TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify core positions: whether Russia views current tensions as war, and its stated objectives. - Track key diplomatic milestones and proposals: Minsk, Istanbul, security guarantees, doctrine on NATO. - Capture stated justifications for actions: language rights, minority protections, UN Charter references, self-determination. - Note referenced U.S./NATO actions and perceived aims, plus Russia’s response signals (including hypersonic test). - Highlight backchannel diplomacy and statements about negotiations, including who may negotiate and under what terms. - Preserve notable claims about casualties, rhetoric around “massacres,” and contentious episodes (Bucha, Navalny). - Exclude evaluation or commentary; reproduce claims as presented. - Maintain chronological and thematic flow to reflect interview emphasis. - Keep to 556–695 words; translate if needed (English here). Summary: Lavrov states that Russia would not describe the relationship with the United States as a war, expressing a desire for normal relations with all countries, especially the United States, and noting that President Putin respects the American people, history, and achievements, while hoping for cooperation “for the sake of the universe.” He argues that Washington’s support for Ukraine amounts to active participation in a conflict with Russia and characterizes the fighting in Ukraine as a “hybrid war,” asserting Ukrainians could not use long-range, modern weapons without direct American servicemen. He contends that Western officials have suggested that “the attack is the best defense” and warns that statements by Pentagon/NATO figures about limited or even nuclear-echo threats are dangerous, insisting that red lines are being moved and that Russia did not start the war, only a “special military operation” designed to end Kyiv’s actions against Donbas. He emphasizes Russia’s readiness for peaceful solutions based on Russia’s security interests, and the protection of Russian-speaking people in Ukraine—specifically their language, religious rights, and education—rights which he says have been eroded by Ukrainian legislation since 2017 (including bans on Russian education, Russian media, Russian language, and later restrictions on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church). He invokes the UN Charter and international law, arguing that true respect for the Charter requires consideration of the right to self-determination and equal state sovereignty. He contends that referenda in Crimea led to reunification with Russia after Crimeans rejected Kyiv’s coup in 2014; Donbas, initially labeled terrorists by Kyiv, was fought over until Minsk agreements were signed in 2015, which he says were sabotaged by the post-coup Ukrainian government. He asserts that Minsk envisaged territorial integrity for Ukraine minus Crimea, with Russian language rights and local self-governance in certain Donbas areas, plus economic ties with Russia, and emphasizes that Russia offered security guarantees to Ukraine—ultimately rejected when negotiations shifted to Istanbul in April 2022. In Istanbul, Lavrov says the Ukrainian delegation proposed “principles” for peace, which Russia accepted, including non-bloc status for Ukraine and collective security guarantees that would exclude NATO. He notes Boris Johnson’s alleged encouragement to continue fighting and claims the West has pursued a line of conduct that excludes meaningful negotiation, with Zelenskyy later banning negotiations by decree and advancing a “peace formula” and a “Victory Plan.” Russia’s position remains that no NATO bases or foreign troops on Ukrainian soil are acceptable, and that any settlement must reflect the realities on the ground, including updated constitutional changes in Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye after their incorporation into the Russian Federation. Lavrov characterizes Western sanctions as unprecedented and says Russia must become more self-reliant, seeking cooperation with non-hostile states to counter sanctions. He argues that Western leaders aim to preserve a “rules-based” order that ensures U.S. dominance, pointing to NATO’s Indo-Pacific ambitions and ongoing security strategies that extend beyond Europe. He insists Russia seeks no war with anybody but warns against a presumed willingness in the United States to risk nuclear escalation, stressing that a limited or even threatened nuclear exchange would be catastrophic. He notes that backchannel communications exist but that there has been little meaningful dialogue with the Biden administration, and he observes Western fatigue with the Ukraine issue, while maintaining that Russia seeks a negotiated settlement grounded in Istanbul’s principles and in recognition of Russia’s security concerns, the rights of Russian-speaking populations, and an end to NATO expansion on Russia’s borders.

Зеленский и Путин встретились для обсуждения ситуации на Донбассе. Зеленский призывал прекратить огонь, но Макрон не реагировал. Необходимо продлить договор об особом статусе Донбасса и обсудить исполнение Минских соглашений, но нет конкретных ответов от России. Translation: Zelensky and Putin met to discuss the situation in Donbass. Zelensky called for a ceasefire, but Macron seemed indifferent. It is necessary to extend the special status agreement for Donbass and address the implementation of the Minsk agreements, but there are no specific answers from Russia.

