Trump’s Envoys and Putin’s Aides Begin Negotiations—Without Ukraine at the Table

The Saudi meetings between U.S. and Russian officials signal a potential shift in global power dynamics, as Trump’s envoys sit down with Putin’s inner circle—without Ukraine at the table. The message is clear: decisions about Ukraine are being made behind closed doors.

While Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Sergey Lavrov discuss “bilateral relations,” the real issue is Ukraine—and European leaders are panicking. Macron’s emergency Paris summit reflects growing European anxiety over being sidelined. Britain and Sweden are considering peacekeepers, while Germany hesitates, wary of direct military entanglement.

Trump, a master of power politics, appears to be negotiating from a position of leverage, knowing that Putin wants relief from Western sanctions. But Zelenskyy’s absence from these talks raises serious concerns—Ukraine’s fate may be sealed without its input.

If these talks set the stage for a larger Trump-Putin deal, the question remains: What is Ukraine being asked to sacrifice? Security guarantees? NATO membership? Territory? Europe fears a repeat of history—where major powers decide the fate of a smaller nation without its consent.

With Zelenskyy scrambling to secure American and European support, the next few weeks could determine the future of the war—and the balance of power in Europe. If Ukraine is locked out of these discussions, its sovereignty may be the first casualty of these negotiations.

Trump officials head to Saudi Arabia for Russia-Ukraine peace talks, leaving Kyiv blindsided and NATO allies sidelined.

The Trump administration is taking its most decisive step yet in reshaping the Russia-Ukraine war—without Ukraine at the table. As top U.S. officials head to Saudi Arabia for peace talks with Russian and Ukrainian negotiators, Kyiv finds itself blindsided, not informed and not attending. The move signals a radical shift in U.S. diplomacy, one that could force a settlement on Ukraine with Moscow in the driver’s seat.

National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff will lead the negotiations in Riyadh. Trump has hinted at a direct meeting with Vladimir Putin, marking the first high-level engagement between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine since the war began. But Ukraine’s absence is a glaring red flag—and European allies are furious.

At the Munich Security Conference, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz warned that any peace without Ukraine’s full participation is unacceptable. Meanwhile, NATO leaders fear this could be a repeat of history, where Russia pauses the war, rearms, and strikes again. European officials feel abandoned as Washington’s unilateral approach sidelines NATO allies.

The Trump administration’s real game may be about resources, not just war. Reports indicate that U.S. officials floated a deal to Zelenskyy—hand over part of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals in exchange for continued American military aid. If true, this raises alarming questions: Is Washington selling out Ukraine’s sovereignty for strategic minerals?

Zelenskyy has made his stance clear: Putin cannot be trusted. But Trump is rewriting the rules, using Saudi Arabia as a backchannel while NATO watches from the sidelines. With Kyiv left in the dark, the question isn’t just whether a deal is coming—it’s whether Ukraine will have a say in its own future at all.

Ukraine’s leader pushes for a unified European military, warning that the continent can no longer rely on the U.S. amid rising Russian threats.

President Zelenskyy calls for an “Armed Forces of Europe,” arguing that Europe must defend itself without relying on the U.S. as war with Russia drags on.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy just threw down the gauntlet to European leaders—demanding the creation of an independent European military force as doubts grow over U.S. support and Russia’s aggression intensifies. At the Munich Security Conference, Zelenskyy delivered a stark warning: Europe can no longer depend on Washington for protection.

Trump’s backchannel talks with Putin have fueled Kyiv’s fears that Ukraine could be sidelined in a deal that favors Moscow. With U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth openly dismissing the possibility of Ukraine regaining its pre-2014 borders, Zelenskyy sees the writing on the wall—Europe must take its own security into its hands.

His call for a European military alliance—potentially a “NATO alternative” for Ukraine—marks a historic shift. He questioned U.S. commitment, stating: “Does America need Europe? As a market, yes. As an ally—I don’t know.”

