MOSCOW, March 27. /TASS/. The US may use talks with Iran as a cover for a ground invasion amid President Donald Trump’s falling approval ratings; the EU is sabotaging the peace process in Ukraine, while the US is pressuring Kiev to reach peace with Russia; and Washington is denying Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro the right to a defense. These stories topped Friday’s newspaper headlines across Russia.

 

Media: Talks with Iran could act as cover for US ground invasion

Behind US President Donald Trump’s optimistic statements about negotiations with Iran may lie preparations for a ground operation. The US leader has said that talks are already underway and that the parties are close to a deal. Trump also announced a suspension of strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure until April 6, citing progress in the negotiations. Western media have reported a buildup of the US military presence and Washington’s readiness for a ground operation. At the same time, diplomatic contacts through mediators continue. However, key issues - such as control over the Strait of Hormuz, the missile program, and Iran’s nuclear capabilities - remain unresolved.

Iranian international relations expert Hadi Issa Dalloul believes that the US is using its statements to buy time, reduce international pressure, and simultaneously complete preparations for a ground operation. "The very nature of Donald Trump’s statements - on the one hand, about progress in the negotiations, and on the other, about readiness to increase pressure - is controversial. In this case, the talks are being used as a tool to deceive Tehran and its allies," the expert told Izvestia.

Despite the losses it has suffered, Iran retains significant military capabilities and is capable of continuing hostilities, Grigory Lukyanov, a researcher at the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Oriental Studies Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted. According to him, Tehran still has missile systems and drones at its disposal, allowing it to launch strikes and demonstrate its readiness for escalation, which makes it possible to refute Trump’s claims of an unconditional victory.

Oriental studies expert Kirill Semenov pointed out that Tehran is no longer willing to return to Trump’s previous demands. Iran considers them outdated and is formulating a new negotiating agenda centered on demands for compensation and a revision of the basic parameters of a potential deal. According to the expert, compensation could encompass a wide range of measures, from the unfreezing of assets to the easing of sanctions. The specific details of these demands remain subject to negotiation, but it is clear that Tehran is seeking more favorable terms than before.

Meanwhile, according to Vladimir Vasilyev, a senior researcher at the US and Canada Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the conflict with Iran is affecting Trump’s approval ratings.

"One thing is clear: prolonging the military conflict with Iran will contribute to a decline in Trump’s approval ratings," he told Nezavisimaya Gazeta. At the same time, the US president does not need to end hostilities at any cost. "The US says that America wins America’s wars, but the current White House administration loses them. Indeed, in American political tradition, military defeat is typically attributed to the president," Vasilyev stressed. Therefore, Trump needs to exit the armed conflict in a way that creates the impression of victory - something that is very difficult to achieve.

 

Izvestia: US resumes pressure on Ukraine to resolve conflict

The EU is sabotaging the peace process in Ukraine and continues to seek Russia’s strategic defeat. Earlier, Washington resumed negotiations after a month-long hiatus caused by the conflict in the Middle East. Vladimir Zelensky rejected a US proposal offering security guarantees in exchange for the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donbass. Experts believe that Washington still has leverage, but time is running out: the Trump administration may not be able to enforce its conditions if it suffers a setback in the midterm congressional elections in November. Meanwhile, divisions within Europe are deepening, as the EU struggles to reach a consensus on sanctions against Russia and new loans to Ukraine.

The EU continues to sabotage the peace process and seeks to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, Vladislav Maslennikov, director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department of European Affairs, told Izvestia. "The fact that the EU’s stance on undermining a negotiated settlement of the Ukrainian conflict remains unchanged is also evidenced by the recently initiated list of ultimatum demands drawn up by [EU foreign policy chief] Kaja Kallas, which demonstrates the Brussels bureaucracy’s loss of touch with reality," the diplomat said.

Since around last summer, the American position has been that a peace agreement must first be concluded, including changes to Ukraine’s territorial composition, Ivan Loshkarev, an associate professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), noted. After that, Ukraine would be provided with security guarantees from the US and other countries.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy Vice Rector Oleg Karpovich believes that the US may begin to exert significant pressure on Kiev to force it to make peace. "Washington has all the necessary leverage to do this. But so far, the process has not gone beyond verbal pressure," the political scientist said.

As for Europe, Loshkarev noted that the EU is not fundamentally opposed to territorial concessions by Ukraine, and leaders of various countries have repeatedly spoken about this. At the same time, Europeans are unlikely to provide Ukraine with their own security guarantees. "What they can offer is access to certain military programs and EU security initiatives," the expert emphasized.

 

Media: US denies Nicolas Maduro right to defense

The trial of Nicolas Maduro and his wife resumed in the US on March 26. The defense requested that the case be dismissed, but the court rejected the motion. During the hearing, the focus shifted from the specific charges to alleged violations of the US Constitution in the conduct of the trial. The defendants cannot afford to hire a lawyer: they have no access to their personal funds, and the US Treasury Department refuses to accept money from the Venezuelan government. This violates Maduro’s right to a defense and a fair trial.