Трамп не понимает природу украинского кризиса и не знает русской истории. Его взгляд на события после развала Советского Союза слишком упрощённый. Он считает, что может быстро закончить войну, но это невозможно. Первые переговоры между Путиным и Трампом будут критически важны, чтобы донести, что мы не прекратим военные действия без освобождения Украины от нацистского режима и полной демилитаризации. Это не просто лозунги, а наши жизненные интересы. Некоторые сторонники Трампа понимают нашу позицию и склонны поддерживать её, но есть и те, кто заинтересован в продолжении войны. Ситуация сложная, и не стоит надеяться на быстрое разрешение конфликта. --- Trump does not understand the nature of the Ukrainian crisis and lacks knowledge of Russian history. His view of events after the Soviet Union's collapse is overly simplistic. He believes he can quickly end the war, but this is impossible. Initial negotiations between Putin and Trump will be crucial to convey that we will not cease military actions without liberating Ukraine from the Nazi regime and complete demilitarization. These are not just slogans, but our vital interests. Some of Trump's supporters understand our position and are inclined to support it, but others benefit from the continuation of the war. The situation is complex, and one should not expect a quick resolution to the conflict.

Good afternoon. I ask you to convene here today to inform you about how the negotiations are going on on the Ukrainian crisis and how the negotiations are developing in the bilateral format with the Ukrainian delegation in one way or another. And two, I'd like to inform you about at what stage we are currently with the American administration. We know that they are taking quite vigorous and sincere efforts to put an end to the hostilities, to put an end to this crisis, and to reach an agreement that would be of interest for all the parties involved in this conflict to ensure durable conditions for peace between our countries and in Europe in general and globally as well. If the next stage would be agreement about strategic offensive weapons, that's what I wanted to say in the beginning.

Russia and the U.S. are politically aligned, confronting "brown heirs of Hitler's Germany" in Europe. The speaker suggests the U.S. send an official representative to Moscow's Victory Day parade, and proposes that if Europe continues to "humiliate" Trump, he should either bless Russia's "special military operation" or pressure Europe to unblock $100 billion of frozen Russian assets as an initial settlement. The speaker suggests using part of the money to purchase Boeing airliners. They also propose restoring direct flights between Moscow and Washington, and returning seized Russian diplomatic property. The speaker claims Zelenskyy opposes Trump's administration and that Ursula von der Leyen is the "new leader of militarism in Europe," hatching plans to rearm Europe. The speaker references Maria Zakharova's statement that Germany providing long-range missiles to Ukraine would be direct participation in the war. The speaker believes Trump will be blamed if the Ukrainian direction is unsuccessful and must be tough in implementing his goals. The speaker believes Trump is saving Ukraine, referencing a closed session of the Verkhovna Rada where the head of Ukrainian intelligence said Ukraine faces serious threats if there is no negotiation process by the summer. Trump stated that the U.S. will no longer provide military support to Ukraine.

America's strength lies in diplomacy, which we are pursuing with the current president. Russia occupied parts of Ukraine back in 2014, and despite numerous conversations and ceasefire agreements, they continued attacks. My administration is trying to prevent the destruction of your country. Everyone faces challenges during war, but you need to appreciate the support you're receiving. We've provided substantial financial and military aid. If you had to fight this war on your own, it would have been over in two weeks. Be thankful. It's important for the American people to see what's happening. Without our support, you don't have a chance. We gave you javelins, not just sheets. I have empowered you, but without us, you're vulnerable. Make a deal, or we're out. You're not acting thankful at all.

We are open to dialogue with the new US administration regarding the Ukrainian conflict. The key is to address the root causes of the conflict. The aim should not be a temporary ceasefire or a chance to regroup, but a lasting peace that respects the lawful interests of all people and nationalities in the region. We will advocate for the interests of Russia and its people, which is the primary objective of the special military operation.

