Kyrylo Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, has warned that if negotiations to end the war with Russia don’t begin by this summer, Ukraine’s “very existence” will be threatened.
According to a report from Ukrainska Pravda, Budanov issued the warning during a closed-door meeting of Ukraine’s parliament.
A source who attended the meeting told the media outlet that Budanov was asked how much time Ukraine has, and he replied, “If there are no serious negotiations by the summer, dangerous processes could unfold, threatening Ukraine’s very existence.”
Describing the response to Budanov’s comments, the source said, “Everyone exchanged uneasy glances and fell silent. It seems like everything depends on things going right.”
Budanov’s comments come as the new Trump administration has declared that its official policy is to seek the end of the war in Ukraine. But so far, there’s been no sign that negotiations have started.
In the meantime, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been floating ideas for a potential peace deal that would be non-starters for talks with Moscow, including a proposal for 200,000 Western troops to be deployed to Ukraine to enforce a ceasefire.
Budanov’s comments reinforce the fact that time is on Russia’s side, meaning Moscow is unlikely to agree to any deals that don’t include its core demands: Ukrainian neutrality and continued Russian control of the territories it has captured in Ukraine.
He should make the call himself. Putin in one interview, maybe Tucker Carlson, said that diplomacy was done through spooks.
Budanov missed the most important requirement: a verifiable Europe/Russia-wide security agreement that is enforceable. Nothing less is going to be acceptable.
Budanov missed the most important requirement: a verifiable Europe/Russia-wide security agreement that is enforceable. Nothing less is going to be acceptable.
Budanov is a freak
It was clear from the beginning that neocon adventurism is threatening Ukraine's very existence.
Not the invading Russians?
Those who are living in a fantasy world created by neocons, don't know that Ukraine which started as an independent state in 1991, stopped to exist in 2014. In 2014, after "Revolution of Dignity" (neo-Nazi coup organized by U.S.), a new Ukrainian state was created which has no recognized borders. Where those borders will be established, or whether Ukrainian state created in 2014 survives the war, maybe we learn already this year.
It started as an independent state in the 10th century, before Russia splintered off of it.
If scared to death weak western gets real help to Ukraine , Russia would never wins and would stop the war. Now world see how not reliable and weak all western politicians they wont do any negotiations and ready gets rewards for the war so will be more of if in the near future
Real help means NATO troops in Ukraine fighting Russian troops, leading to a nuclear war should Russia begin to lose ground.
Now there's an eventuality that would be worth getting scared about – but only for about thirty minutes….
Real help means NATO troops in Ukraine fighting Russian troops, leading to a nuclear war should Russia begin to lose ground.
Now there's an eventuality that would be worth getting scared about – but only for about thirty minutes….
You understand that this was a caper, right, "Vince"? It was a con. It was a way to further various political goals while making a LOT of money for a lot of connected people.
In other words, Ukraine has been used and is now in the process of being discarded …
Here's an idea: 1,000,000 Ukrainian soldiers should put down their guns and go home before they're all dead. Many already have.
Give an example thereof.
Sure. About 100,000, according to the AP.
https://apnews.com/article/deserters-awol-ukraine-russia-war-def676562552d42bc5d593363c9e5ea0
And a newer story with no numbers but describes a "desertion crisis": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/31/tired-mood-changed-ukrainian-army-desertion-crisis
Putin's plan is a good start. The west caused the war. The west lost.
If the west continues to give Ukraine billions to fight, the war will continue, and Russia would then continue advancing, until Ukraine folds. This seems to be Budanov's concern. He would be in serious personal jeopardy.
The war will continue whether the west continues to support the Ukrainian regime or not.
The war will continue until Putin finds a good enough pretext to declare “victory” so he can pull his teat out of the wringer without having to worry about accidentally falling out of a window.
The US wanted this war. The Russians and Putin did not. Read Horton's book "Provoked".
I love Scott. Known him for 20 years, agree with him on many, many things (including the wrongness of the US being involved in Ukraine at all). I read all of his books.
But he does seem to have a LITTLE BIT of a blind spot vis a vis the fact that Russian regime claims about goals, desires, and objectives are precisely as believable as US regime claims about goals, desires, and objectives? Which is to say, not at all.
I think there is more Russophobia and less anti-government skepticism at play here in your perspective.
The first two words of your comment contradict the remainder.
If anything, I cut the Putin regime more slack than the Trump regime, the Biden regime, the Zelenskyy regime, et al. But I don’t take any regime’s claims as to excuses/motives at face value.
My judgement is based on the history of your postings. Don’t try to tell me you are holding up five fingers when in fact you are showing only four.
The history of my postings, hmmm?
Would that include the postings that decried the Ukraine coup, asserted that Ukraine should let the seceded oblasts go in peace, warned against picking the fight with Putin that led to the war, etc.? Those postings there? Or just the postings that treat the Russian regime like any other regime instead of like it’s some kind of extra special magically good regime in anything and everything it does?
Russophobia is normal for Americans. Abnormal for them is the lack of Russophobia.
