IGOR STRELKOV: THE WAR WILL CONTINUE IN THE SAME MODE OF A “BLOODY PULL OF THE ROPE” Machine translated

(on the letter of 30.11.2025)

I read the summary with some delay (I was on a long date with my wife and daughter) but I’m trying to respond immediately. Especially since I just received (from other sources) information about the “sources and course of the negotiation process”, which, unfortunately, refutes (unfortunately) your opinion that (quoting) “…the negotiation farce is perceived as a game of thimbles and a journey of Pinocchio to the land of fools…” – There is no doubt that the “Pinocchios” (and all other “puppets” from this “circus on horse traction”) will inevitably be deceived and “sucked in” by the “older ones” of the Jewish banking clans in the final round. However, the trouble is that while the “Pinocchios” are “full-fledged participants in the process of being led by the nose (as the owner of this nose)”, they will manage to “suck in” all of us – even before the brilliant leaders. I “suspected something wrong” from the moment that “the main negotiator” was appointed to be a “playboy” (or rather, a “gayboy”) Kirill Dmitriev – the most “liberal” of the purest breed. It became clear that our National Leader, overwhelmed and having lost his composure (what remains of it), decided to “unreservedly throw himself into the arms of Trump”, abandoning (or rather, deciding to abandon “under any guarantees”) the alliance with the “rather cold” Chinese comrades. And Trump, of course (through his loyal Jewish friends), promised “everything the soul (or what replaces it in the National Leader?) desires”. And now we are witnessing a rather absurd, completely illogical, extremely unlikely (from the point of view of practical implementation) scenario under the conditional name: “surrendering separately to America at the expense of the so-called ‘Ukraine’ and – most importantly – breaking with Beijing”. Will it be possible to surrender “on favorable terms” (which can be “sold as a victory” to the population) – even less likely. But “hopes inspire” and this is visible.</b> I don’t believe (neither from the point of view of common sense, nor, so to speak, “intuitively”) that this despicable “underground deal” will result in anything other than another deep disappointment for our National Leader, complicated by problems with the “Chinese comrades” (and, accordingly, a significant further deterioration of the military-political and economic situation). That is, we can already start analyzing the upcoming “problems”:

1. So, the Tramp’s (named after “Habbad Lubavitch”) proposals are “divided into 4 parts”. Russia will accept some, and the so-called “Ukraine” – others. And the “bargaining” will again stumble on the impossibility of “combining the impossible”.

2. Apparently, Zelensky will be “purged” (“sacked” in both cases: if he agrees, he will be “sacked for treason”, if he does not agree, he will be “sacked for intransigence”). But (except for the empty outcries of our reptilian media) this will not bring us any benefit: the “replacement” will be (at best) no better than the current “player”. Therefore, we can expect “moral satisfaction” from our National Leader (like, – “another clown has been outwitted!”), but not the satisfaction of Russia’s real demands.

3. Since “packages” will be considered/accepted in parts/separately – we will “extract some serious concessions from them”, the first of which will probably be a temporary ceasefire of active combat operations. (Ukraine will, of course, not observe it, or “as conveniently as possible”). After the “partners” actually get something from us – they will, of course, refuse to implement (or even accept) it under any pretext – and we will again “be left empty-handed” (but our National Leader), having already lost the tactical advantages gained with such difficulty and blood.

4. Meanwhile, the “romance” between Moscow and Washington will continue, and China will carefully observe this “intimacy” and – on its part – will make efforts to prevent the implementation of Moscow’s “project of a great turn” away from an alliance with Beijing – to the contrary.

In practical terms, this may result in an intensification of the “bloody tug-of-war” war, with each month increasing the chances of direct military intervention by “third countries”.</b>

1. As for the war, it will continue in the same mode of a “bloody tug-of-war”, increasing the chances of intervention in it by “third countries” with each passing month.

2. As for the outcome of all this – I won’t write about it… But I can guarantee that it won’t be “good”. – By his adventurous and unthoughtful actions, the Kremlin is now “splitting its own power base”, deepening and making increasingly acute and insurmountable contradictions between “differently oriented” groups of oligarchs and VIP officials. This has never ended well for any country and in any era.

