Natylie Baldwin's Blog, page 24

Russia Matters: Direct Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks End Without Meaningful Progress; EU Prepares Higher Tariffs on Ukraine

Russia Matters, 5/16/25

The first direct peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in over three years ended on May 16 in about two hours and with no signs of meaningful progress other than a prisoner exchange deal as Ukrainian officials accused Russia of making “unacceptable” demands, RFE/RL reports. Despite offering to hold direct peace talks with Kyiv on May 15 in Istanbul in lieu of the 30-day ceasefire Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders demanded on May 10, Vladimir Putin ultimately did not attend, sending a midlevel delegation to Turkey instead. Zelenskyy, who reiterated his intention to meet with Putin directly throughout the week, slammed the move as disrespectful, saying “I think Russia’s attitude is unserious,” according to the New York Times. During the negotiations on May 16, Meduza reports that the Russian delegation reportedly said Moscow would agree to a ceasefire only if Ukraine withdrew its forces from the four regions Russia claims to have annexed (Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia), according to Economist correspondent Oliver Carroll, citing a “well-placed” source. “Moscow also threatened to seize two more [regions]: Kharkiv and Sumy,” Carroll wrote. According to Carroll, Vladimir Medinsky, head of the Russian delegation, said Russia does not “want war,” but is “ready to fight for a year, two, three—however long it takes.”Following the unsuccessful peace talks in Istanbul, Donald Trump said there’ll be no resolution of Russia’s war in Ukraine until he meets with Putin, Bloomberg reports. “We have to meet. He and I will meet. I think we’ll solve it, or maybe not but at least we’ll know. And if we don’t solve it, it’ll be very interesting,” Trump said May 16, according to Bloomberg. “Nothing’s going to happen until Putin and I get together,” Trump said May 15. “And obviously he wasn’t going to go [to the talks in Istanbul]. He was going to go, but he thought I was going to go. He wasn’t going if I wasn’t there.”The EU is preparing to apply much higher tariffs on Ukrainian imports within weeks, hitting Kyiv’s economy at a crucial time in its fight against Russian aggression, the Financial Times reports. The decision to abruptly end special trade arrangements—which allowed most Ukrainian goods to enter the EU duty free—came after Poland led a push to protect the bloc’s farmers, according to diplomats, according to the Financial Times, and will cost Ukraine about €3.5 billion in revenue a year. The arrangements lapse on June 6, and the EU is planning to replace it with “transitional measures” while the two sides update their overall trade agreement.

***

The Odessa Moment

By Scott Ritter, Substack, 5/16/25

Russia has informed Ukraine of its baseline condition for conflict termination—the withdrawal of all Ukrainian troops from the territory of lands which, from the perspective of the Russian Constitution, constitute part of Mother Russia. These include Kherson, Zaporozhia, Donetsk and Lugansk. Russia has also made it clear that if Ukraine does not accept these terms, the next time Russia is willing to sit down and negotiate with Ukraine their demands will include four additional Ukrainian oblasts, or administrative regions—presumably Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnepropetrovsk, and Kharkov. We have reached the Odessa Moment.

Back in January 2023, while appearing on “The Gaggle” with George Szamuely and Peter Lavelle, I postulated that Russia was approaching what I called “the Odessa Moment,” that confluence of military and political circumstances which, once reached, would trigger a strategic decision by Russia to expand the Special Military Operation (SMO) beyond the geography defined by the territories absorbed by Russia following a controversial referenda held in September 2022 on the territory of Kherson, Zaporozhia, Donetsk and Lugansk, in which the question of self-determination was answered by a vote on whether these territories should be incorporated into the Russian Federation or not.

As originally conceived, the SMO was not about territorial acquisition but rather defending the rights of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine. In negotiations which began less than a week after the SMO began—first in Gomel, Belarus, and later in Turkey—Russia simply sought to achieve that which had been promised as part of the Minsk Accords entered into with Ukraine, Germany and France in 2014-2015, in which Ukraine promised to make the appropriate changes to its Constitution guaranteeing that the rights and status of Russian-speaking Ukrainians would be protected.

Ukraine, backed by both Germany and France (and the United States as well) opted to treat the Minsk Accords as an opportunity to build up military power sufficient to reclaim parts of the Donbas region (comprised of the oblasts of Donetsk and Lugansk) as well as Crimea which were lost in the aftermath of the CIA-backed Maidan coup of February 2014 which saw the Russian-speaking lawfully elected President, Victor Yanukovych, ousted and replaced by US-backed Ukrainian nationalists. Between 2015 and 2022, the US and its NATO allies trained and equipped hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers for the sole purpose of reclaiming by force the territories of Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea.

Zelensky meets with Macron, Merkle and Vladimir Putin, December 2019

In April 2019 Volodymyr Zelensky, the former comedian-turned politician, won the election for the office of President of Ukraine, ousting the incumbent, Petro Poroshenko. Zelensky ran on a platform of peace, winning over the Russian-speaking population on the promise that he would “crawl on his knees” if necessary to work out a peace plan with Russia. Instead, within months Zelensky was convening a war council where he promised to use the Ukrainian military to reclaim the parts of Donetsk and Lugansk that had freed themselves from Ukrainian rule.

This was Zelensky’s first mistake.

Scott will discuss this article and answer audience questions on Ep. 264 of  Ask the Inspector .

The path he chose led to Russia, in the days before the initiation of the SMO and after Ukraine began mobilizing its forces to attack the Donbas, recognizing the independence of both Donetsk and Lugansk and entering into a collective security agreement, actions which guaranteed that the Donbas would never again be part of Ukraine.

This was Zelensky’s Donbas moment.

Russian troops in Ukraine

Zelensky’s second mistake came in April 2022, when he walked away from the negotiations that Russia had initiated immediately after the start of the SMO which culminated in a finalized signature-ready peace agreement which has become known as the Istanbul communique. This agreement would have recognized the independence of the Donbas republics, but returned all other Ukrainian territory that had been occupied by Russian troops during the SMO.

Zelensky, pressured by his US and NATO supporters, rejected this agreement, and instead took tens of billions of dollars in military aid from the US and NATO which he used to rebuild his depleted military force, which he then used to launch a counterattack against Russian forces which had already began their withdrawal from Ukraine as a good faith measure in keeping with the terms of the Istanbul communique.

