By Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com, 4/29/25

Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to demand full control of four Ukrainian oblasts claimed by Russia as a condition for a potential peace deal, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.

The report said that President Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, sought to convince Putin to drop the demand and agree to a ceasefire that froze the current battle lines, but the Russian leader declined and maintained his demand for complete control of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.

The Financial Times reported last week that Putin was willing to freeze the current battle lines for a peace deal, but the Kremlin quickly signaled that this wasn’t the case.

Ukraine has also appeared to reject the conditions of a US proposal for a potential peace deal. The Bloomberg report said that negotiations are now at an impasse as an agreement seems less and less likely.

When Russian and Ukrainian officials held peace talks in the early days of Russia’s invasion in 2022, Russia’s main demand was for Ukrainian neutrality. Those efforts were discouraged by the US, and later that year, Russia declared its annexation of the four Ukrainian oblasts and added the recognition of that territory as Russia to its demands to end the war.

Since Russia has the momentum on the battlefield, it’s unlikely that it would accept a peace deal with terms dictated by the US. If the negotiations fall apart, it remains unclear if the Trump administration would continue fueling the war by arming Ukraine. As time goes on, the terms of a settlement will likely get less favorable for Ukraine.

On Monday, Russia declared a three-day ceasefire starting on May 8, but Ukraine rejected the idea and proposed a 30-day truce. Russia has dismissed the Ukrainian counteroffer and is casting doubt on whether the three-day ceasefire will hold.

***

Moscow ready to seek ‘balance of interests’ with Ukraine and US – Lavrov

RT, 4/27/25

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has rebuked CBS host in an interview on Sunday repeating that Moscow is ready to seek a “balance of interests” both with Ukraine and with the US. The network’s journalist Margaret Brennan has said that she haven’t heard from the top diplomat that Moscow “is willing to make any concession on anything to date.”

“No, my brief answer is you are wrong,” Lavrov told Brennan.

“I have been emphasizing repeatedly, in relation to Ukraine, in relation to strategic relations with the United States, I have been emphasizing our readiness to seek balance of interests. If- if this is not what your station considers readiness for negotiations, then I don’t know how to be even less eloquent in trying to be brief in my answers,” he added.

Lavrov confirmed that Russia is continuing contacts with Washington regarding Ukraine and welcomed US President Donald Trump’s efforts to mediate.

“There are several signs that we are moving in the right direction,” Lavrov said. He emphasized that Russia demands guarantees that any ceasefire “would not be used again to beef up Ukrainian military” and that arms supplies to Ukraine should stop.

Russian President Vladimir Putin held lengthy talks on Friday with US special envoy Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin. Presidential adviser Yury Ushakov described the meeting as “constructive and very useful,” adding that the discussion touched on the idea of resuming direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev.

Trump, commenting on the state of the negotiations, said Ukraine and Russia “should now meet, at very high levels, to ‘finish it off.’ Most of the major points are agreed to.”

In the interview, Lavrov reiterated Russia’s position on Crimea, stating, “Russia does not negotiate [over] its own territory,” and praised President Trump for acknowledging the peninsula’s status.

Crimea “will stay with Russia” in any peace deal, Trump told Time Magazine in an article published on Friday. He said that even Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky understands this. “It’s been with them [Russia] for a long time,” the US president stated, noting that Russia had its submarines there “long before any period that we’re talking about” and that the majority of Crimeans speak Russian.

Russian officials have repeatedly said that Moscow is open to a negotiated solution, but have emphasized that any agreement must reflect the territorial realities on the ground and address the root causes of the conflict.

Zelensky insisted on Wednesday that Kiev would never officially recognize Crimea as Russian. Trump sharply rebuked that statement as “very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia in that Crimea was lost years ago.”

By Stephen Bryen, Asia Times, 4/15/25

Is a partition plan a realistic outcome for ending the Ukraine war. General Keith Kellogg’s proposal appears to have already encountered difficulties. However, that does not mean that some type of partition is out of the question.

