Trump Mengatakan Mahasiswa Tiongkok Merupakan Risiko Keamanan. Pakar Spionase Skeptis

Beberapa mantan pemburu mata-mata melihat rencana Departemen Luar Negeri untuk mencabut visa beberapa mahasiswa Tiongkok sebagai sesuatu yang berat sebelah dan kontraproduktif.

FBI telah menghabiskan waktu puluhan tahun untuk menyelidiki beberapa profesor dan mahasiswa dari Tiongkok yang diduga menggunakan studi mereka untuk memata-matai negara asal mereka secara diam-diam. Ketika pemerintahan Trump mencoba upaya baru yang lebih agresif untuk menghentikan aktivitas tersebut, para ahli khawatir hal itu akan lebih banyak merugikan daripada menguntungkan penelitian Amerika.

Rencana yang diumumkan Departemen Luar Negeri minggu lalu untuk mencabut visa beberapa mahasiswa Tiongkok bahkan dianggap oleh beberapa mantan pemburu mata-mata sebagai upaya keras untuk memecahkan masalah yang lebih rumit.

“Jumlah keseluruhan mahasiswa Republik Rakyat Tiongkok yang benar-benar menimbulkan beberapa jenis risiko keamanan nasional relatif rendah dibandingkan dengan jumlah mahasiswa yang akan terus mendukung dan memajukan penelitian AS,” kata Greg Milonovich, mantan agen F.B.I. yang mengelola program aliansi akademis divisi kontraintelijen serta dewan penasihat pendidikan tinggi keamanan nasional.

Dalam mengumumkan langkah tersebut Rabu malam, Menteri Luar Negeri Marco Rubio memberikan sedikit hal spesifik, hanya menawarkan bahwa pemerintah AS akan “secara agresif mencabut visa bagi mahasiswa Tiongkok, termasuk mereka yang memiliki hubungan dengan Partai Komunis Tiongkok atau belajar di bidang-bidang penting.”

Bagaimana standar yang didefinisikan secara samar itu akan ditegakkan belum jelas, tetapi arahan tersebut merupakan bagian dari kampanye luas oleh pemerintahan Trump untuk memaksakan perubahan besar dalam pendidikan tinggi Amerika. Kampus-kampus, kata pejabat administrasi, sedang dalam krisis, dan hanya pemerintah federal yang bersedia dan mampu memperbaiki masalah tersebut.

Tiongkok pada hari Kamis mengecam keputusan tersebut, menyebutnya "diskriminatif."

Beijing mengecam keputusan AS yang menargetkan pelajar Tiongkok yang belajar di negara tersebut sebagai "diskriminatif", dan memperingatkan hal itu akan semakin merusak citra Amerika di panggung dunia.

"Keputusan AS ... secara serius merugikan hak dan kepentingan hukum mahasiswa internasional dari Tiongkok, dan mengganggu pertukaran antarmasyarakat antara kedua negara. Tiongkok dengan tegas menentangnya dan telah mengajukan protes kepada AS atas keputusan tersebut," kata juru bicara Kementerian Luar Negeri Tiongkok Mao Ning. "Langkah yang bermotif politik dan diskriminatif ini mengungkap kemunafikan AS atas kebebasan dan keterbukaan. Ini akan semakin merusak citra dan reputasi AS sendiri."

Pada hari Kamis, juru bicara Kementerian Luar Negeri Tiongkok Mao Ning mengatakan: “Keputusan yang tidak masuk akal untuk mencabut visa pelajar Tiongkok dengan dalih ideologi dan keamanan nasional sangat merugikan hak dan kepentingan sah pelajar Tiongkok dan mengganggu pertukaran di antara kita.

“Langkah yang dipolitisasi dan diskriminatif seperti itu mengungkap kebohongan AS tentang apa yang disebut kebebasan dan keterbukaannya dan hanya akan semakin merusak citranya di dunia dan reputasi nasional.”

