By Kevin Riehle via The Moscow Times

Explosions at the Russian Belaya airbase in the Irkutsk region.Video grab

In his classic book “Catch-22,” Joseph Heller coined the maxim, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.” The phrase acknowledges the difference, but also the occasional overlap, between perception and reality, fear and fearsomeness, manufactured threat and genuine menace.

The Russian leadership, led by President Vladimir Putin and instrumentalized by the Federal Security Service, has fostered a societal paranoia of spies, saboteurs, terrorists and “foreign agents.” That paranoia is useful for maintaining the patriotic fervor that the government requires to keep the Russian people aligned behind the war in Ukraine.

Institutional paranoia is part of the Russian government’s philosophy that political unity is strength while political division is weakness. If leaders can maintain unity of mind and purpose amongst the Russian population, especially concerning Ukraine, then Russia appears strong, and appearing strong is the objective.

However, paranoia is fragile. To maintain it, the Russian security system must portray itself as invincible, catching genuine and imagined malefactors and broadcasting their arrests to blur the line between real and illusion. That includes televising arrest operations showing officers wearing jackets emblazoned with the letters “FSB.” It includes arresting people for espionage or terrorism, but keeping the evidence secret.

There is a fine line between sustaining paranoia and allowing it to get out of hand. Sustaining it requires communicating a contradictory message, keeping threat perceptions at a shrill pitch but simultaneously presenting the image of having everything under control. With its authority to stage sudden arrests, summon people for prophylactic interviews, recruit donositeli — “snitches” — and conduct ubiquitous monitoring of internal communications, the FSB must be the object of greater fear than the real threats to Russia’s national security. The security service must appear to have the upper hand, or its repressive methods are unnecessary, ineffective and even extreme.

The Russian security system becomes tautological: it only works if it works. Any cracks in the system bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

What happens when real attacks occur, and the bona fide threat becomes more fearsome than the security system itself? Such is the case with drone attacks on four Russian air bases spread across thousands of kilometers on June 1. Local officials downplayed the damage and the FSB reportedimmediate arrests. Simultaneously, the FSB announced arrests of Ukrainian “saboteurs” in the Primorsky region, claiming to have thwarted a planned attack, as if to say, “Everything is under control — look over here instead.”

Nevertheless, Ukraine’s audacious drone attack undermines the Russian security system itself just as much as it poses a military threat. The reality of the threat risks exposing the security system as incompetent. Heavy-handed security measures didn’t work.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky challenged that perception head-on in his public statement about the attacks. Despite FSB reports of arrests, Zelensky said “all the people who helped us” were withdrawn from Russian territory in time and are safe. Although he did not say it explicitly, he implied that local Russians were involved in supporting the operation. Ukrainian media subsequently claimed that the “office” where one of the attacks was organized was located next to an FSB regional directorate.

Those statements are calculated to portray the Russian security system as vulnerable. Zelensky showed that Ukraine can take control of Russian societal paranoia.

The situation is analogous to the March 2024 terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall concert venue in Moscow. The FSB’s response was to conduct immediate arrests, leaking videos of FSB officers beating suspects and cutting off the ear of one of them. A real terrorist attack threatened to take control of societal paranoia, but the FSB responded by displaying its viciousness, recapturing the initiative.

Putin regularly lauds the FSB publicly for being in control. He addresses the FSB Collegium in February or March each year, where he spells out the threats that Russia faces. Оn March 19, 2024, Putin praised the FSB for “confirming its high status and authority as a key link in the system of providing Russia’s state security and sovereignty… All attempts by sabotage-terrorist groups to penetrate our territory … have failed.” That speech came three days before the Crocus City Hall attack, in which 145 people died and over 500 were injured.

NEWS

Siberian Governor Pledges Rewards for Civilians Who Tried to Stop Ukrainian Drone Attacks

READ MORE

In his annual speeches to the FSB Collegium between 2012 and 2019, Putin cited statistics of arrests of foreign intelligence officers and spies. The numbers rose each year until 2019, when Putin claimed that the FSB had made nearly 600 arrests. The number dropped in 2020, but only because of the global pandemic.

Putin stopped citing statistics after that but continued to urge the FSB to increase its vigilance. In his speech on Feb. 27, 2025, Putin’s language was nearly identical to that he used in 2024: “The FSB is a strong, reliable, and effective link in the system of providing national security,” he said. Although he cited no statistics, he continued: “Regular summaries and informant reports show that the activity of foreign special services during the special military operation has grown.”

After the Crocus City Hall attack, Russian officials immediately blamed Ukraine. According to the FSB’s logic, the attack must be the work of the Ukrainian enemy, thus justifying the violence wrought on Ukraine and the repressive tactics applied inside Russia to protect against Ukrainian spies. Those claims turned out to be fiction — Ukraine was not involved. The façade of Russian societal unity, especially amongst religious confessions, was not as impenetrable as Putin made it sound.

Though they produce a similar paranoia, drone attacks on Russian air bases on June 1 reached an entirely new level. They were spread across the country, not just in Moscow. They targeted the Russian military, not civilians. And the Ukrainian government took public credit for the attacks, with Zelensky calling them “justified and deserved.”

The FSB will crack down hard on Russian society and marshal its domestic security powers in response to these drone attacks. But the FSB itself was the victim. If it cannot monitor threats under its own nose, what can it do? Are the FSB’s repressive KGB-like tactics meaningless? The Ukrainian drone attack forces the FSB and the Russian people to face such questions.

Social paranoia is a fickle partner. When it is under control, it can be useful in maintaining a compliant population. But it can turn on its master when they are unable to control it. The Ukrainian drone attacks could be a turning point in that sense of control, convincing the Russian people, as Heller said, that the FSB is not protecting them from the forces that may be after them.