Russia responded by organizing referenda in both the Donbas and the two oblasts, Kherson and Zaporozhia, that constituted the land bridge connecting Crimea with Russia proper. These referenda were on the question of these territories becoming part of the Russian Federation; all four voted yes, and after the appropriate legal action was taken by the Russian parliament, President Putin signed a decree which made all four oblasts part of the Russian Federation.

This was Zelensky’s Little Russia moment.

A Kherson citizen votes in the September 2022 referendum on joining Russia

And now Zelensky finds himself at a new crossroads.

His Odessa Moment.

He has a chance to end the SMO on the most favorable terms possible, terms which reflect the harsh reality the Ukrainian President and the nation he leads faces due to Zelensky’s prior poor decision-making regarding Russia.

The Donbas is gone. So, too, is Little Russia. These losses are irreversible, politically and militarily.

Ukraine has a chance to end the conflict now. But to do so it must respect the reality of the moment.

Unfortunately, the same “friends” and “allies” which encouraged Ukraine to walk away from the Minsk Accords and the Istanbul communique are now urging Ukraine to do the same when it comes to Istanbul 2.

But the promise of European support is illusory—the armories have long since been stripped bare, and the potential for meaningful military intervention never existed, either militarily or politically.

Moreover, any European action would, by necessity, require backing from the United States. While this may have been a possibility during the presidency of Joe Biden, it is a non-starter under the new administration of Donald Trump—even as the Istanbul 2 meetings were underway, the US announced that it was going to be withdrawing its forces from Europe.

Russia is to be taken seriously. While the challenges that Russia will face in occupying the four new territories it has put its sights on if Ukraine balks yet again regarding a peace agreement are many and not to be minimized, this is a military question which is best answered by the political resolve of the Russian leadership and nation, which at this juncture is unassailable.

Last year Vladimir Putin won a mandate to governing as a wartime President.

As the recently concluded May 9 celebration clearly demonstrated, the determination of the Russian people to defeat Ukraine is rock solid.

Vladimir Putin addresses the crowd on Red Square, May 9, 2025

As the lead Russian negotiator in Istanbul made clear to his Ukrainian counterparts, Russia is prepared to fight for however long it takes, even alluding to the 21 years it took Peter the Great to defeat Sweden.

Ukraine will be lucky to survive the summer.

Zelensky faces one of the greatest tests of leadership he will ever face.

Nationalist forces in his government are willing to commit national suicide in pursuit of the failed Banderist cause.

Ukraine’s erstwhile allies, whose objectives continue to center around Cold War fantasies of strategically defeating Russia, are pushing Zelensky to reject the Russian conditions for peace, all too willing to sacrifice Ukraine as a proxy in pursuit of their unattainable goal.

If Zelensky truly cared about his nation and his people, he would swallow his pride and make the only decision capable of saving them—surrender.

But Zelensky is not a leader who cares about his nation or its people—he has already sacrificed Ukraine’s national integrity and more than a million of its citizens in pursuit of his EU and NATO driven fantasies of relevance and fortune.

This is Zelensky’s Odessa Moment.

And he will fail.

Again.

Anatol Lieven: Back to Istanbul! Key nodes for US-Russia-Ukraine talks

By Anatol Lieven, Responsible Statecraft, 5/14/25

Direct talks between senior Ukrainian and Russian representatives, if they do take place in Istanbul on Thursday, will be a real step forward and a significant achievement by the Trump administration.

It is worth remembering that only three months ago the Ukrainian government was still rejecting even the idea of talks with the Putin administration as illegal, and demanding prior Russian withdrawal from all the occupied areas of Ukraine as a precondition for negotiations.

Putin’s apparent rejection of Zelensky’s challenge to a face to face meeting is a disappointment, but not a crucial setback. It is very rare for real progress in peace talks to be made in meetings between leaders themselves, and the Russians have some reason to see this as a maneuver, or stunt, by Zelensky to gain Trump’s favor rather than a serious proposal.

Normally, before leaders meet there have to be long and detailed negotiations by officials to lay the groundwork for agreement. Hopefully, the Istanbul meeting of officials proposed by Moscow will advance that process, whereas a public shouting-match between Putin and Zelensky could set it back.

The Ukrainian and European governments have stated that Moscow’s rejection of a 30-day ceasefire shows that “Putin is not interested in peace”, but this is disingenuous. Russia’s ability to advance — even if slowly — on the battlefield is Moscow’s main source of leverage in negotiations, and it is not going to give that up unless substantial agreement has already been reached.

Nor, and for the same reason, were Western countries ever going to agree to Russia’s demand for a complete and permanent end to military supplies to Ukraine as the precondition of a ceasefire. We have to accept that while the talks continue, so will the fighting. That should be a spur to efforts to move as quickly as possible to a comprehensive settlement.

And a comprehensive settlement is what we should be aiming at. Even if Russia could be brought to agree to a long-term ceasefire, absent a settlement, such a ceasefire would resemble that in the Donbas from 2014-22: deeply unstable, constantly interrupted by clashes and exchanges of fire, and at permanent risk of collapsing back into full scale war.

This situation would make Ukraine’s economic development and progress towards the European Union virtually impossible, both because it would prevent Western investment and because it would mean that Ukraine remains a highly militarized and semi-authoritarian society permanently mobilized for war.

It would also make it far more difficult for the U.S. to reduce its military presence in Europe so as to concentrate resources elsewhere – which is indeed probably a key motive for the European approach.

Trump’s threat to “walk away” from the peace process has succeeded in bringing both sides to the negotiating table, but they agreed only so as to avoid being blamed by him for refusal. On key issues, the Russian and Ukrainian positions remain quite far apart, and it will be a miracle if one round of direct talks in Istanbul is able to bring them together. Continued U.S. engagement in the peace process therefore seems essential.

For Washington’s involvement to be effective, it will have to set out concrete and detailed conditions for agreement and bring both pressure and incentives to bear on both sides to accept them. A U.S. incentive to the Ukrainian side has already been established in the form of the the minerals deal and its promise that long-term American economic engagement in Ukraine will also ensure Washignton’s interest in maintaining Ukrainian security.

For Russia, the Trump administration has a huge potential incentive in the form of a new U.S.-Russian relationship, and an end to Washington pressure on what the Russians see as their vital interests.

Some of the elements of an agreement between Ukraine and Russia were laid down at the talks in Istanbul in March 2022, and are still applicable. Conditions meeting the vital interests of both sides, and on which the U.S. could help them to agree, include the following: that the ceasefire line runs where the battle line eventually runs, and neither side can be asked to withdraw further; that both sides should promise not to try to change the ceasefire line through force, subversion or economic pressure; that the issue or the legal status of the occupied territory should be left for future negotiation and that NATO membership for Ukraine should be excluded, but that Ukraine should be guaranteed the right to seek membership of the EU.