Larry: Lavrov claimed Ukraine attempted to attack Putin’s official residence in Novgorod with around 91 long-range drones in December; allegedly all intercepted, no proof provided, no reported injuries or damage. Lavrov said retaliation is coming, targets for retaliatory strikes and timing had been set. Putin supposedly mentioned this on a call to Trump two days before the Zelensky meeting in Florida; Yuri, a Kremlin aide, said Putin was shocked and outraged, and that it would influence Washington’s approach to working with Zelensky. Russians claim Trump was relieved that no Tomahawk missiles were provided to Ukraine. No US confirmation; Trump described the meeting with Putin as very productive, and discussions included the temporary ceasefire not being an option. Budanov had suggested it wouldn’t be the first assassination attempt on Putin, but the most consequential due to timing. The question posed: who is the target—Ukraine, Zelensky, Budanov—or a Russian false flag to justify attacks and derail negotiations. Speaker 1: Timelines. The attack allegedly began the night of the 28th and continued into the 29th. The Russians say it was an attack on one of Putin’s residences, described as terrorism. Putin hasn’t lived at his residences for three years, using the Kremlin instead, but this is not the first Ukrainian attempt to target Putin; there was a proposed attack when he flew into Kursk by helicopter. Russians are upset that this attack had no military objective, only potential assassination, and they know Putin wasn’t there. The Russians view it as real and plan to respond; Lavrov indicated that negotiations would be reexamined. Budanov claims Ukrainian intelligence has targeted Putin multiple times; the attack timing coincides with Zelensky in Florida, suggesting possible rifts or risk of undermining negotiations. The possibility of Western (American or British) intelligence involvement is raised, with speculation about CIA influence or European intelligence, particularly Britain’s MI6, given its Ukrainian roots. The question remains whether the attack was staged to derail negotiations or a genuine strike. Larry: If Ukraine did this, why would they? Ukraine might want to eliminate an obstacle to peace, though that could backfire; some argue Putin is more restrained than any immediate successor. If 91 drones were launched, Western intelligence would likely be involved, possibly undermining Trump’s approach. There is a sense of mixed messages from U.S. intelligence, with individuals like Susan Miller pushing claims of Russian interference that contradict other narratives. Zelensky stated no territory would be ceded as part of negotiations; Russia’s position is that Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk must be permanently part of the Russian Federation, elections must occur in Ukraine before negotiations, NATO must be out of Ukraine, and demilitarization is non-negotiable. Russia suggests there will be no 800,000-man army; these conditions are not open for negotiation. Russia may be willing to discuss numbers of troops for Ukraine, but not to concede core territorial goals. Speaker 0: If CIA or other elements were behind this, could it be to undermine Trump or push for a peace deal by pressuring Putin? Putin showed up in uniform with the military leadership, signaling a hard stance on land/territory, stating that negotiations should proceed without ceasing. Some argue this would trigger a stronger Russian push, while others see this as undermining Trump’s efforts. Trump and Zelensky had discussed a peace plan with 90-95% agreement, with a few thorny issues, possibly territorial. Trump characterized their call as productive; Russia reportedly agreed to support Ukraine postwar with discounted energy and resources. Lavrov’s rapid response to the attack and the potential retaliation would affect ongoing negotiations, which some view as already derailed due to Ukraine’s intransigence on concessions. Speaker 1: Could European intelligence be involved? Britain’s MI6 is seen as critical; there is a suggestion that British intelligence could have acted without American consultation. This would strain relations with Trump, especially after new security strategy. The transcript also notes a broader shift in Western posture: some European leaders are pushing for stronger defense and a more independent European stance, which might influence the dynamic around negotiations and intelligence actions. Speaker 0: Zelensky’s Christmas remark, “may he perish,” followed by an attack on Putin’s residence, prompts questions about who’s pulling Zelensky’s strings. Zelensky is described as the “highest paid actor in the world” with large sums allegedly pilfered from Ukraine’s aid; Zelensky could be expendable to those steering Ukraine’s direction. The meeting in Mar-a-Lago between Zelensky, Trump, and others occurred while the Putin residence attack was underway, suggesting an attempt to undermine negotiations. Budanov’s connection to the CIA and potential independent actions by Ukrainian intelligence raise further concerns about internal Ukrainian divisions. Speaker 1: Russia’s potential retaliation could target Ukrainian intelligence assets like the SBU headquarters in Kyiv, or European assets inside Ukraine if evidence points to Western involvement. Russia’s current military actions include continuing strikes on power infrastructure, with movements in Zaporizhzhia and around Kherson, indicating an axis of attack. Independently, Russia claims significant ground progress; Ukraine counters with claims of selective advances by Russia and a favorable propaganda edge for Ukraine. The battlefield metrics show Russia increasing manpower and maintaining multiple axes of attack, with eight or more fronts, while Ukrainian recoveries of bodies show a ratio suggesting heavy Ukrainian losses. Speaker 0: The conversation ends with expectations for retaliation, possible new European involvement, and the enduring fear that negotiations remain unsettled. The next days could reveal more about who is behind the attack, how Russia responds, and whether a path to peace remains possible, given the conflicting narratives and competing strategic interests.

