BREAKING: Russia claims Full Control of Kursk Oblast as Ukraine War Drags On; Trump Shifts Stance on Deadline for Resolution

By Archys

April 26,2025,6:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON,D.C. – The Kremlin is claiming a major victory in its ongoing war against Ukraine, with russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov announcing today that Russian forces have entirely expelled Ukrainian troops from the contested Kursk Oblast region. The claim, however, was swiftly refuted by Ukrainian military officials.Speaking directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Gerasimov asserted that Russian forces had seized Gornal, the last Ukrainian-held settlement within Kursk Oblast, marking the total defeat of Ukrainian forces in the area. He credited the success to a coalition of Russian units, including the 22nd Motorized Rifle Regiment, elements of the Black Sea and Pacific Fleets, and even a regiment formed during the 2022 partial mobilization.

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) further amplified the claim, stating that Defense Minister Andrei Belousov was present at a command post in Kursk Oblast, receiving reports from Col. Gen. Valery Solodchuk, commander of the Kursk Grouping of Forces, when Gornal was captured.

Independent verification of Russia’s claims is difficult, but geolocated footage posted online today does show Russian forces advancing along Gora Street in central gornal.

Ukraine Denies Russian claims

However, the Ukrainian General Staff issued a swift and firm denial of Gerasimov’s claims, asserting that Ukrainian forces continue to hold positions within Kursk Oblast. The General Staff reported repelling five Russian assaults in the region today.

Conflicting reports from Russian milbloggers further muddy the waters, with some claiming that fighting persists near Oleshnya, Guyevo, and the St. Nicholas Monastery – all locations within Kursk Oblast.

Kursk Incursion: A Costly Gambit for Ukraine

The Ukrainian incursion into Kursk Oblast began in August 2024, and successfully diverted notable Russian combat power, including elite airborne (VDV) and naval infantry units, away from other critical front lines.However, the long-term strategic impact of the incursion remains a subject of debate among military analysts.

The russian military has historically regarded VDV and naval infantry units as among its best, deploying them to critical sectors. ISW had previously reported the redeployment of elements from all seven VDV formations and four of the six naval infantry formations from frontline positions in Ukraine to Kursk Oblast following Ukraine’s incursion,though some units were split between the two regions.

President Putin identified a large contingent of forces as operating in Kursk Oblast, drawing from a wide range of VDV regiments and brigades, Chechen units and naval infantry brigades from both the Pacific and Black Sea Fleets, as well as the 22nd Motorized Rifle Regiment.

While the Ukrainian incursion managed to tie down these Russian forces, ISW has not observed any reports of their redeployment back to the front lines in Ukraine, suggesting the area remains a priority for Moscow.

However, the rate of advance has been slow. After seizing Sudzha, it took Russian forces almost two months to advance roughly nine kilometers to the international border, an average rate of just 200 meters per day, according to ISW.

North Korean Troops Acknowleged

In a highly significant advancement, Gerasimov’s proclamation included the first official Russian acknowledgment of North Korean troop participation in the conflict. He thanked North Korean service members for their “significant assistance” in pushing Ukrainian forces out of Kursk Oblast, citing the Russian-North Korean Treaty on Extensive Strategic Partnership.Gerasimov praised North Korean officers and soldiers for demonstrating “professionalism” and “fortitude, courage, and heroism” during the operations, while Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova added that Russia would “never forget” its North Korean “friends.”

Neither official elaborated on the future role, if any, of North Korean forces in supporting Russian military operations against Ukraine, but their presence marks a concerning escalation of international involvement.Trump Adjusts Stance on Ukraine Deadline

Simultaneously occurring, in Washington, President Donald Trump signaled a shift in his administration’s approach to the war in Ukraine, stating on April 25 that the United States is no longer pursuing a concrete deadline for achieving a resolution – a departure from his earlier goal of ending the war within his first 100 days in office.

“There’s no deadline,” Trump told reporters.He also reiterated concerns that Putin was “just tapping me along,” feigning interest in ceasefire and peace negotiations.

Trump also expressed frustration over Russia’s continued strikes on civilian areas, stating that there was “no reason” for them and suggesting that Putin “doesn’t want to stop the war” and “has to be dealt with differently.”

These remarks come amid repeated attempts by Russian officials to leverage U.S. interest in a swift resolution to the conflict to extract concessions from Ukraine that would amount to a de facto surrender.

Trump met with Ukrainian President Zelensky in Vatican City on april 26 to discuss peace talks in an unpublicized and hastily arranged summit. Zelensky reported that the discussions focused on civilian safety, a full ceasefire, and a lasting peace.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung described the discussion as “very productive.”