MUH RUSSOFOBIA
REEEEEEEEEEEEE
LOL
Putin didn't want the war so badly he invaded Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, and has his attack poodles make threats against nato every day
My recollection is that he only invaded Georgia after the Georgian regime invaded South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and ended his invasion as soon as the Georgian regime indicated it was attentive to the message to knock that shit off.
You would say such a thing because you do not recognize the concept of a state – which makes your opinion quite problematic that is if your wish is to avoid wars.
In the real world where most of us live Georgia could not invade neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia – as both are internationally recognized parts of Georgia.
Using your definition (or lack thereof) of states Trump/Putin/Xi would not be doing anything that conflicted with your version of rules for what should limit states behavior – but would be perfectly justified to invade just about any part of any place.
How you can claim to be anti war is a bit of a conundrum – all you seem to want do is to sit in your ivory tower critizising what rules we as nation states have been able to agree upon to limit the excesses of war – with no workable alternative.
That is a pretty worthless contribution.
I certainly recognize the concept of a state.
I also know that international recognition is an accessory to, not part of, that definition.
I have no rules for what should limit state behavior. I simply notice what states are, and what they do.
Failing to recognize what states have been able to agree upon over the last 400 years as rules to limit wars.
From what you write there is no such system of treaties worth your while to consider – that leads to far more wars – something that you apparently support – as you are completely unable to propose/suggest any realistic alternative to the systems of treaties we have now.
I’m well aware that there are agreements between states (and that states break those agreements whenever they find those agreements inconvenient).
Those agreements do not define the concept of state.
Those who like particular sets of agreements between states might hold that obeying those agreements confers “legitimacy,” but since I consider “legitimate state” an oxymoron, I don’t really concern myself with that holding.
Vis a vis “sovereignty,” the agreements in question get ignored often. For example, the same states that say “yeah, baby!” when the state of Kosovo claims to not be part of Serbia instantly start grumbling about “sovereignty” if the states of Luhansk and Donetsk claim to not be part of Ukraine or the states of Abhkazia and South Ossetia claim to not be part of the state of Georgia.
Missing the point that e.g. the US didn't break the rule against wars of territorial conquest – since about WWII.
Nor has France and Britain done so since about the 1970'ties and they were until then most often in breach as they were slow to get out of their former colonies.
Now with Trump you may see what ignoring that rule can look like
Actually they sort of do – by reference to other agreed upon treaties.
Which is kind of the point you argue from a stance that applied to the world as is certainly will lead to more wars.
No what was frowned upon was not the desire of Luhansk and Donetsk to be not part of Ukraine – what was frowned upon is the fact that the Russians intervened in the matter and expanded the issue to a war.
What makes matters worse is that the Russians annexed those Oblasts – so not so much supporting a freedom movement as annexing territory from a neighbor.
Have you forgotten that the Russians inflated a domestic Ukrainian conflict:
South Ossetia and Abkhazia were internationally recognized Georgian territory. Russia then invaded, occupied, and set up their own proxy regimes in the states, which means that Russia is de facto occupying 30% of Georgia
I would cite but i’m tired.
You're a prisoner to your own dumb logic
Only a crackhead would promote the idea of 200,000 NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine. Keeping NATO forces out of Ukraine was one reason Russia intervened!
well then how else would russia be trusted to not invade ukraine again?
The current trouble there began on March 12 of 1999 when Poland became a member of NATO. That act destroyed the already perilous equilibrium after the demise of the Warsaw pact. It was a dangerous message from the West: "we won and you can do nothing about it". Now we are losing and Ukraine's leader is asking for 200,000 "Western" (= US) soldiers to stem the tide.
For the past few years, the West has been in a panic mode on Ukraine but has also used that war to test new weaponry. When that war ends, the testing there ends. Where will the testing shift to? The Middle East? Africa? Space?
Officially Poland, Czechia and Hungary joined NATO at Washington summit March 23-25 1999. On March 24 1999 NATO started the war against Yugoslavia. Few months later U.S. started a proxy war against Russia in North Caucasus. And yet few months later Putin became the head of Russian state. In year 1999 Russian leadership began to think about Russia and Russian people. Hardly Russia could return to adequate politics without the mentioned troubles.
LOL
full dumbass alert!
Don't be so hard on yourself, "Krzysztof."
I try
Russia has both the Time and the Clock…!
No, they don't
There is no historical reason for Ukraine to exist. It is an artificial construct which is not needed by anyone outside of Ukraine.
Any country run by an unelected dictator who played the piano with his penis is suspect.
LOL
Pro Russian freak, aka Critical Thinker
UKRAINIANS AREN't RUSSIANS
I can't believe the peasants really care about territory. Who cares what language is on the road signs? It's not even an extreme change if Ukraine is taken over by Russia. Ukraine was in the Soviet Union until 1991, so many Ukrainians are being asked to kill and die "for Ukraine" when they were basically born "Russian", i.e. in the Soviet Union with Russia. I don't get it, especially when they are basically going back to a political situation they were in before.