We are involved in Ukraine, supporting democracy. Negotiating restructuring the government for opposition voices. Truce broken by sniper shooting, suspected to be from new coalition. Concerns about lack of investigation into sniper attacks on both sides.

Russia is summoning the US ambassador to hold the United States accountable for attacks on Crimea, threatening punishment. This follows reports of Putin threatening US territories, according to Russian news. Russia is requesting dialogue with the US to discuss nuclear war and de-escalation. Russia is considering changing its nuclear doctrine to allow preemptive attacks if threatened. Putin also says Russia will potentially deliver weapons to North Korea and other US enemies due to the US, Ukraine, and Russia situation. This news comes as US members of Congress are reportedly saying this is an overdrive.

Since leaving Russia, we've observed the Biden administration escalating tensions with Moscow, bringing the U.S. closer to nuclear conflict than ever before, even more so than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The U.S. military has engaged in actions that have resulted in Russian casualties, yet most Americans remain unaware of the situation. There are no diplomatic channels currently open between the U.S. and Russia, as Secretary of State Tony Blinken has severed all communication. Efforts to interview Ukrainian President Zelensky have been blocked by the U.S. government, despite attempts to gain insight into the conflict. We returned to Moscow to interview Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to understand the current state of U.S.-Russia relations and the potential for conflict resolution. Stay tuned for that interview.

Die Sprecherin kündigt an, dass heute ein weiteres Telefonat mit Präsident Trump geführt wird, und betont, dass sie sich gemeinsam mit der US-Regierung intensiv auf ein europäisches Treffen vorbereitet. Sie hofft, dass Präsident Selenskyj an diesem Treffen beteiligt wird. Es wird betont, dass über Territorialfragen zwischen Russland und Amerika nicht hinter dem Rücken Europas oder der Ukraine entschieden werden darf; darauf wird eine enge Abstimmung mit den USA verwiesen. Es wird erläutert, dass europäische Sicherheit nicht weiter von Russland bedroht werden darf und kein Frieden einen russischen Aggressionsakt belohnen darf. Die Botschaft lautet, dass es Konsequenzen geben muss – entweder durch erhöhten Druck auf Russland oder durch Einsicht, dass der Krieg nicht fortgesetzt werden kann. Es wird Dank für den engen Dialog mit den Amerikanern ausgesprochen, und was am Freitag in Alaska passiert ist, soll nicht unbeantwortet bleiben. The speaker announces that she will have another phone call with President Trump today, and emphasizes that she and the U.S. government are intensively preparing for a European-level meeting. She hopes that President Zelenskyy will participate in this meeting. It is stressed that discussions about territorial issues between Russia and the United States must not be held behind Europe’s or Ukraine’s backs; there is close coordination with the United States. It is explained that European security must not be further threatened by Russia and that no peace should reward Russian aggression. The message is that consequences must follow—either through increased pressure on Russia or through the realization that the war cannot continue. Gratitude is expressed for the close dialogue with the Americans, and what happened Friday in Alaska should not go unanswered.

US officials are discussing events in Ukraine, including brokering a future government with UN involvement. Private diplomatic conversations are common, but public statements reflect US government positions. There are differing opinions on including certain individuals in the government. Discussions are ongoing about the best approach moving forward.

**Speaker 0:** It's an honor to have President Zelenskyy of Ukraine here. We've had a long and productive relationship, including navigating a negotiation that benefited both our countries and the world. We're committed to working together, especially in rare earth initiatives. I've also had positive discussions with President Putin and we're striving to end the war in Ukraine. The loss of life on both sides is tragic, and we want to redirect resources to rebuilding. My administration is actively engaging with Russia, unlike the previous one. If I were president earlier, this war wouldn't have happened. We've provided significant equipment to Ukraine, and their soldiers have shown incredible bravery. We aim to finalize a deal soon and look forward to signing an agreement. **Speaker 1:** Thank you for the invitation. I hope this document is a step towards real security guarantees for Ukraine. Continued American support is crucial. I want to discuss security guarantees, drone production, and air defense. We're ready to share our drone licenses and need air defense licenses in return to protect our nation. The support from Europe is welcome, but the United States' strength is vital. We also need help bringing back the 20,000 Ukrainian children stolen and relocated to Russia. I also wanted to show some images of Ukrainian prisoners and how they have been tortured.

