- Hubert Walas
All illusions regarding Donald Trump's "dual policy" are gradually crumbling. The American president openly calls for a “regime change” in Kyiv, labeling Zelenskyy a dictator(!) and asserting that "Ukraine should never have entered this war"—which is one of the most absurd statements throughout this conflict.
Assuming Trump is not playing some grotesque poker game, the consequences of these words are absolutely critical.
Summits in Munich, Paris, Riyadh, Istanbul. European troops in Ukraine, an American romance with Russians, “resource tribute”—the international arrangement is buzzing with tension. These days are writing history, and what is decided now will have fundamental implications for the coming decades.
Let us attempt to assemble this chaotic puzzle into a coherent whole and seek realistic solutions for navigating this labyrinth.
Return to Munich
So much is happening that it's difficult to pinpoint an appropriate starting point. Let us begin with Munich.
The entire summit unfolded under the dictates of Trump administration representatives attacking European politicians—not only for their strategic passivity but also for the values guiding them. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance particularly distinguished himself, asserting that he is not concerned about external threats to Europe, but rather its internal politics. At times, his remarks indeed touched upon many European afflictions, yet simultaneously, his words corresponded with the agenda of many extremist parties like AfD. Europeans listened to Vance in stunned silence as he directly challenged their social legitimacy.
As Gideon Rachman summarized in the Financial Times: "If Vance hoped to persuade his audience, rather than simply insult it, he failed. Indeed, his speech backfired spectacularly, convincing many listeners that America itself is now a threat to Europe. A senior diplomat said: “It’s very clear now, Europe is alone.” When I asked him if he now regarded the US as an adversary, he replied: “Yes."
The backstage discussions at the Munich conference were plenty and their general message was simple - we are living in a completely different world. Europe must act independently. Nothing can be ruled out. With each word, Vance and his colleagues reinforced the impression among observers that American assurances and approach to the Ukrainian issue were becoming increasingly unstable.
Resource Tribute
Critically, Vance brought to Munich a so-called "resource agreement" that Trump expected Zelenskyy to sign. Zelenskyy did not do so, and it's hard to blame him. The offer was literally offensive. The details were revealed by the British The Telegraph.
The agreement would stipulate that 50%(!) of all revenues Ukraine receives from resource extraction and 50% of the value of all future licenses would go to the United States. Moreover, the contract included a clause that Ukrainians must first pay Americans before keeping anything for themselves. And this wasn't limited to rare earth metals, but also gas, ports, and other strategic infrastructure. Everything would be subject to New York law. Conversely, the agreement offered no even nebulous security guarantees for Kyiv.
In other words, this would be a contemporary colonization, comparable to burdens imposed on the losing side of a war in which they were the aggressor. The article's authors explicitly stated that the reparations Ukrainians would effectively pay to Americans would be higher than those imposed on Germany after World War I or II.
Despite Zelenskyy quickly refuting the information to avoid agreeing to anything, Donald Trump told Fox News that Ukraine "essentially agreed" to transfer 500 billion dollars. "They have incredibly valuable land in terms of rare earth metals, oil and gas, and other things," he said. Zelenskyy's refusal was likely a blow for which Trump intended revenge in the following days.
Regarding this matter, consider also Javier Blas's article in Bloomberg. What does Blas claim? That while Ukraine indeed has valuable mineral resources, estimates concerning Rare Earth Metals are substantially overestimated—there's no basis for claims that they're worth anywhere near $500 billion. The total annual global REM production is worth merely $15 billion, of which Ukraine doesn't contribute even 1%. The Americans may have realized this, hence expanding the deal to effectively encompass all of the country's strategic branches and resources.
Europe Talks
After the weekend in the Bavarian capital, world diplomats dispersed globally. Some European leaders traveled nearby to Paris, where representatives from France, Germany, Great Britain, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, and Denmark convened. The omission of Romania caused irritation in Bucharest. The absence of other flank states—such as Sweden or Finland—was equally peculiar.
The summit was a response to the challenge posed by Americans in Munich days earlier. Although European state representatives agreed to approach the challenge constructively, the summit initially yielded no breakthroughs. Many words were spoken about the need for urgent change and leadership, but what matters are concrete actions.
"Europeans must invest better, more, and collectively in their security and defense—both for today and the future," Emmanuel Macron stated on platform X.
