Russia sets out strict terms at peace talks
Russia sets out strict terms at peace talks
The second round of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine took place in Istanbul. Photo: Reuters
Russia told Ukraine at peace talks on Monday that it would only agree to end the war, if Kyiv gives up big new chunks of territory and accepts limits on the size of its army, according to a memorandum reported by Russian media.
The terms, formally presented at negotiations in Istanbul, highlighted Moscow's refusal to compromise on its long-standing war goals.
The Russian memorandum, published by the Interfax news agency, said a settlement of the war would require international recognition of Crimea and four other regions of Ukraine that Moscow has claimed as its own territory. Ukraine would have to withdraw its forces from all of them.
Option one, according to the text, was for Ukraine to start a full military withdrawal from the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. Of those, Russia fully controls the first but holds only about 70 percent of the rest.
Option two was a package that would require Ukraine to cease military redeployments and accept a halt to foreign provision of military aid, satellite communications and intelligence. Kyiv would also have to lift martial law and hold presidential and parliamentary elections within 100 days.
Russian delegation head Vladimir Medinsky said Moscow had also suggested a "specific ceasefire of two to three days in certain sections of the front" so that the bodies of dead soldiers could be collected.
Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, who headed Kyiv's delegation, offered no immediate comment on the memorandum.
Delegations from the warring sides met for barely an hour for the second round of negotiations.
They agreed to exchange more prisoners of war – focusing on the youngest and most severely wounded – and return the bodies of 12,000 dead soldiers.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said he hoped to bring together Russia's Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskiy for a meeting in Turkey with Trump.
But there was no breakthrough on a proposed ceasefire that Ukraine, its European allies and Washington have all urged Russia to accept.
Ukraine has proposed holding more talks before the end of June, but believes only a meeting between Zelenskiy and Putin can resolve the many issues of contention, Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov said. (Reuters)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
3 hours ago
- Asia Times
Did Trump know about Ukraine's drone blitz in advance?
Ukraine's strategic drone strikes on Sunday against elements of Russia's nuclear triad all across the country were an unprecedented provocation that risks a dramatic worsening of the conflict. Speculation has since swirled about whether Trump knew about these attacks in advance, which his Press Secretary denied. What follows are five relevant points, each accompanied by brief arguments about why they either do or do not prove that he really was aware, which will help readers make up their own mind: 1. Trump is Pushing For A Record Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget * Escalating and then maintaining tensions with Russia, but importantly keeping them manageable, would create a sense of urgency in Congress for passing this record budget by year's end and reduce opposition to it from key MAGA allies. The military-industrial complex is influential in Trump 2.0 and he himself has always boasted about how powerful he wants the US Armed Forces to become. He might thus have known about Ukraine's drone strike plans in advance, but didn't call them off for this reason. – Trump has invested a lot of political capital in trying to de-escalate tensions with Russia and caught tons of flak as a result, yet he still officially remains committed to it (at least for now), thus suggesting sincerity. Regarding his proposed defense budget, it may be more about preparing the US for war with China, rather than waging another endless war against Russia by proxy. There's also wide congressional approval for containing China, so his defense budget likely doesn't need escalated tensions with Russia to pass. 2. Trump Surprisingly Patched Up His Problems With Zelensky * The minerals deal, Trump's latest in-person meeting with Zelensky at the Vatican, and the influence of the US' permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies ('deep state') might have combined to reshape Trump's perception of both Zelensky and Putin. It might therefore be that while Trump talks about peace with Putin in public, he's plotting against him during talks with Zelensky. Their latest in-person meeting could have even seen Trump approve of Zelensky's strategic drone strike plans. – Trump is profit-minded and mercurial so it makes sense that his attitude towards Zelensky changed for the better after the minerals deal was finally signed. Likewise, his inability to reach any similar or more significant deals with Putin – which are dependent on first freezing or resolving the Ukrainian conflict – accounts for his newly harsh rhetoric about him. Had Trump known about Zelensky's plans in advance, then he'd have called them off so as to not risk losing these potential deals with Putin in the aftermath. 