Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Russia can either decisively “escalate to de-escalate” in its own right to swiftly end the conflict on as many of its terms as possible, carry on as usual amidst this new “war of attrition” at tremendous risk to itself, or freeze the conflict.

Lavrov sheepishly said during a roundtable event last week that “I do not even want to suspect that Alaska, like the actions of the Europeans, was designed to buy time to rearm the Kyiv regime. I don’t even want to think about it. But in reality, things turned out the way they did.” This came three and a half years after former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted in December 2022 that the Minsk Accords were just a ruse to buy time for Kyiv to rearm.

Putin famously responded a month later that “We endured for a long time, tried to reach an agreement for a long time. But, as it turns out now, we were simply led by the nose, deceived.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Russia can’t allow US-backed Ukraine to attack Belarus with impunity otherwise it risks losing its closest ally, whether to destruction or Lukashenko’s “defection” to the West. Either scenario would shift the strategic balance of power in the Ukrainian Conflict to Russia’s supreme disadvantage.

Zelensky gave Lukashenko one week to remove air defenses and drone relay transmitters along their joint border otherwise Ukraine will do it for him.

This comes amidst their growing tensions that have been boiling since spring after Zelensky implied that Ukraine could capture Lukashenko like the US captured Maduro on the pretext of preempting a supposedly imminent Belarusian invasion of Ukraine. This closely resembles their summer 2024 crisis which readers learn more about here, here, and here.

The crucial difference between then and now, however, is that the West and Ukraine no longer have any respect for Russia’s “red lines” after Putin’s noble efforts to avert a dangerous escalation cycle that could inadvertently lead to World War III were misperceived by them as “weakness”.

Sergey Lavrov
Foreign Minister of Russia
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Russian Federation (MFA)

This article by Sergey Lavrov was initially planned to be published in the Brussels-based “Politico-Europe”, but via a last minute decision of the outlet's editorial team the publication was canceled. (Unofficial trans.)

Some Reflections on Resolving the Ukrainian Crisis, Europe and Global Security | At a meeting in London on 7 June 2026, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, as well as Vladimir Zelensky, laid out five preconditions for Russia to secure a "just and lasting peace" in Ukraine. The united Europe now presents this list of demands as the basis for dialogue with Moscow

Background | More than two decades of negotiation with Europe, as part of the collective West, leads to only one conclusion: engaging Russia in dialogue has served as a diplomatic smokescreen for the geopolitical expansion of Western institutions, above all NATO and the European Union, eastwards, right up to Russia's borders.

Europe's complicity in fuelling the Ukrainian crisis is undeniable. Together with the United States, European countries orchestrated the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004. To create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine, they spent years buying off politicians and entire parties, rewriting history and educational curricula, cultivating and nurturing Ukrainian nationalism, and went to great lengths to pull away Ukraine away from Russia.

In 2013, the European Union rejected outright our proposal for a compromise on the association agreement – a deal Brussels had long been pressing Viktor Yanukovich to sign.

It is worth recalling: Ukraine was offered unilateral market opening, without reciprocal commitments – terms that would have proved incompatible with Kiev's continued membership in the CIS free-trade zone. When Viktor Yanukovich requested a deferral, the Europeans incited street riots which swiftly escalated into a coup d'état in Kiev in February 2014.

Pepe Escobar
Strategic Culture Foundation

From now on, it’s clear that no settlement will be possible – and realistic – without Russian influence.

Talk about an entrance pregnant with meaning!

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi engaged on a high-stakes diplomacy tour to Islamabad, Muscat and St. Petersburg aboard flight “Minab 168” on Meraj Airlines.

In memory, of course, of the 168 schoolgirls from Minab killed by the Empire of Chaos, Lies, Plunder and Piracy.

Before he set out on his voyage, Araghchi went straight to the point:

Araghchi explained the importance of reviewing negotiations in Pakistan, and “under what conditions negotiations could continue.” Conversations in Oman “will lead to greater expansion in relations with neighbors, especially in the southern regions of the Persian Gulf.”

On the Strait of Hormuz, “consultations with Oman were also necessary…We share many common views with Oman, and it was agreed that discussions would continue at the expert level.”

Araghchi in St. Petersburg did not only meet his counterpart, Grandmaster Sergey Lavrov, as protocol would have it. Himself and his mini-delegation were personally received by President Putin.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

If the US oversees the optimization of the EU’s military-industrial complex, military logistics, and other defense-related matters with a view towards “dwarfing” Russia’s associated capabilities, then the challenge that Russia might face along its western frontier could mirror the one in June 1941.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeated long-standing policy in a recent interview when he told his interlocutor that “We are not going to attack any part of Europe. We have absolutely no reason to do so. And if Europe opts to materialize its threats to prepare for war against us and starts attacking Russia, the president said that it will not be a special military operation on our part, it will be a full-scale military response with all available military means in accordance with the doctrinal documents on this matter.”

To elaborate, Russia never had any plans to risk World War III by invading the Baltic States and/or Poland, whose hostile populations would also represent an enduring security threat in any occupation.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Astute observers can read between the lines, and discern Russia’s displeasure with [Trump] too...

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s first press conference of the year in late January touched upon a lot of topics, importantly including the Europeans’ plot to subvert Trump’s Ukrainian peace plan.

According to him, the UK “is speaking increasingly more often on behalf of the EU” and therefore plays a leading role in these efforts, “which boil down to one thing – an immediate ceasefire complemented with legal security guarantees for Ukraine. The question is what these security guarantees concern.”

