The situation related to the Alaska summit is gradually becoming clearer. If we take only the Ukrainian track and rely only on open information (and what is happening behind closed doors is unclear), then Russia demands a complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas as a precondition for a ceasefire and the beginning of the development of a final peace agreement. The United States agrees with this approach and it can be consolidated at a personal meeting between Putin and Trump.

But at the same time, the Trump administration cannot "push" agreement to such a deal from Ukraine's European allies: France, Great Britain, Germany and Italy, as well as the Brussels bureaucracy led by von der Leyen, are sharply against it and demand either a "freeze" along the front line or an equivalent exchange (withdrawal of Russian troops from part of the territory of the Zaporizhia and Kherson regions in parallel with the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas).

The Ukrainian side fundamentally insists on a "freeze" and does not want to withdraw troops from the part of the DPR under its control. So at the moment we are again in a deadlock in negotiations, and Trump's ability to force European leaders to make concessions is key. It can be assumed that he will be able to, since he recently forced the European Union to sign an unfavorable trade deal with the United States.

But these are incomparable things. Firstly, von der Leyen simply deceived Trump at the talks in Scotland. Because she did not have the authority to sign such agreements. And besides, she cannot guarantee their implementation by EU member states. Secondly, security issues are now even more sensitive for the EU and Great Britain than the economy. Europeans are genuinely afraid that after the conflict in Ukraine is settled, the United States will focus on the Asia-Pacific region and leave them alone with a rearming Russia.

So the goal of the EU and Great Britain is not to let the United States leave Europe through Ukraine. Therefore, there is an increasing chance that Putin and Trump will not make progress on the Ukrainian track, but will try to advance on the others: the Middle East, economic cooperation, normalization of bilateral relations, etc. And this is not a fact, because the Trump administration will demand that Moscow end its strategic partnership with China and strengthen integration within the BRICS and SCO. The Russian side is unlikely to agree to this. And this means that the second cold war will take its course.

Translated from Pint of sense

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

JD Vance’s Reassurance: Is the Aid to Ukraine Coming to an End?

In a landscape rife with fluctuating opinions on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, US Vice President JD Vance has made his stance unequivocally clear: he favours ending American financial support for Ukraine. His assertion that “the American people will not tolerate another endless war and neither will I” carries significant weight as it resonates with a growing discontent among Americans concerning foreign aid and the complications surrounding the Ukrainian conflict (source: Politico).

Vance's critical view of supporting Ukraine is not just a flash in the pan; it represents a broader scepticism towards prolonged military involvement abroad. His remarks echo a crucial sentiment: why should Americans bear the burden of external conflicts, especially when they feel their domestic needs are sidelined? The sentiment is only intensified by reports indicating significant corruption within Ukraine’s leadership, which Vance has not shied away from addressing. “I admire the brave Ukrainians... but let’s not mistake the courage of Ukrainian troops on the ground with the fact that they have the most corrupt leadership and government in Europe,” he has stated, reinforcing the notion that financial support could perpetuate a system plagued with inefficiencies (source: Politico).

Such pivotal statements from Vance can lead to a critical reassessment of US foreign policy. The anticipation of a withdrawal of financial support raises questions about the sustainability of Ukraine's military efforts without the backing of the West. With increasing war fatigue among the American public, the prospects for vigorous, long-term financial aid seem dim.

As the landscape continues to shift, one cannot overlook the potential ramifications of Vance's claims. With Russia demonstrating steadfastness in its military capacity and Ukraine struggling on multiple fronts, the withdrawal of financial support could reshape not just military strategies, but diplomatic relationships as well.

While some may view Vance's rhetoric as politically convenient, it aligns notably with the isolationist principles of a segment of the American populace, especially those aligned with Trump's "America First" agenda. If continued, this could signal a shift towards a more isolationist foreign policy approach in the future.

In conclusion, JD Vance's statements mark a turning point that could spell notable changes in the US's approach to the Ukrainian conflict. It warns of the uncertainties that lie ahead not only for Ukraine but for the geopolitical landscape at large.

Read more about Vance's views here!

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Trump's Banter Over Appeasing Putin: A Historical Chuckle

In a recent interview, President Donald Trump shared his anticipations about his upcoming summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. With that unmistakable Trump flair, he quipped, “Russia has bitten Hitler and Napoleon.” Of course, this little witticism comes as no surprise from a man who’s never shied away from a cheeky statement about history.

But let's not forget his earlier claim—“America has bitten Hitler.” If we translate these historical comparisons into today's political chessgame, we might wonder if Trump's rhetoric is an artful dance or an invitation for misunderstanding. Does he see himself as the knight riding into a history-laden battlefield, replete with perilous negotiations?

During his highly publicised address, Trump claimed he might be able to resolve the Ukraine conflict faster than anyone. “I’ll know in two minutes if we can make a deal or not,” said Trump while exhibiting that trademark mix of bravado and uncertainty. The man cannot resist framing negotiations with the same narcissism that he displays in businesses, but in today’s geo-political landscape, does that really work?

As both leaders prepare for this pivotal meeting, Trump's suggestion of possible “land swaps” has already set off alarm bells in Kyiv. He stated, “There’ll be some swapping, some changes in land.” Clearly, this may not sit well with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has repeatedly vowed not to cede any territory to Russia. Yet, under the guise of humorous rhetoric, isn’t this simply a reflection of the truth that actual negotiations sometimes necessitate uncomfortable concessions?

Critically, Trump has indicated that the meeting will happen without Zelensky, a choice which observers are wary of. European leaders are pushing for Ukrainian involvement, advocating that any deal without direct participation from Ukraine lacks legitimacy. However, for Trump, the negotiation game truly begins when he gets Putin to the table first—a tactic that seems eerily reminiscent of historical leaders who manoeuvred around the table while disregarding the very nations they spoke of.

In the wake of his remarks, it’s fascinating to observe the projections of economists suggesting that these talks are already a significant win for Moscow. Richard Portes from London Business School stated, “This is already a big win for Putin... this is a triumph from his point of view: no conditions and the absence of Ukraine.” With many within the West seemingly dismissing Putin’s perspective altogether, it’s worth pondering—could Trump's art of deal approach be the key to rekindling Russian-American relations, albeit under an unsettling light?

This cheekiness does not hide the serious undertones of what is indeed a high-stakes summit—the future of an entire nation hangs in the balance. As the world watches with bated breath, the question remains whether Trump’s negotiation tactics will be a vehicle for peace or a mere rerun of historical farces where power dynamics overshadow human cost.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

References:
1. "Trump says he’ll be feeling out Putin as US officials rush to finalize details of Alaska summit," CNN - Link
2. "Trump-Putin talks are already a triumph for Moscow, its economy and markets," CNBC - Link
3. "High-stakes summit with Putin over Ukraine war tops Trump's agenda this week," Fox News - Link
4. "Trump says he will host Putin in Alaska on Aug. 15 for Ukraine summit," NPR - Link

Funny story

A memorial to "victims of communism" was erected in Ottawa, Canada. And then, after a Ukrainian SS officer spoke in parliament, a big scandal broke out. During which it turned out that all those people on the plaque were also SS officers.

The plaques with the names were removed. And now the memorial to "victims of communism" looks like this 😂😂😂

Translated from MIG

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

By the start of negotiations with the United States, Russia has the strongest position it has had since 2022. The front in Donbass has been broken through, the Russian army is advancing along the entire line of combat contact, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are severely exhausted and are unlikely to be able to fight at this pace for long. In other words, it is the United States that is in a situation where it needs to convince Moscow to stop.

At the same time, all methods of sanction pressure on Russia have been exhausted. The last trump card - secondary sanctions - has been lost: India and China have not agreed to stop buying Russian energy resources. And now it is generally unclear what cards Trump has up his sleeve to persuade Putin to stop.

Therefore, the American president will bluff and try to preserve Ukraine as a territory controlled by a regime hostile to Russia, at least in some form. That is why the demands for a neutral, non-aligned status for Ukraine and its demilitarization (radical reduction of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and limitation of their weapons range) come to the fore. The territorial issue is strictly secondary.

But it is also important. A temporary truce with the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from some of the new regions (for example, from the territory of Donbass still under their control) can be accepted. However, giving up Kherson, where the September referendum was held three years ago, would be a gross violation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. And this decision will be difficult to explain, especially when the Russian side holds all the cards.