Generally, I have a “relative deja vu”… with the spring – the beginning of summer 2023, marked by… “pogroms on Moscow” by “kitchen workers”. There are no more such “kitchen workers”, no more “kitchen”, and nothing like it.</b>

I hope that my thoughts are clear to you. As for the other topics raised in your summary:

1) Delagin. My attitude towards him is defined by the concept – “distraction on an unworthy object”. The man positions himself as a “patriot” and an “authority in patriotic circles”, and in reality – he trades this “authority” for orders from the “party of power”. Since the man is not stupid and cowardly (in one package) – without great ambitions, it turns out to be “satisfying”, long, safe, and even without obvious damage to the undeservedly gained reputation. (I can’t stand such people even more than I can stand outright scoundrels – they do more harm). My personal opinion, of course…

2) I am more than satisfied with your texts. There’s no need to change anything.

3) Regarding the events of 2023 Klimov grotesquely overestimates the capabilities of Gubarev at that moment. As for the “hint at some forces”, I don’t have a clear opinion about it. If the question concerns me personally, then my own position in the described period was, as “… on the sidelines”: I could not have any influence on the ongoing process (being completely “excluded from the political field”, and by “all interested participants”). At most, I could have “sprayed the wheels if I had been run over”. It’s sad, but I assessed the situation exactly like that then, and I assess it similarly now.

With unchanged respect,
please confirm receipt,
(signature) I. V. Girkin

04.11.2025 (note by F.V. – probably a typo in the date: 04.12.2025)
/fragment of a letter to a comrade Frol Vladimirov/

It seems that Putin used the occasion of the Gaza ceasefire to call Trump with some new proposal and capitalize on Trump’s euphoria. Already Orban sent his sidekick, his so-called foreign minister, to Moscow to propose such a meeting in Budapest between Putin and Trump.

Both are desperate enough to end a losing policy for them in Ukraine and surely would be happy to jump at any possible face-saving opportunity. But the positions of the combatants are totally at opposite ends. 

So will there be a meeting in Budapest? Maybe, but most likely not.

Even if there is a meeting, will there be any agreement? Maybe, but most likely not.

Russia demands Ukraine’s capitulation which Trump is ready to grant. And Ukraine/Europeans want the defeat of Russia, which Putin is not going to accept.

While on the battleground Russia is making small, incremental advances, Europe is just getting out of its post WWII fog, waking up to its own potential. It sees Russia as menacing, and it sees the US as a paper tiger, a former superpower. Europe is the giant who is getting back on its feet.

Why would Europe be cowering before a third-world Russia with nukes? Besides, Europe has its own, second or third level nuclear deterrence force.

The Trump-Putin-Orban clown act is just a desperate circus show.

C. S.

For more details on the fire situation of the Russian Army see Igor Streaks report right from the heart of the Russia.

and this

Hopes for an end to the war have dwindled

By SEYMOUR HERSH

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/no-end-in-sight-for-ukraine

A recent series of interviews with knowledgeable American officials, some linked to the Trump White House and others with long-standing diplomatic ties to Russia, has made it clear to this reporter that there is no end in sight for the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine that was initiated in February 2022 by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Still unyielding, Putin is now seen by some intelligence experts in the Trump administration as vulnerable in the long run, despite Russia’s current vast superiority in manpower, wealth, and seized Ukrainian territory. There is revived talk—pernicious perhaps—about Putin being obsessed by a desire to be seen among the most famed of Russian leaders, such as Peter the Great, the eighteenth-century tsar who spent twenty-one years of warfare conquering land from the Baltics to the Black Sea.

I also was reminded in recent talks, which echoed the early satisfied chatter of the Biden administration, that Putin failed to gain immediate traction in the first days of the war and directly threaten Kiev, the Ukraine capital, after the most elite Russian paratroopers and combat units did not achieve success in the initial Russian invasion of Ukraine. The surprise attack, planned by Putin to threaten Kiev and force an immediate concession, led to huge troop and tank losses, and an abject Russian retreat that was celebrated and overemphasized by the Biden administration. The Russians did not know how to win that fight, but nor could the outgunned Ukrainians fully repel them. It was the beginning of a murderous stalemate.