Conditions also included that no NATO troops should be deployed in Ukraine, and any peacekeeping force should be from neutral countries under UN auspices; that the UN should guarantee the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine; that both sides should guarantee linguistic and cultural rights of minorities; that Western sanctions against Russia should be suspended, but with a “snap-back” clause guaranteeing that they would automatically resume in the event of new Russian aggression; that any limits on Ukrainian armaments should be restricted to long-range missiles, and that the West should be able to go on arming Ukraine for defense.

A settlement along these lines would leave both sides unhappy — but hopefully, not so unhappy that they would be willing to take on dreadful the risks and costs of a return to war. We may hope that — to adapt President Lincoln’s words — the “better angels” of the Russian and Ukrainian negotiators’ natures will incline them to such compromises at their talks in Istanbul this week. If not, and however incongruous this partnership may seem to many, it will be for the Trump administration to give the angels a helping wing.

Andrew Korybko: Yemen Taught Trump Some Lessons That He’d Do Well To Apply Towards Ukraine

By Andrew Korybko, Substack, 5/13/25

Five New York Times (NYT) journalists collaborated to produce a detailed report earlier this week about “Why Trump Suddenly Declared Victory Over the Houthi Militia”. It’s worth reading in full if time permits, but the present piece will summarize and analyze its findings. To begin with, CENTCOM chief General Michael Kurilla proposed an eight- to -10-month campaign for degrading the Houthis’ air defenses before carrying out Israeli-like targeted assassinations, but Trump decided on 30 days instead. That’s important.

The US’ top regional military official already knew how numerous the Houthis’ air defenses were and how long it would take to seriously damage them, which shows that the Pentagon already considered Houthi-controlled North Yemen to be a regional power, while Trump wanted to avoid a protracted war. It’s little wonder then that the US failed to establish air superiority during the first month, which is why it lost several MQ-9 Reaper drones by then and exposed one of its aircraft carriers to continued threats.

The $1 billion in munitions that were expended during that period widened preexisting divisions within the administration over whether this bombing campaign was worth the mounting costs. New Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Caine was concerned that this could drain resources away from the Asia-Pacific. Seeing as how the Trump Administration’s grand strategic goal is to “Pivot (back) to Asia” for more muscularly containing China, this viewpoint was likely decisive in Trump’s final calculations.

Oman reportedly provided the “perfect offramp” for him by proposing to his envoy Steve Witkoff, who was visiting them as part of the US’ nuclear talks with Iran, that the US could stop bombing the Houthis while they’ll stop targeting American ships but not ships that they deem helpful to Israel. This draws attention to that country’s outsized diplomatic role in regional affairs, but it also shows that the US was hitherto unsure of how to end its campaign in a face-saving way despite already realizing that it failed.

Two pathways were considered: ramping up operations for another month, carrying out a “freedom of navigation” exercise, and declaring victory if the Houthis didn’t fire on them; or continuing the campaign while strengthening the capacity of local Yemeni allies to start another offensive in the North. Both were reportedly scrapped in favor of Trump’s sudden victory announcement after another US jet fell off of an aircraft carrier, a US attack killed dozens of migrants in Yemen, and the Houthis hit Ben Gurion Airport.

Five conclusions can be drawn from the NYT’s report. For starters, Houthi-controlled North Yemen is already a regional power and has been so for some time, the status of which they achieved despite the Gulf coalition’s previous years-long bombing campaign and ongoing partial blockade. This impressive feat speaks to their resilience and the effectiveness of the strategies that they’ve implemented. North Yemen’s mountainous geography indisputably played a role in this, but it wasn’t the sole factor.

The second conclusion is that Trump’s decision to authorize a very time-limited bombing campaign was therefore doomed from the get-go. He either wasn’t fully informed of the fact that North Yemen had already become a regional power, perhaps due to military officials self-censoring for fear of getting fired if they upset him, or he had ulterior motives in having the US bomb them for only a brief time. In any case, there was no way that the Houthis were going to be destroyed in just several months’ time.

Optics are important for every administration, and Trump’s second one prioritizes them more than any other in recent memory, yet the third conclusion is that he still beat a hasty retreat once the strategic risks started spiraling and the costs began piling up instead of doubling down in defiance. This shows that ego- and legacy-related interests don’t always determine his policy formulations. Its relevance is that no one can therefore say for sure that he won’t cut and run from Ukraine if peace talks collapse.

Building upon the above, the Trump Administration’s acceptance of Oman’s unsolicited proposal that led to the “perfect offramp” shows that it’ll listen to proposals from friendly countries for defusing conflicts in which the US has become embroiled, which could apply towards Ukraine. The three Gulf states that Trump is visiting this week have all played roles in either hosting talks or facilitating exchanges between Russia and Ukraine so it’s possible that they’ll share some peace proposals for breaking the impasse.

And finally, the China factor looms over everything that the US does nowadays, ergo one of the reported reasons why Trump suddenly ended his unsuccessful bombing campaign against the Houthis after being informed by his top brass that it was wasting valuable munitions that would be better sent to Asia. Likewise, Trump might be convinced by similar arguments with regard to the strategic costs of defiantly doubling down in support of Ukraine if peace talks collapse, which the Gulf states might convey to him.

Connecting the lessons from Trump’s Yemeni debacle with his ongoing efforts to end the Ukrainian Conflict, it’s possible that he might at first instinctively double down in support of Ukraine if peace talks collapse only to soon thereafter be dissuaded by his top brass and/or friendly countries. Of course, it would be best for him to simply cut his country’s losses now instead of continuing to add to them, but his increasingly emotional posts about Putin hint that he might blame him and overreact if talks collapse.

It’s therefore more important than ever that peace-loving countries which have influence with the US immediately share whatever creative diplomatic proposals they might have in mind for breaking the impasse between Russia and Ukraine. Trump is creeping towards a Yemeni-like debacle in Ukraine, albeit one with potentially nuclear stakes given Russia’s strategic arsenal, but there’s still time to avert it if the “perfect offramp” appears and he’s convinced that accepting it would assist his “Pivot (back) to Asia”.