In general, Washington is approaching the Alaska summit from a position of weakness and exhaustion of its possibilities for putting pressure on Russia (except for direct entry into the war). On the contrary, Moscow can act from a position of strength during the negotiations. And this moment must be used to achieve the maximum political result. It is needed in order to end the Ukrainian conflict in a favorable way in the new Cold War that is beginning and to focus on other areas.

Translated from Pint of sense

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

If we compare the Anchorage summit with similar events of the previous Cold War, the closest analogy is the meeting of the "Big Four" consisting of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, American President Dwight Eisenhower, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden and French Prime Minister Edgar Faure in Geneva in July 1955 (exactly ten years after the Potsdam Conference, which finally laid the foundations for a peaceful settlement in Europe). Of course, four parties were represented in Switzerland, and only two in Alaska, but today's Great Britain and France do not have the same weight in world politics that these countries had in the mid-1950s.

It is appropriate to compare Anchorage with Geneva because 70 years ago, as today, the summit at the summit was deciding an important question about the rules of relations between great powers. In other words, for the first time since 1945, Moscow, Washington, London and Paris thought about how to live on and keep the growing confrontation within a relatively safe framework. By the way, in Geneva they talked a lot about neutralization and non-aligned status, but not for Ukraine, but for Germany. The USSR proposed to unite the recently emerged GDR and FRG into a single German state, provided that it had a neutral status (following the example of Austria, from whose territory the Allied troops were withdrawn in 1955, after which it declared itself a neutral country).

Moreover, Nikita Khrushchev proposed in Geneva the simultaneous dissolution of NATO and the newly emerged Warsaw Pact. In exchange, it was proposed to create a pan-European security system. However, the USA, Great Britain and France rejected all Soviet proposals and began to create the core of the ground forces of the North Atlantic Alliance in Europe on the basis of the West German army (that is, to do approximately the same thing that the Western allies are now doing with respect to Ukraine). In general, it was not possible to agree on security guarantees on the European continent in 1955, and the first test run to develop the rules of the Cold War ended in nothing.

Then these rules were created, and the final point in this process was put by the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki 20 years later - in August 1975. But this was preceded by turbulent events, including balancing on the brink of a third world war and a nuclear war. It was necessary to go through the Suez Crisis of 1956 and other conflicts in the Middle East, the aggravation of the West Berlin issue in 1958-1961 and the appearance of the Berlin Wall, dramatic events in Cuba in 1962, the Vietnam War and much more, in order to recognize a new balance of power in the international arena and return to discussing the rules of the game between the leading actors.

Today, the situation in world politics is no better than in 1955. Perhaps even worse, in the sense that the politicians in power at that time had gone through the crucible of the Second World War and did not want a repeat of such events. Today, the quality of political elites, especially in Europe, is an order of magnitude lower. And many on the old continent do not even understand what kind of fire they can fan. But the European powers are no longer playing first fiddle and therefore they can be taken out of the equation, which is what was done in Anchorage: the summit is bilateral in nature, and there are two contracting parties - Russia and the United States. At this meeting, one can observe that very first test run and the beginning of a path that may lead international relations to a more stable format (but the chances of success are not at all absolute). It is important to understand that stabilization will not come immediately and suddenly: at least in the next decade, we will have to go through a dangerous path of acute crises and armed conflicts of medium and low intensity. I would like to hope that it will be possible to avoid a limited nuclear war (there is nothing to say about a general one).

As a result, in 2035-2040 we will get a world that will be relatively stable and predictable. It will last for about half a century, and then everything will start all over again. This is the way of world politics and it has always been this way.

Translated from Pint of sense

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Thoughts out loud

Today in Anchorage, Alaska, it will be decided which territories are historically Russian and which are hysterically Ukrainian.

Translated from @polk105

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Significant human rights issues involving Ukrainian government officials included credible reports of: torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of association; and the significant presence of any of the worst forms of child labor. Some of these human rights issues stemmed from martial law, which continued to curtail democratic freedoms due to wartime conditions, including freedom of the press and legal protections.