Kellogg’s “plan” would carve up Ukraine into four zones

-British, French, and Ukrainian troops, with the potential for others to join, would make up the first zone, western Ukraine. That zone would stretch from the Polish border to the Dnieper river.

-The second zone. East of the Dnieper would be under Ukrainian control, defended by Ukraine’s army.

-A third zone would be a buffer area with a depth of 18 miles.

-A fourth zone would include the Russian “occupied areas” including Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaphorize, Kherson and Crimea. The Kellogg plan does not address the actual boundaries.

The Russians have already said, referring to Kellogg’s plan, that putting NATO or NATO-state soldiers in Ukraine is unacceptable.

The Kellogg plan leaves the juridical status of the areas with Russian troops unclear and it leaves Ukraine’s army at full strength. One implication of the plan is that the war could re-start at any time.

Taking a step back, it is worth asking what the Russians’ end game may be and the likelihood they will achieve it.

The first and clearly the most important point is that the Russians are attempting to restore their relationship with Washington and want to persuade President Trump to support the immediate Russian goal of legitimizing those territories Kellogg puts into the fourth zone.

Were Trump to accede to Russia’s territorial objectives, essentially granting de jure legitimacy status to the Russian territorial gains in the war, it would be highly controversial in Congress. Trump would face censure for acquiescing in an illegal invasion of Ukraine.

This is more problematic than Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, where the US simply left by pulling out its forces. While the Taliban took over as the pro-US Afghan government disintegrated, the US did not recognize the new government or offer any overt concessions to it. Today, the US maintains an Afghan affairs office in Doha, Qatar, but has no diplomatic relations with Afghanistan.

The Kellogg plan is not, despite his statements, like the Berlin agreement. People remember that at the end of World War II, the Allies divided Germany into four zones – the US, UK, France and Russia. Similarly, the Allies split Berlin, Germany’s capital within the Soviet zone, into four sectors (though the US, British, and French sectors later merged).

The background of the German partitioning came about because of serious disagreements among the allies over Germany’s future and a shift in the outlook of the US and UK, who saw Germany as a geopolitical asset and the USSR as a threat.

For Ukraine, officially the conflict is between Ukraine and Russia, with third parties (especially NATO) supporting Ukraine with arms, advisers, technical support, training, supplies, financial aid and intelligence. Unlike Ukraine, the Russians have been mostly on their own, although China has helped them under the table – as has North Korea, even supplying a few thousand soldiers.

Russia’s major advantage is a significant military-industrial base and a large recruitment pool for soldiers. Ukraine, on its own, would have long since disappeared: It is entirely a creature of NATO from a support and resources point of view.

Those differences aside, some kind of partitioning of Ukrainian territory is not out of the question in the future. It could be an outcome under some circumstances that are by no means far-fetched.

Looked at along a timeline where the negotiations either fail or drag out without resolution – which may be convenient for the United States and for the Russians, especially if Trump and Putin can’t find a mutually acceptable formula and the Zelensky government continues to act in the mode of enfant terrible – the Russians may be successful in defeating Ukraine’s army on the battlefield.

Short of that dramatic result, they may destroy a significant part of the Ukrainian army in the field – precipitating a real crisis in Kyiv. Zelensky, who cannot really negotiate with Russia (assuming he actually wanted to do so), would face an enormous risk keeping his government in Kyiv.

Facing the prospect of either being captured by the Russians or being replaced by extreme nationalists in the army and intelligence services, Zelensky may find it convenient to retreat to the west, potentially establishing a Ukrainian government in Lvov, which is far enough away from Russia to be considered more or less secure.

With a new government in Kyiv, likely pro-Russian, Ukraine would be practically partitioned. Essentially, Kellogg’s Zone 1 would become the Zelensky-led Ukraine headquartered in Lvov, and Russia would control everything east of the Dnieper, even possibly Odesa, a city founded by Catherine the Great and which Russia considers Russian.

If this scenario plays out, then some sort of European rescue army could plant itself in Zone 1, avoiding a total defeat for Europe, the EU and NATO.