National Endowment for Democracy Is Now Erasing Disclosure Data

So NED is still alive and well, it’s just not going to have transparency about who it’s funding. We’re getting the worst of all worlds. – Natylie

By Jack Poulson & Lee Fang, Substack, 5/1/25

The National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S.-government backed nonprofit designed to influence the domestic politics of countries across the globe, says its efforts are part of a campaign to promote “open and transparent government.”

The group, funded by Congress and working in tandem with the State Department, has backed activists and civil society groups across Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa to push for greater disclosure among government entities. For instance, a recent NED report argues that “enhancing transparency” is vital for building trust in institutions and democratic governance, and urges the adoption of new disclosure laws for countries in the Balkans.

Despite the altruistic goals of disclosure for the developing world, NED is now going dark. In a new “duty of care” policy published this week, NED quietly announced a new rule to conceal the names of recipients of its programs from the public. Its 2024 grant list, attached to the policy, features dollar figures and one sentence summaries for over 1,700 grants. All of the external recipient names and identities have been wiped.

The move amounts to a fundamental shift in NED programming. For decades, the group, in accordance with its public demands for transparency, has published annual lists featuring grant recipients.Subscribed

Formed in the early years of the Reagan administration in response to increasing controversy surrounding the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, NED set out to engage in pro-American foreign influence initiatives that were once the domain of covert operations. “This program will not be hidden in the shadows. It will stand proudly in the spotlight, and that’s where it belongs,” stated Reagan in 1983.

“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” stated former acting NED president Allen Weinstein in a widely quoted 1991 interview with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. “The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly, the flap potential is close to zero. Openness is its own protection,” he continued.

The primary U.S. funder of overt operations has been the NED, the quasi-private group originally headed by Carl Gershman that is controlled by the U.S. Congress, Ignatius explained. Through the late 1980s, it did openly what had once been covert — such as dispensing money to anti-communist forces behind the Iron Curtain and funding dissident media known as ‘samizdat’.

The endowment was initially active inside the Soviet Union. It gave money to Soviet trade unions; to a foundation headed by Russian activist Ilya Zaslavsky; to an oral history project headed by Soviet historian Yuri Afanasyev; to the Ukrainian independence movement known as Rukh, and to many other projects. Avoiding the scandal of journalists and governments uncovering covert political action funding has been the raison d’être.

More recently, NED has been highly active in efforts to highlight Chinese human rights abuses, especially in the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, and its grantees have worked in Ukraine to counter alleged Russian influence. In a report titled “Long-Term Investments Pay Dividends in Ukraine,” NED touted its work funding local think tanks and activists pushing for civil society reforms, including the controversial media registration law in 2023 used to shut down media outlets accused of spreading Russian narratives.Subscribed

NED, despite its status as a quasi-independent nonprofit, continues to serve as an arm of the U.S. government. Its leadership features former government policymakers and elected officials, and its funding is virtually all from appropriations earmarked by Congress. As of fiscal year 2024, 99.3% of the organization’s $356.5 million in revenue came from the U.S. Government.

The push for secrecy by NED is justified as a security measure designed to protect the recipients of its funds. In a statement, the group noted that the Taliban had targeted Afghans associated with NED and that NED grantees were on Russian “kill and capture” lists.

In 2022, NED reportedly deleted its Ukraine-related grant lists. Archived show that over $22 million in grants to groups and activists in the country appear to have .

Yet the sudden reversal on transparency comes amid a broad push for secrecy. Last month, the U.S. Government-backed international journalistic group Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) similarly advised its peers to “launder money legally” as part of hiding sensitive donors, in response to what OCCRP described as a “toxic future” for pro-democracy journalists. The State Department further retroactively deleted details of the vast majority of USAID’s personal services contractors from public records.

“Rather than listing names that could serve as a roadmap for those seeking to silence advocates for freedom, we provide descriptive information that reflects the nature of their work without compromising their security,” wrote Wilson in Monday’s policy announcement. The new policy, he added, still maintains “the spirit of transparency.”

Photo: National Endowment for Democracy president and CEO Damon Wilson. Credit: Twitter/@NEDemocracy

See Related Reporting:
—  NGOs Backing Judicial Coup in Romania Funded by USAID, State Department (Dec. 11, 2024)
— U.S. Funds Ukraine Groups Censoring Critics, Smearing Pro-Peace Voices (April 11, 2024)

US and Ukraine Sign Minerals Deal

By Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com, 4/30/25

On Wednesday, the US and Ukraine signed a deal that will establish a new investment and reconstruction fund to give the US access to Ukrainian rare earth minerals and other natural resources.

“I am glad to announce the signing of today’s historic economic partnership agreement between the United States and Ukraine establishing the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund,” said US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Bessent said the deal “allows the United States to invest alongside Ukraine, to unlock Ukraine’s growth assets, mobilize American talent, capital, and governance standards that will improve Ukraine’s investment climate and accelerate Ukraine’s economic recovery.”

[image error] Screenshot from Bessent’s video statement announcing the deal

While it does not appear Ukraine received any concrete security guarantees as part of the deal, it means the US now has more of an interest in staying involved in the country’s affairs. Bessent said the agreement “signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long-term.”

The signing of the deal comes after months of contentious negotiations, which included the Oval Office blow-up between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Vice President JD Vance, and President Trump.

Trump has been saying that Ukraine owes the US hundreds of billions of dollars for its spending on the proxy war, an idea Zelensky has rejected. Yulia Svyrydenko, Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, who signed the deal with Bessent in Washington, said the agreement didn’t include any sort of debt repayment.

“The agreement does not contain any mention of any debt obligations of Ukraine to the United States. The implementation of the agreement will allow both countries to expand their economic potential through equal cooperation and investment,” she said.

Peter Hitchens: You’ve been fed propaganda nonsense about Ukraine and the invented Russian menace. These are the lies you’ve been told

By Peter Hitchens, The Daily Mail (UK), 4/26/25

Peter Hitchens is an English conservative author, broadcaster, journalist, and commentator. He writes for The Mail on Sunday and was a foreign correspondent reporting from both Moscow and Washington, D.C.

In my trade I have long grown used to the way governments lie and get others to lie for them. It is what they do. But I have seldom seen such a cloud of lies as we face now.

Hardly anyone in this country knows the truth about Ukraine. There has been nothing like it since we were all lied to about the Iraq invasion, with bilge about fictional ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. The liars were caught out. And they learned from it. They learned to lie more skilfully.

Meanwhile, many of those in our society who knew how to challenge such lies died off or retired and were not replaced.