“Kebijakan ini merupakan perlakuan tidak adil terhadap warga negara Tiongkok, yang akan meningkatkan ketegangan diplomatik antara Tiongkok dan Amerika Serikat, merusak suasana yang telah mereda setelah perundingan Jenewa [ketika mereka sepakat untuk menghentikan banyak tarif],” kata Sun Chenghao, seorang peneliti di Pusat Keamanan dan Strategi Internasional Universitas Tsinghua.

Sun mengatakan hal ini kemungkinan tidak hanya akan merusak kerja sama di bidang-bidang seperti sains dan teknologi, tetapi juga berdampak pada diplomasi antarmasyarakat dan pertukaran budaya, serta membatasi kesempatan warga Amerika untuk memahami budaya dan masyarakat Tiongkok.

“Kepercayaan bersama antara kedua negara akan melemah,” imbuhnya

Trump Says Chinese Students Are a Security Risk. Espionage Experts Are Skeptical

Some former spy-hunters see the State Department’s plan to revoke visas of some Chinese college students as heavy-handed and counterproductive.

The F.B.I. has spent decades investigating some professors and students from China suspected of using their studies to secretly spy for their home country. As the Trump administration tries a new, more aggressive effort to stop such activity, experts fear it will do more harm than good for American research.

The plans the State Department announced this past week to revoke visas of some Chinese college students strike even some former spy-hunters as a heavy-handed attempt to solve a more complicated problem.

“The overall number of People’s Republic of China students that actually pose some type of national security risk is relatively low compared to the number of students that will continue to support and further U.S. research,” said Greg Milonovich, a former F.B.I. agent who managed the counterintelligence division’s academic alliance program as well as the national security higher education advisory board.

In announcing the move late Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave few specifics, offering only that the U.S. government would “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

How that vaguely defined standard will be enforced is not yet clear, but the directive is part of a broad campaign by the Trump administration to force major changes in American higher education. College campuses, administration officials say, are in crisis, and only the federal government is willing and able to fix the problems.

The senior White House adviser Stephen Miller outlined on Friday what the administration viewed as a threat to its interests. “We’re not going to be awarding visas to individuals who have a risk of being engaged in any form of malign conduct in the United States, which of course would include espionage, theft of trade secrets, theft of technology or other actions that would degrade the security of our industrial base,” he said.

China on Thursday condemned the decision, calling it “discriminatory.”

Beijing has condemned the US decision to target Chinese students studying in the country as “discriminatory”, warning it will further damage America’s image on the world stage.

“The U.S. decision … seriously hurts the lawful rights and interests of international students from China, and disrupts people-to-people exchanges between the two countries. China firmly opposes it and has protested to the U.S. over the decision,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning. “This politically motivated and discriminatory move exposes the U.S. hypocrisy over freedom and openness. It will further damage the image and reputation of the U.S. itself.”

On Thursday, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said: “The unreasonable decision to revoke the visas of Chinese students under the pretext of ideology and national security seriously harms the lawful rights and interests of Chinese students and disrupts exchanges between us.

“Such a politicised and discriminatory move lays bare the US lie of its so-called freedom and openness and will only further undermine its image in the world and national reputation.”

“This policy is an unfair treatment of Chinese citizens, which will intensify diplomatic tensions between China and the United States, undermining the easing atmosphere that had emerged following the Geneva talks [when they agreed to pause many tariffs],” said Sun Chenghao, a fellow at Tsinghua University’s Centre for International Security and Strategy.

Sun said this was likely to not only harm cooperation in fields such as science and technology, but also hit people-to-people diplomacy and cultural exchanges, and limit American people’s opportunities to understand Chinese culture and society.

“Mutual trust between the two countries will be weakened,” he added

Elite Western universities are a corrupt, parasitic empire

©Getty Images/Rattankun Thongbun

Dr. Mathew Maavak researches systems science, global risks, geopolitics, strategic foresight, governance and Artificial Intelligence. Follow him on X @MathewMaavak or read his latest articles at drmathewmaavak.substack.com

In a move that has ignited a global uproar, US President Donald Trump banned international students from Harvard University, citing “national security” and ideological infiltration. The decision, which has been widely condemned by academics and foreign governments alike, apparently threatens to undermine America’s “intellectual leadership and soft power.” At stake is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the very premise of open academic exchange that has long defined elite higher education in the US.

