How the international media covered the Russo-Ukrainian war, May 5

The New York Times privately spoke to several US defense and intelligence officials, who shared information about the American classified intelligence aid to Ukraine. While throughout the war the U.S. intelligence agencies have used a variety of sources, much of the information was kept secret to avoid further escalation of the war. Official Pentagon confirmed that they have been helping Ukraine “with information and intelligence that they can use to defend themselves”, the National Security Council stated the intelligence was not provided to “kill Russian generals”. According to NYT sources, while a strike over the location where gen Valery Gerasimov had visited – was not aided by US intelligence, some other generals’ deaths were achieved with American aid. The United States and NATO allies are providing Ukraine with real-time intelligence to track the movement of the Russian troops and equipment and confirm the locations of the critical targets. The White House is also supplying Ukraine with weaponry that should improve Ukraine’s ability to target senior Russian officers. At the same time, Russian generals are also “helping” Ukraine to locate them as they ofter speak over unsecure phones and radios. The Russian military tactics itself is another Ukrainian “ally”, as due to centralized decision-making, Russian generals are forced to make risky trips to the front lines. Nevertheless, international intelligence has been very helpful to Ukraine. While the US is still not going to send troops to Ukraine or close the sky, intelligence sharing is a safe form of support – it is invisible, and it is deniable.

Lukashenko is trying to distance from the Russo-Ukrainian war, writes Politico. As the Russian forces have left the territories of Ukraine close to Belarus border, the Belarus dictator is looking for opportunities to take part in peace talks and thus legitimize himself in the international community. While trying to please Putin by allowing him to use Belarus territories to launch attacks on Ukraine and by introducing capital punishment for attempts of “terrorism”, Lukashenko is trying to appease the West. As Belarus became a subject for broader sanctions, the self-proclaimed president has taken several steps to please the EU: he canceled visas for traveling from Latvia and Lithuania, moved several political prisoners out of jail, and eased the flow of migrants he created against the neighboring EU countries. Lukashenko has also been sending letters to EU leaders telling them Belarus in no way was involved in the hostilities in Ukraine. The letters, however, were met with caution.

The Telegraph writes about the biggest miscalculation Putin has made and the price he will pay for it. While five rounds of western sanctions imposed against Russia have not been particularly effective, as they failed to end Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the upcoming package of restrictions with a Russian oil embargo will really hurt. Putinʼs belief in the inability of the West to unite in the face of the Kremlin’s aggression is among his biggest mistakes in this war. Even last month it was unthinkable that countries like Germany would agree to end the dependence on Russian fossil fuels. Probably the scope of Russian invasion atrocities was the magic pill forcing this speedy U-turn. As the world saw the massacre in Bucha, the siege of Mariupol, and the flattening of Volnovakha, the sense of horror forced the establishment to shift opinion. Most shocking is how far the EU is willing to go, as it is proposing “a complete import ban on all Russian oil, seaborne and pipeline, crude and refined,” as Von der Leyen described it. The consequences for Russia will be unthinkable, as oil and gas revenues are accounted for 45% of the federal budget, 70% – if oil products are included. This means Putin will have no funds to invest in his starving army.

The Popeʼs reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has so far brought neither success in saving lives nor understanding in diplomatic circles. Francis speaks to "his old friend" Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church, who approved of the Russian atrocities in Ukraine, and holds the Ukrainian flag from Bucha, where the Russians killed hundreds of civilians. The Associated Press tried to find out why ― and after talks with ambassadors from different countries in the Vatican and researchers of the history of the Holy See, it was concluded that such behavior is typical for the Popes. One hundred years ago, the pontiffs pursued so-called Ostpolitics: despite the atrocities of the communist regime, they tried to maintain ties with the Orthodox Church. Even now, the Vatican seeks to maintain contact with the ROC, which simply exceeds the same Ukrainian Orthodox Church or Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in the number of parishioners. "Diplomacy should serve the church, not the other way around," said Anne Leahy, a former Canadian ambassador to the Vatican. Opponents of Francis, on the other hand, compare him to the "silent" Pius XII, who did not seem to notice the Holocaust during World War II.