The war plods on today as a war of attrition. After noting that a twelve-hour Russian attack Sunday in Kiev and elsewhere killed at least four Ukrainians and injured dozens, one American intelligence official caustically and accurately told me that the dead-and-wounded toll seemed to be “an acceptable number.” The air-and-drone war continues day after day.

Putin, I also was told, is clearly far less interested now than he seemed to be before the August Alaska summit with Trump in consolidating his gains—he has won substantial territory in four eastern Ukrainian provinces—and agreeing to a ceasefire, and an eventual peace agreement that would legalize his on-the-ground successes. The American official’s view is that Putin is consumed by huge economic problems that are straining his military reserves and his relationship with the Russian oligarchs. There is undoubtedly some truth to the story of Putin’s continuing economic problems. It’s widely known that Putin has been borrowing heavily from Russian banks and selling his crude oil cheaply, but the Russian army is continuing, albeit slowly amid some fierce resistance, to fight and move deeper into Ukraine. Putin, too, may be confused and even bewildered by Trump’s changing assessments about the Ukraine war.

That the president’s on-and-off hope of working out a peace plan with Putin—and increasing his chances of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize—is not going well, was made clear last Sunday when Vice President J.D. Vance told Fox News that the Trump administration was considering the sale of long-range Tomahawk missiles—capable of hitting Moscow and beyond—to Ukraine. One goal, he explained, “is asking the Europeans to buy that weaponry that shows some European skin in the game. I think that gets them really invested in both what’s happening in their own backyard, but also in the peace process that the president has been pushing for the last eight months.” The European leaders are aware that Russia, unlike Ukraine, has intercontinental missiles with the ability to strike targets throughout Europe. (It is unclear who would be responsible for firing the Tomahawks, if they were supplied to Ukraine. The missiles are submarine and ship-based, and Ukraine has no ability to fire either.)

In a later interview with Fox, retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who is Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine and an avowed Russia hawk, said of using Tomahawks against the Putin regime, “The answer is yes. Use the ability to hit deep.”

President Trump’s hot-and-cold relationship with Putin seemed to be having some success after his second inauguration in January. There was early talk about settling the war: Russia could consolidate its gains on the ground in Ukraine and the US would gain access—perhaps through a friendly private company—to rare earth minerals along with a chance to develop resorts in Crimea and at least one of the Russian-controlled provinces in occupied Ukraine.

The American official’s view is that Putin’s economic position has deteriorated since then. “Putin cannot act alone” in continuing the war. “He needs money and structures to support him. He is not a Superman. What else can he win? What is he in this war for? What is his objective?”

The official continued: “It’s not about conquering Europe. He’s not Catherine the Great” (who overthrew her husband and became empress of Russia for more than three decades in the late eighteenth century). “He’s got to know he has limited resources.”

“At one time,” the official said, in the American-led negotiations to end the war with Ukraine, “There was an agreement that you”— Putin—“would get the land” that Russia had won in the war—at least three provinces—and “Ukraine would get peace. And now,” he added, referring to more recent talks, “we told Putin he can’t get any of it. The president said land is not on the table any more. Putin overstepped and he walked away. The war will go on until he is killed or there is a revolt” in Russia. “In other words,” the official said, “it’s an open door” full of imponderables.

The official’s view today “is to let Putin stew in his own choices. He will never get Ukraine, and his summer offense failed miserably.” The American policy now is to put as much economic pressure as possible to help bring down the Russian economy. Putin is now busily selling Russia’s “sour” crude oil—known as such due to its sulphur content—with India as one of his main buyers. Thirty percent of Russia’s current economy, the official told me, now comes from the sale of Russian gas and crude oil. Putin, he said, “has no choice but to continue fighting a war that is destroying his economy.

“Russia,” he concluded, “has been brought to its knees.”