But exactly how ‘open’ is Harvard’s admissions process? Every year, highly qualified students – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are rejected, often with little explanation. Critics argue that behind the prestigious Ivy League brand lies an opaque system shaped by legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical interests, and outright bribes. George Soros, for instance, once pledged $1 billion to open up elite university admissions to drones who would read from his Open Society script.

China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy added a layer of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The international standing of US universities has long been tarnished by a woke psychosis which spread like cancer to all branches of the government.

So, what was behind China’s latest gripe? The answer may lie in the unspoken rules of soft power: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US deep state has long recruited foreign students to promote its interests abroad – subsidized by American taxpayers no less. China is apparently playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geostrategic fence.

For the time being, a judge has granted Harvard’s request for a temporary restraining order against Trump’s proposed ban. Come what may, there is one commonsense solution that all parties to this saga would like to avoid: Forcing Ivy League institutions to open their admissions process to public scrutiny. The same institutions that champion open borders, open societies, and open everything will, however, not tolerate any suggestion of greater openness to its admissions process. That would open up a Pandora’s Box of global corruption that is systemically ruining nations today.

Speaking of corruption – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching decision-making and dishonesty was just fired and stripped of tenure for fabricating her own data!

Concentration of wealth and alumni networks

The Ivy League has a vested interest in perpetuating rising wealth and educational inequalities. It is the only way they can remain atop the global rankings list at the expense of less-endowed peers.

Elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth over $30mn). For example, Harvard alone has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population.

These alumni networks provide major donations, corporate partnerships, and exclusive opportunities, reinforcing institutional wealth. If the alma mater’s admissions process was rigged in their favor, they have no choice but to cough it up, at least for the sake of their offspring who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle.

The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translated to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and state-of-the-art facilities. Less prestigious institutions just cannot compete on this scale.

Rankings, graft, and ominous trends

Global university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending per student, and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges overlap with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families.

According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), climbing rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending, driving tuition hikes and exacerbating inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are often overshadowed in traditional rankings, which reward wealth over social impact. Besides, social mobility these days is predetermined at birth, as the global wealth divide becomes unbridgeable.

Worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with institutions gaming audits, inflating data, and even bribing reviewers. Take the case of a Southeast Asian diploma mill where some of its initial batch of female students had been arrested for prostitution. Despite its flagrant lack of academic integrity, it grew rapidly to secure an unusually high QS global ranking – ahead of venerable institutions like the University of Pavia, where Leonardo da Vinci studied, and which boasts three Nobel Laureates among its ranks.

Does this grotesque inversion of merit make any sense?

Government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Recent White House tax cuts and deregulation may further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League until Trump took on Harvard.

With such ominous trends on the horizon, brace yourselves for an implosion of the global education sector by 2030 – a reckoning mirroring the 2008 financial crisis, but with far graver consequences. And touching on the 2008 crisis, didn’t someone remark that “behind every financial disaster, there’s a Harvard economist?”

Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps. In fact, I dare say that ‘learning’ is merely a coincidental output of the Ivy League brand.

The credentialism trap

When Lehman Brothers and its lesser peers collapsed in 2008, many Singapore-based corporations eagerly scooped up their laid-off executives. The logic? Fail upward.

If these whizz kids were truly talented, why did they miss the glaring warning signs during the lead up to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression? The answer lies in the cult of credentialism and an entrenched patronage system. Ivy League MBAs and Rolodexes of central banker contacts are all that matters. The consequences are simply disastrous: A runaway global talent shortage will hit $8.452 trillion in unrealized annual revenues by 2030, more than the projected GDP of India for the same year.