**Original Language Summary:** Президент Байден сильно обеспокоен коррупцией в Украине и требует ее решения, иначе оружие не будет поставляться. Он постоянно говорит, что если ситуацию не взять под контроль, то он найдет виновных. Союзники хотят, чтобы во время войны боролись с коррупцией, чтобы образ украинцев был чистым: ни коррупции, ни расизма, ни гомофобии. Без коррупции вся администрация развалится, потому что все хотят заработать, особенно сейчас. Каждый ворует деньги и является частью коррупции. Никто не будет заниматься войной за деньги. Шульц и поляки тоже создают проблемы. **English Translation:** President Biden is very concerned about corruption in Ukraine and demands a solution, otherwise weapons will not be supplied. He keeps saying that if the situation is not brought under control, he will find those responsible. Allies want corruption to be fought during the war so that the image of Ukrainians is clean: no corruption, no racism, no homophobia. Without corruption, the entire administration would collapse because everyone wants to make money, especially now. Everyone steals money and is part of the corruption. No one will wage war for money. Scholz and the Poles are also creating problems.

**Original Language Summary:** Сегодня на повестке дня восстановление российско-американских отношений. Новая администрация Трампа пытается восстановить то, что было уничтожено прежней администрацией. Состоялся телефонный разговор с Президентом Трампом, контакты Министра иностранных дел и встреча помощника Президента России с визави. Также было отмечено обращение Президента Трампа пощадить жизни украинских военнослужащих, заблокированных российскими войсками в Курской области, где украинские боевики совершили преступления против гражданского населения, квалифицируемые как терроризм. В случае сдачи в плен украинским военнослужащим будет гарантирована жизнь и достойное обращение. Для этого необходим приказ украинского военно-политического руководства о сдаче в плен. **English Translation:** Today's agenda focuses on restoring Russian-American relations. The new Trump administration is trying to rebuild what the previous administration destroyed. There was a phone call with President Trump, contacts between the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and a meeting between the Russian President's aide and their counterpart. Also noted was President Trump's appeal to spare the lives of Ukrainian soldiers blocked by Russian troops in the Kursk region, where Ukrainian militants committed crimes against civilians, classified as terrorism. If Ukrainian soldiers surrender, their lives and humane treatment will be guaranteed. This requires an order from the Ukrainian military-political leadership to surrender.

Говорящий заявил, что послал сигналы — позитивные и острые — лидерам США и Европы. Он честно и откровенно изложил ситуацию и свои взгляды, без цели угодить. Обсуждались проблемы поставок новых дальнобойных систем оружия, в том числе томагавки. «Я же сказал, что это приведёт к разрушению наших отношений, во всяком случае, наметившихся позитивных тенденций в этих отношениях.» Исход зависит не только от нас и не только от меня. The speaker stated that he sent signals — positive and sharp — to the leaders of the US and Europe. He spoke openly about the situation and his views, with no aim to please anyone. The discussion involved deliveries of new long-range weapons, including the Tomahawks. 'I said that this would lead to the destruction of our relations, at least the positive trends in these relations.' The outcome depends not only on us and not only on me.

Вопрос о возможной встрече с президентом США Трампом и украинском урегулировании остается актуальным. Россия не отказывалась от контактов с США, хотя предыдущая администрация их избегала. Трамп и я имели деловые, доверительные отношения. Если бы он был президентом в 2020 году, возможно, кризиса в Украине удалось бы избежать. Однако его администрация также вводила санкции против России, что не способствовало интересам обеих стран. Мы открыты к переговорам по украинской проблематике, но действующий запрет на переговоры со стороны Киева создает препятствия. Существуют точки соприкосновения между нашими странами в вопросах стратегической стабильности и экономики. Мы готовы к диалогу, но это зависит от выбора американской администрации. --- The question of a possible meeting with President Trump and the Ukrainian settlement remains relevant. Russia has not refused contacts with the US, although the previous administration avoided them. Trump and I had business, trusting relations. If he had been president in 2020, the crisis in Ukraine might have been avoided. However, his administration also imposed sanctions on Russia, which did not serve the interests of both countries. We are open to negotiations on the Ukrainian issue, but the current ban on negotiations from Kyiv creates obstacles. There are points of convergence between our countries on strategic stability and economic issues. We are ready for dialogue, but this depends on the choice of the American administration.

