Vladimir Putin appears to have abandoned his narrowed military objectives in favor of conquering all of Ukraine, according to recent statements and battlefield developments.

 “All of Ukraine is ours,” he told an economic forum in St. Petersburg last week. “Wherever the Russian soldier treads is ours.”

The declaration came as Russian forces attempted to push into Sumy, a region Putin never bothered to annex in 2022. Why the shift?

After failing to capture Kyiv in 2022, he pulled back and focused on four eastern and southern regions: Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. He annexed them in September 2022, signaling narrower, more achievable goals.

His original strategy isn’t working, the Telegraph reports. Nearly three years later, he still doesn’t fully control even one of those regions.

Russia claims full control of Luhansk after three years

However, Russian forces claimed Monday they captured the final sliver of Luhansk Oblast after controlling 99% of it for years. If confirmed, Luhansk becomes the first Ukrainian region to fall completely since Putin seized Crimea in 2014. However, so far there has been no independent verification from the Russian Defense Ministry or Ukrainian authorities. 

But three years to capture one region? That’s not the lightning campaign Putin promised.

Ukraine rejects penetration of Russian forces into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast

Multiple Russian Telegram channels also claimed forces seized their first village in Dnipropetrovsk oblast, bordering Donetsk Oblast.

Ukraine’s General Staff disputed this, saying a small Russian reconnaissance group penetrated Dachne village, took photos with a Russian flag, then died.

“The invaders managed to take photos with the Russian tricolor, but this was their last activity: Ukrainian soldiers destroyed the occupiers,” military officials stated.

Explore further

ISW: Russian forces advance to Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border

Ukrainian military officials said information about establishing a bridgehead in Dnipropetrovsk region does not correspond to reality, and that Ukrainian units continue to contain pressure from Russian forces attempting to cross the administrative border between Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk regions without success.

Still, the attempt matters. In over a decade of war, Ukraine never had to defend Dnipropetrovsk from ground invasion. The flat terrain and sparse settlements could allow swift Russian advances—if they can establish a foothold.

Tens of thousands of Russian troops are also massing around Sumy and Kharkiv, which are bordering Russia on the northeast. Both regions were early war targets Putin failed to capture.

Meanwhile, North Korea plans to significantly increase its military support for Russia in the war against Ukraine by sending an additional 25,000 to 30,000 troops, tripling its current deployment of about 11,000 soldiers initially sent in November 2024. 

North Korean troops were involved in helping Russian soldiers to push back Ukrainian forces which occupied a part of Russia’s Kursk Oblast, which borders Sumy. As of 2025, Russia regained control over most of the region.

Explore further

60 Sumy border settlements completely abandoned amid intensified Russian attacks and offensive threat

Putin believes he captures “historical Russian cities”

Angelica Evans from the Institute for the Study of War traced Putin’s expanded ambitions to his May visit to Kursk. There, he ordered creation of a “buffer zone” along Ukraine’s border.

“That was a light way to introduce that into the information space,” Evans told The Telegraph. “First, it’s a buffer zone, it’s just 30km to protect Russians. Then you’re not that far from major regional cities, so why not take those?”

The logic follows Putin’s historical claims. If these are “historic Russian cities,” why not seize them?

The expanded operations coincide with increased strikes on civilian targets. Recent attacks killed 18 people in a Kyiv apartment building and 17 passengers on a civilian train in Dnipropetrovsk region.

Evans suggested these strikes serve multiple purposes:

“A lot of these strikes are about undermining Ukrainian morale and for some of these settlements, that are closer to the frontline, an effort to convince people to leave and to make it easier in the future to seize these places.”

Peace talks dead in the water

Meanwhile, peace negotiations have stalled following two rounds of direct talks in May and June that yielded only agreements on prisoner exchanges and repatriation of the dead. Putin has stated that talks are “nowhere close” to success after efforts by Donald Trump failed to progress.