We have never had a debate about the Ukraine crisis which started from the beginning. Did anyone in power ever tell you truthfully how, when or why this war began? No. Did anyone in power explain why Britain, crime-blighted, decrepit, rubbish-strewn, rat-infested, broke Britain, had to get involved in it? Never.

You have just been fed propaganda rubbish about ‘democracy’, freedom and an invented Russian menace. Here are some of the lies you have repeatedly been told.

The war, they say, was not provoked. Seldom in history has a war been more provoked.

Russians, nice ones like the liberal, democratic politician Yegor Gaidar, and nasty ones like the bloody despot Vladimir Putin, begged the West to stop trundling its military alliance, Nato, eastwards towards Russia.

All Russians, including the great anti-Communist author Alexander Solzhenitsyn, had been shocked and angered when Nato in 1999 abruptly gave up its defensive posture and launched attacks on Yugoslavia – which had not attacked a Nato member.

These protests reached their peak in February 2007, when Putin made a dramatic speech in Munich. He said Nato expansion was ‘a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. We have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?’

Look, if someone as gaunt as Putin spoke to you like that in a pub late in the evening, you’d take it as a warning that he was seriously riled. And unless you wanted a fight, you’d back off. But we didn’t back off.

US President George W. Bush, the genius who invaded Iraq, deliberately raised the temperature the following year. Can it be that Bush likes wars?

In April 2008, Bush said that Ukraine should be placed on the path towards joining Nato. Even the Guardian, the Liberal Warmonger’s Gazette, conceded that this was ‘likely to infuriate the Kremlin’. And so it did. I suspect we were on the path to war from that moment.

I am always accused, when I say that, of making excuses for Putin. I am not. I think he was stupid as well as wrong to be provoked. Wise men ignore provocations. But to claim he was not provoked is just to lie.

Another lie we are repeatedly told is that Russia attacked Georgia later in 2008. But anyone can find, on the web, a 2009 Reuters news agency story headlined ‘Georgia started war with Russia: EU-backed report’.

The dispatch summarises an inquiry by the respected Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini. She had been asked by Brussels to look into that war. That is what she said. But, somehow or other, a lot of Western media outlets failed to find space for it. I still meet supposedly informed people who have never heard of Ms Tagliavini or her report.

And then there is the claim that this is about democracy and freedom. It isn’t. The more the West claims to care for these things, the less it does to help them.

Some examples: Ukraine’s elected president was lawlessly overthrown by a mob in 2014. Britain and the USA condoned this shameful event because they preferred the illegal rebels to the elected government. You just can’t do that and pretend to be the guardian of democracy. But then, we aren’t anyway.

You will search in vain for protests against the treatment of Romania’s presidential candidate, in a country that is in the EU and Nato.

Calin Georgescu’s election was annulled by judges in December when he looked like winning the first round. And he has been banned from standing in the second round – all because he has the wrong kind of politics. And if that’s not enough, look at the West’s deep, shaming silence over the frightening, thuggish behaviour of Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan.

A few weeks ago, this Turkish Putin arrested and jailed Ekrem Imamoglu, an opposition politician who looked likely to beat him at the polls.

Mr Imamoglu joined the many journalists and democrats who already rot in Turkish prisons.

Erdogan has crushed free media, free speech and the freedom to protest. But his country is still allowed to stay in Nato, and Western states have made less noise than an angry vole guarding its nest. They’re scared of Erdogan.

I won’t even try to explain how Germany recently recalled its old, dead parliament to push through laws the newly elected parliament would not pass. This was done to allow the spending of extra billions on the Ukraine war. But I hope you get my drift.

Demand proper debate. Demand the truth. Don’t be dragged into more stupidity, or we will end up with bomb craters as well as potholes.

Putin Proposes Direct Talks With Ukraine, Zelensky Says Ceasefire Must Happen First

By Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com, 5/11/25

On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed starting direct peace talks with Ukraine without preconditions in Turkey this Thursday.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky initially responded by saying there must be a ceasefire before talks could be held. He later said that he was willing to meet with Putin in Istanbul this Thursday, but made clear it would still be conditional on a ceasefire.

“We await a full and lasting ceasefire, starting from tomorrow, to provide the necessary basis for diplomacy. There is no point in prolonging the killings,” Zelesnky wrote on X. “And I will be waiting for Putin in Türkiye on Thursday. Personally. I hope that this time the Russians will not look for excuses.”

In his announcement proposing the talks, Putin said that Ukraine had rejected previous Russian ceasefire offers, including the three-day truce he declared for Russian Victory Day, which ended at midnight on May 11. Throughout the three days, both sides accused the other of violating the ceasefire.

“I will repeat: we have proposed steps towards a ceasefire on many occasions. We have never refused to engage in dialogue with the Ukrainian side,” Putin said.

President Trump said that he wanted Ukraine to accept Putin’s offer for direct talks without a ceasefire. “President Putin of Russia doesn’t want to have a Cease Fire Agreement with Ukraine, but rather wants to meet on Thursday, in Turkey, to negotiate a possible end to the BLOODBATH. Ukraine should agree to this, IMMEDIATELY,” he wrote on Truth Social.

“At least they will be able to determine whether or not a deal is possible, and if it is not, European leaders, and the U.S., will know where everything stands, and can proceed accordingly!” he added.

Despite Trump’s post, Zelensky said he expects a ceasefire to begin on Monday. “Starting tomorrow, we await a ceasefire — this proposal is on the table. A full and unconditional ceasefire, one that lasts long enough to provide a necessary foundation for diplomacy, could significantly bring peace closer,” he said.

European leaders have been threatening to increase sanctions on Russia and ramp up military aid to Ukraine if Moscow doesn’t agree to a 30-day ceasefire, and reportedly have the Trump administration’s support to do so.

***

Putin’s Full Remarks at Announcement of Proposal for Direct Talks with Ukraine Without Preconditions

Kremlin website, 5/11/25

Bolding for emphasis is mine. – Natylie

In conclusion to festive events dedicated to the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, Vladimir Putin made a statement for the media where he summarised the results of work on May 7–10.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening, or maybe good night already. I want to greet everyone. Ladies and gentlemen. Colleagues.

Allow me to once again congratulate all of you on the Great Victory Day! Thank our friends and foreign partners who have been with us in Moscow these days at the anniversary celebrations to bow to the generation of winners.

We honour all those who contributed to the common victory over Nazism, including our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, Chinese soldiers, participants in the anti-Fascist resistance in Europe, fighters of the people’s liberation movements in Africa, the Asia-Pacific region, and volunteers from Latin American countries.