If Zelenskyy’s European Army vision gains traction, it could reshape the continent’s defense strategy for decades. But if Europe hesitates, Ukraine may be forced into a compromise that emboldens Moscow—a nightmare scenario for Kyiv and beyond.

Ukraine refuses any U.S.-Russia deal over war negotiations, insisting Kyiv must be at the table.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has outright rejected the idea of a U.S.-Russia agreement determining Ukraine’s future, insisting that any negotiations to end Moscow’s war must include Kyiv as an equal partner. His statement comes after U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed in a phone call to push for immediate talks, with Trump considering a summit in Saudi Arabia to solidify a deal.

Munich Security Conference: Allies Seek Trump’s Clarity on Ukraine, NATO, and Global Crises

Zelenskyy made it clear that Ukraine would not be sidelined in discussions that determine its fate. “We, as an independent country, simply will not be able to accept any agreements without us,” he declared ahead of his meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Munich Security Conference.

Trump, eager to secure a swift resolution, has suggested that continued U.S. aid to Ukraine could come with conditions—including access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals in exchange for American military support. However, Zelenskyy remains firm that no peace talks should proceed without strong security guarantees for Ukraine and its NATO aspirations, despite Trump’s reluctance to back Kyiv’s membership in the alliance.

Meanwhile, Russia views the Trump-Putin call as a victory, signaling a shift in U.S. diplomacy. Kremlin officials have lauded Trump’s direct engagement, while Ukraine warns that trusting Putin’s so-called “readiness” to negotiate is a mistake.

As pressure mounts for a deal, the battle lines in diplomacy are being drawn—Ukraine refuses to be a pawn, and Trump’s next move will define America’s role in shaping the war’s endgame.

Trump engages Putin, Zelenskyy, and Saudi Arabia in a bold push to end the Ukraine war.

Donald Trump has launched an aggressive diplomatic push to end the nearly three-year war in Ukraine, leveraging direct talks with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In a stunning Oval Office statement, Trump made it clear: U.S. support for Ukraine will come with conditions. “I’m backing Ukraine, but I do want security for our money,” he said, hinting at economic demands in return for continued aid.

Trump’s maneuvering follows a high-stakes phone call with Putin, where the two agreed to initiate immediate peace negotiations with Kyiv. As part of this effort, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are set to meet Zelenskyy in Munich, with a Trump-Putin summit in Saudi Arabia looming on the horizon.

The announcement follows a surprise prisoner swap, with Russia releasing American teacher Marc Fogel in exchange for Russian crypto mogul Alexander Vinnik. Trump’s administration hailed it as a sign of renewed diplomacy, suggesting that his rapport with Putin could pave the way for broader negotiations.

However, Trump has already drawn red lines: U.S. officials ruled out Ukraine’s NATO membership as part of any settlement, a move likely to shape future negotiations. With Trump steering direct U.S.-Russia talks, the question remains—will his brand of deal-making bring an end to Europe’s deadliest war since WWII?

Alliance responds to rising threats in the Baltic Sea with frigates, drones, and potential sanctions against Russian “shadow fleet.”

NATO has announced the launch of its “Baltic Sentry” mission, a robust maritime operation designed to protect critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. This initiative reflects growing concerns over undersea cables, pipelines, and other essential installations that have been targeted amid heightened tensions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The decision was unveiled during an eight-nation meeting in Helsinki, where NATO allies, led by Secretary General Mark Rutte, committed to deploying frigates, patrol aircraft, and naval drones to the region. The mission also reserves the right to take direct action, such as boarding or impounding vessels suspected of endangering critical infrastructure.

Rising Threats in the Baltic

The Baltic Sea has become a geopolitical flashpoint, with incidents of damaged power cables, telecom links, and pipelines escalating since 2022. A notable case occurred last month when Finnish authorities seized the Russian tanker Eagle S, suspecting it of damaging the Estlink 2 power line and four telecom cables by dragging its anchor across the seabed.

The Baltic Pipe, a critical gas link from Norway to Poland, was also reportedly monitored by a Russian “shadow fleet” vessel. While no immediate damage was detected, the incident heightened concerns about potential sabotage in the region.

