Russia Matters, 5/30/25

1. Vladimir Putin’s conditions for ending the war in Ukraine include a demand that Western leaders pledge in writing to stop enlarging NATO eastward and lift a chunk of sanctions on Russia, three Russian sources with knowledge of the negotiations told Reuters. Asked by ABC on May 29 about the demand on non-enlargement, U.S. presidential envoy Keith Kellogg said: “It’s a fair concern.” “We’ve said that to us, Ukraine coming into NATO is not on the table, and we’re not the only country that says that—you know I could probably give you four other countries in NATO and it takes 32 of the 32 to allow you to come in to NATO,” Kellogg said. Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov lauded Kellogg’s comments, saying they came as a “result of Russia-U.S. talks held behind closed doors,” according to The New York Times.
2. Russian and Ukrainian officials continued to lock horns into the afternoon hours of May 30 on whether Moscow has to send its memorandum detailing its conditions for peace to Kyiv ahead of June 2 for the two warring sides to sit down for a second round of talks in Istanbul on that date. Russia’s top diplomat Sergei Lavrov insisted that the Russian side would present the memorandum in Istanbul on June 2, Washington Post reported May 28. The Ukrainians, meanwhile, said they had already sent their memorandum to Russia and that Russia should reciprocate immediately. According to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, however, Russia has not received a copy of Ukraine’s memorandum, ISW reported. In a May 29 interview with ABC, Kellogg confirmed that the United States had received Ukraine’s memorandum, but was still waiting on Russia’s, according to The New York Times. He said the next step after the June 2 talks could be a trilateral meeting with Putin and Trump, which is something that Volodymyr Zelenskyy also proposed this week.
3. In the past week, Russian forces gained 52 square miles of Ukrainian territory (just over 2 Manhattan islands), a slight decrease in the rate of advance from the previous week, according to the May 28, 2025, issue of the Russia-Ukraine War Report Card. The past week saw Russian forces capture four of the Sumy region’s villages, Novenke, Basivka, Veselivka and Zhuravka, according to this eastern Ukrainian province’s governor, Oleh Hryhorov, in remarks reported May 27. Then on May 28, Ukraine’s DeepState OSINT group reported in its interactive map that the Russian armed forces occupied Zelene Pole in the neighboring Donetsk region. On May 29, DeepState reported that the Russian armed forces had occupied Romanivka and Troitske. In May, Russian armed forces have more than doubled the area that they seized in April, capturing an average of 5.5 square miles each day amid Kyiv’s claims of Russia’s pending summer offensive in the east, according to data provided by DeepState and reported by The New York Times. Russian forces are advancing on Ukrainian battlefields at the fastest pace this year, according to this newspaper.  If the pace of Russia’s advance so far this year, as estimated by ISW for January–April 2025 and DeepState for Jan. 1–May 22, 2025, remains unchanged (which is highly unlikely, as such trends are rarely linear), it would take Russia 140–180 years to capture the remaining 80+% of Ukraine’s territory.*
4. Russia’s aerial attacks against Ukraine in the past week have shattered some previous records, according to estimates by ISW that are based on data from the Ukrainian air force. Ukraine’s air force said May 25 that Russia had launched 69 ballistic and cruise missiles along with 298 attack drones. The air force spokesman, Yuriy Ihnat, said that it was the largest bombardment of the war in terms of the number of weapons used, according to The New York Times. Then, overnight on May 25–26, Russia fired what Kyiv said was the largest-ever drone barrage on Ukraine to date, including “355 Shahed-type drones” and nine cruise missiles. In between the attacks, Trump hit out at Putin “He has gone absolutely CRAZY!” the U.S. president wrote on May 25. On May 27, Trump warned that Putin is “playing with fire.”¹ While attacking Putin, Trump oscillated on whether he’d agree to impose new sanctions on Russia. On May 25, he said he was “absolutely” considering new sanctions against Russia. But on May 28, he said he’s holding off on new sanctions against Russia in order to preserve the chance for a deal to end the war in Ukraine.
5. The U.S.  has endorsed a Group of Seven communique adopted at the recent G-7 meeting in Canada, representing a significant change in the U.S. public position on the Russian-Ukrainian war. This past February alone saw U.S. either vote against condemnation of Russia for the Ukraine war or sign off on declarations only if the latter avoided assigning blame for the conflict on three occasions at international fora. First, on Feb. 21, 2025, the so-called Chair’s Summary of the First G-20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting had to be produced instead of a communique after top officials from the U.S. and several other countries skipped it and delegates remained far apart on key issues.² The summary said “there was agreement to support all efforts towards a just peace in Ukraine,” but it did not assign any blame for initiating the conflict. Then, on Feb. 24, 2025, the U.S. supported UNSC Resolution 2774 that mourned “the tragic loss of life throughout the Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict” and called for “a lasting peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation,” but, again, assigned no blame to initiating the conflict. Finally, on Feb. 25, 2025, the U.S. voted against a UNGA resolution, which expressed “concern over “the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation,” and which demanded “that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine.” Such behavior at international fora has been consistent with the refusal by Trump and his top aides to blame Russia for the war. In contrast, however, the G-7 communique, which was adopted by G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on May 22, had the following language: “We condemn Russia’s continued brutal war against Ukraine… The G-7 remains committed to unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty and independence toward a just and durable peace.” Thus the signatories of the May 22, 2025, communique, including the U.S. representative, pointed the accusatory finger at Russia for initiating the war against Ukraine.

