Latest news with #WesternAllies
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Putin's uncompromising demands emerge after the latest round of Russia-Ukraine peace talks
Russia took weeks to present to Ukraine with a 'memorandum' setting out its conditions for a ceasefire, as well as key guidelines for a comprehensive treaty to end the more than 3-year-old war . To practically no one's surprise, it's a list of the Kremlin's longstanding, maximalist demands that Kyiv and its Western allies see as nonstarters.
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- General
- Al Jazeera
De-escalating to escalate: Ceasefire is no longer on the horizon in Ukraine
For a while now, the Ukraine-Russia war has been compared by various pundits to the Korean War of the early 1950s. That conflict, which split the Korean Peninsula in two, ended without a clear victor. Hostilities ceased with the signing of an armistice in 1953, but no formal peace treaty ever followed. The Korean Peninsula remains technically at war, suspended in an uneasy truce and still divided along the 38th parallel. Could Ukraine be heading toward a similar outcome? In many respects, today's deadlock echoes the dynamics of the Korean War. North Korea relied on support from China and the Soviet Union, while South Korea was backed by a United States-led coalition. Following a series of offensives and counteroffensives, the conflict slowed down to a war of attrition, which dragged out the negotiation of a ceasefire for two years. Today, Russia, bolstered by China's backing, is fighting in Ukraine, whose army is sustained by its Western allies. In the past year, the conflict has slowed down, and the map of the front line no longer sees dramatic changes. But unlike in the Korean War, the prospects of a ceasefire here appear slim after three years of fighting. The diplomatic and pressure politics offensive by US President Donald Trump to force the two sides to put down their weapons has borne no fruit. Both sides talk about ceasefire, but act as if they want the war to continue. On Sunday, a fresh dose of fuel was poured into the fire. Ukraine launched a series of precise, destructive, and strategically painful strikes against Russian military airfields. The damage inflicted reportedly amounts to $7bn. Forty-one aircraft — about one-third of Russia's strategic bomber fleet — were hit. In parallel, two bridges collapsed in two Russian regions bordering Ukraine, derailing trains; the local authorities said they suspected sabotage. A week before that, Russia sent a swarm of more than 900 drones and dozens of missiles – killing at least 16 civilians, including three children – across Ukraine. On Monday, the Russian army sent a barrage of missiles deep into Ukrainian territory, hitting a training camp for soldiers and killing 12. The timing of these attacks appears to have been deliberately chosen. They came just ahead of the latest stage of peace talks — raising questions about whether such gestures are intended to strengthen each side's negotiating position or derail the process altogether. It is not the first time that the two sides have stepped up attacks when talks have come up. Last year, precisely as Moscow and Kyiv were about to start negotiating a partial ceasefire, Ukraine launched its incursion into Kursk. The efforts to bring the two sides to the negotiating table fell through. This time, Russia chose to downplay Sunday's explosions deep inside its territory. The Russian Defence Ministry grudgingly acknowledged that 'several units of aircraft caught fire', but made no overt threat of retaliation. Rather than lodging a formal protest, Russian delegation members proceeded to Istanbul for negotiations with their Ukrainian counterparts. On Monday, the two sides met and managed to reach agreement on two issues: a prisoner exchange of at least 1,000 soldiers each, and the possible return of 10 abducted Ukrainian children by the Russian authorities. There was no progress on a ceasefire agreement. It was clear that neither Moscow nor Kyiv was ready for serious talks. The leadership in both capitals has its reasons for avoiding the order to put down weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown, time and again, that he will not allow others to dictate terms to him; he prefers to set them himself. As the principal architect of this war, he is getting everything he wants: expanding political influence, territorial gains, and a drawn-out conflict that bolsters his image at home. He seems ready to torment Ukraine for as long as either it — or he — survives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for his part, is not the kind of man to yield or retreat. Setting aside his courage and stubbornness, it's clear the war has given him what peace never could: enduring popularity, a steady flow of international aid, and a firm grip on power. If Ukrainians see a truce concluded with Russia as a form of capitulation, Zelensky's presidency might not last months — perhaps not even weeks. That danger weighs heavy on him. Meanwhile, the West seems willing to supply resources to continue the war effort, which is giving Kyiv more confidence. On June 3, the Ukrainian army struck the Kerch Bridge in Crimea — a structure