3. Trump Warned That 'REALLY BAD' Things Might Soon Happen To Russia * His scandalous post came less than a week before Ukraine's strategic drone strikes and might have thus meant to foreshadow this unprecedented provocation, albeit in a 'plausibly deniable' way for escalation-control purposes. Trump could have also wanted to signal to Putin that he'd better accept an unconditional 30-day ceasefire or else. If that's really what happened, then he might be preparing another such post for the same reason, which he'd hope might then pressure Putin into concessions. – Critics claim that Trump sometimes bluffs as a negotiating tactic so this might have been one example of that in practice on the world's stage. The wording and timing coincidentally served the relevant interests of the Biden-era 'deep state,' which could have cooked up this unprecedented provocation long ago without him ever finding out, given that it might implicate Trump in Putin's eyes. In that event, the peace process might collapse, and Trump might thus escalate in response just like they want. 4. Axios Initially Claimed That Ukraine Informed The US In Advance * Although Axios later corrected its report to note that Ukraine did not inform the US in advance, its initial claim might have been accurate, but understandable escalation-control concerns vis-à-vis Russia could have prompted the White House to urgently request that they change it. Axios might have voluntarily complied for national security reasons or because it was coerced with legal threats. In any case, this incident convinced some people that Trump really was aware of Ukraine's plans in advance. – Axios either made an innocent error in its initial report that was then swiftly corrected, or this was a preplanned provocation by Democrat-loyal elements of the 'deep state' to falsely implicate Trump. If the second scenario is what happened, then the purpose would have been to convince Putin that Trump really was aware of Ukraine's plans in advance, which could then trigger the peace process's collapse. Even so, Russia is well aware of the 'deep state's' tricks, so it might not fall for this latest possible one. 5. Trump Has Remained Suspiciously Silent About These Attacks * For someone who seems to always have an opinion about everything, even the most mundane and random things, Trump hasn't yet said a word about Ukraine's unprecedented provocation against Russia. His suspicious silence is thus being interpreted by some as tacit approval. After all, these strategic drone strikes risk triggering the collapse of the peace process into which he's already invested so much political capital, so it follows that he'd have condemned Ukraine by now if he was really against what it did. – Trump might have been caught off guard by this just as much as Putin was if the Biden-era 'deep state' really did cook this up long ago without him ever finding out. Therefore, both of them might have agreed – whether during an unreported phone call on Sunday or during their top diplomats' one that same day – to play it cool while jointly investigating, thus keeping the peace process alive for now. In that case, Trump's silence would be temporary, and Putin would already know not to misconstrue it as acceptance. ———- Whether Trump knew about Ukraine's strategic strikes in advance will determine the extent of Russia's retaliation and whether it remains involved in the peace process. The best-case scenario from Russia's perspective is that Putin becomes convinced that Trump didn't know and that he then acts against those in his government that did, while the worst-case scenario is Putin concluding that Trump knew and either approved it, didn't care or couldn't stop it but didn't inform him. This article was first published on Andrew Korybko's Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber here.
Asia Times
5 hours ago
- Asia Times
Ukraine shows it knows wars are never won in the past
The iconoclastic American general Douglas MacArthur once said that 'wars are never won in the past.' That sentiment certainly seemed to ring true following Ukraine's recent audacious attack on Russia's strategic bomber fleet, using small, cheap drones housed in wooden pods and transported near Russian airfields in trucks. The synchronized operation targeted Russian Air Force planes as far away as Irkutsk – more than 5,000 kilometers from Ukraine. Early reports suggest around a third of Russia's long-range bombers were either destroyed or badly damaged. Russian military bloggers have put the estimated losses lower, but agree the attack was catastrophic for the Russian Air Force, which has struggled to adapt to Ukrainian tactics. This particular attack was reportedly 18 months in the making. To keep it secret was an extraordinary feat. Notably, Kyiv reportedly did not inform the United States that the attack was in the offing. The Ukrainians judged – perhaps understandably – that sharing intelligence on their plans could have alerted the Kremlin in relatively short order. Ukraine's success once again demonstrates that its armed forces and intelligence services are the modern masters of battlefield innovation and operational security. Western military planners have been carefully studying Ukraine's successes ever since its forces managed to blunt Russia's initial onslaught deep into its territory in early 2022, and then launched a stunning counteroffensive that drove the Russian invaders back towards their original starting positions. There have been other lessons, too, about how the apparently weak can stand up to the strong. These include: attacks on Russian President Vladimir Putin's vanity project, the Kerch Bridge, linking the Russian mainland to occupied Crimea (the last assault occurred just days ago) the relentless targeting of Russia's oil and gas infrastructure with drones attacks against targets in Moscow to remind the Russian populace about the war, and its incursion into the Kursk region, which saw Ukrainian forces capture around 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory. On each occasion, Western defense analysts have questioned the wisdom of Kyiv's moves. Why invade Russia using your best troops when Moscow's forces continue laying waste to cities in Ukraine? Why hit Russia's energy infrastructure if it doesn't markedly impede the battlefield mobility of Russian forces? And why attack symbolic targets like bridges when it could provoke Putin into dangerous 'escalation'? The answer to this is the key to