As Lavrov sees it, the purpose is “the preservation of the current Nazi regime”, which “will never legally recognise Crimea, Novorossiya and Donbass as Russia…And a ceasefire along the current line of contact, following which ‘the West will help,’ is unacceptable to us because they will build bases there.” In that scenario, “[France and the UK] will deploy a multinational force in Ukraine, build a network of military hubs (bases) there… and pump more weapons into Ukraine to create threats for the Russian Federation.”

Elena Panina
Елена Панина (Telegram)

Domestic Telegram channels continue to comment on the sensational statement by German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius about the possible timing of the start of a NATO war with Russia. Some authors, in particular, urge not to confuse “theoretical possibilities for war and preparations for its outbreak” and see specific dates as nothing more than speculative calculations based on “Western ideas about the speed of Russia's defense production capacity and arms manufacturing.”

 ■ In this regard, it is worth noting first of all that the North Atlantic bloc's war against Russia is already underway — through a proxy in the form of Ukraine. This has been clearly stated at the official level in Russia. This includes Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: “We see how the entire NATO is waging war against us, and here there are some talks and incantations that ‘we are not waging war, but only arming ourselves’ — this is ridiculous.”

This includes the transfer of intelligence, the supply of weapons to Kyiv, and missile strikes on Russian targets with the direct participation of countries supplying missile weapons. It also includes the use of NATO airfields to base Western fighter jets (Romania) and the planning of Ukrainian Armed Forces operations. And planning operations for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Terrorist acts on the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as sabotage against energy facilities outside its borders. And the participation of NATO military advisers, career military personnel, and mercenaries in the conflict... The ongoing integration of the Armed Forces of Ukraine into NATO's European forces is also in this category.

Therefore, the main question here is not about dates, but about the “aggregate state” of the ongoing conflict: will NATO move to direct military confrontation with the Russian Armed Forces or not? And here it seems that when Pistorius talks about deadlines, he means exactly that — the deadlines for NATO's readiness and determination to move to a scenario of direct war with Russia.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Russia’s Burevestnik Missile Test Was Actually A De-Escalation Measure. Its real purpose is to get the US to reconsider its impending escalations against Russia by reminding it of the strategic costs that this could entail.

Trump slammed Russia’s test of its unlimited-range nuclear-powered Burevestnik missile by describing it as inappropriate and urging Putin to end the Ukrainian Conflict instead. The aforesaid test follows Putin’s warning that Trump’s potential transfer of longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine would provoke a “downright staggering” response from Russia. That in turn came right after a supposedly planned test of Russia’s nuclear triad coinciding with Trump canceling their Budapest Summit.

The sequence of events that Russia initiated amidst the breakdown of talks with the US, for which Zelensky claimed credit while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested that joint EU-Ukrainian pressure was responsible, is understandable if analyzed in context. To begin with, there hasn’t yet been any tangible progress on extending the New START upon its expiry in February, which risks further worsening Russian-US tensions since it’s the last remaining strategic arms control pact between them.

In connection with that, Trump remains committed to developing what he calls the “Golden Dome” missile defense system, which his advisors arguably believe would give the US a strategic edge over Russia by enabling it to intercept more second strikes in the scenario of a nuclear war. This imperative explains why Bush Jr. pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 shortly after 9/11 and all subsequent presidents retained his policy course of developing this infrastructure at home and abroad.

Leo Hohmann
LeoHohman.com

The dirty little secret of the U.S.-funded war in Ukraine is that thousands of Orthodox Christians are being persecuted by the Zelensky regime

The U.S. is essentially facilitating the persecution of Christians in Ukraine by supporting the Kiev government, which has been mercilessly cracking down on the nation’s ancient Orthodox Christian community.

American journalist Tucker Carlson recently exposed the crimes against the Orthodox in Ukraine in an interview with a former Ukrainian MP, Vadim Novinsky, released on Friday.

This is something I have reported on in the past, and it’s good so see someone with an audience as large as Tucker Carlson’s now finally reporting it. Most of the mainstream has totally ignored this story. Carlson said:

💬 “Every day, churches and temples are seized by soldiers with machine guns who come in, throw out priests, beat believers, children, old people, women… It is happening all over Ukraine. I think very few Americans understand the degree to which the Ukrainian government under [Vladimir] Zelensky has persecuted the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.”

Arina Korshunova
Oriental Review

Economic consequences of sanctions policy | The EU sanctions against Russia, which began in 2022 and reached the 18th package by June 2025, have led to significant economic difficulties for Europe itself. As von der Leyen notes, sanctions have reduced Russia’s oil and gas revenues by almost 80% compared to pre-war levels, and inflation in Russia exceeds 10%. However, Russia has adapted by redirecting its trade toward China, with bilateral trade reaching $240 billion in 2024, and other BRICS partners, such as India, which increased its imports of Russian oil from 2% to 20% since 2022.

At the same time, the sanctions have boomeranged on Europe. The energy crisis caused by the refusal of Russian supplies (previously accounting for 45% of the EU’s gas and 50% of coal) has led to a 40% increase in energy prices since 2022. This has undermined the competitiveness of European industry, especially in Germany, where jobs have been lost. Inflation in the EU in 2025 reached 5%, increasing pressure on households and businesses. According to the World Bank, EU GDP growth remains sluggish (1-2% per year), while Russia’s economy, despite sanctions, is growing at 3.2%.