Ivy League MBAs often justify their relevance by overcomplicating simple objectives into tedious bureaucratic grinds – all in the name of efficiency, smart systems, and ever-evolving ‘best practices’. The result? Doctors now spend more time on paperwork than treating patients, while teachers are buried under layers of administrative work.

Ultimately, Ivy League technocrats often function as a vast bureaucratic parasite, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. What kind of universal socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to the world? I can only think of one historical analogue as a future cue: Colonial India, aka the British Raj. This may be a stretch, but bear with me.

Lessons from the Raj

As Norman Davies pointed out, the Austro-Hungarians had more bureaucrats managing Prague than the British needed to run all of colonial India – a subcontinent that included modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it took only 1,500-odd white Indian Civil Service (ICS) officials to govern colonial India until WWI.

That is quite staggering to comprehend, unless one grasps how the British and Indian societies are organized along rigid class (and caste) lines. When two corrupt feudal systems mate, their offspring becomes a blueprint for dystopia.

India never recovered from this neo-feudal arrangement. If the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let’s compare the conditions in the British Raj and China from 1850 to 1976 (when the Cultural Revolution officially ended). During this period, China endured numerous societal setbacks – including rebellions, famines, epidemics, lawlessness, and a world war – which collectively resulted in the deaths of nearly 150 million Chinese. The Taiping Rebellion alone – the most destructive civil war in history – resulted in 20 to 30 million dead, representing 5-10% of China’s population at the time.

A broad comparison with India during the same period reveals a death toll of 50-70 million, mainly from epidemics and famines. Furthermore, unlike colonial India, many parts of China also lacked central governance.

Indian nationalists are quick to blame a variety of bogeymen for their society’s lingering failings. Nevertheless, they should ask themselves why US Big Tech-owned news platforms, led by upper-caste Hindu CEOs, no less, showed a decidedly pro-Islamabad bias during the recent Indo-Pakistani military standoff. Maybe, these CEOs are supine apparatchiks, much like their predecessors during the British Raj? Have they been good stewards of the public domain (i.e. internet)? Have they promoted meritocracy in foreign lands? (You can read some stark examples here, here and here).

These Indian Big Tech bros, however, showed a lot of vigor and initiative during the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing their employees to take the vaccine or face the pink slip. They led the charge behind the Global Task Force on Pandemic Response, which included an “unprecedented corporate sector initiative to help India successfully fight COVID-19.” Just check out the credentials of the ‘experts’ involved here. Shouldn’t this task be left to accomplished Indian virologists and medical experts?

A tiny few, in the service of a hegemon, can control the fate of billions. India’s income inequality is now worse than it was under British rule.

A way out?

As global university inequalities widen further, it is perhaps time to rethink novel approaches to level the education field as many brick and mortar institutions may simply fold during the volatile 2025-30 period.

I am optimistic that the use of AI in education will be a great equalizer, but I also fear that Big Tech will force governments into using its proprietary EdTech solutions that are already showing signs of runaway AI hallucinations – simply because the bold new world is all about control and power, not empowerment. Much like the British Raj, I would say.

Elon Musk Says He’s Exiting Trump Administration, capping turbulent tenure

Elon Musk listens to U.S. President Donald Trump speak in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 11, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights

Billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk is leaving the Trump administration after leading a tumultuous efficiency drive, during which he upended several federal agencies but ultimately failed to deliver the generational savings he had sought.

Elon Musk took a swipe at President Trump’s signature domestic policy legislation, saying it would add to the national deficit. He complained to administration officials about a lucrative deal that went to a rival company to build an artificial-intelligence data center in the Middle East. And he has yet to make good on a $100 million pledge to Trump’s political operation.

Mr. Musk, who once called himself the president’s “first buddy,” is now operating with some distance from Mr. Trump as he says he is ending his government work to spend more time on his companies. Mr. Musk remains on good terms with Mr. Trump, according to White House officials. But he has also made it clear that he is disillusioned with Washington and frustrated with the obstacles he encountered as he upended the federal bureaucracy, raising questions about the strength of the alliance between the president and the world’s richest man.