Nevertheless, specific details began emerging in subsequent hours. First, the idea of sending European soldiers to Ukraine—previously proposed by Americans—was dusted off. The European contingent would theoretically stabilize potential peace agreements and provide security for Kyiv.
This issue divides European countries—the British and French are in favor. Poles, Germans, and almost all states bordering Russia are against. We will explore this proposal more deeply in later sections. This is not a binary matter.
Secondly, media began circulating a massive sum of 700 billion euros that Europe might allocate to supporting Ukraine. The information originates from Germany's Berliner Zeitung. This is a significant development we will revisit. Additionally, the Union plans to withdraw from the nonsensical excessive deficit agenda that previously penalized overspending on defense.
Finally—something they certainly agreed upon—was further sanctions intensification. The 16th package primarily targeted Russian aluminum producers responsible for 6% of European material imports. Moreover, sanctions targeting Russia's "shadow fleet" were expanded.
The most crucial takeaway from the Paris meeting and Europe's general stance is that it must care for itself. This is positive in itself, as calls for taking responsibility for one's region have been ceaseless. Much will depend—again—on political will and concrete actions, but declaratively, Europe is turning away from American pursuits of "fragile peace at any cost" and attempting to find solutions. Saying "too late" would be an understatement, but the direction is promising.
The American-Russian Romance
Following the meeting in Paris on Monday, Tuesday brought the first round of bilateral talks between Washington and Moscow. The mere fact of conducting direct negotiations with the aggressor, without the victim—Ukraine—or the actor without whom no understanding is possible—Europe—starkly illustrated American attitudes.
The US delegation comprised Michael Waltz (National Security Advisor), Marco Rubio (Secretary of State), and Steve Witkoff (Special Envoy for the Middle East)—delegated to talks with Russia, while Keith Kellogg was to focus exclusively on communication with Kyiv. By the way Kellogg appeared in Kyiv the next day, though his mandate is now considered dubious.
The Russians dispatched Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, presidential advisor Yuri Ushakov, and Kirill Dmitriev from the Security Investment Fund.
The four-and-a-half-hour talks—again—did not officially yield breakthrough declarations, but the communication between the lines was highly suggestive. The aim was to establish preliminary relations, including new ambassadorial nominations.
Though not officially confirmed, the parties tentatively agreed on a three-part peace plan (proposed by Americans), which would begin with:
- Ceasefire
- Subsequently, elections in Ukraine
- Finally, signing a peace plan
What most struck from the State Department's communication led by Rubio was the declared intent to create new economic and investment opportunities between the USA and Russia, to emerge after the conflict's successful conclusion.
In other words, America discusses future economic cooperation with a country that openly violated all existing international cooperation rules and is rewarded for invasion. This can be compared to a hypothetical scenario where China, after successfully invading Taiwan and completely destroying American bases in Guam or Okinawa, is invited by Europeans to "upcoming, fruitful cooperation".
What might Rubio have intended? According to leaks, Russians could offer Americans access to their resources under preferential conditions. Before the war, American oil giant Exxon Mobil was involved in extraction on the Russian island of Sakhalin.
Dmitriev, present in the talks, noted that before sanctions, American oil companies conducted "very successful business" in Russia and (in his view) lost approximately 300 billion dollars due to restrictions. "We believe that at some point they will return because they will not want to give up the opportunity to access Russian natural resources that were offered by Russia," the Russian said.
The failure of resource talks with Ukrainians and encouragement from Russians thrust the American president into an unprecedented state of aggression toward Zelenskyy. After the summit, Donald Trump unleashed an entire arsenal of accusations and threats against the Ukrainian president. The message is simple—Trump wants to get rid of Zelenskyy.
Regarding the omission of Ukraine from talks, Trump stated that they had three years to be at the table and that the war could have been avoided only at the cost of a "small loss of territory".
Asked about elections in Ukraine, Trump claimed Zelenskyy has 4%(!) support in the country, and that Russians did not destroy Kyiv "simply because they didn't want to".
It only got more interesting from there. Trump added that America sent $350 billion in aid to Ukraine, of which half was stolen. He further stated that Ukraine "should never have started this war".
Finally, on Wednesday, in a post on Truth Social, he called Zelenskyy a "dictator without elections", which was the culmination of this quasi-lynching of the Ukrainian president.
To clarify misinformation: Zelenskyy's support in Ukraine exceeds 50% and is higher than Trump's in the USA. Moreover, as Adam Eberhardt noted, since Putin has ruled Russia, Ukraine has had 5 presidents: Kuchma, Yushchenko, Yanukovych, Poroshenko, and Zelenskyy. This does not bother Trump.