There are many downsides and upsides to this scenario. NATO will probably remain in a part of Ukraine, and Russia will not get international recognition for its military conquests. This would reduce the US and NATO burden of militarily, economically and politically supporting Ukraine.

The US would be free to focus its attention elsewhere, mainly Asia and China, and rebuild stockpiles of weapons depleted during the Ukraine war. Europe could boast it stood by Ukraine, but without the consequence of the war spreading outside Ukraine’s borders. NATO would not lose face, nor would Washington.

There is already talk in Europe about reopening Europe (especially Germany and France) to “cheap” Russian energy. That’s a signal that the endgame is in sight. Europe cannot afford an economic collapse that would create upheaval on the continent, stimulate social revolution and purge the ruling elites responsible for the mess.

Even Europe, despite all the war talk, will have to face the necessity of adjusting its vision or face chaos.

By Joe Lauria, Consortium News, 4/14/25

Included in the F.B.I.’s affidavit charging a 17-year old Wisconsin teenager for murdering his parents in February and plotting to assassinate President Donald Trump with explosives dropped from a drone are the transcripts of Telegram chats the suspect had with one or more people in Ukraine. 

In all three communications cited by the F.B.I., the suspect, Nikita Casap, uses the handle @accelerationist. The first transcript reads:

“@accelerationist: ‘what country do you think will get the blame for this [Trump’s assassination]?’

 Unknown: Russia will be blamed for it, this is the goal.” 

Casap then asks Unknown how he should send his 3-page manifesto outlying his reasons to assassinate Trump and possibly Vice President J.D. Vance:  to create the needed chaos to overthrow the U.S. government and “save the white race” from “Jewish controlled” politicians.  Casap asks if his manifesto will be edited and Unknown simply tells him to send him photographs of the document.

The F.B.I. then described the second Telegram conversation:

The phone number in the document is found on a Facebook page called “DIY soapmaking” with no further information other than an email address. Consortium News wrote to the address but received an “Address Not Found” response. A call placed to the number by CN indicates that the number, unsurprisingly, is no longer working. 

In the third chat, Casap received instructions from someone writing in Cyrillic. 

This could be either the same person or someone else in Ukraine or conceivably in Russia writing in Cyrillic. The F.B.I. reports third-hand from a classmate of Casap that Casap told him he was in contact with someone in Russia. 

The F.B.I. does not make clear whether “Unknown,” “POMaH BiKTOBNWY,” and “forest” are different people. But whether one or three, they are clearly directing Casap to change his license plates, to drive from Wyoming back east to Kansas, south to Oklahoma and then west to California. 

He did not make it that far however. On Feb. 28, police in WaKeeney, Kansas arrested Casap just 85 minutes after his step father’s car was listed by police as stolen. In the car was a .357 magnum revolver, jewelry, $14,000 in cash and several electronic devices.

Earlier that day police in Waukesha, Wisconsin had discovered the dead bodies of his mother, Tatiana Casap, 35, and his stepfather, Donald Mayer, 51, in the family home.  

Nikita Casap had killed them both about two hours apart on Feb. 11, police determined. A neighbor saw Casap leaving with the family dog in Mayer’s SUV on Feb. 23. He had lived with his parents’ decomposing bodies for 12 days.

The F.B.I. says Casap killed them to get the financing and “autonomy” needed to carry out the assassination.

The bureau says the Telegram “messages in Russian” took place between Feb. 14, three days after police say he killed his parents, and Feb. 24, four days before he was arrested. The conversation about making it look like Russia did it took place on Jan. 25, however, according to the affidavit. 

In what appears to be a possibly fourth Russian language chat with someone the F.B.I. does not identify, Casap is instructed what to do with his parents’ bodies.

“a. ‘Reply to them all and say [you] got sick.

b. ‘Take [drag] them to the basement.’”

The F.B.I. contacted Mayer’s employer who told the bureau he had not showed up for work for two weeks but had sent several messages saying that he was sick.  Casap did not drag the bodies to the basement but left them where he had killed them. He covered them with blankets and was charged with “hiding a corpse” as well as plotting to kill the president. 