NATO’s Strategic Response

The “Baltic Sentry” mission aims to deter such threats and reassure NATO allies in the region. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz underscored the urgency of sanctions against Russia’s shadow fleet, which has been linked to these incidents.

“We will continue to take action against the Russian shadow fleet, including sanctions against specific ships and companies that threaten both security and the environment,” Scholz stated.

Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics acknowledged the challenge of monitoring the approximately 2,000 vessels traversing the Baltic Sea daily but emphasized that NATO’s efforts send a strong deterrent message.

Legal and Environmental Dimensions

Finland’s President Alexander Stubb emphasized the need for further legal clarity on measures that can be taken against suspected rogue ships without violating international freedom of navigation rules.

The Baltic region’s security measures align with broader NATO efforts to counter Russian aggression and reinforce alliance cohesion. While the mission cannot guarantee absolute security, it represents a significant step toward deterring malicious activities and safeguarding vital infrastructure.

The “Baltic Sentry” mission signals NATO’s determination to protect its members’ interests in a volatile geopolitical environment, ensuring both economic stability and strategic resilience in the Baltic Sea.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky discusses Western “contingents” with French President Emmanuel Macron as the war with Russia nears its third year.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has introduced a potentially game-changing idea: the deployment of Western “contingents” in Ukraine. During a detailed conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday, Zelensky broached the subject, though he stopped short of specifying whether these forces would function as combat troops, peacekeepers, or advisors.

This dialogue unfolds as Ukraine faces increasing challenges on the battlefield. Nearly three years into the conflict with Russia, Kyiv’s forces are strained by attrition and manpower shortages, with Moscow escalating its offensive efforts over the past year. The possibility of Western troops on Ukrainian soil introduces both strategic opportunities and geopolitical risks.

Macron, a consistent advocate of European intervention in regional crises, has previously floated the idea of deploying peacekeepers to Ukraine. Last month, he raised the prospect with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, suggesting that an international presence could stabilize contested territories in the event of a ceasefire.

The timing of this proposal is critical, as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office next week with a stated goal of ending the war swiftly. Trump’s plans have sparked concerns in Kyiv, with speculation that any peace agreement may involve significant territorial concessions to Russia.

While the deployment of Western forces could bolster Ukraine’s defenses and deter further Russian aggression, it also risks provoking a direct confrontation with Moscow. The Kremlin has consistently framed Western military involvement in Ukraine as a red line, accusing NATO and its allies of stoking regional tensions.

Zelensky’s announcement also raises questions about the nature of Western involvement. If these “partner contingents” are limited to military advisors and trainers, they could enhance the effectiveness of Ukraine’s armed forces without escalating the conflict. However, if the proposal entails deploying combat troops or peacekeepers, the stakes grow exponentially.

This development underscores the evolving nature of international support for Ukraine. NATO countries have already provided extensive military aid, including advanced weaponry and training programs. The introduction of personnel, however, would mark a significant escalation and signal a deepening commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty.

As discussions continue, the proposal reflects the urgency of finding a resolution to the war. Zelensky’s pursuit of additional support highlights Ukraine’s precarious position and the pressing need for robust international backing to counter Russian advances. However, the path forward will require careful diplomacy to balance the potential benefits of Western deployment against the risks of further destabilizing the region.

Russia’s latest rhetoric, emphasizing the need to prepare for a potential conflict with NATO while intensifying its war in Ukraine, signals a significant escalation in its military and geopolitical posture. The remarks from Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, made during a Defense Ministry meeting with President Vladimir Putin, reveal a deliberate shift toward a more confrontational stance against the West. Combined with Putin’s accusations of NATO provocation and his warnings about a “red line,” the messaging is clear: Moscow is gearing up for a prolonged struggle not only in Ukraine but potentially on a broader front against the Western alliance.