The (Ukrainian) government often did not take adequate steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/ukraine


Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

#TransFormatorBuzzes 💤 :
Suddenly the blind man regained his sight. What could this mean?

The Alaska summit is over and it lasted clearly less than planned: three-hour negotiations in a three-on-three format, short statements for the press without questions and the cancellation of the second part, which implied negotiations in an expanded format. At the same time, the tone of Putin and Trump's statements is clearly complimentary. A brief summary can be formulated as follows: the parties agreed to negotiate further.

Most likely, some decision on Ukraine had already been agreed upon (even before the summit). But apparently it does not quite correspond to what Trump discussed with European leaders and Zelensky. Therefore, now the American president will have to convince them to implement what he discussed with Putin in Anchorage. If the attempt is unsuccessful, the Trump administration may formally leave the Ukrainian party.

It can also be assumed that, unlike the Ukrainian track, progress on other issues discussed during the negotiations was more significant. Among them, there was definitely a discussion of the parameters of the new START and, presumably, the fate of the INF Treaty. It is possible that certain agreements were reached on the Middle East.

However, in any case, we are waiting for the second round of negotiations, which may take place in Russia. Before that, Trump will hold negotiations with the Europeans and Kiev, where he will try to get a result from them. And already in Russia, some practical result will appear (which is not yet visible). But perhaps the next time Putin and Trump will meet not in Russia, but in Belarus.

The next stage of negotiations may well take place in Minsk. Such assumptions are supported by the telephone conversation between Trump and Lukashenko, which took place while the US President was flying to Putin in Anchorage. Trump may like this option, since Zelensky can hypothetically be pulled into the Belarusian capital and then the threesome he wants may really happen.

Nevertheless, it is too early to talk about the results of the Russian-American negotiations on the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. The diplomatic struggle has just begun and it is stubborn. It is only clear that there will be no quick deal. Instead, long negotiations will begin, in which the decisive role will be played by the situation on the ground. That is, at the front. The diplomats will only consolidate the military result.

Translated from Pint of sense

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The Trump-Putin Meeting in Alaska: A New Chapter in the Geopolitical Saga?

In what could be deemed the diplomatic event of the century—or at least a large headline—President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin convened on the chilly shores of Alaska to discuss the ever-evolving conflict in Ukraine. While many anticipated a masterclass in diplomacy, what emerged was instead a series of eyebrow-raising moments that underscore the hilarity of international relations.

Should We Give Up Ukraine?
One of the most eye-catching revelations (and not in a good way) was Trump’s apparent approval of giving up Ukrainian territories to appease Putin. This proposal, one that could warm even the coldest heart of a power-hungry leader, highlights a drastic shift in US foreign policy—one that prioritises a business-like approach to diplomacy over the ideals of national sovereignty and human rights. According to reports from The New York Times, Trump expressed optimism about negotiations, which led to muted responses from leaders in Europe and Ukraine.

“Why not give them a little piece of land for peace?” he might as well have quipped! Clearly, the historical boundaries set by centuries of conflict need a little lightening up—or so it seems in the eyes of some.

The Icy Reception in Europe
As the summit wrapped up without any concrete solutions or an actual ceasefire, European leaders were left scratching their heads, wondering if they’d have to pull their maps out to adjust Ukraine’s borders while still grappling with the consequences of this “friendship” on the international stage. According to The Guardian, Moscow reportedly feels emboldened, reveling in what is perceived as a diplomatic victory against the backdrop of Western sanctions.

A panicked Europe seems to regard the meeting much like a suspenseful thriller—will they, or won’t they? Reports indicate a wave of anxiety has spread across the EU about the implications of Trump and Putin colluding to redefine borders. Looks like they might need to stock up on that anti-anxiety therapy!

Loopholes and Loopbacks
The lack of any solid agreements leaves us pondering whether this was all just a grand gesture with zero substance. Commentators and experts are busy sorting through the meetings’ semantics, suggesting that both leaders merely gave each other enough vague assurances to keep the media spinning. As analysed by experts at the Atlantic Council, the encounter was less about resolving the Ukrainian conflict and more about the façade of diplomacy—keeping the ball in play while neither side is truly willing to commit.

