Tuesday, November 10, 2026

Russia-US-Ukraine trilateral: What you need to know about the talks that could define Europe’s security architecture

Russia-US-Ukraine trilateral: What you need to know about the talks that could define Europe’s security architecture 

The talks in the UAE could reshape continental security as Kiev’s European backers fight for a say

9 Nov, 2026 
Russia-US-Ukraine trilateral: What you need to know about the talks that could define Europe’s security architecture 

Russian, Ukrainian, and American negotiators are set to convene in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday for a new two-day round of talks to settle the Ukraine conflict. 

The stakes extend far beyond simply ending the fighting. The discussions will potentially shape not only the future of Russia and Ukraine, but the geopolitical landscape of Europe for decades to come.

The Abu Dhabi November round marks the first formal trilateral negotiations since February, and were made possible only by Washington’s mediation efforts that involved talks between US envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian President Vladimir Putin last month.

Moscow has said the main agenda would be “building a security system for Russia and Ukraine.” US President Donald Trump has raised the stakes by suggesting that a prospective sweeping agreement with Moscow could involve “all of Europe.” He also told 60 Minutes over the weekend that Ukraine would emerge from the conflict resolution process with “a little bit different shape.”

RT

Kiev itself has found itself in a precarious position. Cash-strapped and increasingly dependent on reluctant Western benefactors, Ukraine is reeling under Russian strikes targeting its defense industrial base and military-related energy facilities as winter looms, while its troops are being pushed back hard on the front line.

Here is who will be at the negotiating table, what the parties intend to discuss, and where Russia, Ukraine, the US, and Europe stand.

Who is going to meet in Abu Dhabi?

In a testament to the importance of the talks, all the countries involved have dispatched some of their most senior officials.

Russia is sending a substantial delegation, headed by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, a veteran of the negotiations with Ukraine who represented Moscow at the Istanbul talks in 2022. Russia said the negotiations were derailed by ex-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who advised Kiev to keep fighting instead of signing a tentative peace agreement, a claim Johnson has denied.

The Russian delegation also includes Deputy Foreign Ministers Sergey Ryabkov and Mikhail Galuzin. Ryabkov’s portfolio includes work with the US on strategic stability, arms control and nonproliferation, and other issues, while Galuzin is responsible for relations with post-Soviet countries, including Ukraine, and has participated in previous negotiating rounds.

Moscow will also be represented by Igor Kostyukov, the chief of military intelligence (GRU), and Aleksey Komkov, who heads the foreign relations department at Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB).

The Russian expert group in Abu Dhabi includes Yury Zhigarlovsky, a senior officer in the General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate, responsible for military planning; Dmitry Minaev, who is in charge of counterintelligence operations at the FSB; and Oleg Postnikov, the director of the Foreign Ministry’s department for non-proliferation arms control.

The other participants of the talks are Aleksandr Zorin, the deputy head of the General Staff’s Information Directorate; Elena Podobreevskaya, a member of the Russian president’s office dealing with humanitarian issues, and Aleksey Polischuk, who leads of the Foreign Ministry’s Second CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) Department.

Ukraine’s delegation will be headed by Rustem Umerov, the former defense minister who currently leads the country’s Foreign Intelligence Service. He will be joined by Vladimir Zelensky’s chief of staff Kirill Budanov, parliamentary faction leader David Arakhamia, senior diplomat Sergey Kislitsa, and Vadim Skibitsky, deputy chief of military intelligence.

The United States will be represented by Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, both of whom have become central figures in Washington’s efforts to broker an agreement.

What about Western Europe?

Western European nations are scrambling to avoid being sidelined by Washington’s and Moscow’s discussion of the continent’s future. Exhausted by the conflict and struggling to foot Ukraine’s bill, Western European governments have dispatched officials to Abu Dhabi, despite Russia’s refusal to give them a seat at the table. 

In this vein, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot insisted on Sunday that “Europeans will be well represented” in Abu Dhabi, adding that French officials intend to take part in the talks, although he declined to identify the officials who would attend. He also stressed that European capitals told Washington that “no discussion concerning the future of the continent can disregard our expectations and demands.”

Other European leaders also chimed in. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas threatened to throw a wrench into any deal concluded without the bloc’s participation. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has gone further, urging the EU to come up with a joint position. She warned that “otherwise, I fear we risk condemning Europe to irrelevance in the negotiation process.”

According to the Financial Times, the Abu Dhabi talks will be attended by the national security advisers of France, Germany, and the UK, as well as the chiefs of staff to the European Commission president and NATO secretary-general.

Moscow has consistently objected to European nations’ participation in trilateral contacts, with Kremlin foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov saying last month that “they can get there [Abu Dhabi] if they buy tickets, but no one intends to invite them to the negotiating table.”

Is Europe divided on talking to Russia?

It certainly is. The rift was opened when Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store called Putin for a 90-minute telephone conversation on October 27, without pre-clearing the call with their EU and NATO interlocutors.

While Stubb and Store insisted they had coordinated the call with Zelensky, it triggered a wave of angry pushback from Russia hawks. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen openly criticized the initiative, declaring “Europe should stick together rather than going solo.”

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, who said he had not been informed beforehand, also joined the PR pushback, announcing that he had “low expectations for this type of conversation.” 

Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal urged European partners to focus on pressuring Russia, while Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called for “absolute caution and vigilance.”

The Financial Times claimed that Putin had wasted much of the call lecturing Stubb and Store on Russian and Slavic history. Store however rejected that, describing Putin as “rational” and “professional.”

Store told Politico in an interview on Monday that Europe could not leave diplomacy entirely to Washington and that expecting the conflict to end without Europe talking directly to Russia was “an illusion.”

What are Moscow’s priorities in securing a lasting resolution to the Ukraine conflict? 

Its core demands have changed little since 2022:

• It seeks the “recognition of the territorial reality on the ground.” 
• Ukraine must remain militarily neutral and its future military capabilities must be capped.
• Any settlement should address the root causes of the Ukraine conflict. 
• NATO troops must not be deployed to Ukraine in the guise of a peacekeeping force.
• Any settlement must be all-encompassing and final; no ceasefires as precursors to talks are acceptable.

What is Zelensky’s position at the trilateral talks? 

Zelensky claims that formal territorial concessions are impossible but has said that he is ready to accept a peace deal freezing the conflict along the current front line. Ukraine is also seeking to halt strikes on its energy infrastructure, reopen Black Sea shipping routes, and expand prisoner exchanges, as well as post-conflict security guarantees.

Ukraine also hopes the Abu Dhabi sit-down will serve as a springboard for a Putin-Trump-Zelensky summit, in which the EU or Western states would also participate. Moscow, however, insists that any such summit should occur only once substantive agreements are ready, while Ushakov has reiterated Putin’s invitation for Zelensky to come to Moscow for direct talks, which the Ukrainian leader has rejected on numerous occasions.

What does the US want at the Abu Dhabi talks? 

Washington is seeking a deal that would encompass not only Ukraine but the future security architecture of Europe. According to Kushner, Washington’s objective is to “address the security concerns of all sides, reduce the risk of future conflict, and create a more stable and predictable security environment.”

He said that the policy is based on five principal goals, including “permanent security consultations, reliable crisis communications, greater military transparency, reciprocal measures to reduce escalation risks, and an enduring framework for long-term European security and stability.”

How are Russia and Ukraine faring ahead of the Abu Dhabi talks?

Moscow enters the negotiations holding significant leverage, with its forces pressing Ukraine’s military across the front line. Putin said in mid-October that “just over 10%” of Russia’s Donetsk Region and “16.5%” of Zaporozhye Region remained under Ukrainian control, adding that Lugansk Region was entirely in Russian hands.

Moscow is continuing its long-range strikes targeting Ukraine’s military-related facilities, including energy infrastructure, which have done immense damage to Ukraine’s steel industry. Zelensky has acknowledged that “every power plant in Ukraine” has been impacted “in one way or another.” The authorities have introduced blackouts of up to 16 hours per day in some areas.

Ukraine’s military is grappling with acute manpower shortages, large-scale resistance to its forced mobilization campaign, and desertion. An investigation in October by the Associated Press found that some frontline units were operating at roughly half strength, with exhausted troops complaining of long rotations.

Corruption is rampant in Kiev, and the economy is in dire straits. Kiev remains heavily dependent on foreign assistance. Russian strikes on the port of Odessa – themselves retaliation for Zelensky’s 40-day summer “pressure campaign” – have crippled the country’s agricultural exports, a key source of foreign revenue. Shipments plunged by more than 40% in August-October compared to the same period last year.

Ukraine has barely managed to plug its a $27 billion defense budget hole – which EU countries refused even to validate – by introducing austerity measures and postponing payments for some of the weapons.

According to Ukraine’s Finance Ministry, its state and state-guaranteed debt – mainly based on preferential funding – stood at $212.6 billion at the end of September, with repayment obligations stretching many years into the future.

Tactically, Ukraine has continued to launch long-range strikes on Russian oil refineries in defiance of explicit demands from Trump. While Putin has acknowledged that the attacks have done some damage, it is being quickly repaired.

Are Kiev’s European backers tired of conflict?

According to the European Commission, the EU and its member states have provided €235.9 billion in assistance to Ukraine since February 2022. Despite the EU’s €90 billion support package for 2026–2027, European officials estimate that Kiev will face an additional €70 billion funding shortfall next year.

War fatigue is becoming difficult to ignore in Europe. Even some of Kiev’s staunchest backers have acknowledged its rise. In late October, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas admitted that “it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain to the European public why it is necessary to support Ukraine, because everyone is tired of this war.”

Abroad, popular public sentiment in several Western European countries is turning significantly negative towards the millions of Ukrainians who fled almost five years ago and receive unconditional state benefits. 

How did the midterms impact US foreign policy posture?

The Abu Dhabi talks come on the heels of a crushing defeat for Trump’s Republican Party in the midterm elections, which saw Democrats seize control of both chambers of Congress. While the Democrats are already reportedly mulling a new $15 billion security assistance package for Kiev alongside tougher sanctions against Moscow, the new Congress will not take office until January.

Even afterward, Trump will retain broad authority over foreign policy and the power to veto legislation, which requires two-thirds majorities in both chambers to override. Thus, Democrats could put pressure on the White House, but their election victory does not automatically change Washington’s negotiating position toward Moscow.

How close are Russia and Ukraine to a ceasefire?

Despite renewed diplomatic efforts, Moscow and Kiev remain far apart on the fundamental terms of ending the conflict.

However, a rare breakthrough came in late October, when the two sides upheld a six-day humanitarian ceasefire in the town of Alyoshki in Russia’s Kherson Region, mediated by US First Lady Melania Trump.

The town had been largely cut off from essential supplies for months due to a Ukrainian siege, leaving its remaining residents facing severe shortages of food, medicine, and clean water. During the temporary ceasefire, Russian and Ukrainian officials coordinated humanitarian deliveries and the evacuation of some 750 people from the besieged frontline town, according to Melania Trump.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov praised the First Lady’s mediation, saying the arrangement “could set a precedent” for similar humanitarian pauses elsewhere. Ukrainian human rights commissioner Dmitry Lubinets also expressed optimism, saying “at least we saw that it’s possible to reach agreements to save lives – although it is not easy.”

What are experts in Moscow saying about the trilateral talks?

Alexander Bobrov, an associate professor at MGIMO, Russia’s leading international affairs university, argued in conversation with RT that Russia is approaching the Abu Dhabi talks with caution for two reasons: uncertainty over Ukraine’s willingness to compromise and Moscow’s bitter experience with the implementation of previous agreements.

He blames earlier negotiating deadlocks on Kiev’s “maximalist demands,” saying Ukraine pursued a strategic defeat for Russia while remaining prepared to fight “to the last Ukrainian soldier.”

In his view, progress depends on Kiev recognizing that the battlefield situation is moving against it and that a negotiated agreement offers a better outcome than continued fighting. That recognition, he said, could create an opening for compromise.

“Finding that compromise is the essence of diplomacy,”
Bobrov said, pointing to the combination of professional military officers and senior diplomats in Medinsky’s negotiating team.

“We may be able to reach a final settlement,”
he said. “For now, however, we remain very cautious.”

Bottom Line

The Abu Dhabi talks could mark a significant breakthrough in the substance and tone of peace talks, or the beginning of the end of the Trump administration’s efforts to mediate the Ukraine conflict.

While deep disagreements between Moscow and Kiev remain, any breakthrough could reverberate well beyond the warring parties for decades to come.

European governments, however, are desperately struggling to remain involved in a process which they have refused to engage in for years. However, with increasing public anger across Western Europe over the cost of living and slashed services, and a continuous debt and cash line to Kiev at full throttle, it is likely that Brussels knows its years of megaphone diplomacy are going to come with a hefty bill, which it will pass on to its citizens.

----------------------------------

Source

https://rt-english.com/russia/648600-russia-us-ukraine-trilateral/

Sunday, November 8, 2026

Politicians Come and Go. The Machinery of Oppression Remains [SHORT]

Politicians Come and Go. The Machinery of Oppression Remains (SHORT)

“There is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there?”— V for Vendetta

A revolution can topple a tyrant without dismantling tyranny.

An election can replace a president without curbing the powers of the presidency.

A new political majority can inherit the instruments of repression and adapt them to their own purposes.

In other words, what good is a political change if the weapons of oppression merely change hands?

After a midterm election that saw billions of dollars spent on political advertising and a Democratic wave sweep Republicans out of power in Congress, Americans have once again been promised a new direction.

But the question that must rightfully be asked is: what comes next?

Twenty years ago, V for Vendetta offered moviegoers a terrifying glimpse of a future in which government surveillance was everywhere, dissent was dangerous, the media served as an instrument of state propaganda, and the promise of safety had become an excuse for stripping people of their freedoms.

Released in 2006, V for Vendetta depicts a future Britain ruled by Norsefire, a fascist regime promising safety and security above all. Behind those promises lies a machinery of surveillance, detention, censorship and intimidation.

The parallels to the modern-day American police state’s methods for entrenching its powers are hard to ignore: exploiting fear, demonizing dissent, turning security into a blank check and treating constitutional restraints as inconveniences.

As director James McTeigue observed in a recent interview marking V for Vendetta’s twentieth anniversary, the political circumstances may change, but the methods used by authoritarian governments remain remarkably consistent, and the same struggles over executive authority, government control and the suppression of dissent continue to resurface.

“It’s always the same playbook,” McTeigue warned.

Other dystopian films drive the point home that we cannot vote our way out of tyranny if we keep voting to hand someone else the keys to the police state.

In Land of the Blind, released the same year as V for Vendetta, a soldier helps overthrow a brutal ruler, only to watch the revolutionary leader establish another repressive regime.

In The Hunger Games, President Snow’s defeat does not automatically bring justice. President Coin, who leads the rebellion against him, proposes another Hunger Games—this time using the children of the defeated Capitol. Although the names and uniforms change, the logic of cruelty remains.

The politicians come and go. The machinery of government remains.

By “government,” I’m referring to government with a capital “G”: the entrenched Deep State, the sprawling network of agencies, contractors, surveillance systems, security bureaucracies and accumulated powers that is largely unaffected by elections and increasingly insulated from accountability.

What one president puts in place, the next inherits. What one political party condemns when it is out of power, it may find remarkably useful once it controls the machinery of government.

Consider what has remained largely unchanged despite decades of elections, campaign promises and assurances that this time things will be different.

The surveillance state no longer needs a camera on every street corner. Americans carry much of the technology needed to monitor their movements in their own pockets.

Meanwhile, the militarization of America’s police forces continues. Through federal equipment-transfer programs, local law enforcement agencies have gained access to military equipment and capabilities.

We are still contending with an enormous system of prisons, jails and detention facilities; laws that criminalize an ever-expanding range of conduct; and government agencies that too often treat due process as an obstacle to enforcement rather than a constitutional obligation.

Nor have successive administrations managed to dismantle the military-industrial complex, end the government’s dependence on endless military commitments abroad, curb its appetite for taxpayer dollars or sever the cozy relationship between government power and corporate profit.

The war machine keeps running.

The surveillance apparatus keeps expanding.

The government contractors keep collecting their checks.

And the taxpayers keep footing the bill.

All the while, we are encouraged to believe that everything will change if only we elect the right people.

This is the illusion of freedom: that we are free so long as the government permits us to be free, that our constitutional protections can be suspended whenever government officials utter the magic words “national security.”

The Founders understood something that Americans seem to have forgotten: the greatest danger to freedom is not simply who holds power, but how much power government is permitted to wield.

That is why they established a system of checks and balances, dividing authority among three coequal branches of government—the executive, legislative and judicial branches—and placing constitutional limits on each.

Unadulterated power in any branch of government is a menace to freedom.

The newly elected Congress has an opportunity to provide a meaningful constitutional check on executive power. It can investigate government abuses, demand accountability, exercise its legislative authority and refuse to rubber-stamp an imperial presidency. But if the new majority merely substitutes partisan retribution for constitutional accountability, or defends the same abuses when they serve its own political interests, the machinery of tyranny will remain intact.

There is no ten-step plan for recovering a free society.

If there were, however, the first step would be simple: stop treating politics as a spectator sport and do your part to defend freedom principles in your own community.

Stand up for your own rights, of course. But more importantly, stand up for the rights of those with whom you disagree. Defend freedom when the speaker is offensive, the accused is unpopular or the person being targeted has a different race, religion, nationality, immigration status, politics or point of view. The Bill of Rights is not a reward for good behavior or a privilege reserved for people who think like us.

Don’t play semantics. Don’t justify. Don’t politicize it. Don’t excuse a constitutional abuse because your preferred party happens to be in power. When officials sidestep the Constitution, demand that they obey it.

That’s their job. Make them do it.

As I have made clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, freedom requires more than a vote.

It requires a government that is forced to play by the rules of the Constitution—and a citizenry willing to hold those in public office accountable when they don’t, no matter which party is in power.

WC: 1047

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

---------------------------------

Source

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_machinery_of_oppression_remains_short

Saturday, November 7, 2026

Scott Ritter: Buyer’s remorse made Trump. It has now also wrecked the Republicans

Scott Ritter: Buyer’s remorse made Trump. It has now also wrecked the Republicans

It’s a cycle: either party will gleefully ride the other’s failures, but neither will address the voters’ real concerns

5 Nov, 2026 

American voters brought Donald Trump to power, handing him the opportunity to radically transform the political landscape of America, building upon overwhelming discontent about the political status quo that had metastasized over the course of successive presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic.

And on November 3 American voters, in a fit of buyer’s remorse, voted for the very party they had rejected two years prior.

In 2024, Donald Trump was elected to a second term as president after running on a platform centered on the concept of “Making America Great Again,” or MAGA.

Riding on Trump’s MAGA coattails, Republicans were able to win control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, providing him with the opportunity to enact the kind of transformative changes in American politics his supporters were expecting – indeed, demanding. Two years later, the MAGA political machine lies in ruins.

Democrats, building on a wave of discontent and disappointment among an American electorate over the two-year track record of non-performance by Trump and his Congressional Republicans, have won decisive majorities in both houses of Congress, and are positioned to challenge Trump’s agenda for the remaining two years of his term.

Or more. Rep. Robert Garcia, a California Democrat and the presumptive chairman of the House Oversight Committee once the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, issued a two-word warning to Republicans once the scope and scale of the Democratic victory became clear: “Lawyer up.”

In a subsequent statement, Garcia declared that under his leadership the Oversight Committee would focus on four major investigations. “The first is: We’re going to take on the Trump crime family,” Garcia said. “The amount of grift and corruption is unprecedented in American politics.”

In this regard, Garcia will seek to interview Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner along with other Trump family members about their alleged business dealings and any connection with the official duties of the president.

“Our second investigation is focused on DHS (the Department of Homeland Security) and the abuses of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement),” Garcia declared. “When people are being kidnapped and detained, thrown to the ground, arms broken, people snatched up on their way to immigration appointments that we the government gave them – that’s inhumane, it’s wrong, and I think the American public – regardless of party – are sick of it.”

Garcia also plans to investigate corporate donors to the White House ballroom, no-bid contracts like the Reflecting Pool contractor and companies he has said are “ripping off” the American public. “While you’re struggling, CEOs and companies across this country are making record profits,” he said. “They’re putting in systems of surveillance pricing, so that when you go to the supermarket, you might be paying a different price than your neighbor.”

Garcia also intends to probe further into the scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, saying he wants to hold public hearings, which would replace the interviews that occurred behind closed doors when Republicans were in control of Congress.

Other Democrats have indicated that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth will come under investigation for potential war crimes and other impeachable offenses.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is likewise expected to be put under the oversight microscope.

A third impeachment of President Trump is very much on the table as well.

There can be no doubt that many Democratic voters, perhaps a very large majority, will support Garcia’s vindictive agenda.

There is some question whether the current projected Democratic leadership – Hakeem Jeffries as the House Majority Leader, and Chuck Schumer as the Senate Majority Leader – is considered the best choice for engaging in such a political direction. After all, it was this leadership, combined with the policies of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, which led to Trump’s MAGA-driven electoral victory in 2024.

The buyer’s remorse of 2024 helped fuel the buyer’s remorse of the present times, and if left unchanged, the political cycle will continue to produce outcomes driven on similar remorse going forward.

Vice President J. D. Vance, obviously concerned about what the midterm results portend for his possible 2028 run for the presidency, has come out with his own post-game assessment as to why the Republicans under Donald Trump fared so poorly. In a social media post on X, Vance highlighted four actions that Republicans could have taken to mitigate their losses – ending the Iran war, focusing on the cost of living and inflation, putting America first and changing the US relationship with Israel.

None of these coincide with the agenda laid out by Representative Garcia.

This is a critical distinction.

Garcia, Jeffries and Schumer appear to believe that the midterm election results are a vote of confidence for a traditional Democratic platform.

Vance believes the midterm results reflect the disappointment among voters who had resoundingly rejected the Democratic platform in 2024. The voters, Vance believes, were punishing Trump and the Republicans, not endorsing the Democrats.

Vance is most likely correct in the fundamentals of his assessment: punishment versus endorsement. But his breakdown of causal factors is fundamentally flawed, something his fellow republicans have noted.

Senator Thom Tillis, a retiring North Carolina Republican, called Vance’s explanation oversimplified. “That is one of several factors,” Tillis said. “Do you honestly believe, for example, respectfully, Mr. Vice President, that we saw the departure of Hispanics over the war? Give me a break. It’s more complicated than that, and we owe a thoughtful analysis so that we get it right.”

Tillis was alluding to the fact that Vance had completely ignored the role the unconstitutional actions of ICE played in shaping the mindset of much of the electoral mindset, especially those among the MAGA base who held constitutional rights as being sacrosanct.

Garcia has made the DHS/ICE abuses a centerpiece of his agenda. But he is perhaps forgetting that under both Obama and Biden the Democrats deported more illegal aliens than Donald Trump. No one has clean hands when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration.

The same can be said about Israel and the ongoing genocide being perpetrated on the Palestinian population of Gaza. The current phase of the genocide started under Joe Biden. Trump simply continued the support.

Israel is one area where the American voter may get a choice – Vance wants to review America’s blind commitment to Israel and focus on putting America first.

Jeffries and Schumer each took more than $1.7 million in AIPAC donations.

But there is no unity among the MAGA crowd about Israel. Many support politicians like Ted Cruz, who claims to have become a senator to serve the cause of Israel, and Tom Cotton, who openly advocates in favor of the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

But it is the issue of war and peace where the fickle nature of the American voter and the feckless behavior of American politicians truly comes into play.

Vance states that the Iran war was a major factor in influencing the American voter. But not because we carried out an illegal war of aggression facilitated by an act of perfidy that resulted in the murder of 170 Iranian school kids.

No, the issue was gas prices. President Trump promised an end to the endless wars in the Middle East. He lied, getting America embroiled in a failed war of choice.

But he could have gotten away with the lie if he had ‘won’, with victory measured by the price Americans pay at the pump for gas and diesel. We lost not because we did the wrong thing, because we violated international law, because we committed war crimes. We lost because the price of gas became uncomfortable for the American voter.

Simply put, the American voter has no moral compass. Just a bank account. If it goes up, all is good. If it goes down, there will be hell to pay.

This bodes poorly for the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Trump has made ending this war a priority, but the fact is he has failed to take advantage of opportunities, such as Russian President Putin’s offer of a compromise made in August 2025 in Alaska.

Instead, Trump continues to fund the Ukrainian war machine and provide political cover for European financial and material commitments to Ukraine. Trump continues to authorize the CIA to carry out operations against Russia designed to trigger conditions conducive to the collapse of the Russian government.

Any hope that Trump might navigate toward a path of conflict termination has been dashed by the election outcome – Congressional democrats, empowered by their electoral victory, will continue to advocate for supporting Ukraine’s war of attrition against Russia.

For Russia, this is perhaps the best outcome. Former Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov has said that one of the things Russia looks for most in foreign relations is predictability. Trump’s Russian policy was the most unpredictable policy imaginable, making the formulation of coherent, sustainable policy on the part of Russia almost impossible.

Trump will not be able to move forward toward ending the Russian-Ukraine conflict through negotiations – the Democrats in Congress will not permit this. Trump will be compelled to support Ukraine, which makes US policy objectives inherently predictable.

It is time for Russia to recognize the reality that Ukraine is a cancer on its aspirations for regional security. Excise this cancer. Ukraine is a rabid dog. Shoot the dog.

The extinction of Ukraine is the most predictable outcome that emerges from the US midterm election.

Faced with the fact that the US will not only fail to reign in the Ukrainian nationalists who have seized the helm of power in Kiev, or moderate the Russophobic aspirations of Europe, Russia will have no choice but to finish the job of bringing peace to Ukraine by itself.

And because this conflict does not impact the price of gas in the US, the American voter will remain oblivious to the human tragedy that will result.

Buyer’s remorse only extends to that which the buyer has attached value to. And for America, Ukraine holds no value.

--------------------------------------
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of 'Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union.' He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, served in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991 to 1998 served as a chief weapons inspector with the UN in Iraq. Mr Ritter currently writes on issues pertaining to international security, military affairs, Russia, and the Middle East, as well as arms control and nonproliferation. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter and on Telegram @ScottRitter
----------------------------------------
Source

https://rt-english.com/op-ed/authors/scott-ritter/

Russia-US-Ukraine trilateral: What you need to know about the talks that could define Europe’s security architecture

Russia-US-Ukraine trilateral: What you need to know about the talks that could define Europe’s security architecture   The talks in the UAE ...