America sent aid worth $110 billion in the last three years (not $350 billion). There is also no evidence for the absurd theses about theft of these resources, raised by Trump or Carlson, who claims Kyiv sells American weapons to Mexican cartels.
Earlier, Trump engaged in a campaign of veiled praise for Russia, stating among other things that Russia has a "great, powerful war machine" that defeated Hitler and Napoleon.
What can we read from this? As Bruno Macaes—a former high-ranking Portuguese official and now a prominent commentator—rightly observed, Trump calls for a change of "regime in Kyiv" before peace talks. Regardless of what rhetorical maneuvers we might attempt, these statements cannot be justified. They are almost 100% aligned with the Russian raison d'état and contradict the interests of Ukraine and Europe. In the opinion of many Americans, they also contradict US interests.
Adding to this information smuggled by the FT that Trump is considering withdrawing American forces from the Baltic States to appease Russia, or Rubio's claims that "Europe should lift sanctions if America does", we arrive at very clear reflections.
Trump's pre-election rhetoric was not merely a campaign game. The desire to end the war, effectively feeding on its victim (see the resource agreement) and ensuring compensation for the aggressor, is indefensible in any geopolitical configuration from the perspective of Europe and Ukraine. Washington, always speaking about shared values such as freedom of speech, individual liberty, and respecting international agreements, these days differs little from China wanting to violate the same rights in Taiwan.
This, of course, casts a shadow over all security guarantees and alliance assurances that Americans so emphasize at every opportunity—mainly within NATO, but also in East Asia. Washington verbally tries to calm allies, but the facts say something entirely different. American credibility is today lower than ever.
Of course, America as a power will manage in every field, regardless of the policy its authorities choose (unless civil war breaks out). It is Europe and Ukraine that are at the center of events today, and without them, no Russian-American arrangements will be binding.
Kyiv Stands Firm and Awaits Europe
Positively, in light of these shocking developments, Kyiv stands firm.
Zelenskyy says that despite Russia and the USA preparing an ultimatum for Ukraine, just as Ukraine did not accept any ultimatums in 2022, it will not accept them now. Ukraine, not being part of the talks, will not accept their outcome. Talks about Ukraine, without Ukraine, are futile. We will not agree to anything without security guarantees—these are the words of the Ukrainian president.
"We will survive," wrote Ukrainian intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov.
These are strong messages that give hope that Ukrainians believe in their capabilities and the possibility of "maintaining the war" without American assistance (but with European support). One can assume that if Kyiv's position were so dramatic as to offer no hope, Kyiv would not engage in such a bluff on such a critical issue.
Simultaneously, Zelenskyy looks toward Europe and warns: "If the USA withdraws from NATO, Europe will be occupied by Russia. Having only 50 brigades against over 200 Russian brigades, 'the risk is 100%.'" These numbers can certainly be debated, but the message is clear—you must help us, or they will come for you.
So what must Europe do? The answer is simple—assume the leadership position and become Ukraine's primary support in the war against the Russian Federation. Bring real capabilities and resources, showing that any deal without Europe and Ukraine will not hold. Moreover, follow the path mentioned by Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski in Munich—demonstrate that Europe and Ukraine can outlast Russia. Sikorski argues that Europe should treat the Russian invasion as a colonial war, which typically last a decade. Therefore, Europe should show it is prepared for even a 10-year confrontation, and that we will not be the first to break, because collectively, Russia is an economic dwarf beside Europe, a entity ten times smaller.
Of course, talk achieves nothing, which is why the proposal to allocate 700 billion euros is a step in the right direction. But this should not be a sum for EU's own armaments, but a package beyond those expenses, serving to help Ukraine over the next 24 months.
In the previous episode, we noted that Europe spent less than 0.3% of its GDP on Ukrainian aid over three years. 700 billion in 24 months would correspond to approximately 2% of GDP during this period. These funds should be used to rapidly accelerate the European military complex to levels unseen since World War II and transferred to Ukraine within a European "lend-lease" framework. Simultaneously, supporting countries should seek a balanced arrangement with Ukraine that would finance its re-armament and reconstruction from future resource extraction profits, but under conditions that are not demeaning to Ukraine.
