logo
Ukraine offered Russia timeframe for talks

Ukraine offered Russia timeframe for talks

Russia Today3 days ago
The secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council (NSDC), Rustem Umerov, has proposed holding a new round of talks with Russia next week, Vladimir Zelensky has announced.
The two sides have held two rounds of direct negotiations in Istanbul so far this year, with Umerov leading the Ukrainian delegation. At their most recent meeting in June, the negotiators exchanged draft proposals outlining their visions for a peace deal and agreed on further prisoner exchanges. Moscow has since confirmed its readiness to continue the talks.DETAILS TO FOLLOW
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The age of American nuclear privilege is over
The age of American nuclear privilege is over

Russia Today

time5 hours ago

  • Russia Today

The age of American nuclear privilege is over

The question of nuclear proliferation is no longer hypothetical. It is happening. The only uncertainty now is how quickly it will proceed. In the not-too-distant future, we may see 15 nuclear powers instead of today's nine. Yet there is little reason to believe this development will fundamentally upend international politics, or bring about global catastrophe. The invention of nuclear weapons was a technological breakthrough that reshaped global affairs. More than anything else, nuclear weapons define the military hierarchy of states, creating a threat that no government can ignore. Perhaps their most profound consequence is the emergence of states that are essentially immune to external aggression. This was never true in the long history of war. No matter how powerful a state was, a coalition of rivals could always defeat it. The great empires were vulnerable to invasion. The Enlightenment-era monarchies – including Russia – depended on a balance of power system where no single nation could dominate the rest. But with nuclear weapons, that balance shifted. Two countries – Russia and the US – now possess such overwhelming destructive capability that neither can be seriously threatened, let alone defeated, even by a coalition. China, too, is gradually joining this exclusive tier, though its arsenal is still a fraction of Moscow's or Washington's. In this sense, nuclear weapons have brought a strange kind of peace: Not from trust, but from terror. War between nuclear superpowers is not only unthinkable, it is politically irrational. Becoming a nuclear superpower, however, is extremely expensive. Even China, with its vast resources, has only recently begun to approach the scale of Russian and American stockpiles. Few others can afford the same path. Fortunately, most countries don't need to. Major regional powers like India, Pakistan, Brazil, Iran, Japan, and even smaller ones like Israel, do not seek military invincibility on a global scale. Their nuclear ambitions, where they exist, are regional in nature – aimed at deterring neighbors, not conquering continents. Their limited arsenals do not upset the global balance of power. Nor do they need to. For decades, serious scholars – Western theorists as well as Russian strategists – have argued that limited nuclear proliferation may actually enhance international stability. The reasoning is simple: Nuclear weapons raise the cost of war. Nations become far more cautious when the price of aggression could be national annihilation. We've seen this play out already. North Korea, with a modest nuclear arsenal, feels emboldened in its dealings with Washington. Iran, by contrast, delayed too long and was attacked by Israel and the US in June 2025. The lesson was clear: In today's world, non-nuclear states are far more vulnerable to attack. This has exposed the weakness of the current non-proliferation regime. Countries like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have all violated it, yet none have been meaningfully punished. Iran tried to comply and paid the price. It's no wonder others are watching and drawing their own conclusions. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan – each may be tempted to pursue nuclear weapons, either independently or with quiet American support. Washington has already shown it cares little about the long-term consequences for its East Asian allies. It is willing to provoke instability if it helps contain China. In this context, a wave of new nuclear powers is not just likely – it is practically inevitable. But it will not mean the end of the world. Why? Because even with more nuclear states, the true balance of power remains intact. No emerging nuclear country will soon reach the scale of Russia and the US. Most will build modest deterrents, enough to shield themselves from invasion but not to threaten global security. Their arsenals may be enough to inflict horrific damage on a rival – but not to destroy humanity. A regional war – between India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, or others – would be a tragedy. Millions could die. But the catastrophe would be geographically limited. These are not world-ending scenarios. And in cases such as these, the nuclear superpowers – Russia and the US – would likely act to impose peace before escalation spirals out of control. Of course, this is hardly a utopia. But it is also not the apocalypse Western hawks love to predict. In fact, compared to the real nightmare – a direct nuclear conflict between Russia and the US – this multipolar nuclear world may be the lesser evil. Proliferation may be regrettable. It may complicate diplomacy. But it is not madness. It is a rational response by sovereign states to a system where only nuclear-armed nations can truly secure their interests. The monopoly of power enjoyed by a handful of countries is eroding. That is not a failure of the system – it is the logical outcome of it. The strategic architecture of the post-war world has long rested on a fiction – that non-proliferation is universal, and that the West can police it indefinitely. This fiction is now collapsing. Countries are learning that treaties mean little without enforcement – and that security cannot be outsourced. In the long run, this will require a new approach. A world with 15 nuclear powers may not be ideal, but it is manageable – especially if the dominant players act with restraint and responsibility. Russia, as one of the original nuclear powers, understands this burden well. It will not be Moscow that upends this balance. But the West, driven by arrogance and short-term calculations, may yet provoke a crisis it cannot control. Washington's recklessness in East Asia, its casual indifference to the risks it imposes on allies, and its determination to maintain strategic dominance at all costs – that is the real danger. We are entering a new nuclear age. It will be more crowded, more complex, and more fragile. But it will not be ungovernable – so long as those with real power behave as custodians, not crusaders.