effective innovation during wartime. Ukraine's defense and security planners have interpreted their missions – and their best possible outcomes – far more accurately than conventional wisdom would have thought. Above all, they have focused on winning the war they are in, rather than those of the past. This means: using technological advancements to force the Russians to change their tactics shaping the information environment to promote their narratives and keep vital Western aid flowing, and deploying surprise attacks not just as ways to boost public morale, but also to impose disproportionate costs on the Russian state. In doing so, Ukraine has had an eye for strategic effects. As the smaller nation reliant on international support, this has been the only logical choice. Putin has been prepared to commit a virtually inexhaustible supply of expendable cannon fodder to continue his country's war ad infinitum. Russia has typically won its wars this way – by attrition – albeit at a tremendous human and material cost. That said, Ukraine's most recent surprise attack does not change the overall contours of the war. The only person with the ability to end it is Putin himself. That's why Ukraine is putting as much pressure as possible on his regime, as well as domestic and international perceptions of it. It is key to Ukraine's theory of victory. This is also why the latest drone attack is so significant. Russia needs its long-range bomber fleet, not just to fire conventional cruise missiles at Ukrainian civilian and infrastructure targets, but as aerial delivery systems for its strategic nuclear arsenal. The destruction of even a small portion of Russia's deterrence capability has the potential to affect its nuclear strategy. It has increasingly relied on this strategy to threaten the West. A second impact of the attack is psychological. The drone attacks are more likely to enrage Putin than bring him to the bargaining table. However, they reinforce to the Russian military that there are few places – even on its own soil – that its air force can act with operational impunity. The surprise attacks also provide a shot in the arm domestically, reminding Ukrainians they remain very much in the fight. Finally, the drone attacks send a signal to Western leaders. US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, for instance, have gone to great lengths to tell the world that Ukraine is weak and has 'no cards'. This action shows Kyiv does indeed have some powerful cards to play. That may, of course, backfire: after all, Trump is acutely sensitive to being made to look a fool. He may look unkindly at resuming military aid to Ukraine after being shown up for saying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would be forced to capitulate without US support. But Trump's own hubris has already done that for him. His regular claims that a peace deal is just weeks away have gone beyond wishful thinking and are now monotonous. Unsurprisingly, Trump's reluctance to put anything approaching serious pressure on Putin has merely incentivised the Russian leader to string the process along. Indeed, Putin's insistence on a maximalist victory, requiring Ukrainian demobilisation and disarmament without any security guarantees for Kyiv, is not diplomacy at all. It is merely the reiteration of the same unworkable demands he has made since even before Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. However, Ukraine's ability to smuggle drones undetected onto an opponent's territory, and then unleash them all together, will pose headaches for Ukraine's friends, as well as its enemies. That's because it makes domestic intelligence and policing part of any effective defence posture. It is a contingency that democracies will have to plan for, just as much as authoritarian regimes, who are also learning from Ukraine's lessons. In other words, while the attack has shown up Russia's domestic security services for failing to uncover the plan, Western security elites, as well as authoritarian ones, will now be wondering whether their own security apparatuses would be up to the job. The drone strikes will also likely lead to questions about how useful it is to invest in high-end and extraordinarily expensive weapons systems when they can be vulnerable. The Security Service of Ukraine estimates the damage cost Russia US$7 billion. Ukraine's drones, by comparison, cost a couple of thousand dollars each. At the very least, coming up with a suitable response to those challenges will require significant thought and effort. But as Ukraine has repeatedly shown us, you can't win wars in the past. Matthew Sussex is associate professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Asia Times
10 hours ago
- Asia Times
Trial by fire: Chinese laser weapon reputedly in Russian service
China's battlefield lasers have arrived in Ukraine and may soon shape a drone-saturated future war over Taiwan. Last month, The War Zone (TWZ) reported that Russia has reportedly deployed a Chinese laser weapon system to counter Ukrainian drones, according to pro-Russian Telegram sources. A video posted this May shows a system resembling China's Shen Nung 3000/5000 anti-drone laser, previously supplied to Iran. The footage depicts Russian troops operating the system from a vehicle, followed by its deployment and engagement of aerial targets, including drones visibly catching fire midair. The Nomad special forces unit is reportedly utilizing the system, with Russian analysts deeming it a significant advancement over previous counter-drone technologies. While the exact specifications remain unclear, experts suggest that the system is a variant of the Low-Altitude Laser Defending System (LASS) manufactured by China's Academy of Engineering Physics. The incident underscores deepening military cooperation between Russia, China and Iran, raising concerns over China's expanding arms exports amid