet republics.
Putin is reportedly preparing for a major push to take more land in the north east.
Military analysts believe he is trying to press home his advantage and capture more Ukrainian land.
They warn that Putin only has a "four-month window" to get a breakthrough in Ukraine this year.
And this could be the beginning of Russia's summer offensive targeting the border city of Kharkiv - the "fortress" city of Ukraine which put up the maximum resistance at the start of the invasion.
Reacting to the reports, German Chancellor Freidrich Merz predicted that peace was still a long way off.
He said: "Wars typically end because of economic or military exhaustion on one side or on both sides and in this war we are obviously still far from reaching that [situation].
"So we may have to prepare for a longer duration."
7
7
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Karol Nawrocki's win: Poland first, perhaps – but Europe comes last
Europe's latest presidential election appears to have delivered not a statesman but a slogan – 'Poland first' – and with it, a rebuke to the centrist prime minister, Donald Tusk. Poland's new head of state will be Karol Nawrocki, a conservative historian endorsed by Donald Trump. Mr Nawrocki's improbable rise – from relative obscurity to the presidency – signals the unfortunate entrenchment of nationalist grievance in Polish politics. He now stands poised to paralyse Mr Tusk's agenda and perhaps derail Polish access to European funds – using his presidential power of veto to block government legislation or simply relying on the influence of the conservative constitutional court. Key reforms – judicial overhaul, civil partnerships and abortion rights – are off the table. For a country that once dreamed of anchoring the EU's eastern flank, it is a backward lurch. Mr Tusk's government is a coalition born out of a determination to oust the nationalist-conservative Law and Justice party (PiS), which gained full control of government in 2015 and implemented sweeping changes to the judiciary, media and education. Clashes with Brussels over rule-of-law concerns were a feature of its time in office. However, Mr Tusk's ideologically diverse alliance is fraying under the weight of its own contradictions. Bound more by opposition to the previous regime than a cohesive vision, the coalition has stumbled, hindered by internal conflict between agrarian conservatives and urban progressives. It had hoped its liberal candidate could break the deadlock. As a historian, Mr Nawrocki will be familiar with PiS's winning strategy. This mixes reactionary populism with a cultural reprogramming that seeks to rewrite Poland's recent past to polarise opinion. The party aims to renarrate the country's history with controversial interpretations of Poland's role in the Holocaust, 'decommunisation' and a left-sounding critique of post-1989 economic liberalism. Mr Nawrocki triumphed by tapping conservative, rural and anti-elite sentiment, but also by posing as an outsider. A political novice and former head of a state historical institute, he carried no party baggage and could disavow past PiS failings while vowing to block Mr Tusk at every turn. His blend of historical populism and Euroscepticism struck a chord in a Poland still wrestling with its past and wary of Brussels. Meanwhile, Mr Tusk's popularity is eroding and his authority is weakening: the left calls him ineffective, the right accuses him of betrayal. His hope that voters would tolerate paralysis for the sake of stability has proven misplaced. With President Nawrocki in office until 2030, key reforms are blocked and a second term in 2027 looks unlikely. A resurgent PiS and rising far-right Confederation threaten to consolidate an illiberal majority. Mr Tusk may pursue secondary legislation to get his way. He is calling his allies' bluff with a confidence vote. However, unless the coalition proves it can govern, disillusionment will deepen. Poland's economic success – rooted in EU funds, German supply chains and monetary sovereignty – has produced a paradoxical politics. As Jarosław Kuisz observes in The New Politics of Poland, PiS took Brussels' money while scorning its values. Mr Tusk must defend democracy not just with words but with outcomes. If pro-European governments cannot deliver tangible change, voters will fall for the empty authoritarian promises of certainty. To defeat the populist right, Europeans must prove that democracy works – not just in principle, but in people's lives.