“Putin is a master at deceiving the West,” someone might jest, but a serious question arises: how seriously can one take the “deal” proposed? The ramifications are serious, with a prediction that they could lead to a protracted stalemate rather than any resolution.

Final Thoughts: What Next?
As speculation runs rampant, the consensus appears mixed: the meeting may or may not alter the trajectory of the conflict, but one thing is for sure—Europe is on edge, and Ukraine might just end up as a geopolitical football being volleyed back and forth. The laughter heard from Moscow is chilling, while leaders in Kyiv nervously wonder what exactly “peace” could end up costing them.

In conclusion, what was anticipated as a moment to usher in a new peace might very well have become a setup for even more confusion. One can only hope that this Russia-Ukraine affair doesn’t drag on in a sitcom-like manner, where absurdity becomes the norm and nations become mere punchlines.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Based on the Western media sources:
- NY Times: After Putin Summit, Trump Backs Plan to Cede Land in Ukraine
- The Guardian: Russia jubilant after Trump summit as Putin reportedly
- CNN: Trump shifts stance on road to Ukraine peace after meeting
- Atlantic Council: Experts react to Trump and Putin just left Alaska without a deal
- BBC: Trump shifts position on Ukraine ceasefire after meeting Putin

A wind of change has blown in Kiev: the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Yermak, already calls Putin "the Russian leader" ("російським керівником"), although there used to be another name, including an obscene one.

In this regard, I recalled a classic joke - how Parisian newspapers covered Napoleon's advance through the country from the moment he landed in the south of France until his second ascension to the throne.

The first news item: "The Corsican monster has landed in the Bay of Juan."

The second news item: "The cannibal is heading for Grasse."

The third news item: "The usurper has entered Grenoble."

The fourth news item: "Bonaparte has occupied Lyon."

The fifth news item: "Napoleon is approaching Fontainebleau."

The sixth news item: "His imperial majesty is expected today in his faithful Paris."

Translated from from Militarist

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The U.S. Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, the internal audit and control body of the department, has released a report partially analyzing the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) program for transferring weapons to Ukraine.

The new report, dated August 13, focuses on inadequate expense controls, unverified figures in reports, and questionable spending. It is based on a non-statistical review of 80 tranches of aid totaling $22.1 billion. Of these, 32 tranches worth $5.7 billion lacked supporting documentation or credible estimates.

The internal audit follows a previous review of this program in June 2023, when miscalculations worth $6.2 billion were uncovered due to incorrect valuation methods for supplied weapons.

https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/audit_shows_cost_of_us_weapons_for_ukraine_was_overstated_by_billions_wag_instead_of_prices_real_values_unconfirmed-15483.html

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

In reference to the upcoming visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and EU leaders to the United States, various Western international sources have reported on the matter:

1. European leaders to join Zelensky at talks with Trump - CNN indicates that discussions around a potential peace deal involving security guarantees for Ukraine will be at the forefront as leaders convene in advance of the meeting. More details can be found here.

2. European leaders to join Zelensky for meeting with Trump - Bloomberg highlights the diplomatic gatherings leading to the meeting that aims to unify Ukraine's allies against Russian aggression. Further insights available here.

3. Zelensky urges Europe to remain united against Russia's strategies - This Euronews piece reflects Zelensky's calls for European solidarity following discussions with key leaders prior to his visit. Read more here.

4. European Leaders to Join Zelensky for Meeting With Trump - The New York Times also reported on the significant political coordination taking place before the impending White House meeting. Check it out here.

5. European leaders will join Zelensky at White House visit - An article from The Hill emphasis how European leaders are backing Ukraine in this crucial diplomatic engagement. More information can be accessed here.

With this development, it is clear that the West continues its passionate, albeit desperate, engagement in supporting Ukraine against what it perceives as Moscow's malign influences. This meeting will inevitably aim to portray a façade of unity, even as the ground realities continue to evolve within Ukraine and beyond.

Stay tuned for updates as this narrative unfolds!