National Security Archive, 5/19/25

Washington, D.C., May 19, 2025 – Mexico welcomed CIA espionage activities in Mexico during the Cold War and even initiated some of them, according to recently declassified documents published today by the National Security Archive. Found among more than 80,000 pages of newly released JFK assassination files, the records shed light on the remarkably close relationship between the CIA and the Mexican government during the Cold War—including new details on both joint and unilateral CIA operations run out of the Agency’s Mexico City Station—and reveal secrets that have been guarded by the CIA for over half a century.

Among the key findings is that one of the most sweeping joint surveillance programs in Agency history, Operation LIENVOY, was initiated by the Mexican president, not the CIA. Another stunning CIA document shows that the Agency’s partnership with the Mexican government in spying on the Cuban and Russian embassies continued through at least 1994.

The documents also highlight the CIA’s important role in nurturing and expanding the intelligence capabilities of other countries during the Cold War and the enduring legacy of those, in many cases crucial, relationships. Mexico has continued to engage in widespread use of domestic surveillance; it was the first country in the world to purchase the infamous Israeli Pegasus spyware in the mid-2000s and has deployed it countless times, with targets including journalists, human rights defenders, and environmental activists. Surveillance technology on Mexico’s northern border produces endless streams of data on migrant crossings and arms and narcotics trafficking. These new revelations from the JFK files show how Mexico both invited CIA intervention and worked alongside the U.S. spy agency to become one of the world’s leading surveillance states.

Read documents here.

YouTube link here.

DW, 5/26/25

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced on Monday that Germany, along with France, the UK and the US, had lifted restrictions on the range of weapons being sent to Ukraine to help in the fight against Russia.

“There are no longer any range restrictions on weapons delivered to Ukraine — neither by the British nor by the French nor by us nor by the Americans,” he said at the WDR Europaforum 2025 at the re:publica digital conference in Berlin.

“This means that Ukraine can now defend itself, for example, by attacking military positions in Russia… With very few exceptions, it didn’t do that until recently. It can now do that,” Merz explained.

The chancellor also reiterated his position in a post on X, adding, “We will do everything in our power to continue supporting Ukraine.”

Merz did not specify which country, including his own, had decided on any changes at which stage.

Russia calls weapons decision a ‘dangerous’ move

The Kremlin responded to Merz’s statement, saying that lifting range limits on arms delivered to Ukraine by the West would be “dangerous.”

“If these decisions have indeed been made, they are completely at odds with our aspirations for a political [peace] settlement… These are quite dangerous decisions, if they have been made,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Russian journalist Alexander Yunashev.