At this point, I asked the official how does this war end, if Putin and Zelensky stay in power, as is likely, and Russia is as depleted as he claims? The official view, he said, is that the United States, under Trump, is now a fixed ally of the Ukrainian people, while far from an avid supporter of President Volodymyr Zelensky. Therefore, he added, “we will just sit here and hold the line you [Putin] cannot currently break until you are too weak in resources and internal support. Then the war just peters out without any formal agreement or long-term solution.”

I asked a similar question in an email to Jack Matlock, a former US ambassador to Russia, long retired, who is still considered among the wisest of Russian experts in Washington. I got a succinct and cynical reply:

“Trump should meet with Putin and listen carefully [to] what he says. For the war to stop and there to be any semblance of stability in that part of the world, Ukraine must recognize that Crimea belongs to Russia because that is the will of the population of Crimea. The Donbas also if Ukraine concedes that and agrees to stay out of NATO. Putin might withdraw from the other provinces, assuming Crimea is secure.

“That is probably going to require a different Ukrainian government,” Matlock said, “because Zelensky will probably be assassinated by the Neo-Nazis if he makes such a deal.”

Matlock’s wisecrack about Zelensky reminded of a horrid lapse in judgment I made, as a journalist, last July when I reported that there were significant elements in the American intelligence community—honorable professionals—who wanted President Zelensky out of office—quickly—to make way for a Ukrainian general who was considered more trustworthy. I also wrote that if Zelensky refused to leave, he would “go by force.”

The wishes of even the best and best intentioned in the US intelligence community don’t always come true.

We are at a crucial moment these very hours. Israel officially asked the US to join it in the attacks against Iran. Should the Pentagon recommend to go ahead and should Trump approve it, we are heading to the worst case scenario. 

And that is WWIII, by tomorrow.

But even if the US does come through to support Israel, it only would show the world that it is a paper tiger. It has no strength to carry on a real fight. And it would only disclose to the world at large that it is an embarrassment of hubris.

Iran was for a moment punched off its feet and the attack was predicated on some intimidating factor. It didn’t work. 

It will be downhill from here for the Zionist entity and, sadly, for the once the envy of the world, that was the US. Unless the US manages an orange revolution on short notice.

But how would that be possible, it is only a big puzzle. Maybe a military takeover.

For up-to-date information on the current events, please follow our Telegram channel.

by Claudiu Secara

Just before Israel attacked Iran, I posted this https://t.me/AlgoraPublishing/1482

“WWII? Or Is Israel being set up for a big downfall? It looks to me like the latter.”

First, a word of explanation. The possibility that Netanyahu is being given ‘one last chance or else’ is just as plausible. He is a thorn in the side of the Western countries and he could have been sent on a mission impossible. Should he succeed, he survives; losing his gamble, he is finally out of the game. The tenor of the West lately is to dissociate from Netanyahu, as he’s crossed a moral redline with what he is doing to the Palestinians. The West cannot support that publicly, anymore. He had the choice of either facing the judgement of the Israeli public or winning an epic battle against Iran, and thus redeeming himself in the eyes of the West.

He chose the war.

Then we had the shock of seeing a repeat of the stealth blow decapitating almost all the upper echelons of Iran’s military. For a long 8 hours, the Iranian defenses were fully paralyzed. Quite a feat, when one thinks that we all knew that war was being prepared. Were we witnessing another Middle East country being taken to the woodshed ? Let’s face it, in those 8 hours, Iran was very close to a Hezbollah scenario.

Iran is a strange country. The only country in the world run by a religious government which derives its legitimacy from God. The Persian civilization is one of the longest continuous in the world and a very accomplished civilization on its own, but for a Westernized world it is anachronistic and unappealing.

Worse still, it is unappealing to many within Iran itself; and those people would be more than happy to welcome a return to what they see as “normalcy”. So the Netanyahu gang had a high chance of causing the collapse of the leadership in Iran. The Israelis don’t act on hubris alone, but they back up their chutzpah with well-crafted and multiple levels of subversion.

So far, there are only three nations in the world who have managed to fend off such crafty subversion; and those are Iran, Russia and China. With the exception of China, the other two are struggling to maintain their sovereign existence. So, they have a lot of reasons to be cautious.