A Plot Directed From Ukraine

One can only conclude from this early evidence that Casap was directed from Ukraine in a plot to kill Trump. The F.B.I. says Casap had already bought drones and explosives. He received instructions on how to use the drones to extend their range and avoid detection but the F.B.I does not say where these directions came from.  Casap had a Telegram chat with someone named Angel of Death about purchasing a “drone with a dropping mechanism” in bitcoin for about $1,200 to $1,500. The affidavit does not say where Angel of Death is located.

We know that one or more people in Ukraine instructed Casap every step of the way: to move his parents’ bodies, to text his father’s workplace, to change the license plates on his stepfather’s SUV, to follow a circuitous route to California, and to send his manifesto to Ukraine. 

Casap also communicated to them about the plan for him to settle in Ukraine once the assassination was carried out. And perhaps most significantly someone in Ukraine told him that the goal of the operation was to make it look like Russia had assassinated Trump.

At this point there is no indication who this person or persons may be in Ukraine. The F.B.I. says Casap was involved in a Satanic group. (He also praised Hitler in his manifesto.) The bureau provides chat transcripts with like-minded Satanists but none of these are said to be in Ukraine.

Eureka, California appeared to be his final destination some time in March. There’s no indication yet that he would come into possession of the drone or drones there and the explosives. Trump did not visit Eureka, the scene of several recent anti-Trump protests, in the month of March or so far in April. 

Earlier Ukraine Connections

This is the second time a connection to Ukraine has arisen in a plot to assassinate Trump. Ryan Routh was arrested for attempting to kill Trump on his golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida on Sept. 15, 2024. 

Routh told The New York Times and Newsweek that he flew to Ukraine in 2022 to fight but was rejected because he had no military experience and was in his mid-50s. So he turned to recruiting foreign fighters for Ukraine, but apparently failed at that too.

There is no indication Routh maintained any connection to Ukrainian authorities. 

A week ago on April 8, federal prosecutors said in a court filing that in August 2024 Routh tried to purchase an anti-aircraft weapon from a Ukrainian weapons dealer which prosecutors are tieing to Routh’s surveillance of Palm Beach International airport, where candidate Trump flew into and out of. 

The court filing says: “Attempting to purchase a destructive device to blow up President Trump’s airplane lies squarely within the realm of an attempt on his life, and Routh’s statements about the purpose of the purchase drives home his intent.” 

He allegedly wrote to the arms dealer: “Send me an rpg [rocket-propelled grenade] or stinger [anti-aircraft missile] and I will see what we can do … [Trump] is not good for Ukraine.” 

Media Downplay 

Given the extent of the evidence divulged in the F.B.I.’s affidavit about the involvement by one or more persons in Ukraine in a plot to assassinate a president of the United States it should cause great wonderment why the leading media in the U.S. and abroad either downplayed or completely ignored the Ukraine connection in this story. 

In the fourth paragraph of The Washington Post ‘s account we read that the F.B.I. “found messages in Russian and communications on TikTok and Telegram,” without any mention of Ukraine. It leaves the impression that the messages originated from Russia. 

The 11th paragraph reads: “A review of Casap’s communications also found that he planned on leaving the United States for Ukraine after carrying out his plot.” No mention of him discussing this with someone in Ukraine, however. 

As an afterthought, CNN’s account leaves it to the penultimate paragraph to say, out of the blue, with no context or explanation:  

“According to the Waukesha County complaint, detectives found messages indicating Casap planned to leave the US for Ukraine. In one Telegram message, he asked, “So while in Ukraine, I’ll be able to live a normal life? Even when it’s found out I did it?”

The BBC reported without proof that Casap was in touch with people in Russia about killing his parents, that he planned to go to Ukraine and was simply “in touch” with other parties about killing Trump.  It reported:

“The court documents allege the suspect was speaking with people in Russia about plans to kill his parents.

