The EU NATO members propose a 3.5% to a 5% increase in their GDP for NATO spending to help cover Ukraine's rearming costs due to its
losses.
NATO countries over the past three years have financed Ukraine for $191.2 billion, more than half of which was allocated by the United States, according to Sputnik calculations based on data from the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance, Kiel University and open data.
sputnikglobe.com
Those under the age of 25 will be given incentives to sign voluntary contracts with the military, Nikolay Schur has said
www.rt.com
With a full-blown land war in Ukraine and an isolationist American president back in the White House, European leaders have come to a stark conclusion: They must spend more on their militaries.
www.nytimes.com
"Moscow does not see any real actions by Kiev and the West that indicate readiness for peace talks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saidIf the US under Trump takes Russia's interests into account, the dialogue between Moscow and Washington will gradually be restored, if not, "everything will remain as it is," Lavrov said.Russia cannot organize empty talks on a ceasefire in Ukraine, but Moscow is ready to consider all serious proposals for a solution, Lavrov noted.He also stated that the Russian Federation is against freezing the Ukrainian conflict, which the West will use to arm Kiev and try to take revenge".
Swamp talk from Lt Gen Kellogg, Special Envoy for Ukraine & Russia
Ukraine lost over 360 troops in the Kursk area in the past day, while five soldiers surrendered, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement
Five soldiers were surrendered, the Russian Defense Ministry said
MOSCOW, January 25. /TASS/. Ukraine lost over 360 troops in the Kursk area in the past day, while five soldiers surrendered, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement.
"The Ukrainian armed forces lost over 360 troops in the past day. A tank, nine armored combat vehicles, 27 motor vehicles, a self-propelled artillery system, two mortars, and an electronic warfare system were destroyed. Six drone control points and an ammunition depot were wiped out. Five Ukrainian service members surrendered," the statement reads.
According to the ministry, units of Battlegroup Center carried out offensive operations, defeating the forces of a tank brigade, a heavy mechanized brigade, four mechanized brigades, two air assault brigades and a marine brigade of the Ukrainian armed forces and three territorial defense brigades near Viktorovka, Zaolyoshenka, Kositsa, Kurilovka, Lebedevka, Malaya Loknya, Makhnovka, Mirny, Nikolayevka, Nikolayevo-Daryino, Nikolsky, Novaya Sorochina, Sverdlikovo, Sudzha and Cherkasskoye Porechnoye in the Kursk Region.
Besides, tactical and army aircraft and artillery forces hit enemy troops and equipment near Guyevo, Dmitryukov, Zazulevka, Kazachnya Loknya, Kruglenkoye, Loknya, Melovoy, Nikolayevo-Daryino, Oleshnya, Sverdlikovo, Staraya Sorochina and Yuzhny in the Kursk Region, as well as near Basovka, Belovody, Zhuravka, Miropolye and Yunakovka in the Sumy Region.
Russian forces strike Ukrainian military airfields, drone storage sites in 132 areas
Russian air defenses also downed 44 Ukrainian drones and three HIMARS rockets in the past day, the Russian Defense Ministry said
MOSCOW, January 25. /TASS/. Russian forces carried out strikes on infrastructure facilities at Ukrainian military airfields and drone storage sites in
132 areas, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement.
"Russian tactical aircraft, attack drones, missile forces and artillery units struck infrastructure facilities at military airfields, sites for storing unmanned aerial vehicles and preparing drone attacks, as well as enemy troops and equipment in 132 areas," the statement read.
Russian air defenses also downed 44 Ukrainian drones and three HIMARS rockets in the past day, the ministry said.
"Air defenses shot down three US-made HIMARS rockets and 44 fixed-wing unplanned aerial vehicles," the statement reads.
According to the ministry, a total of 652 planes, 283 helicopters, 41,439 unmanned aerial vehicles, 590 missile systems, 20,843 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,510 multiple rocket launchers, and 20,930 field artillery pieces and mortars, as well as 30,776 special military motor vehicles, had been destroyed since the start of Russia’s special military operation.
Battlegroups North, Dnepr
Russia’s Battlegroups North and Dnepr made Ukraine lose up to 90 troops in the past day, the ministry said in a statement.