constructed by Russia after its illegal annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula. The bridge is both a symbol of Putin's imperial ambition and a strategic artery linking Russia to occupied Crimea. An attack on it is certain to provoke a response. What form that response will take, we will likely know very soon. Ukraine's gamble on Western backing has raised the stakes. The war may be entering a new, more dangerous phase: one defined not by front lines, but by symbolic attacks and overwhelming retaliation. For many ordinary Ukrainians, the fragile hope that the fighting can come to a stop has given way to a grim sense that the war will drag on for months, if not years. Among us are optimists who firmly believe that Ukraine will ultimately prevail. At the other end are pessimists who argue that defeating an enemy vastly superior in size, military power, and enormous revenues from hydrocarbon sales is simply impossible. Politics and war are not about fairness, justice, or morality. War feeds on human lives. It endures as long as leaders turn a blind eye to the suffering of their people. At present, there is no sign that the Ukrainian and Russian leaderships are ready for compromise. And that does not bode well for the ordinary Ukrainians who bear the brunt of this war. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Arabiya
2 days ago
- Business
- Al Arabiya
‘Russia could ATTACK Europe this summer': Debate on Ukraine drone attacks on Russia
During that infamous White House face-off between presidents Trump and Zelenskyy... the US accused Ukraine of not holding any of the cards. Well, it turns out President Zelenskyy had an ace up his sleeve. For 18 months Ukraine had been planning a highly secretive, high stakes attack deep into Russian territory. Using drones worth about $1000 each... Ukraine reportedly took out 40 prized Russian bombers... causing about $7 billion worth of damage. But is it enough to give Ukraine an edge - even just in the short term - during this protracted stalemate? It will certainly have changed the dynamic around the negotiating table as talks returned to Istanbul. Ukraine will use this show of strength as a bargaining tool... but it could backfire... giving Russia, and the US more ammunition to accuse Kiev of derailing the peace process. There's certainly no sense that the talk will end the war anytime soon. At the same - Europe has turbocharged defense spending and western allies have given Ukraine the greenlight to use long-range weapons... So, if anything... an expanded conflict may be on the horizon. On this episode of CounterPoints, we'll debate: If Operation Spiderweb is a turning point in the war? What impact it will have on negotiations in Istanbul? And has Europe left it too late to up its defences?
BBC News
6 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
How the West is helping Russia to fund its war on Ukraine
Russia has continued to make billions from fossil fuel exports to the West, data shows, helping to finance its full-scale invasion of Ukraine – now in its fourth the start of that invasion in February 2022, Russia has made more than three times as much money by exporting hydrocarbons than Ukraine has received in aid allocated by its analysed by the BBC show that Ukraine's Western allies have paid Russia more for its hydrocarbons than they have given Ukraine in say governments in Europe and North America need to do more to stop Russian oil and gas from fuelling the war with Ukraine. How much is Russia still making? Proceeds made from selling oil and gas are key to keeping Russia's war machine and gas account for almost a third of Russia's state revenue and more than 60% of its the wake of the February 2022 invasion, Ukraine's allies imposed sanctions on Russian hydrocarbons. The US and UK banned Russian oil and gas, while the EU banned Russian seaborne crude imports, but not this, by 29 May, Russia had made more than €883bn ($973bn; £740bn) in revenue from fossil fuel exports since the start of the full-scale invasion, including €228bn from the sanctioning countries, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).The lion's share of that amount, €209bn, came from EU member states continued importing pipeline gas directly from Russia until Ukraine cut the transit in January 2025, and Russian crude oil is still piped to Hungary and gas is still piped to Europe in increasing quantities via Turkey: CREA's data shows that its volume rose by 26.77% in January and February 2025 over the same period in and Slovakia are also still receiving Russian pipeline gas via Turkey. Despite the West's efforts, in 2024 Russian revenues from fossil fuels fell by a mere 5% compared with 2023, along with a similar 6% drop in the volumes of exports, according to CREA. Last year also saw a 6% increase in Russian revenues from crude oil exports, and a 9% year-on-year increase in revenues from pipeline estimates say gas exports to Europe rose by up to 20% in 2024, with liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports reaching record levels. Currently, half of Russia's LNG exports go the EU, CREA EU's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, says the alliance has not imposed "the strongest sanctions" on Russian oil