Explore further

Ukraine and Russia to exchange prisoners of war this weekend — only result of Istanbul peace talks

During Istanbul peace talks in May, Russian officials reportedly warned Ukraine that Moscow could sustain its war effort for 21 years. Vladimir Medinsky, who led the Russian delegation, said Moscow wanted peace but would fight “however long it takes” and threatened to annex Sumy and Kharkiv if Ukraine rejected Putin’s demands.

Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for Russia and Ukraine, blamed Russia for derailing negotiations.

“Russian claims that it is the US and Ukraine stalling peace talks are unfounded,” Kellogg said. “We urge an immediate ceasefire and a move to trilateral talks to end the war. Russia cannot continue to stall for time while it bombs civilian targets in Ukraine.”

Today, there are interesting updates from the Kostiantynivka direction, Donetsk Oblast.

Here, after facing repeated humiliating setbacks at Pokrovsk, the Russian command redirected their offensive toward Kostiantynivka, as they collided with the Ukrainian defense line. The Russians sent a massive assault group with dozens armored vehicles to break through, but were funneled into a devastating kill zone. 

The goal of Russian forces west of Kostiantynivka is to achieve a decisive penetration through Ukrainian defensive lines, creating opportunities to outflank and encircle both Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka simultaneously. This would disrupt Ukrainian defenses across two crucial sectors, potentially destabilizing a massive portion of the frontline. 

Following a relatively rapid Russian advance in this area last month, Ukrainian forces swiftly redeployed elite units to stall further gains, successfully buying time for reserves to reinforce secondary defense lines. Despite incremental Russian progress since the initial breakthrough, Ukrainian defenders succeeded in slowing down enemy momentum, preventing the frontline collapse that Russia urgently sought. Now, Russian forces find themselves confronting fortified Ukrainian positions to the southwest of Kostiantynivka, where they’ve been unable to advance further over the past two weeks.

The Russians currently hold one significant advantage, the establishment of a bridgehead across the important Bychok River. This allows them to transfer larger numbers of troops and equipment across the water barrier, increasing their offensive potential and the intensity of their attacks.

The geographic position of the bridgehead offers flexibility for attacks against Kostiantynivka or Pokrovsk, but given limited resources, Russian commanders seem focused primarily on pushing toward Kostiantynivka. This tactical choice also threatens the nearby Ukrainian defense lines near Toretsk, increasing the reward of any successful maneuver for the Russians.

However, Ukrainian defenses around Kostiantynivka are robust and carefully designed, significantly shaping Ukrainian tactics and granting a decisive defensive advantage. Elaborate anti-tank ditches and natural terrain features effectively funnel Russian forces along the heavily fortified Pokrovsk-Kostiantynivka highway. 

Ukrainian engineers have constructed a sophisticated network of layered fortifications along this critical road, establishing a formidable defense in depth. Additionally, rows of dragon teeth along the highway serve as concrete barriers to halt Russian armored assaults, while hidden Ukrainian positions in the fortifications deliver devastating fire. Ukrainian artillery and drone operators wait in concealed positions, ready to unleash intense fire on enemy formations entering these well-prepared kill zones.

Faced with mounting difficulties and aware of the increasingly reinforced Ukrainian positions, the Russian command opted for a desperate gamble. They planned to launch one large-scale mechanized assault rather than their more typical smaller infiltration tactics they had been relying on recently. Hoping to surprise and overwhelm Ukrainian defenders, the Russians dispatched one of the largest mechanized columns seen in this sector for months, consisting of at least 23 armored vehicles and over a dozen motorcycles. 

However, the column drove directly into a carefully prepared Ukrainian kill zone along the fortified highway. To avoid running into mines on the road itself, the Russians drove beside it, but the Ukrainian minefields extended into the fields, destroying several of their vehicles. The battle was brutal and chaotic, lasting over 3 hours as Ukrainians obliterated this massive Russian assault part by part. Ukrainian FPV drone operators and artillery systematically dismantled the Russian formation as it struggled to advance due to the obstacles. 