Russia has long criticized Western countries for supplying Ukraine with long-range weapons. The Kremlin has also warned Germany against providing Kyiv with the Taurus missile system.

Western long-range weapons in Ukraine

At the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the West did not supply Ukraine with any far-reaching weapons to prevent the conflict from escalating.

However, the UK and France have since supplied Kyiv with Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise missiles, which have a range of about 250 kilometers (150 miles).

In November 2024, former US President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) against targets in Russia.

Also in November, Ukraine fired UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles into Russia for the first time after receiving approval from London, according to British media reports. At the time, France also reiterated that strikes on military targets inside Russia were an option.

Merz made no mention of Taurus

The previous German government, led by center-left Chancellor Olaf Scholz, strongly supported Kyiv, yet refrained from sending long-range Taurus missiles with their range of 500 kilometers for fear of escalating tensions with nuclear power Russia.

Merz has previously expressed support for delivering the Taurus missile system. However, on Monday, he did not clarify if Germany would do so or if he was referring to other weapons systems.

The new government has emphasized that it will no longer disclose what weapons it is sending to Ukraine, instead adopting a position of strategic ambiguity.

Russia has warned that it would consider potential Ukrainian strikes on transport infrastructure with German-made Taurus missiles to be “direct participation” by Berlin in the conflict.

By Matt Bivens (former editor of Moscow Times), Substack, 5/10/25

When evil is done, it’s easy to condemn the wickedness of others, but braver and more useful to examine our own complicity.

Imagine a ghastly news story: A local woman has shot her husband!

The media eagerly feed our outrage. They tell us nightly of the husband’s suffering from his injuries. They spend months digging into the wife’s evil plans, her nasty personality, her sordid past. Why, they say, she was even planning to try to kill others in the neighborhood!

But as more information comes out, the picture is less clear. It turns out that the wife had some cause; not enough to justify attempted murder, perhaps, but enough to mitigate some of our preachy condemnation. The suggestion she was “planning to kill others,” never plausible, seems ever-more ridiculous and shrill. (That doesn’t stop the news media from endlessly repeating it.) And there is a new twist to the story: Apparently, she had been seeking help from the authorities for years, only to be scoffed at.

In the weeks before the crime, she had even openly warned the prosecutor’s office, including in writing, of how she would resort to vigilantism and violence if no one took her seriously. She made a public show of buying a gun. She told the chief prosecutor flatly that she would use this gun if the authorities would do nothing to provide her relief. The chief prosecutor had spoken with her twice by telephone. In the end, he had laughed at her, and told her: “We don’t think your concerns are serious, we think you sound like a big crybaby. If you commit this act of violence, we will prosecute you mercilessly. But otherwise, we aren’t going to talk to you anymore.” (Mind you, this is the same chief prosecutor who, in the wake of the shooting, never stopped grandstanding smugly and piously about that awful crime and its evil perpetrator.)

You and I are citizens in this hypothetical. As we watch it all unfold, where should we focus our time, our energy, our passion?

I suspect most of us would agree: On the hypocrisy and failures of the prosecutor.

That doesn’t mean we excuse the crime itself, or that we absolve the one who committed it. But it does mean that we have a right — a citizen’s obligation, in fact — to expect more from our authorities.

The arrogance and moral idiocy of Washington D.C.

I’m still waiting with dread for the Ukraine war to end. But I often think back to how it began. It was like my hypothetical above, with the wife pointedly buying a gun while begging the authorities for relief, only to be scorned.

More than three years ago, in the months before the Russian military invasion, the Kremlin offered our White House drafts of a proposed treaty — similar to ones that Russia had repeatedly offered over the past 12 years or so — to re-design the world’s security architecture. Moscow insistently asked for formal talks. They also warned they would resort to violence and vigilantism, if we continued to maintain an enormous, hostile, CIA-guided presence in Ukraine.