Where to find these funds? Europe is wealthy enough to do this without assistance—though such assistance is available. First, the odyssey with frozen Russian assets in European accounts must end. We should not be under the illusion that the 250 billion euros will not be part of an American deal with the Russians, which Americans would gladly transfer in exchange for lucrative contracts with Moscow. Secondly, 93 billion euros from the COVID package remain unused. Thus, overnight, a sum required to help Kyiv over the next several months is ready to use.
Some positive symptoms of change are already visible. German Rheinmetall has reportedly already reached a production capacity of 700,000 155mm shells annually. According to Jarosław Wolski, all of Europe currently produces 1.4 million such ammunition units. Tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, and even aviation should follow.
Should European soldiers go along with this? In my opinion—no, at least not in the currently proposed format. And before some of you get outraged, listen to my arguments and alternatives.
First, we do not know the purpose of these European forces in Ukraine. Are we considering only a peace scenario? Would they fight alongside Ukrainians, or merely stand far back and train recruits? Overall, significant ambiguity prevails in this discussion—even among decision-makers. Let us consider two scenarios—peace and war continuation.
During peacetime, if these soldiers were near the front, they would constitute an easy destabilization target for Russians. A stray bullet could kill the first, then the second soldier. Perhaps an artillery shell might fall on several. Moscow would accuse Ukraine of sabotage. European societies would begin to waver and turn away. On the other hand, there would be so few soldiers (30,000 is being considered) that their engagement would change nothing, and would even burden Kyiv, as Russia could easily manipulate the situation below the war threshold.
The matter becomes even more challenging in case of war continuation. Entering direct confrontation would significantly bring Europe closer to a clash with Russia without NATO's protective umbrella, while operating in the rear would be more of a PR happening than real assistance.
Interestingly, this perspective is shared by one of the most widely read Ukrainian journalists, Illia Ponomarenko, who writes:
"Frankly, all these deliberations about deploying foreign troops to Ukraine seem pointless. Russia will never accept a European peacekeeping mission along the front line—because Russia needs this war to continue. Europe will never commit enough troops to cover both the entire front and the borders with Russia and Belarus. And, with all due respect, a British company stationed in Rivne would have little practical impact on the war."
Europe—Close Ukraine's Sky
Therefore, instead of bringing capabilities to the field where Europe is weakest and Ukraine is strongest (land forces), Europe should bring its agency to the field where it is strongest and Ukraine is weakest—air forces and anti-aircraft defense.
Old Continent states should completely relieve Ukraine of the necessity of defending its cities against rocket terrorism continued by the Kremlin—protecting cities, power plants, and hospitals. Shooting down Shaheds and Kalibrs, will give Ukrainian air force and anti-aircraft defense the opportunity to focus exclusively on the front line. European F16s, Typhoons, and Rafales would fly deep in the interior—not directly engaging Russian aviation, while simultaneously performing vital work in the rear. Then:
- First, Europe would bring real capabilities, tangibly relieving Ukrainians
- Second, it would operate in the rear, without close contact with Russians
- Third, it would test European aviation's readiness
Indeed, such a scenario would likely highlight all the disorder of Europe's air component, carefully hidden during peacetime. However, becoming familiar with these problems during "allied assistance" on Ukrainian territory is far more preferable than during the ultimate test on our own territory.
Currently, Europe has hundreds of modern fighter jets, with the most being F16s, Eurofighter Typhoons, and French Rafales. The Times somewhat broached this topic, suggesting that British Typhoons could patrol Ukrainian skies.
Direct European involvement would simultaneously serve as a test and audit of their armed forces, benefiting both themselves and Ukrainians.
To the existing list of:
- Allocating large funds to aid Ukraine
- Mobilizing the defense industry
- Engaging European aviation and anti-aircraft defense
One can additionally include:
- Maximally plugging sanction loopholes - Europe continues exporting to Russia through third countries
- Aggressively countering operations of Russia's "shadow fleet", particularly in the Baltic Sea basin
- Accelerating Ukraine's EU membership procedures - where Brussels could leverage its second, secret weapon: bureaucracy
Although EU membership does not protect Ukraine from Russia in any way, it is a desirable scenario for both sides because it would signify the country's internal stability. Therefore, a European auditor should be delegated to every significant Ukrainian office to curb corruption and embezzlement, and ensure state functionality improvement. I believe all Ukrainians would welcome this information. After decades under Moscow's boot, the country will not become an immaculate democracy overnight. If it is to achieve this evolution quickly, it must be helped.