The engineer vehicle destined to clear a path through the dragon’s teeth was destroyed, as were the soldiers on motorcycles that could have blown a path through them with explosives, causing the Russian armor to bunch up and be devastated by artillery. Of the approximately twenty-five armored vehicles engaged, eighteen were decisively destroyed. 

Some of them detonated on carefully placed anti-tank mines; others, attempting to escape Ukrainian fire, panicked and drove directly into anti-tank ditches, becoming stationary targets swiftly finished off by Ukrainian drones. Nearly two hundred Russian troops were killed in the failed assault, underscoring the catastrophic nature of failing an attempted breakthrough.

Overall, while Russian forces initially achieved limited success southwest of Kostiantynivka, the newly improved and manned Ukrainian defensive setup decisively halted the recent ambitious mechanized assault. The scale of losses incurred in this latest attack represents another severe setback for Russian commanders, reflecting both poor operational planning and underestimation of Ukrainian preparations.

Nevertheless, previous patterns suggest that Russians will regroup and return, refusing to abandon their objective. Ukrainian commanders expect that Russia is already mobilizing additional units and equipment, preparing another offensive effort against the long coveted Kostiantynivka sector.

In our regular frontline report, we pair up with the military blogger Reporting from Ukraine to keep you informed about what is happening on the battlefield in the Russo-Ukrainian war.

On one side of the world, a very online guy edits a photo of then-Vice President Nominee JD Vance with comically-huge and perfectly round chipmunk cheeks: a butterfly flaps its wings. A year later, elsewhere on the planet, a Norwegian tourist returns home, rejected from entry to the U.S. because—he claims—border patrol agents found that image on his phone and considered the round Vance meme “extremist propaganda.”

“My initial reaction was ‘dear god,’” the creator of the original iteration of the meme, Dave McNamee, told me in an email, “because I think it's very bad and stupid that anyone could purportedly be stopped by ICE or any other government security agency because they have a meme on their phone. I know for a fact that JD has these memes on his phone.”

On Monday, Norwegian news outlets reported that Mads Mikkelsen, a 21-year-old tourist from Norway, claimed he was denied entry to the United States when he arrived at Newark International Airport because Customs and Border Patrol agents found "narcotic paraphernalia" and "extremist propaganda" on his phone. Mikkelsen told Nordlys that the images in question were a photo of himself with a homemade wooden pipe, and the babyface Vance meme. (The meme he shows on his phone is a version where Vance is bald, from the vice presidential debate.)

McNamee posted his original edit of Vance as a round-faced freak in October 2024. "For every 100 likes I will turn JD Vance into a progressively apple cheeked baby,” he wrote in the original X post. In the following months, Vance became vice president, the meme morphed into a thousand different versions of the original, and this week is at the center of an immigration scandal.

It’s still unclear whether Mikkelsen was actually forbidden entry because of the meme. Mikkelsen, who told local outlets he’d been detained and threatened by border agents, showed the documentation he received at the airport to Snopes. The document, signed by a CBP officer, says Mikkelsen “is not in possession of a valid, un-expired immigrant visa,” and “cannot overcome the presumption of being an intending immigrant at this time because it appears you are attempting to engage in unauthorized employment without authorization and proper documentation.” 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wrote in social media posts (and confirmed to 404 Media), "Claims that Mads Mikkelsen was denied entry because of a JD Vance meme are FALSE. Mikkelsen was refused entry into the U.S. for his admitted drug use." Hilariously, DHS and Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reposted the Vance meme on their social media accounts to make the point that it was NOT babyface Vance to blame.

Earlier this week, the State Department announced that visa applicants to the U.S. are now required to make their social media profiles public so the government can search them. 

“We use all available information in our visa screening and vetting to identify visa applicants who are inadmissible to the United States, including those who pose a threat to U.S. national security. Under new guidance, we will conduct a comprehensive and thorough vetting, including online presence, of all student and exchange visitor applicants in the F, M, and J nonimmigrant classifications,” the State Department said in an announcement. “To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas will be instructed to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media profiles to ‘public.’”