Together with our friends and like-minded people, we share a common memory and respect for history, heroic deed of true heroes who fought for freedom, and of course, our responsibility for the future, for building a more just and safer world. The issues that directly affect the stable, sustainable development of the entire world community – Eurasia and other world regions – were at the center of the bilateral and the multilateral meetings held in Moscow.

Of course, they were held in a special, solemn, festive atmosphere, but at the same time they were extremely rich and informative, filled with topics of the political, economic and humanitarian agenda.

Summing up, and this is exactly what I would like to do now, I would say that in four days, from May 7 to May 10, we hosted official visits by the leaders of three foreign states: the People’s Republic of China, the Venezuelan Bolivarian Republic and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Additionally, 20 bilateral meetings were held with the heads of the CIS countries, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Latin America. In total, 27 heads of state from the CIS, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Latin America, as well as about 10 heads of international organizations took part in the celebrations. Another six countries were represented at a high level.

We see inspiring evidence of genuine consolidation around the enduring ideas and values of our common Great Victory in such a wide participation of delegations from foreign countries and international organisations.

We are grateful to the leaders of the 13 states who sent units of the national armed forces to participate in the parade on Red Square. Their shoulder-to-shoulder march with our ceremonial units filled the common holiday with special energy and the spirit of military brotherhood, tempered during the Second World War.

I was pleased to personally thank the military leaders of the Korean People’s Army and convey my warmest words to soldiers and commanders of special forces units of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, who, jointly with our servicemen, professionally, and I want to emphasise this, faithfully performed their assignments during the liberation of the Kursk Region border areas from the Kiev regime forces. I would like to emphasise: they showed courage and heroism, acted – I want to say this again – professionally, to the highest degree, showed good training and preparation.

And of course, it was a special honour for all state leaders to salute the main heroes of the Victory anniversary on the stands – WWII veterans from Russia, Israel, Armenia and Mongolia.

I would like to highlight that, despite threats, blackmail and obstacles caused, including the closure of airspace, the leaders of several European countries – Serbia, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina – came to Moscow. I would like to reiterate: we understand the massive pressure they faced, and therefore we sincerely appreciate their political courage, firm moral position, decision to share the holiday with us, to pay tribute to the memory of the heroes of the Great Patriotic War, World War II, who fought for their Fatherland and for deliverance from the brown plague of the whole world, of the entire mankind without any exaggeration.

It is important for us that millions of Europeans, state leaders that pursue sovereign policies, remember this. This gives us optimism and hope that sooner or later, based on the lessons of history and the opinion of our peoples, we will begin to move towards restoring constructive relations with European states. Including those who today still do not give up the anti-Russian rhetoric and clearly aggressive actions against us. They are still trying – we can see it right these days – to talk to us, in fact, in a boorish manner and through ultimatums.

Our comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction with the People’s Republic of China can serve as a genuine example of modern equal relations in the 21st century. Chinese President Xi Jinping was the chief guest at the celebrations marking the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory.

We have had exceptionally fruitful negotiations, we have adopted two joint statements at the level of heads of state, and we have signed a number of intergovernmental and interdepartmental agreements covering such areas as energy, trade, finance, science, culture and much more. As I have already said, it has been agreed that in September I will pay an official return visit to China for the celebrations marking the 80th anniversary of victory over militaristic Japan.

It is deeply symbolic and natural that the principal, in fact the main commemorative events related to the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe and Asia will be held in Moscow and Beijing – in the capital cities of the states whose peoples passed through the hardest trials and paid the highest price for the common Victory.

Colleagues, I think it is obvious to everyone that the talks and meetings held in Moscow also touched on the issue of resolving the conflict in Ukraine. We are grateful to all our guests, our friends, for the attention they are paying to this conflict and for the efforts they are making to bring this conflict to an end. In this connection, I believe it is necessary to dwell on this topic separately.

So, I want to say that, as it is known, Russia has proposed ceasefire initiatives on several occasions, but they, these initiatives, have been repeatedly sabotaged by Ukraine. For example, the Kiev regime defiantly violated about 130 times the 30-day – I want to make it a point – 30-day moratorium, from March 18 to April 17, on strikes against energy facilities, which was declared in accordance with our agreement with US President Donald Trump.

The Easter truce initiated by Russia was not observed either: the ceasefire regime was violated by Ukrainian forces almost 5,000 times. Nevertheless, for the celebration of Victory Day – and we consider this to be a sacred holiday for us as well, just imagine that we lost 27 million people – we declared a ceasefire for the third time on this holiday, which is sacred to us.

Incidentally we conveyed to those of our colleagues in the West who, in my opinion, are sincerely looking for ways to settlement, our position on this issue, on a ceasefire on Victory Day, and that in the future we do not exclude the possibility of extending the terms of this truce – but, of course, after analysing what will happen in these several days, based on the results of how the Kiev regime will react to our proposal.

And what do we see? What are these results? The Kiev authorities, as you can see for yourself, did not respond at all to our ceasefire proposal. Moreover, after the announcement of our proposal – and this happened, as you remember, on May 5 – the Kiev authorities launched large-scale attacks in the early hours of May 7. As many as 524 unmanned aerial vehicles and a number of Western–made missiles participated in the strike, and 45 unmanned boats were used simultaneously in the Black Sea.

Actually, during these three days of the ceasefire that we announced – on May 8, 9 and 10 – happened what you also saw from the media, in fact, from your reports, it was clear: during this time, five targeted attempts were made to attack the state border of the Russian Federation in the area of the Kursk Region and at the junction with the Belgorod Region, precisely during the days of the ceasefire we announced. Additionally, another 36 attacks were made in other areas. All these attacks, including attempts to enter the territory of the Russian Federation in the Kursk Region and the Belgorod Region, were repulsed. Moreover, our military experts believe that they had no military significance, were conducted solely for political reasons and the enemy suffered very heavy losses.

As I have already said, the Kiev authorities not only declined our ceasefire proposal, but also, as we all saw, tried to intimidate the leaders of the states who gathered for the celebrations in Moscow. You know, when I met with colleagues here in Moscow, a thought occurred to me. I’ll share it with you: who were they trying to intimidate among those who came to Moscow to celebrate the Victory over Nazi Germany? Who were they trying to frighten? Those who have come to us are leaders not by position or a post, they are leaders by character, by their beliefs and willingness to stand for their beliefs. And who was trying to intimidate them? Those who stand at attention and salute, applaud former SS soldiers? And elevates those who collaborated with Hitler during WWII to the rank of national heroes? It seems to me that this is an attempt with obviously unsuitable means and those who are trying to do this do not correspond to the scale they expect themselves.