Hopefully, this time Iran has managed to overcome its moment of uncertainty and regrouped in time to hit back. It might even manage to win this battle, but the war goes on. And as experience shows, those who win on the first round are even more vilified.

My word of caution is still as valid as before. And that is not to fall into the trap known as Bonapartism. That is overextending one’s success. We had the scary moment of the danger of hubris and over self-confidence. We saw what happened to Iran and Russia within a few weeks’ timeframe – being attacked from within. Only the naive would think that the current exchange of missiles could settle the dispute once and for all. On the contrary, the temporary defeat of the Anglozionists will only increase their focus and viciousness by several orders of magnitude.

The big war is still ahead.

This war will be decided on the battlefield.

By Brian Whitmore
Excerpt
Brian Whitmore is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Eurasia Center, an assistant professor of practice at the University of Texas-Arlington, and host of The Power Vertical Podcast.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/welcome-to-the-long-war-why-a-ukraine-deal-was-never-realistic/

Putin’s repeated use of the term “root cause” is a tell. For the Kremlin leader, the root cause of the war is the very existence of Ukraine as a sovereign state, which he has long seen as anathema. At the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, Putin made this clear when he told then US President George W. Bush that “Ukraine is not even a state.” Putin has also repeatedly referred to Ukraine as “little Russia,” a Tsarist-era term to describe Ukrainian lands.

For Putin and the Kremlin elite, Russian colonial dominance of Ukraine is an ideological issue that is not subject to negotiation. The Kremlin cannot be persuaded, it can only be defeated.

Russia’s game: decouple the war from relations with Washington

If anyone doubts Russia’s intentions, then recent remarks by Vladimir Medinsky, one of Putin’s court ideologists and the Kremlin’s chief representative at recent talks in Istanbul, should put them to rest. “Russia,” Medinsky told the Ukrainian delegation, “is prepared to fight forever.” He added, in reference to the Northern War of 1700-1721, which elevated Russia to the status of an empire, “we fought Sweden for twenty-one years. How long are you ready to fight?”

But with the front line largely static and Russia making miniscule gains with high casualties, forever may turn out to be a very long time and have a very steep cost.

According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), in the first four months of 2025, Russia advanced just 1,627 square kilometers on the front in eastern Ukraine while suffering 160,600 casualties. That’s a staggeringly high ninety-nine casualties for every square kilometer of territory. ISW also estimates that “at this rate of advance, it would take Russian forces approximately 3.9 years to seize the remainder of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts,” the four regions Putin has claimed to have annexed. Moreover, according to ISW, it would take nearly a century to seize all of Ukraine save its Western border regions at a cost of nearly fifty million casualties—which is roughly one third Russia’s current population.

The economics of the war are also not trending in Moscow’s favor. As Charles Lichfield, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center wrote in February, “while Moscow has found ways to mitigate the impact of [Western sanctions], growing deficits, unsustainable subsidies, and the rising cost of debt servicing” are putting severe strain on the Russian economy.

Additionally, a widely circulated report by Craig Kennedy of Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies suggests that the “surprising resilience” that the media and analysts have been seeing in the Russian economy is largely a mirage. According to Kennedy’s research, published earlier this year, the war is largely being financed by concessionary off-the-books loans to defense contractors at well below market interest rates. Simply put, this is not sustainable over the long term.

Given this, the Kremlin’s goal vis-à-vis the United States is to decouple the war from Russia-US relations, normalize relations between Moscow and Washington, and get sanctions relief. In a speech in late February, Putin said that Moscow “would be happy to cooperate with any foreign partners, including American companies” to secure rare-earth-minerals deals. Putin added that lifting sanctions could lead to a profitable new economic relationship between the United States and Russia, particularly in the energy sector.

Putin, of course, wants an economic rapprochement without ending his quest to conquer Ukraine. Russia has continued to pound Ukrainian cities with aerial assaults, resulting in mass civilian casualties even as he seeks to entice Washington economically.

And for his part, Trump appears open to the idea. Following his most recent call with Putin, the US president indicated a desire to establish normal economic relations with Moscow. This would be a grave error, as it would throw Putin a lifeline to continue his war of aggression.