The meme is now everywhere—arguably more widespread than it ever was, even at its peak virality. Irish Labour leader Ivana Bacik held it up during an address concerning the U.S.’s new visa rules for social media. Every major news outlet is covering the issue, and slapping Babyface Vance on TV and on their websites. It’s jumped a news cycle shark: Even if the Meme Tourist rumor is overblown, it reflects a serious anxiety people around the world feel about the state of immigration and tourism in the U.S. Earlier this month, an Australian man who was detained upon arrival at Los Angeles airport and deported back to Melbourne claimed that U.S. border officials “clearly targeted for politically motivated reasons” and told the Guardian agents spent more than 30 minutes questioning him about his views on Israel and Palestine and his “thoughts on Hamas.”  

Seeing the Vance edit everywhere again, a year after it first exploded on social media, has to be kind of weird if you’re the person who made the Fat Cheek Baby Vance meme, right? I contacted McNamee over email to find out. 

When did you first see the news about the guy who was stopped (allegedly) because of the meme? Did you see it on Twitter, did someone text it to you...

MCNAMEE: I first saw it when I got a barrage of DMs sending me the news story. It's very funny that any news that happens with an edit of him comes back to me. 

What was your initial reaction to that?

MCNAMEE: My initial reaction was "dear god," because I think it's very bad and stupid that anyone could purportedly be stopped by ICE or any other government security agency because they have a meme on their phone. I know for a fact that JD has these memes on his phone.  

What do you think it says about the US government, society, ICE, what-have-you, that this story went so viral? A ton of people believed (and honestly, it might still be the case, despite what the cops say) that he was barred because of a meme. What does that mean to you in the bigger picture?

MCNAMEE: Well I think that people want to believe it's true, that it was about the meme. I think it says that we are in a scary world where it is hard to tell if this is true or not. Like 10 years ago this wouldn’t even be a possibility but now it is very plausible. I think it shows a growing crack down on free speech and our rights. Bigger picture to me is that we are going to be unjustly held accountable for things that are much within our right to do/possess. 

What would you say to the Norwegian guy if you could?

MCNAMEE: I would probably say "my bad" and ask what it's like being named Mads Mikkelsen. 

Do you have a favorite Vance edit?

MCNAMEE: My favorite Vance Edit is probably the one someone did of him as the little boy from Shrek 2 with the giant lollipop...I didn't make that one but it uses the face of one of the edits I did and it is solid gold. 

I would like to add that this meme seems to have become the biggest meme of the 2nd Trump administration and one of the biggest political memes of all time and if it does enter a history book down the line I would like them to use a flattering photo of me.

US President Donald Trump has publicly criticized former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev over his hints about the possibility of other countries transferring nuclear weapons to Iran, reminding him of the risk of such words.

After the US president carried out strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Medvedev stated that Tehran would restore its nuclear program and that several countries might transfer warheads to it.

In response, Trump dismissed his claims. 

“Did I hear Former President Medvedev, from Russia, casually throwing around the ‘N word’ (Nuclear!), and saying that he and other Countries would supply Nuclear Warheads to Iran? The ‘N word’ should not be treated so casually. I guess that’s why Putin’s ‘THE BOSS, ’” he wrote. 

The reaction came on the TruthSocial platform after Medvedev published a post criticizing US actions in Iran, calling the strikes futile and accusing the US of igniting a new war.

Later, Medvedev clarified that Russia would not transfer nuclear weapons to Iran, although, in his opinion, other countries might do so.

Meanwhile, US Vice President JD Vance said the strikes significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program. 

On 23 June, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visited Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other senior officials after the US strikes. While Russia offered diplomatic support and expressed willingness to mediate the crisis, it did not promise concrete military assistance to Iran.

Russia, heavily engaged in its own war with Ukraine and facing economic sanctions, appears reluctant or unable to provide substantial military aid to Tehran at this time.