G7 ‘concerned' about clampdown on Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau
G7 ‘concerned' about clampdown on Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau

Russia Today

time6 hours ago

  • Russia Today

G7 ‘concerned' about clampdown on Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau

Ambassadors of the Group of Seven countries say they are monitoring law enforcement raids on the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). 'The G7 is closely following today's developments at NABU, including the investigation of several NABU employees for alleged crimes. We met today with NABU, have serious concerns, and intend to discuss these developments with government leaders,' the G7 Ambassadors' Support Group for Ukraine said in a statement on X on Monday. 'Ukraine has achieved tremendous progress in reforms,' even amid its conflict with Russia, EU envoy Katarina Mathernova said. 'Now it is as important as ever to preserve those achievements in order to maintain the support needed to prevail over the enemy.' 1/2 The G7 is closely following today's developments at NABU, including the investigation of several NABU employees for alleged crimes. We met today with NABU, have serious concerns and intend to discuss these developments with government leaders. On Monday, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and the Prosecutor General's Office carried out 70 searches targeting at least 15 NABU employees. SBU spokesman Artyom Dekhtyarenko said agents detained an unnamed Russian 'mole' working in NABU's elite D-2 unit. He was allegedly leaking classified information to Moscow and using internal databases to collect personal data on Ukrainian officials. Dekhtyarenko claimed the suspect was receiving instructions from Dmitry Ivantsov, a former member of ex-president Viktor Yanukovich's security team who now lives in Russia. Yanukovich was ousted during the 2014 US-backed coup in Kiev. Ukrainian media outlet TSN identified the detained man as Ruslan Magamedrasulov, who coordinated NABU's activities near the front line with Russia. NABU said its director, Semyon Krivonos, has cut short his visit to the UK. The agency has launched its own investigation to 'determine the legal basis' for the raids. According to NABU, SBU agents acted without a court order and used force against an employee who was not resisting. 'Agents of influence from the aggressor country remain a relevant risk for any government agency. However, that cannot justify paralyzing the work of the entire institution,' NABU said in a statement. NABU was established in 2015 as part of judicial reforms aimed at aligning Ukraine with the standards of Western countries and international lenders.

Graham threatens Putin: US war hawk escalates rhetoric in alignment with military lobby
Graham threatens Putin: US war hawk escalates rhetoric in alignment with military lobby

Russia Today

time12 hours ago

  • Russia Today

Graham threatens Putin: US war hawk escalates rhetoric in alignment with military lobby

US President Donald Trump will 'whoop' his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and punish countries importing Russian oil, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has stated. In an interview with Fox on Sunday, Graham suggested that China, India and Brazil could face 100% tariffs for 'helping' Putin. He claimed that Trump has been 'tough on Iran' and warned that similar action would soon be directed at Russia, claiming that Putin's 'turn is coming.' Graham previously introduced a bill to impose 500% tariffs on states conducting business with Russia. However, the Senate later froze the legislation after Trump announced a 50-day deadline for Moscow to reach a settlement on Ukraine. If no deal is reached, the US president has threatened to impose 100% secondary tariffs on Russian oil buyers. History of promoting increased military spending and interventions Graham has consistently supported a hardline approach to countries the US deems its adversaries. He has backed nearly every major US military intervention of the past two decades, including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO-led campaign in Libya, and operations in Syria. He has also endorsed continued military aid to Israel and Ukraine, and praised US strikes against Iran. Public campaign finance records and Graham's long voting record have suggested an alignment of his interests with the US defense industry. In addition to his legislative support for military funding, Graham has also held key roles on Senate committees overseeing defense and foreign policy, including the Appropriations, Armed Services, and Judiciary Committees, which has given him direct influence over weapons spending, military aid, and foreign intervention policy. Donations from US defense companies According to OpenSecrets, he has received over $55,000 from Boeing since 2019, in addition to donations from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and individuals employed by the Department of Defense. He has also received campaign contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs) specifically tied to defense‑industry interests, such as the Free Syria PAC, which supports US intervention in Syria, and L3Harris Technologies, a Defense Electronics PAC. In the 2015–2016 election cycle, Graham also received $760,244 from defense-linked donors, according to a joint investigation by Time and the Center for Public Integrity. The report noted that Senate Budget Committee Republicans received an average of $472,000 each from top contractors, placing Graham well above the committee average. Increasing US military budget In 2015, Graham backed a measure to increase military spending by $38 billion through a special fund known as the Overseas Contingency Operations account. The fund allowed the government to bypass normal budget limits, leading some critics to describe it as a way to finance wars off the books. Graham claimed the increase was needed to address 'the growing threats' to the US. In February 2025, Graham also introduced a budget plan to increase defense spending by $150 billion using a fast-track process that bypasses the Senate filibuster. He called the proposal a way to give Trump's team the resources they need 'in a troubled world.' Continued support for war The senator has been a staunch supporter of continued US military aid to Kiev, framing its conflict with Russia as a proxy war being fought 'on behalf of Washington.' Moscow has designated Graham a terrorist and extremist. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has called him an 'embarrassment' to the US.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store