Authorities said the teenager paid for a drone and explosives to use in an attack – and had plans to escape to Ukraine.

‘He was in touch with other parties about his plan to kill the president and overthrow the government of the United States,’ investigators wrote.”

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation just stuck in the middle of its report:

“In court, prosecutors alleged the teen was in touch with a person who spoke Russian and shared a plan to flee to Ukraine.

Federal prosecutors alleged Nikita’s manifesto outlined his reasons for wanting to kill Mr Trump and included ideas about how he would live in Ukraine.”

Perhaps worst, The New York Times does not mention Ukraine once.

Neither The Guardian nor The Wall Street appear to have covered the story at all.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.

By Uriel Araujo, InfoBrics, 4/25/25

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

The simmering tensions between Greece and Turkey, two NATO allies supposedly, over territorial claims in the Aegean Sea and Eastern Mediterranean have once again thrust the Atlantic alliance’s internal contradictions into the spotlight. Ongoing military talks between the two nations, starting this week, aim to de-escalate disputes over maritime boundaries and airspace violations; yet the underlying issues reveal a deeper fissure within NATO’s structure.

At the heart of the Greek-Turkish standoff are competing claims over resource-rich waters and historical grievances rooted in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Turkey’s assertive “Blue Homeland” doctrine, which seeks to expand its maritime influence, clashes with Greece’s efforts to secure its sovereignty over Aegean islands and its exclusive economic zone. Some analysts have accused Athens of leveraging Western support to sidestep geopolitical realities. While Greece’s position is framed as defensive, Turkey’s actions—such as deploying seismic research vessels or challenging Greek island militarization—are seen by Ankara as legitimate assertions of sovereignty.

These disputes are not merely bilateral; they ripple across NATO, threatening the alliance’s unity at a time when its European member states seek to project strength. For a few years, some analysts have been discussing the likelihood of a Turkish-Greek war breaking out, with episodes intensifying over the last three years at least. For example, in 2022, Ankara accused Athens of using an S-300 missile system to lock onto Turkish jets conducting NATO missions over the Mediterranean on August 23, 2022.

The broader geopolitical context amplifies these tensions. A notable example is the reported opposition by a pro-Israel, pro-Greece lobby in the United States to Turkey’s rumored plan to transfer Russian-made S-400 missile defense systems to Syria. This lobbying effort underscores how external actors are able to exploit NATO’s internal divisions to advance their own agendas. Turkey’s acquisition of the S-400s, which led to its exclusion from the U.S.-led F-35 program, has long been a point of contention within NATO, with Washington imposing sanctions and Greece capitalizing on Turkey’s isolation to bolster its own defense ties with the U.S. and France. Greece’s ambitions include modernizing its air force with F-35 jets and strengthening naval capabilities, moves that Turkey perceives as a direct challenge.

These developments highlight NATO’s structural weaknesses. The alliance, designed to counter a supposed monolithic Soviet threat, struggles to mediate conflicts between its members in a world where national interests increasingly diverge. Turkey’s pivot toward strategic autonomy and regional hegemony—evidenced by its balancing act between Russia, Ukraine, and the West—clashes with NATO’s expectation of unwavering alignment.

Despite the “balancing” acts, Turkey’s assertive naval expansion in the Black Sea, leveraging the Montreux Convention to restrict Russia’s fleet, risks escalating tensions with Moscow, as I recently argued, thereby threatening Eurasian stability. To further complicate things, Turkey’s strategic maneuvers, including plans of promoting a “Turan Army” to counter the CSTO, does align with NATO’s efforts to undermine Russia and China, further destabilizing the region.

In a complex “who plays who” game, at the same time, Turkey’s actions, including its S-400 purchase, challenge NATO’s cohesion.