"Units of Battlegroup North active in the Kharkov area defeated the forces of a Ukrainian motorized infantry brigade near Volchansk in the Kharkov Region. The Ukrainian army lost up to 45 troops, an armored combat vehicle, two motor vehicles and an artillery piece," the statement reads.
According to the ministry, units of Battlegroup Dnepr hit the troops and equipment of three Ukrainian coast guard brigades near Tokarevka, Antonovka, Yantarnoye and Sadovoye in the Kherson Region. The enemy lost up to 45 troops and two motor vehicles.
Battlegroup South
Russia’s Battlegroup South improved their tactical position in the past day, making Ukraine lose up to 210 troops, the ministry said in a reported.
"Units of Battlegroup South improved their tactical position. They defeated the forces of three Ukrainian mechanized brigades, a motorized infantry brigade and a National Guard brigade near Belogorovka, Dachnoye, Orekhovo-Vasilyevka, Konstantinovka, Zelenovka and Chasov Yar in the Donetsk People’s Republic. The Ukrainian army lost up to 210 troops," the statement reads.
Ukraine also lost a US-made M113 armored personnel carrier, two motor vehicles and a field artillery piece.
Battlegroup East
The Ukrainian army lost over 170 troops in the area of responsibility of Russia's Battlegroup East in the past day, the ministry added.
"Units of Battlegroup East continued to move deeper into enemy defenses, defeating the forces of two mechanized brigades and an air assault brigade of the Ukrainian armed forces and a territorial defense brigade near Konstantinopol, Razliv and Velikaya Novosyolka in the Donetsk People’s Republic and Temirovka in the Zaporozhye Region. The Ukrainian army lost over 170 troops, an armored combat vehicle and two motor vehicles. Six field artillery pieces were destroyed," the statement reads.
Battlegroup Center
Russia’s Battlegroup Center moved to more advantageous positions in the past day, hitting the troops and equipment of seven Ukrainian brigades and making the enemy lose up to 550 troops, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
"Units of Battlegroup Center moved to more advantageous positions in the past day, hitting the troops and equipment of three mechanized brigades and a motorized infantry brigade of the Ukrainian armed forces, two territorial defense brigades and the Liut assault brigade of the National Police of Ukraine near Zelyonoye, Lysovka, Krymskoye, Petrovka, Dzerzhinsk, Novovasilyovka and Novoyelizavetovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic," the statement reads.
According to the ministry, "the enemy lost up to 550 troops, a tank, five armored combat vehicles, three motor vehicles and four field artillery pieces.".
Battlegroup West
The Ukrainian army lost over 400 troops in the area of responsibility of Russia’s Battlegroup West in the past day, the ministry reportedt.
"Units of Battlegroup West moved to more advantageous positions. They hit the troops and equipment of three mechanized brigades and a mountain assault brigade of the Ukrainian armed forces, two territorial defense brigade and three National Guard brigades near Dvurechnaya, Glushkovka, Zelyony Gai and Novoosinovo in the Kharkov Region, Torskoye and Yampol in the Donetsk People’s Republic. The enemy lost over 400 troops," the statement reads.
In addition, the Ukrainian army also lost five armored combat vehicles, including two US-made M113 armored personnel carriers, seven motor vehicles and five field artillery pieces, including two made by NATO countries, as well as an electronic warfare station.
The 47th president wants to end conflicts but not resolve them
www.rt.com
The 47th president wants to end conflicts but not resolve them
The flood of headlines about US President Donald Trump’s first days back in the White House are stunning but unsurprising. We have grown accustomed to his hyperactivity. Yet, unlike eight years ago, the reaction now feels different. Back then, Trump’s ascent was widely regarded as a political anomaly – a shock that many attempted to explain by pointing the finger at alleged Russian meddling. Trump himself seemed caught off guard by his unexpected victory.
Today, the picture has changed. The Republican’s return to power is no accident; it is a deliberate comeback. He carries himself with an air of inevitability, bolstered by a party now united under his leadership and an establishment that, reluctantly or otherwise, has adjusted to his dominance. With control of Congress and a handpicked team ideologically aligned with him, Trump has two years to pursue his vision with minimal resistance. This time, his rhetoric could very well translate into reality.
