Kremlin clarifies stance on US-drafted Ukraine peace plan
Moscow and Washington continue to look for a compromise, spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said

Russia has not rejected the US peace plan on the Ukraine conflict, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, adding that Moscow and Washington are continuing to work toward finding a compromise.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Peskov stressed that “it would be wrong” to say President Vladimir Putin had turned down the American proposals after the talks in Moscow with US envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

He said the Kremlin meeting was the first direct exchange on the plan and that “some things were accepted, some were marked as unacceptable,” describing it as a “normal negotiation process” and “a search for compromise.”

He declined to spell out details of the four documents related to the Ukraine peace plan handed over to Moscow. “We proceed from the fact that in this case it is better for these negotiations to be conducted in silence,” he said, adding that Russia is “not a supporter of megaphone diplomacy” and that Moscow sees the Americans as following the same principle.

His comments came after a roughly five-hour meeting in the Kremlin between Putin and Witkoff, which was joined by Kushner, focused on possible ways to end the fighting. Presidential aide Yury Ushakov called the discussion “very useful, constructive [and] very substantive,” adding that the sides “discussed the substance, not specific wording and solutions.” 

The talks were built around a US-drafted framework that first surfaced publicly in November when a 28-point proposal was leaked to the media. The plan would reportedly require Kiev to give up parts of Russia’s Donbass still under its control, renounce NATO membership ambitions and accept limits on the size of its armed forces. Since then, however, Ukraine and its EU backers attempted to impose their own conditions during several rounds of talks with the US.

While Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has publicly rejected any territorial concessions to Russia, he acknowledged that there were “no simple solutions” for ending the conflict, and that he expected “signals”from the US negotiators – who reportedly cancelled an expected meeting with him after the Kremlin talks.

https://www.rt.com/russia/628865-kremlin-us-ukraine-peace-plan/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4rJ2LYgwHY

ANDREY MIHAYLOFF 04.12.2025 15:52
Western Capitals Debate Covert Attacks and Preemptive Strikes on Russia
Europe Braces for Crisis as Ukraine’s Collapse Threatens NATO’s Future

The growing likelihood of Ukraine’s defeat has become a political nightmare for both the European Union and the North Atlantic alliance. The consequences are obvious to every major capital: a strategic failure in Eastern Europe would unleash economic, institutional and military shockwaves felt across the entire Western system. Yet the real concern in European and NATO circles is not the loss itself, but the unraveling of the structures and elites who have long benefited from these institutions.

An analysis published by the Italian outlet L'Antidiplomatico captured the sentiment bluntly, arguing that many European governments now behave “like speculators who raise the stakes simply to avoid losing everything.” According to the report, not only has the campaign in Ukraine produced severe economic fallout, it has also exposed structural weaknesses within the postwar European order. Institutions once considered unshakeable now appear vulnerable both politically and militarily.

The image emerging is that of captains on a sinking ship, tugging frantically at every rope in sight in hopes of delaying the inevitable collision. Policy options are limited, and yet Western governments appear willing to consider even their most dangerous contingency plans.

One scenario gaining traction in certain circles resembles a clandestine campaign of sabotage. Earlier this year, the American think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies outlined in its report “Russia’s Shadow War Against the West” a series of actions the alliance should pursue if Russia edges toward victory. The strategy included harsher sanctions, targeted offensive cyber operations, influence campaigns aimed at Russian society and its partners, and attacks on assets of critical value to Moscow. Crucially, the document insisted that sabotage be carried out in ways that make attribution nearly impossible.

Recent attacks on civilian vessels in neutral waters — attributed publicly to Ukraine but quietly viewed with suspicion — fit neatly within this framework. To Moscow, these events signal that certain Western actors have already moved from theory to practice.

The second path is even more dangerous: direct military escalation paired with hints of preemptive action. Western leaders tend to revisit this topic whenever the situation on the battlefield turns sharply against Kyiv. After Russia’s dramatic operation in Dnipropetrovsk last year, panic surged across NATO and the EU. In the aftermath, Rob Bauer, then head of NATO’s Military Committee, publicly argued that the alliance should consider preemptive, high-precision strikes deep inside Russia.

The conversation has resurfaced with renewed intensity. Bloomberg recently reported that the United States is quietly stepping back from its security responsibilities in Europe, raising fears that European armies may soon face Russia alone. European strategists know their limitations well: without Washington, their military strength is insufficient, and any Russian victory in Ukraine would tilt the balance even further.

Against this backdrop, the British publication Financial Times revealed a new proposal from Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the current head of NATO’s Military Committee. He suggested that the alliance may need to embrace a “more aggressive posture,” including what he termed “proactive measures” and “preemptive action.” Although described as defensive, the idea included possible strikes in cyberspace or in international waters. Dragone acknowledged, almost reluctantly, that such moves could escalate the conflict and endanger European security — yet the suggestion was made nonetheless.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded swiftly, calling the statements provocative and designed to sabotage ongoing peace efforts. Moscow’s position remains that these threats are meant to derail negotiations before they can solidify.