Iran has once again launched missile attacks on Israel, striking the city of Beersheba. One of the missiles hit a residential building, killing at least three people, CNN reports. 

This came just hours after US President Donald Trump stated that Iran and Israel had allegedly agreed to a ceasefire. According to him, the truce was set to begin on the morning of 24 June, with Iran initiating a halt in hostilities, followed by Israel 12 hours later. The ceasefire, however, did not happen.

On the same day, 23 June, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Moscow to seek additional support from Russian President Vladimir Putin following recent US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to Reuters. 

Later, Araghchi claimed that Iran was ready to halt military actions against Israel, while simultaneously blaming Israel for the war. 

Previously, US Vice President J.D. Vance declared that following American airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Tehran is no longer capable of building a nuclear weapon, per The Guardian. However, he declined to comment on the status or location of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, saying only that he believes it was buried.

On 23 June, after a Russian strike on Kyiv, which killed nine civilians, including an 11-year-old girl, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Russian assaults have become possible due to “a coalition of killers”, meaning Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

Putin mourned Nazi victims—then ordered missile strike on Kyiv, which kill 11-year-old girl and her mother

“Everyone in countries bordering Russia, Iran, and North Korea should ask themselves whether they could protect lives if this coalition of killers survives and continues spreading terror,” he emphasized.

Today, there are interesting updates from the Kupiansk direction, Kharkiv Oblast. 

Here, the strategic Battle for Kupiansk is unfolding as Russian forces intensify efforts to cross the Oskil River and encircle the city, hoping to shift momentum in their favor. Yet, despite repeated assaults and tactical shifts, their advance remains stalled – trapped in a deadly fire pocket, crippled by logistics, and methodically dismantled by a patient and lethal Ukrainian defense.

The Battle for Kupiansk is characterized by persistent Russian pressure along two key axes. Primarily via the Pischane funnel, a narrow corridor extending westward toward the Oskil River. Here, Russian units attempt to widen their area of control, aiming to solidify positions near the riverbanks and save themselves from the deadly Ukrainian fire from 3 sides. 

However, because of the fire pocket, Russian forces in this sector are severely undermanned, undersupplied, and critically lack armored support. Their presence largely consists of scattered infantry groups operating without meaningful logistical backing, rendering them particularly vulnerable to precise, small-scale raids by Ukrainian special forces. 

Ukrainian forces, employing a robust active defense, maintain continuous pressure in an active defense, conducting raids with special forces teams to take prisoners, obtain mission-critical intelligence, and disrupt Russian force gathering efforts. Thus, Russian elements within the funnel remain strategically insignificant. 

Given ongoing, high-stakes battles elsewhere, particularly around Toretsk, Pokrovsk, Kostiantynivka, and Sumy, allocating substantial Ukrainian resources to decisively eliminate this minor Russian penetration would be impractical. Additionally, pushing Russian forces back here would inadvertently shorten their overextended supply lines, unintentionally improving their logistical conditions. Therefore, Ukraine’s current strategy of containment and attrition effectively drains Russian manpower without compromising Ukrainian resources.

Meanwhile, Russian command persistently attempts to close the pocket around the Pischane funnel, striving to transform it into a platform for a more substantial advance directly toward Kupiansk and the strategically important Oskil River. Despite frequent offensive attempts, Russian progress remains negligible. Various tactics have been employed, including infantry-only assaults, motorcycle-mounted rushes, and even limited armor-supported pushes. Each of these efforts has consistently failed due to relentless and highly effective Ukrainian resistance.

Over several months, Russian forces have sought to widen the funnel’s eastern flank to alleviate the concentrated Ukrainian fire pocket. Despite their efforts, Russians have managed to widen only half the funnel, achieving little practical advantage. Consequently, this maintains the position that the Russian funnel itself presents no immediate strategic threat, as Russian forces continue to scatter valuable combat resources without achieving any real operational breakthrough toward Kupiansk.

Another critical element of Russian operations in the Kupiansk direction is their presence around the Dvorichna bridgehead. Here, Russian forces have managed to establish a precarious foothold across the Oskil River. However, their logistical situation is dire, relying exclusively on rubber boats traversing the river’s narrower stretches, which is an inherently unreliable method susceptible to Ukrainian interdiction. Despite being advertised as possessing amphibious capabilities, geolocated footage shows that Russian armored vehicles have repeatedly proven inadequate for effective river crossings. 

Consequently, Russian offensive potential from this bridgehead is severely handicapped, relying almost entirely on infantry groups that gradually cross the river, and then mass together for concentrated assaults. This predictable approach frequently backfires: Ukrainian forces tactically permit certain Russian units to penetrate slightly, quickly sealing the breach afterward. Thus, isolated and encircled, these Russian groups are systematically neutralized, amplifying enemy losses.

Additionally, the recent Ukrainian air assault conducted deep behind Russian lines around the Dvorichna sector has substantially disrupted Russian rear-area logistics and command structures. This also deepened the operational difficulties Russian forces faced at the bridgehead, creating significant confusion and limiting their offensive effectiveness. Consequently, Russian advances in the Dvorichna area remain stalled, their positions static, and their capability for meaningful offensive action severely degraded.

Overall, the Ukrainian defensive strategy in the battle for Kupiansk remains highly effective, with Ukrainian commanders demonstrating exceptional operational patience by intelligently managing limited resources to contain and systematically treat Russian forces without excessive commitments. Ukrainian troops consistently exploit Russian weaknesses such as poor logistics, insufficient manpower, and ineffective tactics to inflict disproportionately high casualties, and instead of attempting costly counterattacks to eliminate strategically insignificant Russian penetrations, Ukrainian forces strategically capitalize on enemy mistakes while gradually eroding enemy combat potential.

This approach is methodically draining Russian powers along the Kupiansk front, ensuring that despite repeated efforts, the Russians have failed to secure any meaningful operational advantage or threaten key Ukrainian-held territory.

In our regular frontline report, we pair up with the military blogger Reporting from Ukraine to keep you informed about what is happening on the battlefield in the Russo-Ukrainian war.

A dramatic UN vote back on 24 February exposed a widening rift between the United States and Europe over Russia’s war in Ukraine, with US President Donald Trump aligning with Moscow and leaving key allies blindsided, according to Le Monde columnist Sylvie Kauffmann. 

A decade of hesitation: From Crimea to full-scale war

According to the Le Monde article, the fracture did not begin with Trump. In 2014, during Russia’s seizure of Crimea, then-President Barack Obama reportedly sent a message to Kyiv discouraging resistance, offering no military support. Ukrainian soldiers surrendered without a fight. In 2023, Obama defended his actions, arguing that Crimea’s Russian-speaking majority made a different response impractical. 

In 2022, President Joe Biden attempted to prevent a full-scale invasion, sending warnings to both European allies and Ukraine. Vice President Kamala Harris privately warned Zelenskyy at the Munich Security Conference on 19 February. According to Bob Woodward’s 2024 book War, Zelenskyy responded with frustration: “If I acknowledge it… will you impose sanctions?” Harris said punishment would come only after the crime.

Trump’s return and the clash at the UN

With Trump back in office in January 2025, the United States took a starkly different stance. On 21 February, US chargé d’affaires Dorothy Shea informed French and British ambassadors that the US was asking Ukraine to withdraw its draft UN resolution condemning Russian aggression. Instead, the US proposed its own resolution focused on “peace rather than war.” Shea confirmed that this had been discussed with Russia in advance.

Biden, Obama, Trump: Different presidents, same Russian reset trap

The reaction from European diplomats was one of betrayal. In crisis talks, they rallied to defend Ukraine’s draft and split responsibilities: Britain would lead at the Security Council, France at the General Assembly. The French introduced amendments emphasizing territorial integrity—rejected by the US—but Ukraine’s version passed, while the US abstained on its own resolution. 

