 American intelligence services can destroy the president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky and the head of the General Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine Kirill Budenov. Larry Johnson, a former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency analyst, said this. The United States has been making agreements with reprehensible and despicable people for a long time. Zelensky and Budenov will soon understand that the West does not need them, he said at Johnson noted that CIA director Burns went to Kiev and said that Washington and Kiev are still friends, but when the time comes to pull the trigger, they will not Burns visit, the 10th one since the beginning of the conflict in February 2022 was geared to reassure the Ukrainian leadership in a situation when the House of Representatives is failing to approve additional financing to Kiev. The U.S. Congress has been unable to approve additional funding for Ukraine since October 2023. Due to this, the U.S. suspended supplies of weapons and ammunition, including artillery rounds, to Kiev I in late December, while EU supplies fall short of what Ukraine needs.CIA veteran Larry Johnson believes that the invisible hand of the West is orchestrating what may end up in regime change in Ukraine. It's always important to pay close attention to what's going on in the media because these stories don't just appear out of nowhere, Johnson told. Remember, Time magazine, who had featured Zelensky on its front cover in 2022 as Man of the Year, they described him as like, the reincarnation of Winston Churchill, and this great military strategist. When he was put on the front cover of Time and decried is basically like Adolf Hitler, delusional, out of touch with reality, crazy. So when I see those kinds of articles appear from both British sources and American sources, it's telling me that the political establishments in both places are preparing the exit ramp for Zelensky, he said. According to Asia Times, there is a growing consensus that the West wants to replace Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky. NATO responds to Putin's latest nuclear weapon threats. Representatives of the Russian Federation have been constantly threatening with nuclear weapons for the past two years, but it's about psychological intimidation rather than actual intentions, states NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircha Joana. We have seen such use of nuclear threats by Russian leaders for at least two years since the war in Ukraine began. And this comes from a nuclear superpower like Russia, the statement reads, according to him, this is extremely irresponsible because when possessing such weapons, restraint is also necessary. NATO believes that this is part of their arsenal for psychological pressure and intimidation. Joana has said that the statements of the Russian President Vladimir Putin are based on the logic of psychological intimidation rather than real intentions. We do not see a direct threat of Russia using such weapons. However, such statements are very dangerous as they undermine trust in the field of nuclear weapons. Russia knows the consequences of such a development, says the NATO Deputy Secretary General. Joana also adds that this is largely the same arrogant way of attacking the West and describing the war that Putin started in Ukraine as a war of civilisations, or to justify the claim that the West is supposedly trying to destroy Russia, which NATO called complete nonsense. On February the 29th, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. The Kremlin chief in particular began to boast about the weapons Russia has, including missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload. He threatened to demonstrate the intercontinental ballistic missile Samat, allegedly capable of flying 18,000 kilometres. The State Department said that the U.S. had already warned Russia about the consequences of using nuclear weapons. Threats from Putin are irresponsible. Russia's Black Sea War Plan isn't working. UK. Russia's tactics against Ukraine's creative warfare in the Black Sea are falling short. According to a new assessment, as Moscow and Kiev step into the third year of all-out war. According to Newsweek, Russia can still strike at Ukraine from the eastern parts of the Black Sea, but it is increasingly evident that the defensive posture adopted to mitigate against Ukraine's non-conventional approach to maritime warfare is not working as intended. The British Defence Ministry said it is noted that shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Black Sea emerged as a key battleground between Kiev and Moscow. Ukraine has vowed to reclaim Crimea, which sits to the south of the mainland on the Black Sea, but has been controlled by the Kremlin's forces since its annexation in 2014. Ukraine does not have a large navy, but has made impressive use of naval drones to carry out dramatic strikes on Russia's Black Sea assets that have proved deeply embarrassing to Moscow. Russia's Black Sea operations have been greatly complicated if not paralysed by the nearly two years of all-out war between Moscow and Kiev, Ukraine's navy said in early February. Ukrainian-designed Magura V-5 naval drones attacked and destroyed Russia's Caesar-Kunikov large landing ship near the southern Crimean city of Alupka, southeast of Russia's naval base at Sevastopol, Ukraine's military intelligence agency said earlier this month. Russia has lost a slew of other vessels, including its Black Sea flagship, the Moscow, several other landing ships, and a submarine. The Kremlin has used uncrewed vehicles and guided missiles to push Russian threat perception to new highs and force Moscow to shift many of its assets further east, away from mainland Ukraine, the UK government evaluated. The Kremlin has relocated some of its Black Sea assets from the peninsula to its Novorossiysk base in Russia's Krasnodar region further from Ukraine's coastline. Russia is also thought to be establishing another Black Sea base. In Abkhazia, a breakaway region internationally recognised as part of Georgia. This would move Russia's resources in the Black Sea even further away from Ukraine's reach.