5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ukraine
What Are the Chances for Peace in Ukraine Right Now?
What makes it so difficult to find a solution? Is Russia a threat to Europe? Five questions for Eurasia expert Anatol Lieven.
Jul 09, 2025
David Goeßmann: The talks a few weeks ago between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul came to nothing. What are the chances for peace?
Anatol Lieven: I see no prospect for an end to the war at present. Russia and Ukraine remain far apart on peace terms, and the Trump administration has not put forward a compromise proposal of its own. The Russian generals are reportedly telling Russian President Vladimir Putin that Ukraine will collapse by early next year, and Putin is willing to fight on, at least for a while. We will have to see what happens on the battlefield, and to the Russian economy.
David Goeßmann: What makes it so difficult to find a diplomatic solution for the Ukraine war?
Anatol Lieven: Ukraine will never legally recognize Russian sovereignty over the occupied territories, but cannot reconquer them. So a cease-fire will have to take place along the existing battle line, and the question of their legal status will have to be left for future negotiation—as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy proposed soon after the start of the war.
In my judgement, internal political factors make it impossible for the Ukrainian government to make a peace offer that Russia could accept—just as the French establishment could not make peace with the Communists in Vietnam long after the war there was clearly lost. The Europeans are far too divided to make a coherent joint proposal. So the initiative for peace will have to come from the U.S.
The only question is whether the U.S. can abandon it incrementally and peacefully, or if it goes down in blood and fire taking many other countries with it.
The European states will have to be consulted about the future of sanctions and the Russian assets in Europe that they have seized. But they are incapable of uniting behind a serious peace strategy.
David Goeßmann: In Europe and the U.S. it is feared that Russia will go beyond Ukraine and invade other European countries? Your take on that.
Anatol Lieven: Russian military capabilities and intentions vis a vis NATO have both been hugely exaggerated. Even hybrid moves (which are not "war") have so far been very small and in the nature of warnings not serious attacks. Russian nuclear bluster has been intended to deter NATO from intervening in Ukraine, not as the prelude to a Russian attack on NATO.
David Goeßmann: NATO has decided that each member state should spend 5% of its GDP on military and related infrastructure. How do you assess this unprecedented militarization?
Anatol Lieven: These figures are absurd. Five percent of E.U. GDP would be approximately $900 billion a year—as much as the U.S. and almost three times the military budgets of Russia and China put together. That is quite unnecessary, and impossible. This is an empty bribe to U.S. President Donald Trump to keep the U.S. committed to Europe, not a serious strategy.
David Goeßmann: The struggle for global primacy continues under Trump, see the bombing of Iran or the confrontation with China. Where are we heading?
Anatol Lieven: The desire for universal U.S. hegemony (also known as the "Wolfowitz Doctrine") is a megalomaniac project that cannot possibly be sustained for long. The only question is whether the U.S. can abandon it incrementally and peacefully, or if it goes down in blood and fire taking many other countries with it.
Among the nuclear-armed powers, we can hope that the fear of nuclear annihilation will stop them from going over the brink into war with each other. The example of India and Pakistan shows that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) can actually work—for without it, India would have invaded Pakistan long ago. But the liberal dream of a global "Democratic Peace" is dead as a nail, killed by Israel and the U.S. itself just as much as by Russia.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Oxfam Says Russian Use of Chemical Weapons in Ukraine Would Be 'Egregious Violation of International law'
"The increasing erosion of the rule of law is deeply concerning," said an Oxfam campaigns manager.
Jul 07, 2025
Anti-poverty organization Oxfam on Monday expressed grave concern over reports that Russia has been increasingly deploying chemical weapons in Ukraine.
The Associated Press reported late last week that two Dutch intelligence agencies are claiming that Russia has been ramping up its use of chemical weapons in its war against Ukraine. Among the chemical weapons allegedly being deployed by Russia are chloropicrin, a banned poison gas that was used by European powers during World War I, and CS gas, which is typically used as a riot control agent.
Sarah Redd, Oxfam's advocacy and campaigns manager in Ukraine, called reports of banned chemical weapons use deeply troubling and called for a full investigation into the matter.
"Oxfam is appalled at the recent intensification of violence against civilians in Ukraine, especially the reports of Russia's use of chemical weapons, which would be an egregious violation of international law," she said. "The increasing erosion of the rule of law is deeply concerning. Such laws were put in place to prevent humanity from sliding back into a darker chapter of history. Oxfam calls for an immediate and independent international investigation into these allegations and to hold those responsible to account."