Photo: t.me/SBUkr
via https://strana.today/news/485943-chto-oznachaet-ataka-ukrainskikh-dronov-po-stratehicheskoj-aviatsii-rf-i-ee-posledstvija.html

Since the strikes on Russian military airfields were carried out the day before the talks in Istanbul, most commentators link these two events. They write that in this way Ukraine “strengthens its negotiating position”, changing the humiliating trend for itself when it is forced to agree with the agenda proposed by the Russians, and even to the “accompaniment” of the accelerating offensive of the Russian army.

They also write in Russian publications that this was done in order to disrupt negotiations or ensure that Russia definitely did not make any compromises (there is a conspiracy theory that the United States and the Russian Federation have already agreed on all parameters of ending the war and the current strikes are designed to interrupt these agreements and toughen the position of the Russian Federation).

However, it is absolutely obvious that it is absolutely wrong to link attacks on Russian airfields only to negotiations.

Firstly, such an operation, according to sources in the SBU, has been preparing for a very long time – a year and a half. Even if this time is exaggerated, it can be said for sure that it took more than one week to prepare.

Secondly, it makes sense to strengthen the “negotiating” position if some result is expected from the negotiations. But so far, there have been no signs that the parties are even willing to make serious compromises that could lead to a cease-fire agreement. Russia has been repeating its conditions all week, which Kiev has already called unacceptable, and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky today reiterated that he would seek an unconditional cease-fire.

Of course, Ukraine will use today’s strike in the context of the negotiation process. First of all, in order to put Moscow in an uncomfortable position, which had previously been clearly determined to delay negotiations and turn them into a platform for promoting its peace conditions, while continuing the offensive at the front. Now, after the attack on the airfields, the tactic of “negotiations just for the sake of negotiations” becomes questionable for the Russian Federation or requires some kind of powerful retaliatory strike.

However, the main objectives of the strike are certainly different. One of them is completely understandable and purely military – causing damage to Russian aviation, which is constantly striking Ukraine.

but there are others, informational and political, which in many ways resemble the same goals that the Kursk operation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine had last year.

The first is to raise morale and faith in victory in Ukrainian society. Just like last summer, the situation at the front is now very difficult for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The Ukrainian troops are retreating, and there has not been any big “victory” news for a long time, which affects the mood both in society and in the army. The attack on military aircraft caused a surge of “victorious sentiments” in the Ukrainian information field, as well as the offensive in the Kursk region last summer.

The second is the growing negativity and distrust of the military and political leadership of the Russian Federation within Russia itself – in society and among the elites. the same telegram channels that in 2023 prepared the ground for Prigozhin’s rebellion, and in August 2024 raised a wave of hysteria about the offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region, are now dispersing the “propaganda” about attacks on airfields. although so far the scale of this wave is much smaller than in 2024 or 2023. and if it didn’t work out then, then it will be problematic now. At the same time, the response given by the Russian Federation will also play a role in the mood (but more on that below).

The third and main task is to convince the West that the thesis about the “inevitability of Ukraine’s defeat” (which is often promoted by US President Donald Trump and his associates) is false and that Ukraine can inflict significant losses on Russia, and therefore Zelensky should not be pushed to make strong concessions to end the war. Also, and even more importantly, Kiev is seeking to promote another thesis in the West: “Do not need to be afraid of Russia and its nuclear weapons.” The fear of a nuclear war with Russia is the main factor that determines the West’s attitude towards the current war. It is precisely because of that that NATO countries do not risk directly entering the war with Russia on the side of Ukraine, refuse to transfer certain types of weapons to Kiev, and do not dare to impose particularly harsh sanctions and other pressure measures. Kiev has been trying its best to destroy this fear for three years. This was also the goal of last year’s offensive in the Kursk region. At that time, one of the main theses of the Ukrainian government and its support group in the West was this: “You see, Ukrainian troops entered the internationally recognized territory of Russia, but Putin did not hit us with a nuclear weapon. Therefore, there is no need to be afraid of his threats, help us with all your might.”

Approximately the same topic is being pumped now: “Ukraine has hit strategic bombers, nuclear deterrence forces, and nuclear bombs have not yet flown to Kiev. Therefore, give us the Taurus, introduce 500 percent secondary duties and don’t be afraid of Putin – he won’t do anything to you.” During the Kursk operation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, this thesis had almost no effect on the West. We’ll see what happens this time. By the way, the reaction may be exactly the opposite – the West will be even more afraid of the threat of nuclear war. Especially if the Russian Federation makes appropriate threats.

What Russia will do in response to the strikes is a separate and main question at the moment.

The attacked airfields belong to the Russian nuclear deterrence infrastructure. According to the nuclear doctrine of the Russian Federation, an attack on these facilities is a reason for the use of nuclear weapons. Will it be used?

We have already written that the real reason for the use of nuclear weapons for the Russian Federation may be the threat of defeat in the war. Such a threat may arise, for example, if NATO countries enter the war on the side of Ukraine, ports are blocked (which will deplete the economic resources of the Russian Federation), the main trading partners refuse to purchase Russian goods in the event of the introduction of 500 percent American secondary duties.

Is it a blow to the strategic aviation of the Russian Federation (even if we take estimates of losses, voiced by sources in the SBU) a factor that puts Russia in the face of defeat in the war?

No. Just as the operation in the Kursk region did not become such a factor last year, after which the situation for the Ukrainian Armed Forces only worsened.

The Russian Federation still has enough bombers left to strike at Ukraine. And it’s not them, but hundreds of thousands of soldiers and drones that are now ensuring Russian progress at the front. And the defeat of strategic aircraft will not have a strong impact on this.