At the Security Council, the US voted alongside Russia and China. The five European members abstained. 

Zelenskyy ambushed in Washington

On 28 February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy faced a confrontational meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance. According to European sources cited by Le Monde, the exchange was heated, with Trump accusing Ukraine of starting the war and calling Zelenskyy a dictator. Days earlier, Macron and Starmer had met Trump with the aim of calming tensions.

Biden’s regrets and limits

Despite his support for military aid to Ukraine post-2022, Biden was reportedly frustrated with the Obama administration’s failures. “They f**cked up in 2014,” he told a friend, as cited in Woodward’s book. Yet even Biden was constrained.

According to an official cited by Le Monde, Biden’s fear of nuclear escalation led advisors to avoid presenting options that might provoke Russia. This hesitation disheartened Ukrainian officials and alienated committed Europeans. 

Biden calls Trump’s Ukraine policy modern-day appeasement of Russia

The transatlantic “divorce” finalized

Le Monde says that the 24 February 2025 UN vote “sealed the divorce” of the US and Europe. From Obama’s caution, to Biden’s hesitations, to Trump’s overt realignment with Russia, Ukraine has been left to Europe. The US no longer sees Ukraine as vital, while Europe faces an existential threat. A new era in Western diplomacy has begun—and it may be one without America.

Andrii Yermak, head of Ukraine’s presidential office and one of the country’s most powerful officials, is drawing bipartisan frustration in Washington, further straining Ukraine’s diplomatic standing with its most crucial ally as the war with Russia rages on, according to Politico.

Yermak’s strained relations with Washington insiders

Politico reports that senior Trump administration officials and even former Biden administration figures have grown weary of Yermak’s conduct. The Ukrainian presidential aide, who frequently visits Washington as an intermediary for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has reportedly irritated both Republicans and Democrats with his abrasive tone, lack of knowledge about US politics, and what some perceive as an unclear diplomatic agenda.

Fourteen sources — including congressional aides, former US and Ukrainian officials — told Politico of Yermak’s increasingly problematic image in Washington. One person labeled him a “bipartisan irritator.” Others expressed concern that he might not be accurately relaying US positions back to Kyiv, further undermining the already fragile diplomatic rapport.

Hegseth confirms US diverted Ukraine’s anti-drone systems to Middle East

A failed trip and missed opportunities

Yermak’s early June 2025 visit to Washington, according to five people familiar with it, was marked by scheduling issues and canceled meetings. The Trump administration appeared particularly unwilling to engage. Secretary of State Marco Rubio canceled a scheduled meeting, although the two reportedly crossed paths at the White House. Trump’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles is said to have kept Yermak waiting before ultimately canceling their session. Vice President JD Vance’s office did not respond to a meeting request.

A White House official contradicted claims made by Yermak’s spokesperson, who said the meetings with Rubio and Wiles did take place. The official confirmed that Wiles had not met with Yermak.

Trump diplomacy’s new low: Rubio congratulates Russians on Russia Day

The tensions beneath the surface

Despite a closed-door Senate briefing and meetings with General Keith Kellogg and Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, Yermak left Washington “extremely frustrated,” one source told Politico. Another described the visit as “a disaster from the Ukrainian perspective.”

Sources say Yermak, a former movie producer, continues to struggle with Washington’s political mechanics nearly six years after assuming his role. According to one source, he mistakenly believed that Ukraine’s critical minerals agreement could win it security guarantees from Trump — a notion dismissed as “ludicrous.”

In private conversations, Yermak has reportedly accused senior Trump officials, including the Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, of being Russian assets — further worsening already tense relations.

Mixed reception in past US administrations

Even during the Biden presidency, frustrations with Yermak existed, Politico says. Although the administration made efforts to work closely with him, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken and ex-US Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink reportedly requested that Yermak not be present in some meetings with Zelenskyy — requests that Zelenskyy rejected, according to a former Ukrainian security official and a former minister.