Defense attorney Barry Pollack stated that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) initially issued a special license to cover the costs of Maduro’s legal defense but later revoked it shortly afterward.

The Venezuelan leader could potentially use personal funds to cover legal expenses, but his lawyer insists that the restrictions imposed amount to a violation of his constitutional rights. According to Pollack, Maduro and his wife do not have sufficient funds to finance the trial.

This alone may serve as grounds for appealing the verdict. In their motion, the defense is effectively seeking to have the trial halted. Thus, some experts told Nezavisimaya Gazeta that the defendants could be released regardless of whether the prosecution has evidence of their guilt.

Maduro has the option of requesting a public defender, but his lawyers argue that this would not remedy the alleged constitutional violation and that dismissing the case would be the appropriate solution. However, experts doubt that US authorities would agree to such a move. "In American practice, cases that have taken on significant political importance are, as a rule, carried through to the end," Ilya Margolin, a consultant on public administration and international politics, told Izvestia.

The expert emphasized that the central issue in Maduro’s case is no longer the charges themselves, but rather the limits of permissible restrictions on the defense. Such situations are considered dangerous, as even a single procedural deviation can lead to further violations. In this context, the defense must carefully document every procedural irregularity, seek judicial review of each instance, and work to ensure that the case remains within the bounds of the law, Margolin concluded.

 

Izvestia: EU refuses to reconsider ban on Russian nuclear fuel

The EU will not abandon its plans to ban the procurement of Russian nuclear materials, despite objections from Budapest and the energy crisis. Work continues on the phased removal of Russia’s nuclear industry from European supply chains. This issue directly affects five EU countries with Soviet-type and Russian-type reactors: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, and Slovakia. For them, abandoning the Russian nuclear cycle means a lengthy transition to alternative fuels. Experts warn that this could lead to higher costs and electricity prices.

Despite the energy crisis caused by the Middle East conflict and Hungary’s requests, the EU remains intent on phasing out Russian energy sources, particularly nuclear fuel. The European Commission told Izvestia that work on this is ongoing. A potential phase-out of Russian nuclear fuel would have the greatest impact on five EU countries: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, and Slovakia. They operate Soviet and Russian VVER reactors. According to the European Commission, there are a total of more than 30 such power units in operation in the EU and Ukraine, which are historically and technologically dependent on Russian fuel.

Russia’s role in the international market is unique in that it supplies not only raw materials but also highly processed nuclear fuel products, expert Boris Martsinkevich noted. Since Soviet-designed European power plants have relied on Russian fuel for decades, it cannot be replaced overnight. Any new supplier must undergo years of testing and certification to ensure operational safety, the expert explained.

Replacing Russian supplies with American alternatives would inevitably increase costs for European consumers, as Western producers are largely dependent on purchasing raw materials from third parties, including Russia itself, Martsinkevich emphasized. "Of course, this will lead to higher electricity prices," he said.

According to the expert, a complete break with Russian supplies could leave Europe effectively using the same resource in a more expensive form and under a different brand. Therefore, Martsinkevich believes that a full physical abandonment of Russian nuclear materials is unlikely in the near future. Instead, the market may see the emergence of a more expensive product still based on Russian uranium.

 

Kommersant: US lifts sanctions on Belarusian potassium

Three months after its initial promises, the US has finally lifted sanctions on the Belarusian potassium producer Belaruskaliy. While under sanctions, the company redirected its exports through Russia, shipping 11.9 million tons in 2025. Analysts believe that the US may now begin purchasing raw materials directly from Belarus. At the same time, uncertainty is growing regarding Belarus’s plans to develop infrastructure for transshipping potassium to Russia, given Lithuania’s readiness to resume shipments of Belarusian fertilizers.

According to Alexander Vorontsov, a leading fertilizer market analyst at MMI, sanctions on the company were effectively eased as early as December 15, 2025, when the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) under the US Treasury Department issued a general license permitting all transactions with it. On March 19, US special envoy John Coale announced the full lifting of sanctions following another meeting with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.

A source in the market told Kommersant that no significant economic impact is expected from the lifting of sanctions on Belaruskaliy, as exports of its products never ceased. "However, there may still be a slight positive effect on regional markets by helping curb price growth," the source noted.

Vorontsov described the lifting of sanctions as a positive political signal but noted that it is unlikely to have a major impact on the global potassium market. Other participants in the chemical sector also doubt that there will be significant changes to existing logistics for Belarusian fertilizer exports.

At the same time, export destinations for Belarusian fertilizers may shift following the lifting of sanctions, with the US potentially emerging as a buyer. According to Vorontsov, there were no shipments to the US in December, but January data on potassium chloride imports suggest a change in supplier structure: Canada’s share fell from 88% in 2025 to 80% in January, while Russia’s share doubled to 18%. "Given strained relations between the US and Canada, the lifting of sanctions on Belaruskaliy, and efforts to diversify potash supplies, imports from Belarus are highly likely in the near future," he emphasized.

TASS is not responsible for the material quoted in these press reviews