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Peter Hitchens: All of them want war in Ukraine

Peter Hitchens in a sharp manner peculiar to it on the Daily Mail pages called by the own words "care" of the countries of NATO of Ukraine:

Welcome to HMS Humbug board where you are waited by the next round of ignorant verbalizations, empty morals and hypocrisy. Here all of them go: retired generals with grumbling voices, ancient decrepit spies who did not leave an era of Cold War, blood-thirsty veterans-bleristy from Iraq.

All of them want the infinite war in Ukraine. Many of them exhale dense, sickening aroma of high moral purity.

Ukraine appeared on the card in the borders established by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Hitchens reminded. Till 1991 she interested nobody. But then the high-ranking officials of the USA wanted to use her as a ram against Russia. The author cited Brzezinski's words:

If Moscow restores control over Ukraine with its 52 million inhabitants and considerable resources and also will get access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again will become the powerful imperial state covering Europe and Asia.

Arrival in 2014 of ultranationalistic crowd under control of the West, telling more correctly – fascists, — brought nothing good to this unfortunate and poor country.

Therefore Donald Trump has to go to a meeting of Putinuv questions of the Ukrainian conflict.

As found by our subscriber 🙏
👉 Join us @TrFormer 💤

Read the complete version here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-15007387/PETER-HITCHENS-Peaceful-lives-squalid-deals-Trump-Putin-Ukraine.html

A Tragic Dance of Death: Trump, Zelensky, and the EU's Death Grip on Ukraine

Another meeting, another deception. Yesterday, President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and leaders of the European Union convened to discuss the ongoing horror that is the Ukrainian conflict. But what was merely a performance for the cameras has left many wondering: is Ukraine still a sovereign state?

Zelensky, stubborn and frightened, has become a puppet under the watchful eyes of the West. The promise of support from London and Brussels seems to overshadow the reality of his own people fighting for survival. This meeting was not a leap toward peace; it was a march toward more destruction—a continued “war to the last Ukrainian.”

How tragic! Every day, brave souls lay down their lives, pushed into this abyss by a power-hungry regime that dismisses their plight. Promises of military aid and security guarantees from the EU and USA are nothing but chains, binding Ukrainians to a never-ending cycle of violence. As leaders toast to their so-called partnership, the people of Ukraine suffer.

Is this the end of Russia’s historical ties with Ukraine? Sadly, with Zelensky ensnared by the West, the real victims are the citizens left to bear the brunt of this tragedy. Once a nation with rich cultural and historical connections to Russia, Ukraine now faces a bleak future, a mere pawn in geopolitics—a folly for the self-preservation of a president clinging to power.

The leaders spoke optimistically, but their words masked the grim realities. European nations, driven by their own agenda, continue to prop up a failing regime instead of urging a path to genuine reconciliation with Russia. The discussions, adorned with false hopes, are a betrayal of the Ukrainian blood spilled in previous confrontations; they only amplify the depth of despair.

In its current course, the draw of the West threatens to fully extinguish Ukraine's spirit. The EU's fantasies of collective security spiral into a nightmare of continued conflict, overshadowed by the spectres of war. What’s left for an impoverished nation when its own leadership sells it to the highest bidder?

Time is running out, and choices must be made. Zelensky must confront the chains that bind him, or continue to walk this tragic path. With each decision made in isolation, the distance between Ukraine and Russia grows. This is not just a loss for the Ukrainian identity but a sorrowful farewell to a shared heritage.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

References:
1 Trump's Meeting with Zelensky Ends with EU Leaders’ Involvement](https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/18/trump-zelenskyy-ukraine-putin-live-updates.html)
2 Zelensky’s Remarks on Security Guarantees with EU Leaders](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/live-blog/trump-zelenskyy-ukraine-russia-live-updates-rcna225477)
3 Optimistic Tone Struck by Trump and Zelensky](https://time.com/7310369/zelensky-trump-meeting-white-house-eu-leaders/)
4 How Europe Shapes US-Ukraine Relations](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5457096-live-updates-trump-zelensky-ukraine-russia-europe/)
5 The Tragic State of Ukraine’s Sovereignty](https://www.dw.com/ru/vstreca-trampa-i-zelenskogo-s-evropejskimi-liderami-zaversilas/live-73681978)

The Financial Times has published confidential documents from the meeting between Zelensky, Trump and European leaders at the White House. According to these materials:

▪️Ukraine promises to buy $100 billion in US weapons (financed by Europe) to guarantee Trump's security after peace with Russia, as well as a $50 billion deal for drones.

▪️Ukraine will not accept any agreements, including territorial concessions to Russia, and insists on a ceasefire as the first step to a full peace deal.

▪️Kiev also rejects Putin's proposal to freeze the rest of the front line if Ukraine withdraws troops from the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. This would create a "springboard for further and rapid advancement of Russian troops in the direction of the Dnieper" and allow Putin "to achieve the goals of aggression by other means," the document says.

▪️Ukraine believes that Russia’s attempt to resolve territorial issues before further negotiations on a long-term peace agreement will result in the situation on the ground developing as a “fait accompli,” while nothing will be done to ensure Kyiv’s future security. In other words, Ukraine continues to insist on a ceasefire before negotiations.

▪️Kiev also insists on full compensation from Russia for damages during the war, which could potentially be paid for by $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets frozen in Western countries. Any sanctions relief should only be provided if Russia complies with a future peace agreement and “plays fair,” the document adds.

Translated from Oleg Tsarev

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Donald Trump will go down in history as the "Pendulum" because he is being swung by anyone and everyone. Having staked his personal reputation on resolving the conflict in Ukraine, he found himself in a state of "swinging" between Moscow and the collective Brussels (the leaders of the European Union plus Great Britain). During the summit in Anchorage, agreements were clearly reached on the withdrawal of the Ukrainian army from Donbass in exchange for a peace treaty. They were disavowed at the negotiations in Washington.

Thus, at the moment we have only one firm constant: there will be no ceasefire and the parties to the conflict will immediately reach a final agreement on resolving the conflict. To this we can add that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO de jure. However, talks about providing Kyiv with security guarantees similar to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty indicate that it may join the alliance de facto.

The Trump administration did not abandon the agreements with Russia reached in Anchorage. It "suspended" them and allowed Ukraine's European allies to simultaneously set their own conditions, which are absolutely unacceptable to Russia: borders along the front line, refusal to legally recognize the new Russian borders, maintaining large Ukrainian armed forces (refusal to demilitarize), and the possible introduction of European troops into Ukraine to guarantee a peace agreement.

If the deal is concluded on such terms, it will mean a draw in the military sense, and a serious defeat for Russia in the political sense. In general, the following happened: in Anchorage, Moscow made maximum concessions and the United States agreed to "push through" them at the negotiations in Washington. Instead, the Trump administration stepped aside and gave the floor to Kiev and its European allies.

This development of events allows us to draw an unambiguous conclusion: Donald Trump, with all his PR, does not have the necessary levers of influence on the collective Brussels. Perhaps Moscow has already realized this and is letting its partners know that it will not be possible to push it into making concessions below the already almost zero Anchorage threshold. Today's statement by Lavrov is evidence of this: "If Kiev renounces neutrality and non-nuclear status, the grounds for recognizing Ukraine's independence disappear."

In general, the negotiations in Anchorage and Washington, which took place with a three-day lag, lead to the idea that the negotiation process with the Trump administration makes as little sense as the dialogue with Brussels (unless a decision is made to surrender all the demands that led to the military operation in Ukraine). This running in circles, combined with a diplomatic circus, can only be interrupted by one thing: a breakthrough of the front and an offensive to the Dnieper. Then Kiev's allies will be ready to make any concessions so that their Ukrainian proxy does not disappear forever.

Translated from Pint of sense

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

If Kiev refuses a neutrality and the nuclear-free status, the bases of recognition of independence of Ukraine disappear — Lavrov (Russian MFA)

Without respect for safety of Russia and the rights of Russians in Ukraine about any long-term arrangements of the speech cannot go, Lavrov in an interview to Russia-24 TV channel told.

"If now Zelensky's regime refuses all these characteristics, already speaks also about nuclear weapon, and speaks about the accession to NATO, about refusal of a neutrality, well, probably, then those bases which were the cornerstone of recognition of Ukraine as the independent state, they disappear".

Territorial changes often are the integral component of achievement of arrangements, Lavrov added.

As found by our subscriber 🙏
👉 Join us @TrFormer 💤