Be it as it may, the ongoing Greek-Turkish dialogue, while a step toward de-escalation, is unlikely to resolve these deeper fissures for the time being. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has expressed willingness to visit Turkey despite recent tensions, signaling a pragmatic approach. However, Greece’s efforts to limit Turkey’s access to EU defense collaboration, and its alignment with France and Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean suggest a strategy of containment which can only be interpreted as a defensive reaction to Ankara’s ambitions. Turkey, meanwhile, faces domestic pressures and elections, which may embolden its assertive rhetoric, as seen in President Erdoğan’s warnings against Greek island militarization.

One should keep in mind that despite Turkey’s denunciations of Greek militarization in the Aegean, it is Ankara that aggressively pursues naval hegemony through its “Blue Homeland” doctrine, expanding maritime claims. Turkey’s neo-Ottoman agenda, marked by provocative naval maneuvers and territorial assertions, escalates tensions and undermines regional stability.

In any case, NATO’s response to these tensions has been predictably tepid. The alliance’s secretary generals have historically mediated Greek-Turkish disputes, but their solutions—such as the “Recognized Air Picture” over the Aegean—are superficial, failing to address root causes like maritime delimitation or energy resource disputes. As Dimitris Tsarouhas (head of the Turkey Research Program at the Center for European and Transatlantic Studies at Virginia Technotes) notes, a realistic path forward would require both nations to prioritize cooperation over confrontation, yet the Atlantic Alliance’s framework offers little incentive for such compromise when external powers, including the U.S. and France, take sides.

In an emerging multipolar world, the Greek-Turkish standoff is a microcosm of NATO’s obsolescence. The Alliance’s reliance on U.S. hegemony (to the point it seems quite “lost” now when facing Washington’s partial “withdrawal” from Eastern Europe, for instance) and its inability to accommodate diverse national interests—particularly those of pivotal members such as Turkey—expose its fragility.

Turkey’s Black Sea maneuvers reflect a broader shift on the way it plays NATO while pursuing its own goals of hegemony and regional autonomy (the way it sees it). This is a trend NATO cannot really contain without risking further fragmentation. Such tensions underscore the need for a new security architecture—one that respects sovereign aspirations and fosters equitable dialogue, free from NATO’s outdated unipolar vision.

Kremlin website (machine translation), 4/26/25

The Supreme Commander-in-Chief heard via video link the report of the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Valery Gerasimov on the completion of the defeat of the Ukrainian formations that invaded the Kursk region.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Valery Vasilyevich, I know that you have information on the latest developments in the Kursk direction. What are the results of combat work over the past day and for the entire previous period?

Vladimir Gerasimov: Comrade Supreme Commander-in-Chief,

Today, the last settlement in the Kursk region – the village of Gornal – has been liberated from Ukrainian units.

At the same time, units of the 22nd Motorized Rifle Regiment of the 72nd Division, the 810th and 40th Separate Marine Brigades, the 177th Separate Marine Regiment and the 1427th Motorized Rifle Regiment distinguished themselves.

Thus, the defeat of the armed formations of the armed forces of Ukraine, which invaded the Kursk region, has been completed. The plans of the Kyiv regime to create a so-called strategic bridgehead and disrupt our offensive in the Donbass have failed.

На начальном этапе операции продвижение противника вглубь нашей территории было остановлено с последующим сокращением площади вклинения, украинские подразделения вынужденно перешли к обороне. В дальнейшем нанесением встречных ударов с флангов вдоль государственной границы двумя десантными дивизиями, 76-й и 106-й, а также действиями 155-й и 810-й бригад морской пехоты основная группировка вооружённых сил Украины была изолирована, а в последующем рассечена и уничтожалась по частям.

The most active phase of the operation began on March 6 of this year. As a result of the offensive actions of the units and military units of the Kursk group simultaneously in all directions, as well as the breakthrough into the enemy’s rear by the underground landing force consisting of the Veterans volunteer formation, personnel of the 11th airborne assault brigade, the 30th motorized rifle regiment and the Akhmat special forces unit through the gas transportation system pipeline, the defense of the Ukrainian armed forces collapsed. A chaotic retreat of the Ukrainian units began. And within five days, the area of ​​the wedged-in area decreased by 2.5 times.