Therefore, the threat of using nuclear weapons does not look too likely yet. Although much will depend on the reaction to the attacks on airfields in the West. If Moscow feels that these strikes were perceived there as an incentive to take a tougher stance against the Russian Federation and to cross the next “red lines”, then the likelihood of a “nuclear” scenario will increase.

However, the Russian Federation also has the possibility of a “non–nuclear” response, ranging from a massive missile strike to the use of “Hazelnuts.” The last strike was carried out, we recall, after an attack by American long-range missiles on the territory of the Russian Federation and was filed as a response to it. It cannot be ruled out that it will be used this time. However, if the strike is accompanied by heavy civilian casualties, it will be used by Kiev to try to increase Western pressure on Russia and push Trump to give the go-ahead to impose tough sanctions and to continue arms supplies. However, the image and military damage of today’s strikes on airfields is so great that such “deterrence arguments” may not work.
Finally, Russia may try to use the situation to dramatically raise the stakes in relations with the West, accusing the special services of NATO countries of organizing an operation to destroy aircraft. However, this is fraught with the complete cessation of any dialogue with Trump, to which, by the way, the Russian Federation is already being pushed through the “drains” in the media of information that the US president was aware of the strike in advance. But whether Putin is ready to escalate now is still unknown.

In general, of course, the attack on airfields, to put it mildly, does not bring the war closer to an end, but rather contributes to its intensification (just like last year’s offensive in the Kursk region). Voices in Ukraine are once again growing louder that there is no need to make any compromises with Russia. In Russia– there are voices of those who demand the destruction of Ukraine at any cost, and much less noticeable are the voices of those who say that what happened today (and Russia’s possible response to it) only shows the enormous price that each country will have to pay for the “war to the bitter end,” and therefore it must be ended. as soon as possible.

However, there remains very little hope that, as the conspiracy theory above states, all parties have already agreed in principle to end the war, and even today’s strikes will not be able to disrupt these agreements.

via ZeroHedge
Excerpts

The hawkish Washington DC-based think tank, The Institute for Study or War (ISW), had just prior to Ukraine’s Sunday shock drone operation which reportedly took out some 40 military aircraft deep inside Russian territory issued a report saying President Vladimir Putin is prepared for war with NATO if things escalate to that point.

A May 30 decree issued by Putin concerning the Russian defense industry base (DIB) would enable the government to legally take over military contractor firms if they do not abide by wartime martial law orders.

“Putin is likely setting legal conditions to allow the Russian government to commandeer elements of Russia’s economy and DIB should the Kremlin introduce full martial law in order to transition the country to a full wartime footing,” ISW wrote on UnderstandingWar.Org.

“ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin is preparing Russian society and economy for a protracted war in Ukraine, indicating that Russia is not interested in engaging in good faith negotiations to reach a diplomatic settlement to its war in Ukraine.”

Certainly Sunday just brought the world a big step closer to witnessing potential all-out war in Eastern Europe, given the Zelensky-ordered drone swarm attacks are already being called ‘Russia’s Pearl Harbor’.

“The Kremlin is continuing efforts to prepare Russian society and the Russian defense industry base (DIB) for a protracted war with Ukraine and potential future war with NATO,” ISW concluded. “Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on May 30 allowing the Russian government to revoke the rights of shareholders of defense industrial enterprises in the event that the enterprise fails to fulfill state defense orders during martial law.”

“The decree enables the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade to appoint a management company to act as the sole executive body of the enterprise in order to fulfill contractual obligations to the Russian government,” the study says.

And it applies to “civilian aviation and shipbuilding companies, military development and production companies, and government subcontractors.”

Sunday’s major attack on Russian airbases may only serve to accelerate a possible Kremlin move toward martial law and formal declaration of all-out war in Ukraine.

Why Ukraine-Russia Peace Talks Are Doomed – And This War May Last for Years or Decades – A Russian Perspective

The prospect of peace between Russia and Ukraine remains elusive—and according to Russian political analyst Vitaly Ryumshin, it may not just be elusive, but structurally impossible under current conditions. With new speculation around possible ongoing Istanbul talks—reportedly pushed by Trump allies and involving both Zelensky and Putin—the mainstream narrative briefly teased a potential breakthrough. But upon closer inspection, the likelihood of a meaningful or lasting ceasefire appears near zero.

1. The Stage Is Set for Failure—Again

All eyes recently turned to Istanbul, where Russia and Ukraine were allegedly preparing to restart direct negotiations—the first since spring 2022. The hype escalated rapidly after Putin responded to a Western-backed proposal for a 30-day ceasefire. Zelensky initially rejected it, then reversed course under apparent pressure from Donald Trump—though only after attaching his own preconditions, demanding top-level talks “immediately or not at all,” while also threatening additional sanctions if Russia didn’t comply. It has played out like a Keystone Cops movie.

None of this signals genuine intent by any involved party to negotiate. Rather, it seems to be more political theatre—performative diplomacy meant to appease domestic audiences and allies, rather than advance actual de-escalation. The same disconnect that’s plagued previous efforts is firmly in place: both sides are posturing, and neither is engaging in good faith.

Russia, despite making slow but steady gains on the battlefield, is under no pressure to negotiate. Ukraine, despite weakening positions and morale, is defending it’s territory on the front lines inflicting casualties on the Russians, and continues to act ‘as if’ it holds the upper hand. Meanwhile, key NATO players like the UK, France, and Germany talk tough—insisting Russia must lose and Crimea be returned—but offer no coherent diplomatic exit ramp. While Trump continues to be an erratic blowhard of little consequence despite being a major party to this conflict-pretending he is a peacemaker instead.

Nothing will be progressed while all the parties continually deny the truth of what is involved and what has happened.

As Ryumshin points out, each side seems more focused on political optics than substance. Zelensky seeks to avoid Trump’s wrath without conceding anything meaningful. Putin sees little value in being a prop for Trump’s American Hero campaign. Neither side trusts the other, and both are only angling for short term tactical advantages rather than a sustained settlement or peace.

1. Every Ceasefire Attempt Has Failed—This One Will Too

Recent history offers little hope. A series of failed ceasefires—on naval corridors, energy strikes, and symbolic occasions like Easter and Victory Day—have all collapsed under the weight of unrealistic expectations, ambiguous language, and an absence of monitoring mechanisms. Not to mention a total lack of commitment by everyone.

Even now, the so-called “Istanbul process” lacks a formal agenda, articulated unified goals, or any enforcement structure. The result? Each party defines “peace” on its own terms. The U.S. has juggled conflicting peace tracks for months, pretending to shape a compromise from irreconcilable positions it refuses to acknowledge. But without shared definitions or political will, it’s just talk.

In Ryumshin’s words, this is not diplomacy but brinkmanship—a cynical spectacle where each side hopes the other will walk away first. And if the Istanbul talks even happen, they are almost certain to end in the same deadlock.

1. Why a Long War Is More Likely

Beyond the dysfunction of diplomacy lies a deeper structural truth: neither side appears capable of nor interested in ending the war soon. Ukraine lacks the military strength to reclaim its lost territories, and the political space to concede anything without collapsing internally. Russia, on the other hand, believes time is on its side, and is unlikely to accept any Western-brokered ceasefire that doesn’t reflect its battlefield momentum-and it’s original goals. Goals that go far beyond any ability for any government in Ukraine to provide. Ukraine cannot tell NATO or the U.S. what they must do to bring peace to this major Cold War civilisational conflict-nor how to settle nuclear arms disputes between the U.S. and Russia.

Some observers still believe a diplomatic breakthrough could be near. But for that to happen, several stars would have to align: an earth-shattering shift in U.S. leadership and policy, a recalibration of the Ukrainian strategy, and a recognition of Russia’s red lines that have been in place long before the 2022 invasion-going back to first 2014 and before that to at least 2007.

As it stands, none of that is on the horizon.

The result is a grim but necessary conclusion: a negotiated settlement is not only unlikely in the short term—it may be impossible for years. This war could drag on well into the 2030s, especially if neither side achieves a decisive advantage and Western powers remain committed to a zero-sum framework and their continued deceits.

Without significant global pressure on both sides to compromise, we are left with stalemate masquerading as strategy.

by: Roger

Ed. Note: Good article, except for the continued fallacious belief in the great Russian army’s successful military campaign against the Ukrainian army. For a much more accurate report of the actual failures of the Russian army, which basically couldn’t win a decisive victory in more than 3 years and is actually struggling with low numbers and low-skilled personnel as well as shortages of ammunition, see Igor Strelkov here: https://t.me/AlgoraPublishing/1024

via MoA

Negotiations between the U.S. and Russia about the war in Ukraine seem to be losing steam.

Russia has long insisted on a solution of the conflict which removes the root causes of it. It can not allow for Ukraine to become a NATO battering ram at its doorstep. It can not allow a fascist government in Ukraine.

Any solution to the conflict must resolve (at least) those two issues.

The Trump administration wants the Ukraine problem out of its way. It wants to implement a ceasefire to be able to turn away and ignore the festering problem.

Russia won’t have that (archived):

On Tuesday, Moscow reinforced its hard-line, maximalist demands when Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov complained that Russia’s demand “to solve the problems related to the root causes of the conflict” was being ignored by the U.S., and “we cannot accept all of this as it is.”As the U.S. overstates its progress in talks, Moscow seems concerned that Trump’s negotiators do not understand how serious it is about these demands, according to [Thomas Graham, senior director for Russia at the National Security Council under the George W. Bush administration and now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations].

“The question is whether the administration has the patience to continue those negotiations and whether they can conduct the negotiations in ways that can extract concessions from the Russian side,” he said.

“Extract concessions”? By what?

The U.S. has no leverage over Russia. It is the Russian army that is winning on the battlefield in Ukraine. It has ample reserves in soldiers. It is by far outproducing NATO in weapons and munitions. It is stable in political, social and economic terms.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is threatening Russia with more sanctions (machine translation):

“Now we are not interested in negotiations for the sake of the negotiations themselves – we will not continue this indefinitely. We have a certain amount of time during which we want to understand whether they are ready or not, and this time is already coming to an end. Congress has already started working on a bill for additional sanctions, and pressure from the Capitol will continue to grow, ” the US Secretary of State said.According to him, it was important “just to start a dialogue, because we haven’t talked for a long time, but now we need to make progress.”

The above-mentioned draft law provides for the introduction of new sanctions against Moscow, as well as duties in the amount of 500% on imports for countries that purchase Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products.

In “weeks, not months,” we will know if Russia is ready to end the war, Rubio said.

Russia is already under a total of 28,000 individual sanctions. If the U.S. is threatening other countries with sanctions for buying Russian oil they will find ways around it. It is, like the U.S. ‘tariffs’, just another way of wreaking the global U.S. position.

There are signs that Rubio and his fellow neo-cons in the Trump administration have decided to stall further talks:

Trump’s inner circle opposes a phone call to Putin until the Russian leader commits to a full ceasefire in Ukraine, two unnamed administration officials said.Despite Trump saying he plans to speak to Putin days earlier, no call between the two leaders has been scheduled, the unnamed officials said.

It is possible Trump will abruptly decide he wants to speak to Putin, but he has been advised against calling the Russian leader until Moscow communicates they agree to a full ceasefire in Ukraine, the two officials said.

Not talk to Putin and wait for what? Godoh?

There is fortunately a second line of communication between Trump envoy Steve Witkoff and the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev. Russia is offering the U.S. very big investment opportunities. This is Putin’s carrot while the steady progress of the Russian army in Ukraine is his stick.

Dmitriev, during his visit in Washington, stated that talks were going well but that there are certain powers who want to derail them:

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who is visiting Washington this week, said on Thursday that unidentified forces were trying to sow tension between Russia and the United States.”Today, numerous forces interested in maintaining tension stand in the way of restoring constructive cooperation… These forces are deliberately distorting Russia’s position, trying to disrupt any steps towards dialogue, sparing neither money nor resources for this,” Dmitriev said on Telegram.

“Opponents of the rapprochement are afraid that Russia and the United States will find common ground, begin to understand each other better and build cooperation both in international affairs and in the economy,” he said.

It is obvious that the moves against further negotiations are coming from neo-conservatives, like Rubio, within the Trump administration.

Will Trump be able to disarm them?

Ed. Note: In the interest of keeping track of the facts, and trying to apportion the blame in the Ukraine debacle, we re-posting an article from 2019 by the Italian journalist Maurizio Blondet dealing with the events of 2014.

Well before 2014, the Russian side obviously made huge miscalculations when Lenin and later Khrushchev, for misplaced political calculations, assigned the Donbas and Crimea to the Ukraine gubernatorial province – not thinking of the possible consequences down the road. But the Russians seem to have swallowed their pride and accepted the loss, which was somewhat attenuated by certain leasing arrangements with Ukraine.

But here comes the United States who, in its hubris, thought they could corner a wounded animal and actually take possession of the historically Russian outposts in Crimea.  The coup in Kiev in 2014 was prepared in order to enable the US 7^th Fleet, in the Mediterranean, to rapidly cross the seas and install itself in Russia’s critical military defense fortifications of Crimea. – An outright act of war, to which Putin’s team responded magisterially, thus avoiding a nuclear war. 

It was the United States who, not satisfied with the attempted barbarian attack, continued to supply the helpless Ukrainians with arms, munitions, intelligence, training, money, and political cover to continue their assaults on Russian-ethnic areas. Thus, it is 100% the United States who is the criminal party here.

Unfortunately, after some initial successes by the Ukrainians, in the end this resulted in a total loss for the naïve Ukrainians: loss of territory, loss of its best men, economic destruction, and almost the loss of statehood. And now, the same United States, just like in Vietnam and Afghanistan, got tired of accepting their own losses and the Ukrainian disaster, and in utterly hypocritical… (more than hypocritical) is now calling on Ukraine to just accept this historical disaster and feed their still-warm corpses to the wolves.

What makes this even more of a nightmare is that what used to be a defeated Russia on the shores of the Black Sea, prior to 2014, these events have empowered Russia to go further and eye territories beyond their wildest dreams – to take over Odessa, Transdnistria, Moldova, etc. Remember Lavrov’s sinister words about their claim to Moldova – part of the Romanian national body since time immemorial, speaking 100% the Romanian language, who want to re-align with its Mother nation. The same holds for Georgia, Armenia, and the Baltic states: small but historically independent principalities/nations who do not want to be part of the Imperial Russia. And who is going to defend them all? The bankrupt Trumptards? – No. Of course not.

This is not about peace. This is about the U.S. owing many apologies and huge reparations, to the poor and deceived Ukrainians rather than stealing the last resources of a nation they led into near-fatal error. (Claudiu Secara)

***********************************
Source: Dialog UA

Translated by Algora Publishing

Italian journalist Maurizio Blondet says that the events of the Ukrainian Maidan were intended to enable the United States to take control of Crimea and to kick out the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

“The coup d’etat perpetrated in Kiev in February in 2014 had a specific goal: to neutralize the Russian Black Sea Fleet based in Sevastopol and replace it with the United States Navy,” – writes Maurizio Blondet in an article published on the website www.effedieffe.com.

“On 22 February, the day when Yanukovych was removed from power, the American carrier strike group quickly entered the Black Sea through the Bosporus Strait. This is the fleet that was supposed to take the place of the Russian Black Sea Fleet based in Crimea. Secret Russian sources tell us just how grave a threat this was to the vital interests of Moscow, making it clear why Putin was quick to take the Crimea peninsula and declare it Russian. He had irrefutable evidence that the coup perpetrated in Kiev in February 2014 had a specific goal: to neutralize the Russian Black Sea Fleet based in Sevastopol, and replace it with a US fleet. On February 18, 2014, the Ukrainian parliament was occupied by armed activists of the “Svoboda” Party and the Right Sector. On February 22, President Yanukovych was forced to leave Kiev, as pro-Western forces took power.

The journalist also claims that the SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaychenko is a citizen of the United States.

“At the same time, Valentin Nalyvaychenko was appointed head of the Secret Services of Ukraine (SBU). Who is he? An American citizen,” – the article says.

The journalist also writes that on February 22, the day Yanukovych fled, a group of American warships entered the Black Sea.

“Of course,” on February 13, “just by chance” one of the four American naval groups, led by the aircraft carrier George Bush (CSG-2), left the naval base in Norfolk and headed for the Aegean Sea. The George H. W. Bush has a displacement of 102,000 tons; it has 90 fixed wing aircraft and helicopters on board. It is accompanied by 16 warships, including the cruiser USS Philippine Sea, the destroyers Truxtun and Roosevelt, and three nuclear submarines. February 22, the day when Yanukovych was removed from power, the American carrier strike group quickly entered the Black Sea through the Bosporus Strait. This was a direct violation of the Treaty of Montreux (1936), which only permits warships up to 45,000 tons to pass through the Dardanelles. But, as reported by the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, citing a source from the Ministry of War in Turkey, authorities secretly gave permission for the passage of the valiant American fleet. This was fleet that was intended to take the place of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the naval bases of Crimea. Of course, it was expected that the Crimea would “choose democracy” and would be happy to greet the stars and stripes navy. However, crowds of people took to the streets of Sevastopol, and in a couple of days, the siege of the Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea drove out Prime Minister Anatoly Mogilev, who had declared his loyalty to the putschists in Kiev (despite the fact that he had bought his position from Yanukovych, having given him a luxury villa in Yalta). Sergei Aksenov, leader of the pro-Russian forces, was chosen in place of Mogilev.

“On 6 March, the parliament of an autonomous Crimea declared its refusal to submit to Kiev and its intention to hold a referendum on March 16 on the reunification of the Crimea with the Russian motherland. That messed up the American plans,” – writes Italian journalist.

According to Maurizio Blondet, after this the initial order received by the aircraft carrier was canceled and they headed off in the direction of Turkey.

“On March 5, the initial instruction received by the aircraft carrier was canceled. They were given a new order – to go from the Greek city of Piraeus to Antalya, to go to the Turkish naval base and wait there. Only the destroyers USS Truxtun, USS Donald Cook and the frigate USS Taylor were sent to explore the shores of Northern Crimea from 7 to 22 March under the pretext of joint exercises with Bulgaria and Romania. The Russian Air Force announced through the media that the USS Donald Cook had come to disrupt the antennas associated with the Space Center for the Black Sea fleet and a network of ELINT military satellites working in the electromagnetic spectrum. This sophisticated modern system allows Crimea to receive data from the electronic surveillance radar and navigation systems of the American Navy, the onboard aircraft, and launch vehicles. Russian military planes had to block this action by the Cook. Two Su-24MRs circled the American ship eleven times (!) at the lowest possible altitude, using an onboard blocking system at frequencies of 12-18 Hz to neutralize the US cruiser radar. In addition, the Russian special services were sure that six commando groups, of 16 people each, were ready to swim underwater, undetected, to the coast in order to carry out acts of sabotage in the Crimea and create an atmosphere of panic among the local population. Such actions might include explosions on public transportation during rush hour, undermining government buildings, etc. Injecting fear and terror on the eve of the referendum would mean fewer people would go out to vote, so the results would be invalidated. To prevent such actions, “Russian exercised a strong, tight control.” In fact, one of the Crimean websites ran a story about the capture of some commandos from NATO countries, as was also indicated by the fact that Natalia Poklonskaya, the Prosecutor General of Crimea, had urgently requested translators from the language of one of the NATO countries that bordered on Ukraine and had access to the sea. In our understanding, the references to a “treacherous neighbor” meant Romania.

The journalist says that after the Crimean referendum, the U.S. fleet found that its orders had been rescinded.

“Based on the results of the referendum in Crimea (83% of the total population voted, and 99.7% of those who voted opted for Russia), the American fleet led by the aircraft carrier George Bush was ordered to cut short its mission, left the Aegean Sea and went to Bahrain. Everyone understands that the Russian military base in Sevastopol is of the utmost importance. In confirmation of this, we see the recent modernization of the Black Sea Fleet, which increased its line-up to 20 modern ships, including six submarines, and missile carrier frigates specializing in defense and in blocking the enemy in the electronic field, as well as the newest Mistral class helicopters, built in a French shipyard. The Navy has a large group of rapid response troops consisting of paratroopers and marines. They are supported by the fourth division and air defense. In addition they have a separate air cargo fleet, consisting of 135 aircraft of the AN-22, AN-124, Il-76MD and An-12 classes, that can transport 80,000 soldiers of the 49th and 58th military corps. This is a rapid reaction force, directly subordinate to the Black Sea Fleet, and it has a single goal – to protect against terrorism in the Mediterranean basin, East Africa and the Middle East up to the Persian Gulf. But even more important is the invisible, or almost invisible, part of the fleet. This is the Center for Space Flight Management, which has been in existence since Soviet times. Its history includes launching the Salyut, Soyuz, Apollo-Soyuz and moon rover spaceships. Today the Space Center receives data from radar-missile systems of the Voronezh-M type (within 6,000 km.), in Lekhtusi village in the Leningrad region, in Pionersk, in the Kaliningrad region, and in the city of Armavir. The center receives information from satellite-based early warning systems (ILCs / K, capable of detecting missile launches of any type – cruise as well as ballistic). Since this center is a serious obstacle to U.S. hegemony and expansion towards Central Asia, damaging this system or completely destroying it is one of the Pentagon’s main goals.

At the end of the article, Maurizio Blondet draws the following conclusion: “Based on the foregoing, it seems to us that a coup d’etat in Kiev to bring to power a “democratic” puppet government had as its primary objective the elimination of the Space Center. Ukraine’s entry into NATO was a distinctly secondary objective. With the help of the Ukrainian presidential elections and the strengthening of the “democratic” government, the Pentagon hoped to force Putin to abandon the military base in the Crimea in order to make it later into an American base. But in their haste the Americans made a mistake. Thinking they had the situation under control, they launched a whole squadron of reconnaissance drones in Dnepropetrovsk prematurely. Those drone flights over the territory of Crimea on the eve of the referendum were open to the Russian side, who were able to listen in on the plans of the United States. ”

https://www.dialog.ua/news/16232_1409670244

Back in the 1980s, Reagan’s Star Wars program wasn’t just about missile defense—it was a chess move. The Soviets, already dealing with a crumbling economy, were forced into an arms race they couldn’t afford. The U.S. raised the stakes with futuristic-sounding technology, the USSR took the bait, and in the end, the whole system collapsed under its own weight.

Now Trump, who barely understands history beyond what fits into a campaign slogan, thinks he can run the same play. He wants an “Iron Dome for the world,” a missile shield so powerful it would make America untouchable. The goal? Convince China and Russia that they have to spend themselves into oblivion to counter it.