This was obvious and easily inferred at the time, both from the public record and from Russian and independent expert commentary, and it was confirmed several months ago by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

“President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement,” Stoltenberg told a joint committee meeting of the European Parliament. “That was what he sent us. And [that] was a pre-condition for not invad[ing] Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that. … [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”

You can watch his remarks below (downloaded from the NATO website).

https://mattbivens.substack.com/p/crime-and-punishment

Stoltenberg was not quite right when he said that Russia’s “precondition for not invading Ukraine” was that we accept and sign a new treaty.

We only had to be willing to talk politely about it.

In other words, in the countdown to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin told President Biden that war could be avoided — and all President Biden had to do was agree to a dialog, a true, honest dialog, about Russian unease with NATO encirclement.

Apparently, our reply was to condescendingly refuse — to say something like: “We don’t think your concerns are serious, we think you sound like a big crybaby. If you want to invade Ukraine to make your point, go right ahead, and we will prosecute you mercilessly. But otherwise, we aren’t going to talk to you anymore.”

Remember when President Joe Biden was suddenly the first to loudly predict the war? He told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a long phone call that Kyiv could be “sacked”, and he should “Prepare for impact!”

Zelensky did not believe Biden. Why would Russia invade? It made no sense! But Biden knew what Zelensky did not: that he and his White House had all-but invited the attack, with their diplomatic raised middle finger.

Ukrainian officials told CNN back then that the call with Biden “did not go well,” and immediately after, Zelensky publicly asked America to stop whipping up “panic” and insisted war was unlikely.

“I’m the president of Ukraine and I’m based here and I think I know the details better here,” Zelensky said crossly then.

At that time there were more than 100,000 Russian troops just over the Ukrainian border. But as Zelensky pointed out, the Russians had amassed troops on the border before ahead of diplomatic negotiations, then drawn them down. If a desperate woman shows the prosecutors the gun she has bought, it doesn’t mean she’ll use it. It does represent an opportunity to intervene — before the violence.

We declined to intervene, because we — meaning, our defense contractor-controlled politicians — preferred the violence.

This is such important context to remember today.

Simply promising that Ukraine would not be absorbed into NATO (which, by the way, was a legitimate and popular position in Ukraine itself) would have defused the crisis and prevented the war. This would also have been reaffirming the Barack Obama foreign policy — something we might have expected Obama’s former vice president-turned president to favor.

Instead, Biden’s White House greenlit the Russian invasion, with a wolfish grin of anticipation, and the Russians foolishly and criminally obliged.

They had instant buyer’s remorse. The war was barely two weeks old when the Kremlin spokesman said Russia would cease military operations “in a moment” if only Ukraine would declare neutrality — meaning, no NATO memberships — and also grant autonomy to the eastern regions of Luhansk and Donetsk (of note, Russia was pointedly not annexing those regions at that time). Zelensky immediately welcomed this. He said he’d “cooled down” on joining NATO, and as to the fate of Donbas territories like Luhansk and Donetsk, “we can discuss and find a compromise on how these territories will live on.” Peace was more important.

Moscow and Kyiv reached for conciliation after just two weeks of war? Our media all-but censored that, focusing instead on the criminal known as Russia, with her evil plans, her nasty personality, her sordid past. And behind the scenes, our politicians and foreign policy “experts” worked frantically to undermine any progress toward peace.

After just 21 days of war, Kyiv and Moscow nevertheless had a working draft of a peace treaty, and in just a few weeks more, there was a signed-and-agreed deal.

This, too, was scuttled at American insistence. That fact has been testified to now by many participants and insiders, including top Ukrainian officials involved, U.S. foreign policy scholars, former U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, former German chancellor Gerhard Schroder, and former Israeli prime minister Neftali Bennet, to name but a few. (The New York Times has also published draft documents of some of those peace agreements, although under an absurd headline asserting the peace talks “fizzled,” when actually they were shut down by Washington itself.)

Three years on, a new presidential administration is, at least rhetorically, advocating for peace. Yet the war grinds on. The only thing that seems certain is that whatever result is eventually reached, it will never be as favorable for Ukraine as were those earlier peace proposals.

And it all could have been avoided in the first place.