New Russian Tactics: Motorcycles on the Front Lines?

Adding another layer of complexity to the conflict, Russia appears to be preparing to systematically integrate motorcycle usage into its offensive operations in Ukraine for the Summer and Fall of 2025. This move is likely designed to counter Ukraine’s increasingly effective drone warfare capabilities.

The Russian MoD released footage showcasing elements of the 299th (Airborne) VDV Regiment practicing offensive and defensive tactics on motorcycles. Ukrainian intelligence also indicates that Russian forces are training soldiers in motorcycle combat tactics.

Military analysts believe that motorcycles could enhance speed and maneuverability, allowing soldiers to evade drone strikes.However, the loud noise of the motorcycles could make it difficult for riders to hear approaching drones.

ISW has observed an increasing trend of Russian units using motorcycles and civilian vehicles to transport infantry and conduct mechanized assaults,a tactic likely aimed at mitigating both drone threats and equipment shortages resulting from heavy armored vehicle losses in recent months.

Other Key Developments:

fighting in Belgorod Oblast: Russian forces claimed to have seized Popovka in northwestern belgorod Oblast.
Sumy Oblast Offensive: Russian forces continued ground attacks in sumy Oblast,hitting the region with dozens of glide bombs daily. Gerasimov claimed the creation of a buffer zone, but not all gains have been verified.
* Eastern Front Battles: Heavy fighting continued near Kupyansk, Borova, Lyman, Siversk, and Chasiv Yar, without significant territorial gains by either side.

The war in Ukraine remains a dynamic and brutal conflict, with both sides adapting and evolving their tactics as the fighting grinds on. The conflicting claims surrounding Kursk Oblast, the shifting U.S. position on a resolution deadline, and Russia’s apparent embrace of motorcycle warfare all point to a protracted and unpredictable struggle.

U.S., Ukraine Weigh Competing Peace proposals Amid Escalating Conflict

By Archys

Archyde.com, April 25, 2025 – As fighting intensifies along multiple fronts in eastern Ukraine and within russian territory, high-level diplomatic maneuvering is underway to find a path towards ending the protracted conflict. Details have emerged regarding competing peace proposals from the United States and a joint Ukrainian-European delegation,offering diverging strategies for a potential ceasefire and long-term security arrangements.

A Ukrainian-European peace proposal, reportedly presented to the United States during multilateral talks in London on April 23, outlines a five-point framework centered on territorial integrity, security guarantees, negotiation parameters, rejection of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, and the preservation of Ukraine’s military and defense industrial base (DIB). The Telegraph first reported on the proposal.

Reuters subsequently published the full text of what it described as the Ukrainian-European response to a U.S. seven-point peace plan. According to the Reuters report, the proposal explicitly calls for a complete and unconditional ceasefire across air, land, and sea, to be enacted concurrently with immediate technical negotiations involving the U.S. and European nations. The plan further envisions U.S.-led ceasefire monitoring with the support of third-party countries, and robust security guarantees for Ukraine, explicitly stopping short of NATO membership. Critically, the proposal also demands Russia’s unconditional return of illegally deported Ukrainian children and detained civilians, alongside an “all-for-all” prisoner of war exchange.

The Ukrainian-European framework rejects any restrictions on the Ukrainian military, rather calling for an ad hoc group of European states, along with willing non-European nations, to guarantee Ukraine’s security. It further stipulates that no limitations be placed on the deployment of friendly forces within Ukraine. On the contentious issue of territory, the proposal states that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will only commence after a full and unconditional ceasefire, using the current frontline as a starting point.

The proposal reportedly aims to secure for Ukraine “unhindered access” to the Dnipro River and control over the strategic Kinburn Spit, located in the Kherson region, as well as the Kakhovka Dam, a vital infrastructure point. Crucially, it seeks to restore Ukrainian control over the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), with U.S. involvement. the document also states that Ukraine’s partners will pursue a consensus on NATO membership while Ukraine continues its pursuit of European union (EU) integration.

The Ukrainian-European proposal also reportedly links U.S. support to a U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal and economic cooperation agreement. Furthermore, it allows for a “gradual easing” of U.S.sanctions on Russia if a sustainable peace is achieved, with the provision that sanctions could be reinstated if Russia violates the agreement. the plan calls for Ukraine’s complete reconstruction and financial compensation, including the utilization of frozen Russian assets.

