This section is reserved for reader submissions. The Daily Beast welcomes tips from its audience, encouraging readers to share information confidentially. Instructions on how to submit tips are provided. This open call demonstrates a commitment to citizen journalism and audience participation.
Following President Trump’s February 12th announcement of immediate US-Russia negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, concerns arose regarding the exclusion of Ukraine from these talks. President Trump confirmed direct communication with Vladimir Putin regarding this initiative. Earlier that day, Ukrainian President Zelensky expressed strong reservations, characterizing such negotiations as a dangerous betrayal of Ukraine’s interests. The differing perspectives highlight a significant point of contention regarding the path to peace.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warned that a Russian attack on NATO would provoke a devastating response, ensuring Russia’s defeat. This declaration came before a crucial ministerial meeting in Brussels focused on coordinating Ukraine’s defense against ongoing Russian aggression. Discussions included increasing defense spending, with a proposed rise from 2% to over 3% of GDP, mirroring Trump’s previous call for 5%. The meeting also addressed concerns over Trump’s past comments regarding military support for European allies, with a focus on strengthening Ukraine’s position to improve its negotiating power.
Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency, has repeatedly criticized NATO, echoing President Trump’s skepticism. Musk’s influence, coupled with the administration’s stance, raises concerns about a potential shift in U.S. support for the alliance. This follows Defense Secretary Hegseth’s recent visit to NATO headquarters, during which he ruled out Ukrainian membership and a return to pre-2014 borders. While the administration intends to remain in NATO, pressure on member nations to increase defense spending is anticipated.
A new IISS report reveals that Russia’s 2023 defense spending, at $462 billion, surpassed the combined total of all European nations ($457 billion), a 42% increase for Russia. This increase, projected to continue at 13.7% in 2024, raises concerns about European security, especially if US support for Ukraine diminishes. While some European nations, notably Germany and the UK, increased spending, achieving targets like 3% or 5% of GDP for defense would necessitate massive budget increases and is not currently guaranteed. Russia’s sustained military spending, despite economic strain, underscores the significant security challenge it poses to Europe.
In response to Ukrainian President Zelenskiy’s proposal to exchange occupied Ukrainian territories for areas of the Kursk region held by Ukraine, the Kremlin issued a firm rejection. Moscow categorically stated that trading any Russian territory is unacceptable and will not be considered. Zelenskiy’s offer, made to the Guardian, aimed to facilitate a negotiated end to the conflict. Despite Russia’s stance, the Kremlin asserted that Ukrainian forces would be removed from Kursk.
Estonia’s intelligence service reports that Russia plans a new propaganda campaign, aiming to leverage the “nuclear winter” theory to frighten the American public. This strategy seeks to undermine US support for Ukraine by emphasizing the catastrophic consequences of escalating the conflict. The Kremlin intends to utilize American scientists to disseminate these warnings, a significant escalation of their information warfare tactics. This represents a shift from previous, less direct, nuclear threats made by President Putin.
Following a lengthy phone call, Presidents Trump and Putin agreed to immediately begin negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. The conversation, the first between the two leaders since Trump took office, covered various topics including Ukraine, energy, and artificial intelligence. Trump announced that he would inform Ukrainian President Zelenskyy of the discussion and that negotiations would commence immediately, involving teams from both countries. A prisoner exchange and access to Ukrainian rare earth minerals are being discussed as potential elements of a settlement.
Hegseth’s assertion that NATO membership for Ukraine is unrealistic is fueling a firestorm of debate. The very public declaration of this stance is perplexing, particularly given the potential for such a statement to significantly weaken any negotiating position. It’s a bargaining chip casually discarded, a move that some interpret as incredibly damaging to Ukraine’s prospects.
This public announcement raises serious questions. Why would a country, facing ongoing aggression and desperate for security guarantees, publicly foreclose such a crucial option? The strategic implications are considerable, especially when considering the possibility of future Russian incursions. This seemingly rash decision has effectively gifted Russia a strategic advantage, solidifying their territorial gains and diminishing Ukraine’s leverage in any future negotiations.… Continue reading
Overnight on February 11th, Ukrainian forces launched a joint operation involving drones and special forces, successfully striking the Saratov oil refinery, a key facility supplying fuel to Russian forces in Ukraine. The attack resulted in a significant fire at the Rosneft facility, the extent of which is still being assessed. This strike, along with recent attacks on other Russian energy infrastructure, is part of a broader Ukrainian strategy to weaken Russia’s military and economic capabilities. The Saratov refinery, with an annual refining capacity of 7 million tons of oil, is a critical component of Russia’s fuel infrastructure.
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood