Latest Tensions Between Russia and Ukraine: No Ceasefire in Sight
The first face-to-face peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in over three years took place in Istanbul recently, but they didn’t bring either side any closer to peace. Instead, Russia came in with a list of hardline demands that Ukraine quickly tossed aside. Chief among those was a call for Ukrainian troops to completely pull out of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea—territories Moscow claims as its own, even though it doesn’t fully control them. Russia also demanded that the international community officially recognize these regions as part of the Russian Federation.
Ukraine wasn’t having it. Officials in Kyiv labeled the demands “non-starters” and “disconnected from reality,” making it clear they won’t give up territory or submit to what amounts to surrender. President Zelensky and his administration have instead called for the U.S. and European allies to crank up the sanctions pressure on Moscow if it keeps pushing for such one-sided terms.
Meanwhile, the fighting on the ground has only gotten hotter. Russian forces are stepping up their offensives in eastern Ukraine, capturing another village just before the Istanbul summit and ramping up pressure near Pokrovsk. They’re also making moves toward Kostyantynivka, suggesting a wider plan to encircle Ukrainian strongholds. But it’s not all smooth sailing for Moscow’s troops—they’ve run into stiff resistance in heavily fortified towns like Chasiv Yar and Toretsk, which has stalled their momentum in some places.
Despite the tough talk, one positive did come out of the talks: both sides agreed to the largest prisoner swap since the war began, exchanging 1,000 prisoners of war. But that’s about where the progress ends. A ceasefire remains out of reach, with both sides dug in and unwilling to budge on their core demands.
Zelensky continues to lobby leaders in Washington, Berlin, Paris, and Warsaw for more support, arguing that Ukraine needs stronger security guarantees, not concessions to Russian aggression. As it stands, the war shows no signs of winding down anytime soon. Both on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, the lines are drawn—and neither side looks ready to erase them.
Latest Tensions Between Russia and Ukraine: No Ceasefire in Sight
The first face-to-face peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in over three years took place in Istanbul recently, but they didn’t bring either side any closer to peace. Instead, Russia came in with a list of hardline demands that Ukraine quickly tossed aside. Chief among those was a call for Ukrainian troops to completely pull out of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea—territories Moscow claims as its own, even though it doesn’t fully control them. Russia also demanded that the international community officially recognize these regions as part of the Russian Federation.
Ukraine wasn’t having it. Officials in Kyiv labeled the demands “non-starters” and “disconnected from reality,” making it clear they won’t give up territory or submit to what amounts to surrender. President Zelensky and his administration have instead called for the U.S. and European allies to crank up the sanctions pressure on Moscow if it keeps pushing for such one-sided terms.
Meanwhile, the fighting on the ground has only gotten hotter. Russian forces are stepping up their offensives in eastern Ukraine, capturing another village just before the Istanbul summit and ramping up pressure near Pokrovsk. They’re also making moves toward Kostyantynivka, suggesting a wider plan to encircle Ukrainian strongholds. But it’s not all smooth sailing for Moscow’s troops—they’ve run into stiff resistance in heavily fortified towns like Chasiv Yar and Toretsk, which has stalled their momentum in some places.
Despite the tough talk, one positive did come out of the talks: both sides agreed to the largest prisoner swap since the war began, exchanging 1,000 prisoners of war. But that’s about where the progress ends. A ceasefire remains out of reach, with both sides dug in and unwilling to budge on their core demands.
Zelensky continues to lobby leaders in Washington, Berlin, Paris, and Warsaw for more support, arguing that Ukraine needs stronger security guarantees, not concessions to Russian aggression. As it stands, the war shows no signs of winding down anytime soon. Both on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, the lines are drawn—and neither side looks ready to erase them.
DoD Cutting Civilian Workforce: What’s Happening and Why It Matters
The Department of Defense is making big moves in 2025 to trim down its civilian workforce. This effort, triggered by Executive Order 14210, is part of a larger push across the federal government to cut costs, streamline operations, and refocus resources on core national defense priorities. The DoD’s goal? A workforce reduction of about 5 to 8 percent—that’s roughly 60,000 civilian jobs.