The discussion centers on how US officials handle diplomacy publicly and privately, particularly in relation to Ukraine. Speaker 0 notes that US officials talk about world issues because that's part of diplomatic work, and mentions that the secretary met with the opposition and stopped by a meeting with the foreign minister. He says it’s up to the people of Ukraine, including officials from both sides, to determine the path forward, but indicates that there should be no surprise that discussions about events on the ground are taking place. Speaker 1 counters that this is more than discussions, describing it as “two top US officials that are on the ground discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government and bringing officials from the UN to kind of seal the deal.” They suggest this signals that the US is “midwifing the process,” not merely offering suggestions, and imply private diplomacy is aiming to shape a post-conflict outcome with UN involvement. Speaker 0 acknowledges that private diplomatic conversations happen and involve deliberations about what involvement the UN can have and what engagement should occur on the ground. He says such discussions shouldn’t be surprising and that there is a range of options under consideration, including private interagency process discussions and what is conveyed publicly as US policy. Speaker 2 challenges this by arguing it’s not honest to claim there is no opinion and that the process is entirely up to the people of Ukraine. They point to Egypt as a counterexample, asserting that there is a public stance that differs from private discussions. Speaker 0 distinguishes between private conversations within the interagency process and what is publicly conveyed as US policy. He asserts a responsibility to convey the government’s position while also noting that a range of options are being discussed. Speaker 1 presses the distinction further, asking what happens behind closed doors when private deals are discussed versus publicly stating that the decision lies with Ukrainians. They emphasize the perceived difference between privately “cooking up a deal” and publicly acknowledging Ukrainian decision-making. Speaker 0 concludes by saying they would disagree with Speaker 1, arguing that they are overstating and overqualifying a few minutes of a privately recorded phone call.

I addressed the main points from today's meeting, particularly regarding our domestic drone production, which is showing promising progress. We're carefully assessing the support we receive from various international partners, including the US and Europe, to ensure our defensive capabilities remain strong under any circumstances. Our forces in the Donetsk region are doing a commendable job holding back enemy assaults. Our troops have also maintained a presence in the buffer zone within Russia's Kursk region for almost seven months. Looking ahead, our team is in talks with the US, with meetings planned for this Friday. These discussions are vital for securing continued support and guarantees for peace and security. Meeting with President Trump is crucial to ensure American aid remains steadfast. I also spoke with the Prime Minister of Portugal, coordinating our efforts with our European partners, because Europe's involvement in diplomatic efforts is paramount. I signed decrees to honor those defending Ukraine, including Iryna Tsybuk, posthumously recognized as a Hero of Ukraine.

As of right now, there is no ceasefire in place, and we've seen Russia continue its attacks on Ukraine. The question is what indications the president is getting from Putin that he wants to have this meeting with Zelensky soon, because he spoke to him directly yesterday. And he expressed that rather He than spoke to that directly yesterday, and the president put that in his statement that he gave to all of you, the news media, knowing you'd be asking following that conversation in the effort of transparency. The remark references a direct contact yesterday and a statement issued to the media in the effort of transparency.

Russia occupied parts of Ukraine, including Crimea, starting in 2014. During the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, no one stopped him as people died on the contact line. In 2019, I signed a ceasefire deal with Macron, Merkel, and him, but he broke it, killing people and not exchanging prisoners. We need diplomacy to end the destruction of Ukraine. We have problems during the war, like everyone else. We are staying strong and thankful for the support, but we are not winning. You have given us billions of dollars in military equipment. I have said thank you many times to the American people. We want to stop the war, but we want a ceasefire with guarantees. Ask our people about a ceasefire. Obama gave us sheets, but Trump gave us javelins. Without your support, we have no cards.

It's surprising that a call between Trump and Putin occurred, and even more so that negotiations were discussed as the meeting concluded, leaving many unable to react. This raises concerns that Trump and Putin might reach agreements without considering the interests of Ukraine and Europe. This development comes after the new US Defense Minister, Pete Haxhes, during his visit, stated firmly that US troops would not participate in security arrangements in Ukraine. The US also doesn't believe that NATO membership is a realistic outcome of negotiations. Haxhes dismissed Ukraine's hopes of regaining all occupied territories, including Crimea, calling it unrealistic.