Russia is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty first drafted and enacted in the 1990s that bars the use of both chloropicrin and CS gas in war. This makes Russia subject to potential investigations carried out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, although such an investigation can only take place if requested by member states.
Ukraine has claimed that Russia has carried out more than 9,000 chemical weapons attacks ever since it launched its invasion of the country more than three years ago. During the 2024 election campaign, President Donald Trump claimed that he could bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia war within a single day although so far fighting between the two nations has only intensified.
Keep Reading
Show Less
NATO's 5% Pledge: An Obscene Betrayal of Global Needs
Presented as a historic step, in truth this increased level of military spending represents a major step backwards for humanity and the common good.
Jun 26, 2025
At this week’s NATO summit in The Hague, leaders announced an alarming new goal: push military spending to 5% of nations’ GDP by 2035. Framed as a response to rising global threats, particularly from Russia and terrorism, the declaration was hailed as a historic step. But in truth, it represents a major step backwards—away from addressing the urgent needs of people and the planet, and toward an arms race that will impoverish societies while enriching weapons contractors.
This outrageous 5% spending target didn’t come out of nowhere—it’s the direct result of years of bullying by U.S. President Donald Trump. During his first term, Trump repeatedly berated NATO members for not spending enough on their militaries, pressuring them to meet a 2% GDP threshold that was already controversial and so excessive that nine NATO countries still fall below that “target.”
Now, with Trump back in the White House, NATO leaders are falling in line, setting a staggering 5% target that even the United States—already spending over $1 trillion a year on its military—doesn’t reach. This is not defense; it’s extortion on a global scale, pushed by a president who views diplomacy as a shakedown and war as good business.
This is not defense; it’s extortion on a global scale, pushed by a president who views diplomacy as a shakedown and war as good business.
Countries across Europe and North America are already slashing public services and yet they are now expected to funnel even more taxpayer money into war preparation. Currently, no NATO country spends more on the military than on health or education. But if they all hit the new 5% military spending goal, 21 of them would spend more on weapons than on schools.
Spain was one of the few to reject this escalation, with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez making clear that his government would not sacrifice pensions and social programs to meet a militarized spending target. Other governments, including Belgium and Slovakia, quietly pushed back too.
Still, NATO leaders pressed on, cheered by Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who fawned over Donald Trump’s demand that Europe boost defense spending. Rutte even referred to Trump as “Daddy,” a comment that—while dismissed as a joke—spoke volumes about NATO’s subservience to U.S. militarism. Under Trump’s influence, the NATO alliance is shedding even the pretense of being a defensive pact, embracing instead the language and logic of perpetual war.
Real security doesn’t come from tanks and missiles—it comes from strong communities, global cooperation, and urgent action on our shared crises.
Just before NATO leaders were gathering at the Hague, protesters took to the streets under the banner “No to NATO.” And back in their home countries, civic groups are demanding a redirection of resources toward climate justice, healthcare, and peace. Polls show that majorities in the U.S. oppose increased military spending, but NATO is not accountable to the people. It’s accountable to political elites, arms manufacturers and a Cold War logic that sees every global development through the lens of threat and domination.
NATO’s expansion, both in terms of war spending and size (it has grown from 12 founding members to 32 countries today) has not brought peace. On the contrary, the alliance’s promise that Ukraine would one day join its ranks was one of the triggers for Russia’s brutal war. Instead of de-escalating, the alliance has doubled down with weapons, not diplomacy. In Gaza, Israel continues its U.S.-backed war with impunity, while NATO nations send more arms and offer no serious push for peace. Now the alliance wants to drain public coffers to sustain these wars indefinitely. NATO is also surrounding its adversaries, particularly Russia, with ever more bases and troops.
Under Trump’s influence, the NATO alliance is shedding even the pretense of being a defensive pact, embracing instead the language and logic of perpetual war.
All of this demands a radical rethink. As the world burns—literally—NATO is stocking up on kindling. When healthcare systems are crumbling, schools underfunded, and blazing temperatures making large swaths of the planet uninhabitable, the idea that governments should commit billions more to weapons and war is obscene. Real security doesn’t come from tanks and missiles—it comes from strong communities, global cooperation, and urgent action on our shared crises.
We need to flip the script. That means cutting military budgets, withdrawing from endless wars, and beginning a serious conversation about dismantling NATO. The alliance, born of the Cold War, is now a stumbling block to global peace and an active participant in war-making. Its latest summit only reinforces that reality.
This is not just about NATO’s budget—it’s about our future. Every euro or dollar spent on weapons is one not spent on confronting the climate crisis, lifting people out of poverty, or building a peaceful world. For the future of our planet, we must reject NATO and the war economy.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular