Russia may 'consider' ceasefire if Ukraine stops mobilization, arms deliveries, ambassador says
Russia is prepared to consider a ceasefire in its war against Ukraine, but only if Kyiv stops receiving Western weapons and halts mobilization, Vasily Nebenzya, Russia's envoy to the United Nations, said on May 30, according to the Russian state news agency TASS.
"In principle, we are ready to consider the possibility of establishing a ceasefire, which would subsequently allow for a sustainable resolution of the root causes of the conflict," Nebenzya said at a U.N. Security Council meeting.
Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, convened the meeting to accuse European nations of undermining peace efforts. The Russian ambassador said that any ceasefire would require Western governments to end their support for Ukraine's armed forces.
"During the ceasefire, it is essential that Western countries stop supplying weapons to the Kyiv regime (the Ukrainian government) and that Ukraine halt its mobilization," Nebenzya said.
The statement comes just days ahead of the next round of peace talks in Istanbul on June 2. Despite the stated offer, Nebenzya also pledged that Moscow would "continue and intensify military operations for as long as necessary."
Ukraine swiftly rejected the demand as disingenuous.
Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha called the remarks a "slap in the face to all who advocate for peace," including countries like China and Brazil, which have pressed both sides to end the war.
"When the entire world insists that it is time to stop the killing immediately and engage in meaningful diplomacy, Russia uses the highest fora to spew such belligerent rhetoric," Sybiha wrote on X.
"We insist that the pressure on Moscow be increased already now. They do not understand normal attitude or diplomatic language; it is time to speak to them in the language of sanctions and increased support for Ukraine."
Despite growing global calls for a truce, Russia has so far rejected Ukraine's U.S.-backed proposal for a full and unconditional ceasefire. The Kremlin has instead escalated its aerial assaults across Ukrainian territory and is reportedly preparing a new summer offensive.
Moscow is expected to present a draft "ceasefire memorandum" at the June 2 talks in Istanbul. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on May 29 that the proposal would be delivered by Kremlin aide Vladimir Medinsky, who led Russia's delegation at the previous round of talks.
President Volodymyr Zelensky's Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak said on May 29 that Kyiv is open to the talks but insists that Russia share the memorandum ahead of the meeting.
According to Reuters, Moscow's demands for ending the war include Ukraine's withdrawal from four partially occupied regions, a pledge to abandon NATO ambitions, and the lifting of key Western sanctions — conditions Kyiv and its allies have categorically rejected.
Read also: Ukraine attacks elite Russian unit base nearly 7,000km away in Vladivostok, source claims
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
37 minutes ago
Hundreds protest in The Hague against NATO, days before the Dutch city hosts alliance summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands -- Hundreds of people protested Sunday against NATO and military spending and against a possible conflict with Iran, two days before a summit of the alliance in The Hague that is seeking to increase allies' defense budgets. 'Let's invest in peace and sustainable energy,' Belgian politician Jos d'Haese told the crowd at a park not far from the summit venue. Although billed as a demonstration against NATO and the war in Gaza, protesters were joined by Iranians who held up banners saying 'No Iran War,' the day after the United States launched attacks against three of Iran's nuclear sites. 'We are opposed to war. People want to live a peaceful life,' said 74-year-old Hossein Hamadani, an Iranian who lives in the Netherlands. Look at the environment. 'Things are not good. So why do we spend money on war?' he added. The Netherlands is hosting the annual meeting of the 32-nation alliance starting Tuesday, with leaders scheduled to meet Wednesday. The heads of government want to hammer out an agreement on a hike in defense spending demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump. The deal appeared largely done last week, until Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that committing Madrid to spending 5% of its gross domestic product on defense "would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive.' U.S. allies have ramped up defense spending since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, but almost a third of them still don't meet NATO's current target of at least 2% of their gross domestic product. The summit is being protected by the biggest ever Dutch security operation, code named 'Orange Shield," involving thousands of police and military personnel, drones, no-fly zones and cybersecurity experts.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
With military strike his predecessors avoided, Trump takes a huge gamble
The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment center at Fordo, which Israel was incapable of reaching. Advertisement For Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile nation represents the biggest -- and potentially most dangerous -- gamble of his second term. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 U.S. troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques -- terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks -- as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear program. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast program underground. That is why Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordo, the facility Iran built in secret that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near-bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Advertisement Trump's aides were telling those allies Saturday night that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear program. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said late Saturday, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. But, the diplomat added, bin Laden had killed 3,000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of preemption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on Saturday night, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill.' Advertisement In essence, Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Rubio emphasized that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran,' adding that the United States was 'not involved.' But then, a few days ago, Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And Saturday night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness -- the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear program as Iran's ultimate defense. It was always more than just a scientific project -- it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Advertisement Along with the repression of dissent, the program had become the ultimate means of defense for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear program has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordo. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Trump's gamble paid off. His critics in Congress were already questioning his approach. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had acted 'without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community' that Iran had made no decision to take the final steps to a bomb. If Iran finds itself unable to respond effectively, if the ayatollah's hold on power is now loosened, or if the country gives up its long-running nuclear ambitions, Trump will doubtless claim that only he was willing to use America's military reach to achieve a goal his last four predecessors deemed too risky. But there is another possibility. Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their skills underground and the country could follow the pathway lit by North Korea, with a race to build a bomb. Today, North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons by some intelligence estimates, an arsenal that likely makes it too powerful to attack. Advertisement That, Iran may conclude, is the only pathway to keep larger, hostile powers at bay, and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one that lit up the Iranian skies Sunday morning. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
The real scandal isn't Signalgate — it's our easily compromised mobile network
'Signalgate' — the disclosure that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared sensitive war plans over the app Signal from a personal device — was one of the early defining storylines of the Trump administration. There was no shortage of (largely justified) outrage at the passing of high-stakes information over commercial cellular channels. But the reality is that people, including government officials, have adopted cell phones as their primary means of communication for everything today, from grocery lists to ground invasions. In Ukraine, in spite of the risks, both sides of the conflict have heavily used commercial cellular networks throughout the war, because nothing beats them in terms of availability and efficiency. In early June, Ukraine scored its biggest win in months by launching drone attacks at Russian airfields, and in the process it laid bare the asymmetric vulnerabilities that cellular networks present to a major military power like the United States. Ukrainian handlers operated the drones from thousands of miles away by connecting over Russian commercial cell networks. Because Russia cannot simply turn off its commercial cellular networks, given the enormous social and economic consequences, it was left scrambling for ways to mitigate the threat. There is a lesson in this for us. We cannot turn back time to a world where strategic, essential communication only happens in a sensitive, compartmentalized information facility, or over private, dedicated networks. Rather than doubling down on outdated protocols, we need to fix the broken network on which the world runs — commercial cellular. Every time your phone connects to a tower, it leaves behind metadata that adversaries can potentially exploit. Your movements can be tracked, your contacts mapped, your calls and texts intercepted using flaws in decades-old signaling protocols. Hackers can take over your number with SIM swaps and hijack sensitive accounts (like Signal). Our adversaries understand this, and they have been exploiting the weaknesses in our commercial networks as a result. Volt Typhoon, a China-backed hacking operation, was designed to burrow into U.S. telecom infrastructure to cripple it during a future crisis. Salt Typhoon, a sweeping Chinese espionage campaign, breached at least nine U.S. telecoms and monitored the communications of both the Trump and Harris campaigns. The FBI told Americans to stop using SMS messages. Congressmen called it the worst telecom hack in history. Yet, we're still carrying on like nothing happened. The core of the problem is that our telecom infrastructure is old, stagnant and too comfortable with monopoly rents. The U.S. once led the world in 2G, 3G and 4G cellular networks. Now, Huawei leads the world in 5G and is already laying tracks for 6G, thanks to enormous support and billions in subsidization by the Chinese government. Modernizing U.S. telecom is no small task — the industry has invested roughly $2 trillion in communications infrastructure since 1996. We can't rip and replace the plumbing of the digital world overnight, but we can innovate on top of it. The rise of cloud computing has allowed rapid innovation by software-first upstarts disrupting traditional sectors, from travel to taxis to taxes. Software-defined cellular networks, which my company utilizes, now make it possible for nimble newcomers to innovate on top of towers and fiber, using modern security protocols and scalable infrastructure. But only if they're allowed to. The federal government should support privacy-first, software-based mobile infrastructure in the same way it once supported privacy-first internet infrastructure. And as it does so often in these ambitious projects, the Department of Defense should lead the way. The Tor browser began as a Navy research project. It's now a global tool for journalists and dissidents. Today's equivalent is investing in modern telecom — starting with efforts like the Department of Defense's 5G initiative, which should look beyond private network-based prototypes and address making the public, commercial cellular that we all use more secure, resilient and dynamic. Another example is the Navy's Spiral 4 program office, responsible for procuring cellular communications for the force, and is perfectly positioned to hold the industry more accountable for innovation and improvements over the status quo. 'Signalgate' and Ukraine's Spiderweb operation are wake-up calls. Mobile phones and the cellular network are the way everyone communicates now, and it's unrealistic to expect people, even those doing high-consequence work, to abandon the efficiencies of mobile communication. Fixing this requires more than an app. We need to lead innovation on private and secure cellular infrastructure as a strategic imperative. John Doyle is CEO and co-founder of the privacy-first mobile carrier Cape.