At the end of the day, we have an arrangement where Ukraine would receive support on a scale it could not expect for three years. And at the same time an arrangement for Europe that is sufficiently healthy and unburdensome to be executable—with appropriate political will.
Despite its mediocre condition, the Union and Europe more broadly have resources to change Ukraine's reality. It is capable of (though not immediately) delivering capabilities that will gradually improve Kyiv's position. The only thing it cannot do is provide "human strength". This is potentially the most significant problem in the entire situation, which is precisely why former AFU chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi says that "Ukraine's future size depends on how many people are willing to defend it".
All signs in heaven and on earth indicate that the global arrangement is dramatically changing. For Europe, this is a matter of the highest importance. Observing the chaos of recent days, one cannot exclude scenarios of American attempts to reverse alliances.
Kellogg explicitly communicated in Munich that America would demand Russia sever its alliances with China, Iran, and North Korea. Currently, such speculations are mere fantasies, but if Washington were interested in a so-called "reversed Kissinger move", the consequences for Europe and Ukraine could be entirely unpredictable.
It is also worth noting a meeting that took place in the shadow of discussions in Riyadh. This refers to the meeting between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Recep Erdogan in Ankara. It seems Turkey, concerned about the American pro-Russian pivot, sought to remind everyone of its crucial role in the Black Sea basin. The Turks are not interested in Russia's return to a position of power or taking most of Ukraine's coastline, and they clearly communicated this by recognizing full Ukrainian territorial integrity.
Turkey could be an important partner in the European campaign to support Ukraine, for example, by delivering capabilities and equipment to Ukraine, given the low (at least initially) capacity of the European industry.
Russian expectations have not changed in over three years. Russians want a subordinate Ukraine, want American forces withdrawn beyond the Oder—from NATO countries that joined the pact after 1999. They want trade arrangements that ensure Russia's survival and economic development.
Even if Russians temporarily suspend actions in Ukraine, these goals will not change. Especially since much indicates that Trump is willing to sacrifice a great deal just to end the war and present himself to the world as a great mediator. And in the process, exploit Ukrainians' difficult position by forcing them into a colonial arrangement and entering close connections with the Russian extraction sector.
If Europe does not awaken in such a situation, it will never awaken. In the previous episode, we proposed an alliance of European states most threatened by Russian imperialism, tentatively named Intermarium 2.0. From their perspective, this is a matter of the highest importance. However, this does not mean the entire Europe should not act together —the time has come.
With appropriate mobilization, it has a chance to bounce back from the bottom where it has settled and, without looking solely at the economic ledger, finally take leadership on its own continent.
At the end, given the rapidly changing events, let's check what happened in the last hours before releasing the material.
Washington opposes labeling Russia an "aggressor" in the G7 statement regarding the invasion. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson admitted that the chamber has "no appetite" for another aid tranche for Ukraine. There are also mixed signals regarding freezing weapon sales to Ukrainians.
Americans were also set to present a "corrected" resource offer for Ukraine, which was to be discussed at Zelenskyy's meeting with Keith Kellogg. Regarding the meeting itself, Zelenskyy stated that it "restores hope", although on the other hand, Americans canceled the press conference that was to follow. Reuters reports another round of US-Russian talks, this time secret, which were to occur through a "Swiss channel". Top American diplomats, including Michael Waltz, are engaged in a campaign of explaining and filtering Donald Trump's words.
The head of Ukrainian intelligence, K. Budanov, leans towards the opinion of a likely ceasefire in 2025. "How long it will last, how effective it will be, is another matter. But I think it will happen." On the other hand, we should keep in mind that Budanov's forecasts have varied effectiveness.
Many interesting statements were also made by European politicians. Macron reportedly said he does not plan to send "combat units" to Ukraine, only "peacekeeping forces", which only strengthens the argument presented in this episode. Ironically, Macron in a Q&A session expressed remorse, saying that eastern flank states warned him about Russia in 2017 and "were right".
More importantly, Macron publicly supported the idea of a large European aid plan modeled after the COVID package—an idea we discussed earlier. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk publicly called for seizing Russian financial assets lying in Belgian accounts to help Kyiv.
Additionally, the Macron-Starmer duo is set to fly to Washington next week to talk with Trump. On Thursday, Polish Foreign Minister R. Sikorski was to meet with Marco Rubio in the USA. Unconfirmed information circulates online suggesting that the withdrawal of American soldiers from NATO's eastern flank might be on the table in US-Russian negotiations. Even the Financial Times reports this, citing Romanian sources. Americans verbally reassure that the "alliance with Europe" will continue, but it is clear that American credibility is today at its lowest in years.