Mr. Musk was the biggest known political spender in the 2024 election, and he told Mr. Trump’s advisers this year that he would give $100 million to groups controlled by the president’s team before the 2026 midterms. As of this week, the money hasn’t come in yet, according to multiple people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the behind-the-scenes dynamic.

Mr. Musk did not respond to a request for comment. In a post on X, his social media site, on Wednesday night, he officially confirmed for the first time that his stint as a government employee was coming to an end and thanked Mr. Trump “for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending.”

“The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government,” he added, referring to his Department of Government Efficiency team.

The billionaire’s imprint is still firmly felt in official Washington through that effort, an initiative to drastically cut spending that has deployed staff across the government. But Mr. Musk has said in recent days that he spent too much time focused on politics and has lamented the reputational damage he and his companies have suffered because of his work in the Trump administration.

Musk did not hide his animus for the federal workforce, and he predicted that revoking "the COVID-era privilege" of telework would trigger "a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome."

But some cabinet members who initially embraced Musk's outsider energy grew wary of his tactics, sources said. Over time, they grew more confident pushing back against his job cuts, encouraged by Trump's reminder in early March that staffing decisions rested with department secretaries, not with Musk.

Musk clashed with three of Trump's most senior cabinet members - Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. He called Trump's trade adviser Peter Navarro a "moron" and "dumber than a sack of bricks." Navarro dismissed the insults, saying, "I've been called worse."

At the same time, Musk began to hint that his time in government would come to a close, while expressing frustration at times that he could not more aggressively cut spending.

In an April 22 Tesla conference call, he signaled he would be significantly scaling back his government work to focus on his businesses.

"The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized," Musk told The Washington Post this week. "I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least."

DOGE GOES ON

Musk's 130-day mandate as a special government employee in the Trump administration was set to expire around May 30. The administration has said DOGE's efforts to restructure and shrink the federal government will continue.

Several cabinet secretaries are already discussing with the White House how to proceed without further alienating Congressional Republicans. But even as department heads will keep some DOGE infrastructure in place, they will likely move to reassert control over budgets and staffing, sources have told Reuters.

"The DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government," Musk said. Trump and DOGE have managed to cut nearly 12%, or 260,000, of the 2.3 million-strong federal civilian workforce largely through threats of firings, buyouts and early retirement offers, a Reuters review of agency departures found.

At the same time, DOGE has hit a number of roadblocks, with federal courts at times propping back up agencies shortly after DOGE had moved to eliminate them. In some cases, staff and funding cuts have led to purchasing bottlenecks, increased costs and a brain drain of scientific and technological talent.

The most recent source of friction came on Tuesday when Musk criticized the price tag of Republicans' tax and budget legislation making its way through Congress.

"I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," Musk told CBS News.

One source said the billionaire's decision to trash Trump's bill on television deeply upset senior White House aides.

His political activities have drawn protests and some investors have called for him to leave his work as Trump's adviser and more closely manage Tesla, which has seen falls in sales and its stock price.

Musk, the world's richest person, has defended his role as an unelected official who was granted unprecedented authority by Trump to dismantle parts of the U.S. government.

Having spent nearly $300 million to back Trump's presidential campaign and other Republicans last year, he said earlier this month he would substantially cut his political spending.

"I think I've done enough," Musk said at an economic forum in Qatar.

Germany's Ukrainian Escalation Signals Berlin's Slide Toward WWI and WWII-Style Ruin - Lavrov

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that Germany's arming of Ukraine shows that Berlin is now directly involved in the Russia-Ukraine war. How far will the Kremlin go with its response, and does Russia now see NATO member Germany as a target as well?

Berlin’s push to escalate tensions and fuel the Ukrainian crisis signal that Germany “is being drawn directly into this war,” Russia’s foreign minister told journalist Pavel Zarubin.

“I hope responsible politicians in this country make the right conclusions and stop this madness,” Lavrov urged. As for Trump’s recent hostile rhetoric and claims, they indicate that the US president is “not being fully informed” on the conflict, with information “filtered” to him “by those who want to drag America into more aggressive actions against Russia,” Lavrov said.