During the subsequent actions, the few remaining Ukrainian elite units were defeated and driven out of the Kursk region.

During the operation, the enemy suffered significant losses, in order to maintain the number of his group at the level of about 60 thousand people, he was forced to constantly transfer reserves and units from other sectors to the Kursk direction. The total losses of the formations of the armed forces of Ukraine amounted to more than 76 thousand people, servicemen, killed and wounded. In fact, one composition of the original enemy grouping and even more was knocked out. Over 7,700 units of military equipment were destroyed, including 412 tanks, 340 infantry fighting vehicles, 314 armored personnel carriers, and about 2,300 other armored combat vehicles.

I would like to note separately the participation in the liberation of the border areas of the Kursk Region of the military personnel of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, who, in accordance with the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between our countries, provided significant assistance in defeating the wedged group of the Ukrainian armed forces. Soldiers and officers of the Korean People’s Army, performing combat missions shoulder to shoulder with Russian servicemen, during the repulsion of the Ukrainian invasion, showed high professionalism, showed resilience, courage and heroism in battle.

Comrade Supreme Commander-in-Chief!

Currently, in the liberated areas of the Kursk region, measures are being taken to identify single servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine trying to take refuge on Russian territory. Forest areas, basements and abandoned buildings are checked. Local authorities are being assisted in restoring peaceful life. Engineering units of the Sever group and the International Mine Action Center of the Military Engineering Academy are conducting complete demining of the territory and the destruction of explosive objects. 19 settlements were fully checked and cleared. 110 demining groups are involved in these works, this is more than 1000 personnel.

In accordance with your instructions, the creation of a security zone in the border areas of the Sumy region of Ukraine continues. Four settlements were liberated. The total area of the controlled area is more than 90 square kilometers.

In addition, in the Belgorod region, units of the North group of troops completed the destruction of Ukrainian sabotage groups in the area of the village of Popovka. The search and elimination of individual servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine hiding in the border forest belts is being carried out.

In other directions, the Joint Group of Troops (Forces) continues to perform tasks in accordance with the plan of the special military operation.

I have finished my report.

В.Путин: Валерий Васильевич, на протяжении нескольких месяцев Вы регулярно докладывали мне о ситуации в Курской области и отмечали наиболее эффективно действовавшие наши подразделения. Не могу не назвать их сегодня еще раз.

These are the 76th Airborne Division, the 234th Airborne Assault Regiment of this division, the 237th Airborne Assault Regiment and the 104th Airborne Assault Regiment of this division; the 106th Airborne Division and its 119th Parachute Regiment, the 137th Parachute Regiment, and the 51st Parachute Regiment. These are the 56th Airborne Assault Regiment of the 7th Airborne Assault Division; two Akhmat regiments – the 204th Special Purpose Regiment Akhmat and the 1434th Motorized Rifle Regiment Akhmat; The 22nd Motorized Rifle Regiment of the 72nd Division, the 11th Airborne Assault Brigade, the 83rd Separate Airborne Assault Brigade. Finally, our Marines, glorious Marines – the 155th Marine Brigade of the Pacific Fleet, the 810th Marine Brigade of the Black Sea Fleet. And of course, you just mentioned it, the volunteer formation “Veterans”, who carried out a daring underground landing in the Sudzha area and created the conditions for its complete liberation.

I congratulate all personnel of all military units that took part in the defeat of neo-Nazi groups that invaded Russian territory in the Kursk region.

The Kyiv regime’s adventure has completely failed, and the enormous losses suffered by the enemy, including among the most combat-ready, trained and equipped forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including those with Western equipment – and these are assault units and special forces – will undoubtedly be reflected along the entire line of combat contact.

The complete defeat of the enemy in the Kursk border region creates conditions for further successful actions of our troops in other important areas of the front, and brings the defeat of the neo-Nazi regime closer.

I congratulate all personnel, all fighters and commanders on this success, on the victory. I thank you for the courage, heroism, for serving our Fatherland and the people of Russia.

Thank you.

V. Gerasimov: I serve Russia!