Sources:
- https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/02/19/team-trump-wants-to-get-rid-of-volodymyr-zelensky
- https://www.ft.com/content/11f121f9-391c-4597-93f7-f12894e1b79d
- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/17/revealed-trump-confidential-plan-ukraine-stranglehold/
- https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1891180926333247888
- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-02-19/trump-s-insistence-ukraine-has-rare-earth-elements-is-wrong
- https://x.com/JavierBlas/status/1892136059770679765
- https://x.com/JavierBlas/status/1892136049222009011
- https://www.politico.eu/article/france-macron-emergency-european-summit-trump-defense-crisis-war-trump-putin-paris/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/europeanunion/comments/1is0dsk/ten_eu_countries_are_open_to_a_potentia
- https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/02/18/eu-considers-historic-e-700-billion-aid-package-for-ukraine-as-trump-signals-reduction-in-kyivs-support/
- https://x.com/W_Kononczuk/status/1891580205224890873
- https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/19/eu-slaps-new-sanctions-on-russia-amid-donald-trumps-push-for-negotiations
- https://kyivindependent.com/trumps-envoy-kellogg-arrives-in-kyiv/
- https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-russian-officials-propose-peace-plan-lay-groundwork-cooperation-riyadh
- https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-meeting-with-russian-foreign-minister-lavrov/
- https://kyivindependent.com/russia-offers-us-deal-on-its-natural-resources-access-to-arctic/
- https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/02/19/team-trump-wants-to-get-rid-of-volodymyr-zelensky
- https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/transcript/donald-trump-remarks-executive-orders-mar-a-lago-february-18-2025/
- https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114031332924234939
- https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1892162977723195652
- https://x.com/adam_eberhardt/status/1891963820043587678
- https://united24media.com/latest-news/ukraine-refutes-tucker-carlsons-false-claims-on-arms-sales-to-mexican-cartels-5776
- https://x.com/PolymarketIntel/status/1891415275926380643
- https://x.com/MacaesBruno/status/1891972900434927634
- https://eadaily.com/en/news/2025/02/17/trump-may-withdraw-us-troops-from-the-baltic-states-amid-talks-with-putin-ft
- https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/02/18/7498934/
- https://x.com/hubertwalas_/status/1892478602026893504
- https://x.com/generalkellogg/status/1891893462389194785
- https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1891877853039333452
- https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/1891516936875319574
- https://x.com/ChiefDI_Ukraine/status/1892099542142578800
- https://x.com/AlexandruC4/status/1891222825278615681
- https://x.com/TVPWorld_com/status/1890868528468631776
- https://www.brusselstimes.com/1450382/over-e250-billion-of-russian-assets-frozen-in-belgium
- https://www.ft.com/content/f28bede4-0794-44c1-a216-9deccac44460
- https://x.com/wolski_jaros/status/1890839087470293362
- https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1892526253489717531
- https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1891963201488621763
- https://x.com/A_Swidzinski/status/1891875565893812511
- https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1892162335508169081
- https://zamin.uz/en/world/144694-the-us-wants-to-break-russias-alliance-with-iran-china-and-north-korea.html
- https://x.com/PawlowskiMario/status/1891866234788184562
- https://kyivindependent.com/no-appetite-for-new-ukraine-aid-bill-us-house-speaker-says
- https://x.com/NOELreports/status/1892858386703696126
- https://www.axios.com/2025/02/20/us-ukraine-rare-earth-minerals-agreement
- https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1892714137492312352
- https://x.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1892586912856084556
- https://www.reuters.com/world/americans-russians-have-discussed-ukraine-war-through-swiss-side-channel-sources-2025-02-20/
- https://x.com/Mylovanov/status/1892704134744195503/video/1
- https://x.com/KyivIndependent/status/1892574330766102901
- https://kyivindependent.com/macron-rules-out-sending-french-troops-to-ukraines-frontlines/
- https://x.com/VolodimirZelen1/status/1892642806092399063
- https://x.com/VolodimirZelen1/status/1892641848641966525
- https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/1892614329792422319
- https://tvpworld.com/85198798/polish-fm-flies-to-us-to-meet-rubio-say-polish-press-
- https://www.ft.com/content/ac1dcb02-4c5f-4a36-935a-f7ef0a934c7b
- https://x.com/clashreport/status/1892604242470265150