I will repeat: we have proposed steps towards a ceasefire on many occasions. We have never refused to engage in dialogue with the Ukrainian side. Let me remind you again: it was not us who interrupted the negotiations in 2022; it was the Ukrainian side. In this connection, despite everything, we propose that the authorities in Kiev should resume the negotiations that they interrupted at the end of 2022 and resume direct talks. And, I stress, without any preconditions.

We suggest starting without delay next Thursday, May 15, in Istanbul, where they were held earlier and where they were interrupted. As you know, Turkish colleagues have repeatedly offered their services to organise such talks, and President Erdogan has done a lot to organise them. I recall that as a result of these talks a joint draft document was prepared and initialed by the head of the Kiev negotiating group, but at the insistence of the West it was simply thrown into the basket.

Tomorrow we are going to have a conversation with the President of Turkiye, Mr Erdogan. I would like to ask him to provide such an opportunity to hold talks in Turkiye. I hope that he will confirm his desire to contribute to the search for peace in Ukraine.

We are set on serious negotiations with Ukraine. Their aim is to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and to achieve a long-term lasting peace for a historical perspective. We do not rule out that in the course of these negotiations it will become possible to agree on some kind of new truce and a new ceasefire. And a real ceasefire that would be observed not only by Russia but also by the Ukrainian side and would be the first step, I repeat, towards a long-term, sustainable peace, rather than a prelude to continuing armed conflict after the Ukrainian armed forces have been rearmed, re-equipped and frantically digged trenches and new strongholds. Who needs such peace?

Our proposal is, as they say, on the table. The decision is now up to Ukrainian authorities and their supervisors, who are seemingly guided by their personal political ambitions, rather than the interests of their peoples, want to continue the war against Russia at the hands of Ukrainian nationalists.

Let me reiterate myself: Russia is ready for talks without any preliminary conditions. There are combat actions and war going on now, and we propose to resume negotiations that were not interrupted by us. Well, what’s wrong about it?

Those who really want peace cannot but support this. At the same time, I would like to express my gratitude once again for the mediation services and efforts aimed at a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis undertaken by our foreign partners, including China, Brazil, African countries, the Middle East, and recently the new Administration of the United States of America.

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank everyone who shared with us the festive celebrations dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the Victory over Nazism. I am sure that the spirit of solidarity and harmony that united us in Moscow these days will continue to help us build fruitful cooperation and partnership in the name of progress, security and peace.

I would also like to take this opportunity to note the tremendous role of journalists, representatives of international information agencies, TV channels, and the press who covered the anniversary events and the many-hour programme of current negotiations and working meetings. Much has been done to ensure that people in different countries of the world experience the unique atmosphere of the current holidays in Moscow. Of course, I thank you for this meeting as well, as it is held quite late and, of course, everyone is already tired.

Thank you very much for your attention, as it’s almost half past one in the morning, or even later than half past one in Moscow, God be with you.

Thank you very much for your attention. Goodbye.

Russia Matters: US, Europe Finalizing 30-Day Ukraine Ceasefire Proposal; Putin Describes Russia-China Relations as ‘Unbreakable Friendship’

Russia Matters, 5/9/25

The U.S. and Europe are finalizing a proposal for a 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine. If Russia refuses the proposal, it will trigger new jointly imposed sanctions on Russia, according to Reuters. “What could happen in the coming hours and days, there could be an announcement of a ceasefire either of 30 days or compartmentalized, which is still being discussed,” a French diplomatic source said May 9. A meeting of Ukraine’s closest allies is due to take place on May 10, where the U.S.-European proposal will be discussed. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Finnish President Alexander Stubb have both expressed optimism that a ceasefire agreement could be reached as soon as “this weekend,” according to RBC.ua. Russia supports the implementation of a 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict, but only with due consideration of “nuances” in the more than three-year-old war, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was quoted as saying on May 9, Reuters reports.Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met in the Kremlin on May 8 for bilateral meetings, after which Putin said that Russia-China cooperation had reached its “highest level,” describing the relationship as an “unbreakable friendship,” according to the Washington Post. In a joint statement on “global strategic stability” published on the Kremlin website, they warned that “a critical mass of problems and challenges has accumulated in the strategic sphere, and the risk of nuclear conflict has increased.” Nuclear powers should maintain “constructive” relations to ensure international security, according to the document, which made no mention of Russia’s war in Ukraine, according to Bloomberg; however, the Chinese Foreign Ministry reported that Putin said Russia is ready to begin peace talks on Ukraine without preconditions and hopes for a just and lasting peace agreement. The joint statement also pledged to strengthen military cooperation and criticized Donald Trump’s proposal to develop an Iron Dome-like missile defense system, MT/AFP reports. “Both countries are conducting an independent and autonomous foreign policy, and are interested in forming a more just and democratic, multipolar world order,” Putin said after the talks concluded, Bloomberg reports. The Kremlin also announced that Putin will travel to China at the end of August and beginning of September.Military aid to Ukraine from the U.S. and EU is reportedly set to increase in the coming months. On May 4, The New York Times reported that a Patriot air-defense system previously based in Israel will be sent to Ukraine after it is refurbished, and Western allies are also discussing the logistics of Germany or Greece giving another one. Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg, the U.S. State Department approved F-16 fighter-jet training and services for Ukraine worth up to $350 million, “signaling that the White House will keep supporting Kyiv in the fight against Russia,” Bloomberg reports. Additionally, on May 9, the EU pledged to allocate 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) from the proceeds of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s defense industry, MT/AFP reports.Despite the reverence for Ukraine’s war dead, they, too, have become an income stream for corrupt officials, the Wall Street Journal reports. Some funeral homes pay officials to win large contracts for transporting or burying dead troops, according to officials with knowledge of the transactions. Funeral homes overcharge councils for soldiers’ headstones and coffins and split the difference with officials, police say.Two South American states this week sought closer ties with Russia, as Putin and his Venezuelan counterpart Nicolás Maduro signed a strategic partnership treaty and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva offered Putin wide-ranging cooperation on a variety of areas, MT/AFP reports. The strategic partnership with Venezuela is the latest in a series of alliances Russia has forged since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, according to MT/AFP, while Brazil’s Lula told Putin: “My visit today is aimed at strengthening the building of our strategic partnership,” according to a Russian-language readout. The closer ties between Venezuela, Brazil and Russia threaten a longstanding acknowledgment of South America as a U.S. sphere of interest.1 Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has appeared to endorse a U.S. foreign policy that reanimates spheres of influence as a legitimate interest of great powers, of which he also counts Russia and China. Russia’s strengthened connections to these South American states may increase the friction between a Trump administration newly interested in acquiring, for example, Greenland, and a Russia potentially bent on re-establishing Ukraine and central Europe as its own sphere of influence.*Putin on May 9 celebrated the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany “with a Red Square military parade designed to place Moscow at the vanguard of a rising, non-Western world order,” the New York Times reports. Putin was joined by more than 20 foreign leaders from countries that largely position themselves as neutral or hostile to the West, including the leaders of China and Brazil and North Korean generals. Servicemen from “friendly nations” also took part in the event, though no North Korean soldiers marched in the parade, according to MT/AFP. No senior American officials were known to be in attendance. 