and gas because some member states fear an escalation in the conflict and because buying them is "cheaper in the short term".LNG imports have not been included in the latest, 17th package of sanctions on Russia approved by the EU, but it has adopted a road map towards ending all Russian gas imports by the end of shows that money made by Russia from selling fossil fuels has consistently surpassed the amount of aid Ukraine receives from its thirst for fuel can get in the way of the West's efforts to limit Russia's ability to fund its Rosner, a senior campaigner from the pressure group Global Witness, says many Western policymakers fear that cutting imports of Russian fuels will lead to higher energy prices."There's no real desire in many governments to actually limit Russia's ability to produce and sell oil. There is way too much fear about what that would mean for global energy markets. There's a line drawn under where energy markets would be too undermined or too thrown off kilter," she told the BBC. 'Refining loophole' In addition to direct sales, some of the oil exported by Russia ends up in the West after being processed into fuel products in third countries via what is known as "the refining loophole". Sometimes it gets diluted with crude from other countries, says it has identified three "laundromat refineries" in Turkey and three in India processing Russian crude and selling the resulting fuel on to sanctioning countries. It says they have used €6.1bn worth of Russian crude to make products for sanctioning petroleum ministry criticised CREA's report as "a deceptive effort to tarnish India's image". "[These countries] know that sanctioning countries are willing to accept this. This is a loophole. It's entirely legal. Everyone's aware of it, but nobody is doing much to actually tackle it in a big way," says Vaibhav Raghunandan, an analyst at and experts argue that Western governments have the tools and means available to stem the flow of oil and gas revenue into the Kremlin's coffers. According to former Russian deputy energy minister Vladimir Milov, who is now a diehard opponent of Vladimir Putin, sanctions imposed on trade in Russian hydrocarbons should be better enforced - particularly the oil price cap adopted by the G7 group of nations, which Mr Milov says "is not working".He is fearful, though, that the US government shake-up launched by President Donald Trump will hamper agencies such as the US Treasury or the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which are key for sanctions avenue is continued pressure on Russia's "shadow fleet" of tankers involved in dodging the sanctions."That is a complex surgery operation. You need to periodically release batches of new sanctioned vessels, shell companies, traders, insurers etc. every several weeks," Mr Milov says. According to him, this is an area where Western governments have been much more effective, particularly with the introduction of new sanctions by Joe Biden's outgoing administration in January says that banning Russian LNG exports to Europe and closing the refining loophole in Western jurisdictions would be "important steps in finishing the decoupling of the West from Russian hydrocarbons".According to Mr Raghunandan from CREA, it would be relatively easy for the EU to give up Russian LNG imports."Fifty percent of their LNG exports are directed towards the European Union, and only 5% of the EU's total [LNG] gas consumption in 2024 was from Russia. So if the EU decides to completely cut off Russian gas, it's going to hurt Russia way more then it's going to hurt consumers in the European Union," he told the BBC. Trump's oil-price plan to end war Experts interviewed by the BBC have dismissed Donald Trump's idea that the war with Ukraine will end if Opec brings oil prices down."People in Moscow are laughing at this idea, because the party which will suffer the most… is the American shale oil industry, the least cost-competitive oil industry in the world," Mr Milov told the Raghunandan says that Russia's cost of producing crude is also lower than in Opec countries like Saudi Arabia, so they would be hurt by lower oil prices before Russia."There is no way that Saudi Arabia is going to agree to that. This has been tried before. This has led to conflict between Saudi Arabia and the US," he Rosner says there are both moral and practical issues with the West buying Russian hydrocarbons while supporting Ukraine."We now have a situation in which we are funding the aggressor in a war that we're condemning and also funding the resistance to the war," she says. "This dependence on fossil fuels means that we are really at the whims of energy markets, global energy producers and hostile dictators."
Washington Post
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Germany's Merz says there are no more range restrictions on the weapons supplied to Ukraine
BERLIN — Germany's new chancellor said Monday that his country and other major allies are no longer imposing any range restrictions on weapons supplied to Ukraine as it fights the Russian invasion . Friedrich Merz has plunged into diplomatic efforts to try to secure a ceasefire and keep Western support for Ukraine intact since becoming Germany's leader nearly three weeks ago.