Earlier, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that the United Kingdom, France, the United States and now Germany had lifted range restrictions on military supplies to Ukraine to allow Kiev strike targets deep in the Russian territory.

The stinging comments by Lavrov come just days after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced that the US, UK, France and his own country have lifted the range restrictions on missiles supplied to Ukraine for use against Russia. Merz’s remarks had drawn a strong response from Moscow which warned that such a move would lead to a massive escalation in the conflict as now Ukraine can use western missiles to hit targets deep inside Russia.

Lavrov invoked European history to underline his concerns in one of his most striking remarks. “Twice in the 20th century, Germany became the leading European power,” Lavrov said. “And look at the horrors it brought - not just to the people of Europe.”

He used Germany’s role in World Wars as a warning against giving any one European power, especially within NATO, too much influence again.

He was referring to Germany’s recent massive military buildup, which Germans have justified as driven by fears of Russian aggression and uncertainty over US support under Trump, who has aligned more closely with Russian and business interests.

A $550-billion fund, approved in March 2025, will boost Germany’s defense budget from $68 billion annually to equip the Bundeswehr (German army) with more armored vehicles, air defense systems, warships, spy satellites, radar, radio jammers, and AI.

The plan also includes adding 20,000 troops to the current 180,000 and stationing a mechanized brigade in Lithuania to deter Russia. German Chancellor Merz, citing the need for “strategic independence” from the US, pushed for this spending to prepare for a potential Russian victory in Ukraine, which could threaten Europe.

Russia sees this as a threat, with countries like Sweden also increasing military budgets.

Lavrov on balancing NATO and Ukraine

Lavrov argued that Ukraine joining NATO would seriously violate past promises made to Russia.

“It would break a promise and an oath,” he said

He added that Russia had recognized Ukraine as an independent state but could not accept its push toward NATO membership

“To achieve peace, we must eliminate the root causes of the conflict,” Lavrov said, referring to NATO’s steady expansion eastward over the years.

His remarks indicated that in 1990, US officials, including Secretary of State James Baker, assured Soviet leaders that NATO would not expand eastward, particularly in relation to German reunification. However, these assurances were never formalized in a written treaty and were subsequently disregarded as NATO expanded into Eastern Europe.

UN’s role in preventing German Nazification

Lavrov also criticized the West, claiming it has caused many global crises by applying international law selectively.

He pointed to the UN Charter, saying its principles were ignored in the case of Ukraine and accused Ukraine of violating Article 1 of the Charter by banning the Russian language and persecuting the Orthodox Church. This is one of the rationales often given by the Russians behind attacking Ukraine.

The Global Russian vision

Lavrov further discussed the growing role of what he called the “Global Majority,” a reference to non-Western nations asserting more influence in world affairs.

He called for a multipolar world and said that global stability depends on whether the West respects the UN Charter fully, not selectively.

Experts view these comments as indicative of the seriousness with which Russia regards Moscow’s continuous opposition to NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe, along with its belief that the conflict in Ukraine stems from Western provocation.

Plans for European NATO troops in Ukraine seen as ‘dead’ – the Financial Times

The UK and France continue to back troop deployment despite having no US ‘backstop’ for the proposed plan

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (L), Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky (C), and French President Emmanuel Macron, May 16, 2025. ©Leon Neal/Pool via Getty Images

A Franco-British plan to deploy troops from NATO states to Ukraine following a potential truce with Russia is “dead”, an anonymous official has told the Financial Times. 

France and the UK, the leading powers in the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’, back deploying troops to Ukraine, ostensibly as a security guarantee for Kiev. Moscow has maintained that it will not tolerate any NATO member's presence in Ukraine under any circumstances.

The US has turned down a request by Kiev's European backers to provide a “backstop” for the proposed mission, with President Donald Trump arguing that America should never have been involved in the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the first place.

The official source told the FT the plan is “preposterous without the help of Trump, and he’s not willing to provide it.”