These details emerged as Reuters also published the full text of a separate seven-point peace proposal reportedly presented by U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff to Ukrainian and European officials in Paris on April 17.The U.S. plan calls for an immediate ceasefire and direct technical negotiations between russia and Ukraine.

In contrast to the Ukrainian-European approach, the U.S.proposal reportedly offers Ukraine strong security guarantees from a coalition of European and other willing nations but concurrently calls for Ukraine to abandon its aspirations for NATO membership while maintaining the option to join the EU. Most substantially, the U.S. plan includes “de jure” U.S. recognition of Russian control over occupied Crimea and a de facto recognition of Russian control over Luhansk Oblast and parts of occupied Zaporizhia, Donetsk, and Kherson Oblasts. This woudl represent a major concession to Russia.

The U.S. proposal stipulates that Ukraine would regain territory in Kharkiv Oblast and the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), which would be operated by the United States and supply electricity to both Russia and Ukraine. The Kakhovka Dam and Kinburn Spit would also be returned to Ukrainian control, guaranteeing Ukrainian access on the Dnipro River. The plan also calls for a mineral deal and economic partnership agreement with the U.S., Ukraine’s full reconstruction, and financial compensation, but does not specify the source of funding. Crucially, the U.S. proposal reportedly calls for lifting sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 and resuming U.S.-Russian economic cooperation in the energy and industrial sectors.The publication by Reuters confirms earlier reporting by Axios and The Telegraph regarding core details of the U.S. proposal, including territorial arrangements, Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO, and U.S. operation of the ZNPP. The document also clarifies that ukraine would regain control of the Kinburn Spit and the Kakhovka Dam. However, the document fails to address Sumy Oblast, where Russian forces have recently initiated offensive operations. Furthermore, it remains unclear how the U.S. and Ukraine would secure access to the ZNPP.

compounding the diplomatic complexity, Special Envoy Witkoff reportedly met with russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow earlier today, April 25, in an apparent effort to secure a notable concession from Russia in exchange for the proposed peace deal. According to Russian sources,the meeting,which also included CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) Kirill Dmitriev and Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov,lasted three hours and included discussions on the possibility of resuming direct Ukrainian-Russian negotiations. Ushakov claimed that the meeting brought U.S. and Russian positions on Ukraine and other issues “closer together.” U.S. officials have not yet commented on the specifics of the meeting.

Prior to the meeting, Bloomberg reported on April 24 that Witkoff intended to demand that Russia except Ukraine’s right to develop an adequately equipped army and defense industry as part of any peace agreement. This reported demand stands in stark contrast to the Kremlin’s long-standing demand for Ukrainian demilitarization,dating back to December 2021,and reiterated in the March 2022 Istanbul negotiations.Acceptance of Ukraine’s right to a developed military would represent a significant concession from putin.

However, analysts caution against interpreting the Kremlin’s apparent willingness to negotiate without demanding the complete cession of Ukrainian territory as a significant concession in itself. The initial aim of the full-scale Russian invasion in February and march 2022 was to seize Kyiv and force Ukraine’s full capitulation. This objective failed due to the Ukrainian military’s resistance and subsequent successful counteroffensives that forced Russian withdrawals from key regions. Currently, russian forces lack the capability to launch a successful offensive on Kyiv or re-cross the Dnipro River in southern Ukraine.

Despite this,the Kremlin’s long-term maximalist objectives remain unchanged.Kremlin figures like Dmitry Medvedev have consistently laid the rhetorical groundwork for Russia to eventually claim most or all of Ukraine. Combined with continued demands for regime change in Kyiv, these signals indicate that Putin continues to aim to control all of Ukraine, but is currently limited by Russia’s military capacity.Meanwhile,Russian officials are intensifying narratives used to justify the invasion of Ukraine,setting the stage for potential future aggression against other European states. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) recently published a report accusing European states of reviving Nazi ideology and discriminating against Russian-speaking populations, notably in the Baltic states. MFA Spokesperson Maria Zakharova amplified these claims, arguing that European support for “Naziism” prevents Russia from achieving its objectives of demilitarization and “denazification” of Ukraine.

These narratives, previously used to justify russia’s actions in Ukraine, are now being directed towards the Baltic states and Poland, raising concerns about potential future Russian aggression.

Adding to the volatility, unknown actors assassinated Lieutenant General Yaroslav Moskalik, deputy head of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operational Directorate, in Balashikha, Moscow Oblast, on April 25. An improvised explosive device (IED) detonated as Moskalik’s vehicle passed by. Russian officials have blamed Ukraine for the assassination, though Ukrainian officials have not commented on the incident.

This incident marks the second assassination of a high-ranking Russian general in Moscow this year, following the assassination of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the Russian Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Defense Forces, in December 2024.

On the Ground:

Kursk Oblast: Russian forces continue to advance near the international border, aiming to push Ukrainian forces from their remaining positions in the area.
Belgorod Oblast: Fighting persists northwest of Belgorod City near Popovka and Demidovka.
Sumy Oblast: Russian forces recently advanced along Pratsi Street in southern Zhuravka, northeast of Sumy City. Kharkiv Oblast: No ground activity reported.
zaporizhia Oblast: Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the western part of the region.
Donetsk Oblast: Russian forces recently advanced near pokrovsk.

This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.

How can ukraine be given the enduring security needed to move forward?

Interview: Dr. Anya volkov on Competing Peace Proposals in the U.S.-Ukraine Conflict

Archyde.com‘s news editor recently sat down with Dr. Anya Volkov, a leading international relations specialist, to discuss the escalating conflict in Ukraine and the diverging peace proposals currently on the table. Dr. Volkov is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for International strategic Studies and is known for her nuanced understanding of complex geopolitical situations.

Navigating the Complexities of Peace

News editor: Dr. Volkov, thank you for joining us today. The situation in Ukraine is at a critical juncture. We have the United States and a Ukrainian-European delegation putting forth competing peace proposals. From your perspective,what are the key differences that stand out?

Dr. Volkov: Thank you for having me. The most striking difference lies in the approach to territory and long-term security. The Ukrainian-European proposal prioritizes territorial integrity and complete ceasefire, while the U.S. plan seems to offer certain concessions regarding territory in exchange for an end to the fighting. The U.S. plan, specifically, seems to recognize Russian control, de facto, over areas they currently occupy. This, as we certainly know, could be a stumbling block to a universally accepted agreement.

Divergent Strategic Approaches

News Editor: The proposals also differ on the role of NATO. How notable is this difference in your opinion?

Dr. Volkov: Hugely significant. The Ukrainian-European plan avoids any limitations on Ukraine’s own military approach. this would support the idea that Ukraine should have access to all the necessary tools for its national defense. The U.S. plan, conversely, appears to set aside Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership, making that a major point of contention.

News Editor: The U.S.proposal includes provisions for U.S. operation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. What are the potential implications of that?

Dr. Volkov: It suggests a level of U.S.control and influence could guarantee safety and the power supply.Yet, it also highlights strategic and geopolitical issues. Managing a nuclear facility of that scale would involve enormous responsibilities and potential risks, and in a war zone, the danger increases exponentially. It’s also a symbolic win for the U.S., and it might potentially be seen as a way to offer some kind of insurance for Ukraine’s benefit.

Sanctions, Incentives, and the Geopolitical Chessboard

news Editor: Both proposals touch upon sanctions on Russia. What role do you see them playing in the peace negotiations?

Dr.Volkov: Sanctions are a powerful tool. The Ukrainian-European proposal links sanctions to a lasting peace settlement and demands frozen assets to be allocated for Ukraine’s reconstruction. The U.S. plan proposes a gradual easing, offering Russia an incentive to come to the negotiating table. This is strategic, but it’s a high-stakes gamble. The consequences of an easing without a guarantee of security could be catastrophic.

News Editor: Recent reports suggest that U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff met with Vladimir Putin. What signal does this send?

dr. Volkov: This is a crucial point. It shows the U.S. is actively engaged in direct negotiations.It also indicates the U.S. recognizes that Putin must be part of the solution. What’s unclear, however, are the specifics and how far both sides are willing to go. It could signify some movement, but also could be a sign that both sides are still far apart.

Looking Ahead and Unanswered Questions

News Editor: Considering the complex factors, what are the most significant obstacles to a peaceful resolution?

Dr. Volkov: The unwillingness to compromise continues being a main obstacle. Both sides maintain maximalist positions, the issue of mutual trust, and the deep-seated distrust between Russia and the West. Add to that what putin wants,as he possibly is seeking full control of Ukraine,and it makes any true settlement extremely tough.

News Editor: Dr. Volkov, based on everything that has been said, what is the most challenging question for our readers to contemplate as they process these potential developments?

Dr. Volkov: The most challenging question is: How can Ukraine be given the enduring security needed to move forward? and moreover, what is a sustainable long-term peace plan that would prevent future aggression and ensure stability? The answer to that will be complex and multifaceted.

News Editor: Dr. Volkov, thank you very much for your insights.

Dr. Volkov: My pleasure.