ongoing conflicts. China has denied direct involvement and claims neutrality. The video's emergence comes amid broader developments in laser air defense technology, including Israel's Iron Beam system, deployed against Hezbollah drones. The effectiveness of laser-based weapons remains debated due to environmental limitations and operational challenges, but their increasing field use signals ongoing adaptation in modern warfare. Looking at the promise of laser weapons, Ian Boyd mentions in a March 2024 article for The Conversation that laser weapons promise speed-of-light engagement, precision targeting, and an 'infinite magazine' as long as power is available. Boyd highlights their advantages, including low cost per shot, minimal logistical footprint, and adaptability across land, sea, air, and space platforms. However, he also points out their drawbacks, such as high power demands, cooling requirements and environmental limitations, including fog, rain and smoke. Those advantages could have been decisive in US operations against Houthi rebels in the Red Sea. Lara Seligman and Matt Berg note in a December 2023 Politico article that the US has used multi-million, hard-to-replace interceptor missiles to intercept Houthi suicide drones that cost US$20,000 at most. In that situation, they point out that the cost-benefit analysis favors the Houthis, with high interceptor missile costs, long missile production times and limited ship magazines all working against the US. Further, laser weapons might have mitigated some of the damage in Ukraine's recent audacious drone swarm attack on Russian airfields and bombers. While Russia deployed countermeasures, such as blast walls, decoys, air defense systems and improvised defenses, including placing tires on bomber wings to confuse image-matching systems, these have yielded mixed results at best. Building hardened aircraft shelters (HAS) may not have been an option for Russia, given the size of its bomber aircraft, and that doing so could spark a nuclear miscalculation between the US and Russia. While Russia has suspended its participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 3), it still complies with its terms in practice by keeping its bombers out in the open, allowing for US satellite and inspection-based verification. While US airbases in the Pacific lack hardening, the US hardening its airbases could be interpreted by Russia or China as preparation for nuclear war or a more aggressive nuclear posture, with negative implications for strategic stability. Lessons learned from the Russia-Ukraine War could inform China's doctrine in deploying laser weapons during a Taiwan Strait conflict. Highlighting the possibility of drone swarms being used against China, US Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) commander Admiral Samuel Paparo said in a July 2024 Washington Post interview that he intends to turn the Taiwan Strait into an unmanned 'hellscape' to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. 'I want to turn the Taiwan Strait into an unmanned hellscape using a number of classified capabilities,' he said. 'So that I can make their lives utterly miserable for a month, which buys me the time for the rest of everything.' According to USNI News in January 2025, the US Department of Defense's (DOD) Replicator initiative is advancing toward its August 2025 milestone, aiming to deploy lethal swarms of unmanned vehicles linked by integrated software. The report states that the first tranche of the Replicator initiative, initially launched in 2023, focuses on surface and subsurface drones and loitering munitions to deter a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. It says that the second tranche, announced in 2024, prioritizes counter-drone capabilities. As to how the US could use Replicator drone swarms to defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Stacie Pettyjohn and other writers mention in a June 2024 Center for a New American Security (CNAS) report that swarms of low-cost, long-range suicide drones can overwhelm Chinese naval forces and disrupt amphibious landings. Pettyjohn and others say that these autonomous systems when paired with advanced surveillance drones, would rapidly close kill chains by identifying targets and guiding precision strikes. They add that pre-positioned drones in Taiwan could accelerate early response, while layered counter-drone defenses would blunt China's swarms. A January 2025 Defense News report stated that while the Replicator initiative has received bipartisan support, concerns persist over funding, scalability, and long-term viability. The report states that industry leaders argue that without increased investment, Replicator will fall short of its goal to field thousands of autonomous systems rapidly. While Defense News notes that congressional aides expect modifications rather than cancellation, the program's trajectory hinges on changes in leadership at the US DOD. It mentions that analysts warn that without sustained momentum, Replicator may struggle to deliver the transformative impact envisioned at its launch. China is taking the threat seriously. Defense One reported in May 2025 that aside from the Shen Nung 3000/5000 anti-drone laser, China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) has developed the LW-30 and LW-60, which offer vehicle-mounted interception with AI-driven automation. Additionally, Defense One reports that China has developed a breakthrough cooling system, which enables continuous laser operation by eliminating heat buildup—a longstanding challenge to the effectiveness of laser weapons. The report states that these advancements underscore China's commitment to reducing its reliance on costly missile interceptors while enhancing precision and operational efficiency. By testing its lasers in foreign wars, China is quietly mastering the weapons it may one day unleash in the Taiwan Strait.