A French diplomat who spoke to the outlet however insisted that ‘coalition’ members are continuing their planning “at normal pace,” however.

The European efforts are, according to the FT, aimed at bolstering morale in Kiev, demonstrating to Trump that they are committed, and trying to influence US-supported peace negotiations between Moscow and Kiev.

Russia and Ukraine resumed direct peace talks this month, abandoned in 2022 by Kiev to pursue victory on the battlefield. The first round of renewed dialogue led to the largest prisoner exchange between the two countries since the conflict escalated more than three years ago.

Moscow is also currently preparing a draft memorandum that includes a conditional ceasefire as part of a road map to a peaceful resolution.

Kiev has accused Moscow of lacking goodwill by rejecting a 30-day unconditional pause in the fighting – a demand Russia has dismissed as a tactic to gain military advantage.

Ukrainian forces have stepped up long-range strikes deep into Russian territory in recent weeks. The Russian military said on Wednesday that it shot down 296 Ukrainian fixed-wing drones over a ten-hour period overnight.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky said on Tuesday the increase in attacks is a mirror response to Russian operations. Moscow has recently launched several strikes inside Ukraine, reportedly targeting a major kamikaze drone facility in Kiev and other military sites.

Moscow targeted by major Ukrainian drone assault - Videos

Officials say 42 UAVs have been downed near the Russian capital, damaging at least three residential buildings

©Moscow Region Governor Andrey Vorobyov/Telegram

Ukraine has launched another major drone raid on Moscow and suburban areas, with a total of 42 UAVs being shot down overnight across the entire region, local officials have said. The attack damaged buildings and prompted temporary flight suspensions, but no casualties have been reported.

Air defenses intercepted drones across 12 municipalities in the early hours of Wednesday, according to Moscow Region Governor Andrey Vorobyov. Three residential houses were damaged in Troitskoye, a village in the Chekhov district south of Moscow, Vorobyov said. Emergency services were working at the scene and residents affected by the attack would receive assistance, he added.

Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin confirmed the drone raid on the Russian capital, which came in several waves starting at around 12:30am.

The Russian Defense Ministry said air defense systems had shot down or intercepted a total of 296 fixed-wing drones across Russia between 9pm on Tuesday and 7am on Wednesday.

The Russian Defense Ministry said air defense systems had shot down or intercepted a total of 296 fixed-wing drones across Russia between 9pm on Tuesday and 7am on Wednesday.

Russia’s aviation regulator said flight operations were temporarily restricted at Moscow’s Domodedovo, Vnukovo, Zhukovsky and Sheremetyevo airports, as well as at regional airports in Vladimir, Ivanovo, Kostroma, and Yaroslavl, to ensure safety. Restrictions were lifted later in the morning.

Russia’s aviation regulator said flight operations were temporarily restricted at Moscow’s Domodedovo, Vnukovo, Zhukovsky and Sheremetyevo airports, as well as at regional airports in Vladimir, Ivanovo, Kostroma, and Yaroslavl, to ensure safety. Restrictions were lifted later in the morning.

In Zelenograd, a district on the northwestern outskirts of Moscow, an explosion shattered the windows at Elma Technopark while a nearby car caught fire, according to pictures shared by the Shot Telegram channel. The outlet also posted a video appearing to show the midair destruction of a UAV.

The drone raid was caught on camera in multiple locations, with clips often featuring drones flying at a low altitude and explosions. A video shared by Baza showed residents in Ramenskoye, outside Moscow, taking cover under trees during the attack.

Ukraine has recently significantly intensified its drone raids on civilian infrastructure deep into Russia. The Russian Defense Ministry has said that the attacks are being supported by Kiev’s sponsors in Europe and are aimed at disrupting the ongoing conflict settlement process. According to the ministry, more than 2,300 drones have been intercepted over the past week, mostly outside the frontline.

Subsequently, Russia has responded with precision strikes targeting exclusively Ukrainian military facilities, including drone production sites, warehouses, airfields, radar stations, and ammunition depots.