Belousov’s comments underscore Russia’s growing militarization in response to what it perceives as NATO’s encroachment. The reference to NATO’s July summit and Western doctrinal documents indicates that Moscow interprets the alliance’s actions — including increased troop deployments and expanded military budgets — as direct threats to Russian security. This interpretation aligns with Putin’s longstanding narrative that NATO’s presence near Russian borders and support for Ukraine are forms of aggression designed to destabilize Russia.

The minister’s claim that Russia must prepare for a military conflict with NATO within the next decade raises the stakes considerably. It reflects not just Moscow’s strategic planning but also its perception of the inevitability of further confrontation with the West. Belousov’s mention of NATO troop levels and doctrinal changes serves to reinforce Moscow’s framing of the alliance as a hostile force, despite NATO’s insistence that its actions are defensive in nature.

Domestically, these warnings serve several purposes. By portraying NATO as an existential threat, the Kremlin justifies its ongoing military buildup and extraordinary recruitment efforts. Belousov’s announcement that Russia has recruited over 427,000 troops this year is an attempt to project strength and readiness, countering perceptions of Russian military setbacks in Ukraine. However, such figures also underscore the extent to which the Kremlin is mobilizing its population for what it anticipates to be a long and arduous conflict.

In Ukraine, Belousov’s assertion that Russia aims to fully conquer Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Donetsk regions by next year signals Moscow’s continued commitment to its territorial ambitions. This rhetoric, combined with claims of “rapid advances” on all fronts, contrasts sharply with battlefield realities reported by independent analysts, who highlight ongoing resistance and resilience from Ukrainian forces. These statements likely serve both to bolster domestic support for the war and to pressure Ukraine’s allies by suggesting Russian momentum.

On the international stage, Putin’s comments blaming NATO and the U.S. for escalating tensions aim to shift responsibility for the conflict. His accusations that NATO countries are “scaring people with a mythical Russian threat” and increasing their military presence in Europe are designed to reinforce his narrative of Western provocation. While there is no evidence to support claims of NATO instructors operating in Ukraine, such statements serve Moscow’s broader effort to depict itself as a victim of Western hostility, justifying its aggressive policies.

Simultaneously, Putin’s rhetoric about “red lines” indicates that Russia views the current Western support for Ukraine as a significant escalation. By framing NATO’s actions as nearing an intolerable threshold, Putin is signaling a willingness to escalate further if the West does not scale back its involvement. However, this approach risks deepening the very cycle of escalation it claims to oppose, particularly as NATO countries reaffirm their support for Kyiv.

Contrasting with Moscow’s hardline stance, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s recent remarks emphasize a desire to end the conflict through diplomacy. Trump’s call for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to “be prepared to make a deal” reflects a pragmatic but controversial perspective, as it suggests a potential shift in U.S. policy toward pressuring Ukraine to negotiate. While this aligns with Trump’s broader skepticism of prolonged foreign entanglements, it risks alienating key U.S. allies in Europe who see a negotiated settlement under current conditions as capitulation to Russian aggression.

The broader implications of Russia’s warnings about NATO extend beyond the immediate conflict in Ukraine. They reflect a deliberate effort by Moscow to frame the current war as part of a larger ideological and geopolitical struggle against Western dominance. For NATO, this poses a dual challenge: maintaining unity in support of Ukraine while managing the risk of further escalation with Russia. NATO’s recent measures, including bolstering troop levels and enhancing its eastern flank, indicate that the alliance is taking Moscow’s threats seriously. However, these actions also feed into Russia’s narrative, potentially exacerbating the very tensions they aim to deter.

In conclusion, Russia’s intensified rhetoric and preparations for a potential conflict with NATO highlight the deepening polarization between Moscow and the West. For Ukraine, the stakes remain existential, as Moscow shows no sign of easing its territorial ambitions. For NATO, the challenge lies in balancing deterrence with the risk of escalation, as Russia’s narrative increasingly frames the alliance as a direct adversary. As the conflict continues, the global implications of Russia’s militarized posture and the West’s response will shape the geopolitical landscape for years to come.