***

Read the transcript of Putin’s Victory Day speech here.

You can watch the Victory Day celebration below. YouTube link here. Unfortunately I have not yet been able to find a video that includes any English translation of Putin’s speech.

Putin’s ONLY Option To End The War Is TOTAL TAKEOVER Of Ukraine: Kim Iversen Interviews Scott Horton

YouTube link here.

Ben Aris: Kremlin sets the conditions for foreign companies to return to Russian market

By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 4/10/25

Thanks to the tangible thaw in US-Russian relations, Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered the government to work out the conditions for firms to return. The list is ready, The Bell reported on April 10.

A special government commission will assess all applications for market re-entry, with approval contingent on fulfilment of a range of industrial and political criteria. Without this authorisation, companies will not be permitted to resume operations in Russia. No one has applied to return so far, but a few firms have expressed an interest.

Putin opened the door for the return of Western companies towards the end of February, but made it clear that they could only return on the Kremlin’s terms and in a way that was beneficial to the Russian economy.

On the downside, any firm that took sides against Russia in the Ukraine conflict would be barred from operating.

On the upside, the Kremlin is going to force companies to localise production of inputs – something that the Kremlin was trying to get companies to do for years, especially in the automotive sector – without much luck. The goal is to accelerate the modernisation of Russia and promote import substitution, something the Kremlin has not made much progress with.

Specifically, the conditions, reported by Russian business daily RBC, include:

-Obtain approval from a special government commission (without which re-entry is not possible);

-Guarantee localisation of production within Russia;

-Commit to technology transfer and creation of research centres;

-Establish performance indicators for investment in development (KPIs);

-Comply with requirements for the level of robotisation in production;

-Form joint ventures with:

-Existing Russian shareholders of the former business, or

-Systemically important Russian enterprises;

-Prioritise inclusion of products in the Ministry of Industry and Trade’s list of 329 items for import substitution;

-Allow Russian businesses to pre-assess risks and vote on the advisability of a foreign firm’s return;

-Demonstrate previous compliance when exiting the Russian market:

-Fulfilled financial obligations (e.g. paid salaries, no outstanding debts)

-Did not support foreign agents, the Armed Forces of Ukraine or other hostile entities.

Many companies left Russia, selling their businesses to their local management in widespread MBOs, and many of these deals included a buy-back option should relations improve. However, the Kremlin has indicated these options will not be respected.

In the case of the Renault carmaker that was in a joint venture with Russian automotive titan AvtoVaz, the French firm sold its stake for a reported RUB2, but with an option to buy it back for the same price. However, a few days after Putin’s comments, AvtoVAZ president Maxim Sokolov said that Renault would have to pay $1.3bn if it wants its shares back, the amount of “extra” investment the Russian car company had to invest as a result of Renault’s departure.

In other sectors, especially retail, requests by foreign companies to retake control of their franchises will simply be ignored. McDonald’s, for example, spent three decades building up its chain, which was taken over by Vkusna i Tochka (Tasty. Period), including its flagship outlet on Pushkin’s Square in central Moscow. Since then the new owner has continued to invest, rolling out new stores in Russia’s regions and reported that the chain had become more profitable than the original after the first year of operations.

Most of the new owners have little incentive to sell them back to their original owners. During the exodus Russia saw one of the biggest transfers of wealth and property in its history, where entrepreneurs and managers picked up mature and profitable businesses with hundreds of thousands of dollars of turnover at very deep discounts. Franchises such as McDonald’s, if it returns at all, will be forced to start from scratch.

Encouraging foreign direct investment (FDI) is a classic goal of any government, as it brings not only the transfer of technology, but also management skills. But the Kremlin has been frustrated by the reluctance of international companies to set up full production lines in Russia. In the automotive sector just under two thirds of car parts continue to be imported from the European Original Equipment Manufacturers’ (OEMs) Western European parts plants as a way to prevent the authorities usurping their industry. In other businesses, like the French DIY retailer Leroy Merlin, the international companies have been more proactive, making investments in light manufacturing production after Chinese wages, a major source of product cost, overtook Russian labour wages. One of the most active foreign investors was Swedish furniture retailer IKEA – it refused to leave Russia after the invasion of Ukraine – which set up a credit scheme to finance the construction of Russia-based factories to make their products. However, the bulk of Russian FDI is the reinvestment of profits earned by multinationals operating in the market – a quirk of Russian national accounting is this reinvestment is counted as FDI, which is not the case in most markets – and not true FDI, which remains small by most emerging markets’ standards.

Now the Kremlin intends to force international firms that want to return to make these commitments by fiat rather than market forces.

In addition to the localisation of production, a key requirement includes the establishment of research centres, and the setting of specific investment performance indicators. Authorities will specifically evaluate technological contributions, such as the level of automation: Russia currently operates just 19 robots per 10,000 employees, compared with the global average of 162 and will set KPIs relating to the number of robots used in a new factory.

Foreign firms must also form joint ventures with Russian partners – either existing shareholders from their previous Russian operations or state-designated “systemically important” companies, but this will be done in terms of delivering as yet undefined “benefits” for the domestic economy.

The Ministry of Industry and Trade will prioritise applications from companies making products on the list of 329 items crucial for import substitution, but their domestic partners will also have a say in the process.

Applicants will also have to demonstrate their neutrality on sanctions and the Ukraine conflict. Moreover, they will need to prove they settled outstanding wages and cleared debts during their exit.