Trump’s worldview has been consistent for decades. Public declarations from the 1980s, long before his political career began, reflect the same core beliefs he holds today. Trump’s ultimate goal is American supremacy – but not the liberal global leadership championed by his predecessors. His version of supremacy is transactional and utilitarian. Alliances, institutions, and relationships are only valuable if they benefit the US materially. Those that demand sacrifices without offering returns are liabilities to be discarded.
Trump’s America is not interested in moral authority, global stability, or solving the world’s problems. It is focused on extracting the maximum benefit from every interaction, whether in economics, security, or politics. If others refuse Trump’s ‘deal’, coercion quickly becomes his preferred strategy.
Averse to war, partial to economic combat
While Trump champions a tough, combative approach, he is reluctant to engage in armed conflict. This is not due to pacifism but practicality. Trump the developer views war as wasteful and counterproductive. Destruction does not align with his instincts to build and acquire assets. For him, conflict is best resolved through negotiation, merger, or purchase – not devastation.
This aversion to military conflict explains his preference for economic warfare. Trade wars and aggressive negotiations are his tools of choice, often targeting close US allies rather than adversaries. This approach unnerves traditional partners and challenges the post-Cold War ‘rules-based’ international system, where alliances are valued for their collective stability. Trump sees no inherent value in these alliances unless they provide tangible benefits to the US.
Implications for Russian-US relations
For Russia, Trump’s return brings mixed prospects. On the one hand, Trump’s disdain for the liberal world order signals a departure from the ideological rigidity of previous administrations. The post-Cold War system often dismissed Russia’s national interests in favor of US-centric global dominance. In contrast, Trump’s ‘America First’ policy focuses on national interests, which opens the door for pragmatic deals based on mutual benefit.
However, Trump’s approach remains deeply flawed. He is uninterested in addressing the root causes of conflicts. In Ukraine, for example, his goal is not a comprehensive resolution but a simple cessation of hostilities. A stable ceasefire along existing lines would suffice for him, leaving the deeper security issues for Western Europe or others to resolve. For Russia, this falls short. Moscow seeks a long-term solution that addresses the imbalance in European security – a concern Trump is unlikely to prioritize.
Trump’s disinterest in complex international designs further complicates matters. He prefers straightforward deals, as evidenced by the Abraham Accords in the Middle East. These agreements worked because they bypassed entrenched historical disputes in favor of pragmatic, economically driven solutions. However, applying this model to Ukraine is unrealistic. The conflict’s deep historical and geopolitical roots require a level of nuance and patience that Trump lacks.
Transactional leadership
Trump’s transactional leadership style also extends to his perception of governance. He measures other governments not by their ideology but by their efficiency and willingness to align with US interests. Leaders who reject his advice or fail to meet his standards are dismissed as incompetent. While this approach is less ideologically driven than previous administrations, it still results in the US dictating terms to other nations, often disregarding their sovereignty.
This attitude underscores a continuity in American foreign policy: The belief that the US has the right to define the ‘legitimate interests’ of other nations. Trump may abandon the ideological justifications of his predecessors, but the outcome – a US-centric worldview – remains unchanged.
A New era in international relations
Trump’s return marks the beginning of a new era in global politics. His presidency is not an anomaly but a reflection of broader sociopolitical changes. The old model of global leadership, symbolized by Joe Biden’s fading presidency, has run its course. Trump’s disruptive approach may rationalize politics by prioritizing national interests, but it also sharpens contradictions and risks creating confusion.
For Russia, Trump’s pragmatism offers opportunities and challenges. While his disdain for liberal ideology aligns with Moscow’s critiques of the West, his lack of interest in addressing systemic issues limits the potential for meaningful collaboration. Trump’s focus on short-term gains and his tendency to dictate terms may lead to friction, even as he seeks to avoid direct confrontation.
Ultimately, Trump’s presidency embodies the logic of a changing world order. As traditional alliances and institutions falter, new dynamics emerge, driven by national interests and pragmatic calculations. Whether this shift leads to greater stability or heightened tensions remains to be seen. One thing is certain: The era of ‘global leadership’ as we knew it is over, and Trump is its most prominent symbol.
This article was first published by the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