And of course, a big flashy project needs a name. Reagan had Star Wars, so Trump will need something just as ridiculous. Let’s see…

– Space Force 2.0: The Art of War – because every scam needs a sequel.
– Freedom Dome – because slapping “freedom” on things shuts down debate.
– The Trump Dome – the one he’d pick if he thought of it first.

But here’s the issue—this time, the strategy won’t work. China isn’t the USSR. China is an industrial powerhouse, with a manufacturing base that dwarfs America’s and a state-run economy that can redirect resources overnight. If Trump thinks he can bait China into economic overextension, he’s delusional.

Russia? They’ve seen this playbook before. The Kremlin knows the U.S. is trying to trap them in another arms race, and they’re not taking the bait. Instead of getting drawn into Trump’s game, Russia and China are getting closer, strengthening ties, and working on joint defense strategies.

And here’s the kicker—America is the one that can’t afford this fight. Reagan’s strategy worked because the U.S. economy was booming. Now? The U.S. is drowning in debt, bleeding money on endless wars, and losing global influence by the day. If anyone is at risk of collapse, it’s Washington, not Beijing.

Trump thinks he’s playing 4D chess, but he’s about to learn the hard way: The empire can’t run the same trick twice.

Book Recommendation:

Intelligent Warfare: Prospects of Military Development in the Age of AI by Mingxi Wu – because the next world war won’t just be fought with missiles, but with algorithms, machine learning, and autonomous decision-making systems. If you think the U.S. is ahead in this game, think again.

Algora Ed. Note: What kind of new world peace are we contemplating under Trump’s “revolutionary” changes? Is this the beginning of the “thousand years peace”? Or just another detente as so many in last 150 years, only to be followed by more wars? Why have Musk involved in the technological weapons development if peace is at the door?

by Alan MacLeod via Unz Review

Illustration by MintPress News

Donald Trump has announced his intention to build a gigantic anti-ballistic missile system to counter Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons, and he is recruiting Elon Musk to help him. The Pentagon has long dreamed of constructing an American “Iron Dome.” The technology is couched in the defense language – i.e., to make America safe again. But like its Israeli counterpart, it would function as an offensive weapon, giving the United States the ability to launch nuclear attacks anywhere in the world without having to worry about the consequences of a similar response. This power could upend the fragile peace maintained by decades of mutually assured destruction, a doctrine that has underpinned global stability since the 1940s.

A New Global Arms Race

Washington’s war planners have long salivated at the thought of winning a nuclear confrontation and have sought the ability to do so for decades. Some believe that they have found a solution and a savior in the South African-born billionaire and his technology.

Neoconservative think tank the Heritage Foundation published a video last year stating that Musk might have “solved the nuclear threat coming from China.” It claimed that Starlink satellites from his SpaceX company could be easily modified to carry weapons that could shoot down incoming rockets. As they explain:

Elon Musk has proven that you can put microsatellites into orbit, for $1 million apiece. Using that same technology, we can put 1,000 microsatellites in continuous orbit around the Earth, that can track, engage and shoot down, using tungsten slugs, missiles that are launched from North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China.”

Although the Heritage Foundation advises using tungsten slugs (i.e., bullets) as interceptors, hypersonic missiles have been opted for instead. To this end, a new organization, the Castelion Company, was established in 2023.

Castelion is a SpaceX cutout; six of the seven members of its leadership team and two of its four senior advisors are ex-senior SpaceX employees. The other two advisors are former high officials from the Central Intelligence Agency, including Mike Griffin, Musk’s longtime friend, mentor, and partner.

Castelion’s mission, in its own words, is to be at the cutting edge of a new global arms race. As the company explains:

Despite the U.S. annual defense budget exceeding those of the next ten biggest spenders combined, there’s irrefutable evidence that authoritarian regimes are taking the lead in key military technologies like hypersonic weapons. Simply put – this cannot be allowed to happen.”

The company has already secured gigantic contracts with the U.S. military, and reports suggest that it has made significant strides toward its hypersonic missile goals.

War and Peace

Castelion’s slogan is “Peace Through Deterrence.” But in reality, the U.S. achieving a breakthrough in hypersonic missile technology would rupture the fragile nuclear peace that has existed for over 70 years and usher in a new era where Washington would have the ability to use whatever weapons it wished, anywhere in the world at any time, safe in the knowledge that it would be impervious to a nuclear response from any other nation.

In short, the fear of a nuclear retaliation from Russia or China has been one of the few forces moderating U.S. aggression throughout the world. If this is lost, the United States would have free rein to turn entire countries – or even regions of the planet – into vapor. This would, in turn, hand it the power to terrorize the world and impose whatever economic and political system anywhere it wishes.

If this sounds fanciful, this “Nuclear Blackmail” was a more-or-less official policy of successive American administrations in the 1940s and 1950s. The United States remains the only country ever to drop an atomic bomb in anger, doing so twice in 1945 against a Japanese foe that was already defeated and was attempting to surrender.

President Truman ordered the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a show of force, primarily to the Soviet Union. Many in the U.S. government wished to use the atomic bomb on the U.S.S.R. President Truman immediately, however, reasoned that if America nuked Moscow, the Red Army would invade Europe as a response.

As such, he decided to wait until the U.S. had enough warheads to completely destroy the Soviet Union and its military. War planners calculated this figure at around 400, and to that end—totaling a nation representing one-sixth of the world’s landmass—the president ordered the immediate ramping up of production.

This decision was met with stiff opposition among the American scientific community, and it is widely believed that Manhattan Project scientists, including Robert J. Oppenheimer himself, passed nuclear secrets to Moscow in an effort to speed up their nuclear project and develop a deterrent to halt this doomsday scenario.