To ease the blow, the Pentagon is starting with voluntary programs. One major option is the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP), rolled out by the Office of Personnel Management in January and launched within DoD in March. It lets eligible civilian employees voluntarily resign while still collecting pay and benefits through the end of September. Over 20,000 DoD workers have already signed up. Another option on the table is early retirement through the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA), which is geared toward longtime federal employees—those over 50 with at least 20 years of service, or anyone with 25 years under their belt.
The strategy here is clear: avoid mass layoffs wherever possible. But not everyone’s job is safe. The DoD has frozen hiring, and roughly 5,400 probationary employees have already been let go, though some of those terminations are now under legal review. The department is also using a new Workforce Reshaping Tool to identify roles that are redundant or no longer aligned with the military’s evolving mission.
The guiding principle in this overhaul is what the DoD calls “mission-first alignment.” That means if your job doesn’t directly support the warfighter or enhance military capability, it’s under scrutiny. Civilian roles that don’t pass the test could be reclassified, outsourced, or cut altogether. At the same time, the department is offering incentives—like bonuses, faster promotions, and advanced training—to keep top talent in roles that truly matter.
One legal snag has briefly slowed things down. A federal court recently issued a pause on all major Reduction in Force (RIF) actions across the government, citing concerns about how quickly and lawfully the cuts are being made. But most experts think this is just a bump in the road, and RIFs will likely resume soon after some procedural fixes.
In the end, this marks the largest civilian workforce reduction the Pentagon has attempted since the drawdown after the Cold War. The combination of voluntary departures, targeted cuts, and tech-driven efficiencies is designed to reshape the DoD for the challenges ahead—leaner, more focused, and aligned with modern military needs. Whether it works as intended or causes more disruption than it prevents remains to be seen.
Department of Homeland Security Wants 20,000 National Guard Troops to Help with Deportations
In a major development that could reshape how immigration enforcement is handled in the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security has officially asked the Pentagon to deploy around 20,000 National Guard troops. The mission? To support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in carrying out mass deportations across the country—not just at the southern border, but deep into the interior as well. If this goes through, it would mark the first time in U.S. history that National Guard troops are used in this way nationwide.
The main target of these operations is what DHS refers to as “criminal illegal aliens”—a category that includes gang members, repeat offenders, and individuals convicted of violent crimes. But the scale of the request makes it clear this isn’t a limited or surgical operation. It’s part of a broader initiative driven by President Trump’s push to fulfill his campaign promise of large-scale deportations and to confront what he has repeatedly called an “invasion” of undocumented migrants.
This effort is not just about manpower at the border. DHS wants troops from all over the country, not just from border states, and the plan would place them in a support role for ICE operations across the entire U.S. That could include surveillance, logistics, and other behind-the-scenes assistance. The specific duties are still under legal review, and that’s where things get complicated.
Under the Posse Comitatus Act, National Guard troops aren’t allowed to carry out domestic law enforcement unless they’re under state control. If they’re federalized, their hands are tied when it comes to direct arrests or other enforcement actions. The Pentagon is currently reviewing the legal side of the request, trying to determine whether the President can call up these troops without the consent of individual state governors.
Currently, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division only has around 7,700 personnel—just over 6,000 of whom are actual law enforcement officers. Bringing in 20,000 National Guard members would more than double ICE’s operational footprint, instantly transforming the agency’s reach and capacity.
As expected, the move hasn’t gone unchallenged. Critics, including Senator Tammy Duckworth, have raised red flags about using military resources this way, warning that it could hurt military readiness and set a dangerous precedent. But for supporters of the policy, this is a necessary escalation to deal with what they see as a broken immigration system overwhelmed by unlawful entry.
This request is part of a wider trend under the Trump administration that leans heavily on military support for domestic enforcement. It builds on existing deployments at the border and the use of military infrastructure to support immigration agencies. If approved, the deployment would signal a dramatic shift in the federal government’s approach, one that blends military power with law enforcement authority in a way we haven’t seen before. Whether that stands up legally or politically remains to be seen.
COMMENTS
There are
You must become a subscriber or login to view or post comments on this article.