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Ukraine strikes Putin's prized spy planes
Ukraine has damaged at least two of Russia's rare A-50 surveillance aircraft in its audacious drone attack on Vladimir Putin's strategic bomber fleet, according to intelligence shared with The Telegraph. Footage shared with this publication clearly showed one of the Ukrainian drones hitting the radar dome of a hulking Soviet-era spy plane sitting on the apron of an air base. The aircraft was protected with what appeared to be sandbags aligned across its wings. A second A-50, shielded by tyres carefully lined across its airframe, also appeared to be hit by a Ukrainian-piloted drone, again landing on its radar dome. The fresh intelligence sheds new light on what has been likened to Russia's 'Pearl Harbour moment' – in reference to the surprise Japanese attack that brought the US into the Second World War. It is not clear whether the Russian A-50s were destroyed, but even damaging the aircraft would be considered a prized scalp by the Ukrainians. Moscow was believed to only have seven operational versions of the spy planes, which are estimated to be worth £235 million each, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The A-50s are considered highly important for organising Russia's air defences and coordinating fighter jets and bomber aircraft attacking Ukraine. Ukrainian officials had claimed to have struck at least one of the spy planes before, but the footage shared with The Telegraph remains the only proof of their apparent success. The three-minute-long video clip showed an array of Tupolev bombers engulfed in flames after direct hits from Ukrainian drones, which were launched from modified shipping containers parked near four air bases deep inside Russia. Open source satellite images taken by Maxar Technologies on May 2, almost a month before the Ukrainian attack, appeared to show two A-50s parked alongside each other at Ivanovo Severny air base, one of the bases targeted. The two aircraft were spotted being shielded with debris lined up carefully across their wings, as in the drone footage shared with The Telegraph. It was clear from the footage that it is the two same A-50s, as one of their radar hulls is tinged with a brownish colouring. Many of the other Russian planes targeted in the Ukrainian strikes appeared to also be shrouded beneath similar makeshift defences. Operation Spider's Web, as Ukraine dubbed it, was coordinated by the country's SBU security service. Officials said around 40 Russian aircraft were destroyed or damaged in the operation, which took 18 months to plan for and execute. Western intelligence officials have claimed that a lower number, around 11, Russian aircraft were likely destroyed or damaged in the strikes. Although sources said Western agencies continue to assess new data as they receive it. The surprise attack was celebrated by European capitals as a demonstration of Ukrainian ingenuity. But they later said it did little to change the picture on the battlefield, where Russia continues to make grinding gains through eastern Ukraine at high cost. 'This does not change the battlefield equation,' one official said. 'And the hard reality is that in the Donbas, over the last couple of months, the Russians are making progress square kilometre by square kilometres. At a high cost, but a minimum of 200 square kilometres every month.'
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Lindsey Graham, Trump's Ukraine weathervane, finally turns east on Russia sanctions
Has Lindsey Graham been playing the long game with Donald Trump? Graham, who has calibrated his pro-Ukraine support since the inauguration to stay in the US president's orbit, has said he expects this week that the Senate will begin moving his Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bill that he says would impose 'bone-breaking sanctions' on Vladimir Putin and a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that buy Russian oil and other goods, potentially targeting China and India. The fate of the bill still depends on whether Trump gives the go-ahead, according to congressional insiders. But Trump's growing frustration with Putin has emboldened some in the GOP to begin speaking out on the conflict again – with the famously flexible Graham leading the charge for tougher sanctions on the Kremlin. Is it nearing a critical mass moment in Congress – a body that has largely abdicated its role in foreign policy since Trump's inauguration? 'I hope so, because it is the right action to take,' said Don Bacon, a Republican House representative who has criticised the White House on its Ukraine policy. 'But it is risky to speak for others. I know where I stand. The Senate has an overwhelming majority in support of sanctions and we should move out. It is in our national security interests that Russia fails here and it should be obvious that Putin doesn't want peace, but wants dominance over Ukraine.' Trump's shift on Russia has come as his efforts to negotiate a speedy ceasefire have failed. Talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul on Monday led to little progress, and continued outreach from his personal envoy Steve Witkoff to the Kremlin has not brought concessions from Vladimir Putin. A leaked draft of Russia's demands at the negotiations depicted a capitulation: withdrawal from Ukrainian territory claimed by Russia, no Nato membership for Ukraine, caps on the size of the country's military. Yet it has specifically been the bombardment of cities that has upset Trump, proving once again that Putin has managed to be his own worse enemy when it comes to negotiations. 'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him,' Trump said last week, repeating part of the comments in public. 