One source told Politico that Yermak’s continued involvement could encourage Republican voices pushing to cut off US aid to Ukraine.

“All the people here who want to withdraw and abandon Ukraine are thrilled to have Yermak around,” the source said.

Over 60% of residents have evacuated from dangerous territories in Ukraine’s northeastern Sumy Oblast amid continuous shelling of civilian infrastructure and intensified offensive operations along the border.

The evacuation pace has accelerated in recent days, with more than 400 residents leaving border communities during the week of 9-15 June alone.  Among those evacuated were 26 children, according to the head of Sumy Regional Military Administration, Oleh Hryhorov.

The scale of the evacuation encompasses 213 settlements across Sumy Oblast, with 60 communities now completely abandoned by their residents. 

Russian forces now conduct an average of 80 to 120 strikes daily against the region, Hryhorov reported in a recent interview with Suspilne Sumy. Seven civilians were killed since the beginning of June, including one child. 

The intensity of attacks created a state of near-constant danger, with air raid alerts lasting an average of 14-15 hours daily.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy previously stated that Ukrainian forces had successfully halted Russian advancement in the Sumy direction. However, he also indicated that Russia has concentrated 50,000 soldiers in the area as part of an attempt to establish what he described as a “buffer zone” within Ukrainian territory.

Current occupation data from the analytical project DeepState shows 12 settlements in Sumy region remain under Russian control as of 14 June.

The Institute for the Study of War and Ukrainian officials, however, assessed that Russia lacks sufficient manpower and resources for a major breakthrough in Sumy, with many targeted villages evacuated and of limited strategic value.

Russia’s claims of success in Ukraine mask a far grimmer military reality: minimal territorial gains exchanged for unprecedented casualties and losses, Riley McCabe of the Center for Strategic and International Studies argues in an opinion piece in The Washington Post.

The author notes that Moscow shows little interest in serious diplomacy and continues to demand maximalist terms while launching new attacks. The op-ed emphasizes that despite its narrative of strength, Russia’s hand is far weaker than assumed by many in the West.

Russia’s advances yield limited territorial gains  

In contrast, McCabe writes that Russia has been using brute force to advance since early 2024, but with little to show for it. Data from the Center for Strategic and International Studies cited in the article shows that Moscow has seized less than 1% of Ukrainian territory since January 2024—an area smaller than Delaware. Russian forces have managed daily advances averaging only about 50 meters near Kupiansk and roughly 135 meters in parts of Donetsk Oblast, even in their most active sectors.

Ukraine’s defenses, McCabe writes, give it the edge. Russian forces run into minefields, trench systems, and artillery zones, with drones causing most combat deaths. This setup has turned the conflict into a bloody deadlock.

Scale of Russian casualties is historical

According to McCabe, these minor gains have come at an extraordinary cost. Russian fatalities in Ukraine now exceed the total number of Soviet and Russian soldiers killed in every war since World War II combined. By summer 2025, Russia is projected to surpass 1 million total military casualties. The op-ed notes that Russian equipment losses since January 2024 include roughly 1,200 armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 infantry fighting vehicles, and 1,900 tanks.

Russia loses one million soldiers: Moscow’s casualties reach seven figures, Ukraine says

McCabe includes comparisons showing that Russia’s death toll in Ukraine now exceeds losses in every Soviet and Russian war since World War II. The opinion piece includes visual breakdowns of fatalities from conflicts in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Syria, Georgia, and others—none of which approach current Ukrainian war figures.

Putin bets on US withdrawal, not battlefield success

The opinion piece argues that Russia’s best hope lies in Western political fatigue. McCabe writes,

“Putin is betting that political fatigue in Washington will deliver him what his military cannot.”

The author warns that a loss of US support could deprive Ukraine of air defenses, munitions, and strike capabilities, and shatter morale. 

Trump again blames both Ukraine and Russia for failing to reach a peace deal