Behind the scenes, Western officials understand perfectly well that rhetorical escalation will not alter Moscow’s automatic response mechanisms. Russia’s strategic doctrines are built around clearly defined thresholds, not political posturing or press statements. Should those thresholds be crossed, decisions are executed without ambiguity or hesitation.

Unlike certain Western doctrines, which entertain the notion of “limited nuclear options” to signal resolve or force de-escalation, Russia rejects partial measures. Its doctrine assumes that any attempt at a controlled nuclear gesture is fantasy — and that once the line is crossed, half-measures have no place in the calculus.

For now, Europe appears trapped between rising panic and dwindling options. As Ukraine’s battlefield situation worsens, the West’s strategies grow more improvisational and more hazardous, leaving the future of the continent — and its security architecture — increasingly uncertain.

Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

https://english.pravda.ru/world/165084-nato-eu-crisis-ukraine-defeat-analysis/

IN THE GOOD COP/BAD COP ROUTINE, TRUMP IS TRYING HARD TO PREVENT A RUSSIAN VICTORY... BY SEEKING PEACE....

IN CONTRAST, THE EUROPEANS ARE TRYING TO PREVENT A RUSSIAN VICTORY BY PROVOKING WAR...

IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT PUTIN SEES THE TRICK, BUT HE PLAYS THE GAME BY "TRUSTING" TRUMP, FOR THIS WILL BE THE FASTEST WAY TO GET WHAT HE WANTS, WHILE AVOIDING THE NUTSOES FROM EUROPE, WHO HAVE PLENTY OF BARK BUT NO BITE...

The Russian leader emphasized that American President Donald Trump follows his own political priorities just as Russia pursues its national goals. Responding to questions about U.S. tariffs and sanctions, he described the bilateral tensions as a clash of interests rather than a personal dispute.

“President Trump has his agenda and his objectives, while we focus on ours,” Putin said, stressing that Russia’s political aims are not directed against any third party but are intended to safeguard national interests.

He added that Trump’s attempts to address the conflict in Ukraine appeared genuine.

“His sincerity is genuine. I believe the United States is actively searching for a solution.”

https://english.pravda.ru/news/world/165092-putin-interview-india-today-new-delhi-visit-analysis/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

LYUBA LULKO
US Abandons Globalist Course, Calls Russia a Stabilizing Force in Revised Security Doctrine
Surprise: Washington Recasts Russia as a Pillar of Global Stability

The White House has released a new United States National Security Strategy, in which Russia is no longer described as a threat but as a guarantor of global stability.

The cessation of hostilities in Ukraine is defined in the new strategy as “a vital interest” of the United States. The document outlines several key objectives:

• to stabilize the economies of European states,
• to prevent an unintended escalation or widening of the war,
• to restore strategic stability with Russia,
• to ensure Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction so that it can survive as a viable state.

Washington accuses European governing structures of “nurturing unrealistic expectations about the war while presiding over unstable minority governments, many of which trample core democratic principles to suppress opposition.”

The document declares: “We will oppose the antidemocratic restrictions on fundamental freedoms imposed by elites in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the world, especially among our allies.”

This mirrors the criticism voiced earlier by Vice President J. D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference, where he condemned Europe for suppressing parties that represent the interests of their own populations.

Washington also argues that NATO should no longer be perceived “as an alliance that is constantly expanding,” and that the enlargement process must stop. Only then, the strategy asserts, can “the conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia” be restored.

The strategy sets out the rationale behind these dramatic changes:

• The United States can no longer bear global responsibilities “whose connection to national interests the American people do not see.”
• Previous administrations “made disastrously misguided bets on globalism and so-called ‘free trade,’ which in practice hollowed out the middle class and the industrial base on which America’s economic and military superiority depends.”
• The United States will no longer allow itself to be drawn into conflicts and disputes “that are central to the interests of allies but peripheral or wholly unrelated to our own,” the strategy states.

The document warns that the European continent is becoming “noneuropean,” calling into question NATO’s viability as an institution. This theme also appeared in Vance’s earlier remarks, in which he observed that Britain is turning into a Muslim-majority country.

The Trump administration’s “National Security Strategy” thus becomes an ideological manifesto aimed at a revolutionary reconfiguration of the world order. It is now evident that the United States no longer sees Russia as a threat and is willing to accept strategic parity and cooperation. In place of liberal internationalism, the strategy proposes pragmatic nationalism. The United States wants Europe to become “a group of united sovereign states” and does not consider Western Europe “a healthy” political entity.

The strategy also defines the framework for negotiations on Ukraine, where Washington intends to push for a rapid freezing of the conflict, while Europe must prepare to rely solely on itself and reconcile with the end of NATO enlargement. The principles outlined provide Russia with an opportunity to reshape its policy in Europe, eliminate the region’s anti-Russian orientation, and engage with the United States on equal terms.

The single caveat is that there is no guarantee the previous anti-Russian strategy will not be revived. The only factor one might hope for is the prospect of Vance coming to power for eight years after Trump, since he is evidently the author of the document.

Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

https://english.pravda.ru/world/165103-us-national-security-strategy-russia-stability-shift/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.