'He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I'm not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.' As the White House looks for means to increase pressure on Russia and its enablers like China, the bill backed by Graham and Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal has become a convenient tool to do just that. One person in GOP circles said that the White House was considering letting Republicans 'vote their conscience' – effectively allowing Congress to support the bill without facing blowback from the Trump administration. But that would involve a final decision by the White House, and Trump has still not openly backed new sanctions as more than just a contingency. 'Despite support of 82 or so Senators, the bill can't move without support in the House, and the Speaker of the House won't move it without the President's support,' said Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute. 'And it's not clear the President has really decided Putin's the impediment to a cease fire. Additionally, the Senate will be consumed with passing the reconciliation bill for the next few weeks.' But as of Tuesday, the leadership appeared ready to move forward. The weathervane for Trump's gusty foreign policy on Ukraine has been Graham, a veteran political survivor who has built a strong relationship with the president through relentless flattery and has tailored his views to match Trump's when convenient. On Ukraine, he has been so bendable that he could not be broken. 'They play a very careful game because they don't want to upset their relationship with the big guy,' said one person knowledgable about discussions amongst congressional Republicans. 'At the same time, I do think his heart and his head is in the right place. Just really not quite his own courage.' Graham's interventions have been meaningful. He was instrumental in pushing the minerals deal that Ukraine signed with the US as a way to get Trump's buy-in for its defense. Over a game of golf, he pitched Trump on the 'trillions' in mineral wealth in Ukraine and later showed him a map (Trump said he wanted 'half' according to one account). At the same time, he publicly fumed about Volodymyr Zelenskyy following the disastrous White House meeting of late February when Trump and JD Vance argued with the wartime leader. 'I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelensky again,' Graham said, also suggesting that the Ukrainian leader should resign. (Zelenskyy shot back later that he was ready to offer him citizenship if he wanted to discuss who should lead Ukraine). Graham's latitude has stunned some of his former colleagues. A former colleague who had worked with Graham on Ukraine policy said that his remarks about Zelenskyy had given him 'whiplash'. Asked if Graham had a coherent strategy to influence Trump, the person said: 'Graham's strategy is to put Graham first.' 'I think that he understands the big game,' said another person familiar with discussions over the bill. 'He would like the policy to be sound, which means [putting sanctions] on the Kremlin. But he values his relationship with the President and that that trumps the first calculation. So if he really feels the President's against, he's not going to go for it.' Now, with Trump signaling greater readiness for sanctions, Graham has traveled to Kyiv to meet with Zelenskyy (all smiles) and to Brussels, where he and EU president Ursula von der Leyen discussed potential EU and US sanctions packages to turn up the pressure on Moscow. 'Sen. Graham deserves a lot of credit for making the case for tougher pressure on the Kremlin,' said John Hardie, the Russia program deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative thinktank. 'Carrots clearly haven't worked, so it's time to start using some sticks, including by going after Russia's oil revenue. This economic pressure should be paired with sustained military assistance for Ukraine.' Hardie and others noted that Trump could increase pressure on Russia without the Senate bill. 'If President Trump were to decide to go the pressure route, he already has the tools at his disposal to do so,' said Hardie. 'For example, he could immediately designate the rest of Russia's shadow fleet and other non-Western entities facilitating Russian oil exports and could join with G7 partners in lowering the G7 oil price cap.' And even if the sanctions are passed, they will ultimately rely on Trump's decision to enforce them. 'The Senate is prepared either way,' Graham wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week. 'I have coordinated with the White House on the Russia sanctions bill since its inception. The bill would put Russia on a trade island, slapping 500% tariffs on any country that buys Moscow's energy products. The consequences of its barbaric invasion must be made real to those that prop it up. If China or India stopped buying cheap oil, Mr. Putin's war machine would grind to a halt.'