In the end, the Soviet Union was able to successfully develop a nuclear weapon before the U.S. was able to produce hundreds. Thus, the idea of wiping the U.S.S.R. from the face of the Earth was shelved. Incidentally, it is now understood that the effects of dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons simultaneously would likely have sparkedvast firestorms across Russia, resulting in the emission of enough smoke to choke the Earth’s atmosphere, block out the sun’s rays for a decade, and end organized human life on the planet.

With the Russian nuclear window closing by 1949, the U.S. turned its nuclear arsenal on the nascent People’s Republic of China.

The U.S. invaded China in 1945, occupying parts of it for four years until Communist forces under Mao Zedong forced both them and their Nationalist KMT allies from the country. During the Korean War, some of the most powerful voices in Washington advocated dropping nuclear weapons on the 12 largest Chinese cities in response to China entering the fray. Indeed, both Truman and his successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, publicly used the threat of the atomic bomb as a negotiating tactic.

Routed on the mainland, the U.S.-backed KMT fled to Taiwan, establishing a one-party state. In 1958, the U.S. also came close to dropping the bomb on China to protect its ally’s new regime over control of the disputed island – an episode of history that resonates with the present-day conflict over Taiwan.

However, by 1964, China had developed its own nuclear warhead, effectively ending U.S. pretensions and helping to usher in the détente era of good relations between the two powers—an epoch that lasted well into the 21st century.

In short, then, it is only the existence of a credible deterrent that tempers Washington’s actions around the world. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has only attacked relatively defenseless countries. The reason the North Korean government remains in place, but those of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and others do not, is the existence of the former’s large-scale conventional and nuclear forces. Developing an American Iron Dome could upset this delicate balance and usher in a new age of U.S. military dominance.

Nuking Japan? OK. Nuking Mars? Even Better!

Musk, however, has downplayed both the probability and the consequences of nuclear war. On The Lex Friedman Podcast, he described the likelihood of a terminal confrontation as “quite low.” And while speaking with Trump last year, he claimedthat nuclear holocaust is “not as scary as people think,” noting that “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, but now they are full cities again.” President Trump agreed.

Video Link

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, there are over 12,000 warheads in the world, the vast majority of them owned by Russia and the United States. While many consider them a blight on humanity and favor their complete eradication, Musk advocates building thousands more, sending them into space, and firing them at Mars.

Musk’s quixotic plan is to terraform the Red Planet by firing at least 10,000 nuclear missiles at it. The heat generated by the bombs would melt its polar ice caps, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The rapid greenhouse effect triggered, the theory goes, would raise Mars’ temperatures (and air pressure) to the point of supporting human life.

Few scientists have endorsed this idea. Indeed, Dmitry Rogozin, then-head of Russian state space agency Roscosmos, labeled the theory completely absurd and nothing more than a cover for filling space with American nuclear weapons aimed at Russia, China, and other nations, drawing Washington’s ire.

“We understand that one thing is hidden behind this demagogy: This is a cover for the launch of nuclear weapons into space,” he said. “We see such attempts, we consider them unacceptable, and we will hinder this to the greatest extent possible,” he added.

The first Trump administration’s actions, including withdrawing from multiple international anti-ballistic missile treaties, have made this process more difficult.

Elon and the Military-Industrial-Complex

Until he entered the Trump White House, many still perceived Musk as a radical tech industry outsider. Yet this was never the case. From virtually the beginning of his career, Musk’s path has been shaped by his exceptionally close relationship with the U.S. national security state, particularly with Mike Griffin of the CIA.

From 2002 to 2005, Griffin led In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capitalist wing. In-Q-Tel is an organization dedicated to identifying, nurturing, and working with tech companies that can provide Washington with cutting-edge technologies, keeping it one step ahead of its competition.

Griffin was an early believer in Musk. In February 2002, he accompanied Musk to Russia, where the pair attempted to purchase cut-price intercontinental ballistic missiles to start SpaceX. Griffin spoke up for Musk in government meetings, backing him as a potential “Henry Ford” of the tech and military-industrial complex.

After In-Q-Tel, Griffin became the chief administrator of NASA. In 2018, President Trump appointed him the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. While at NASA, Griffin brought Musk in for meetings and secured SpaceX’s big break. In 2006, NASA awarded the company a $396 million rocket development contract – a remarkable “gamble,” in Griffin’s words, especially as it had never launched a rocket. National Geographic wrote that SpaceX “never would have gotten to where it is today without NASA.” And Griffin was essential to this development. Still, by 2008, both SpaceX and Tesla Motors were in dire straits, with Musk unable to make payroll and assuming both businesses would go bankrupt. It was at that point that SpaceX was saved by an unexpected $1.6 billion NASA contract for commercial cargo services.

Today, the pair remain extremely close, with Griffin serving as an official advisor to Castelion. A sign of just how strong this relationship is that, in 2004, Musk named his son “Griffin” after his CIA handler.

Today, SpaceX is a powerhouse, with yearly revenues in the tens of billions and a valuation of $350 billion. But that wealth comes largely from orders from Washington. Indeed, there are few customers for rockets other than the military or the various three-letter spying agencies.

In 2018, SpaceX won a contract to blast a $500 million Lockheed Martin GPS into orbit. While military spokespersons played up the civilian benefits of the launch, the primary reason for the project was to improve America’s surveillance and targeting capabilities. SpaceX has also won contracts with the Air Force to deliver its command satellite into orbit, with the Space Development Agency to send tracking devices into space, and with the National Reconnaissance Office to launch its spy satellites. All the “big five” surveillance agencies, including the CIA and the NSA, use these satellites.

Therefore, in today’s world, where so much intelligence gathering and target acquisition is done via satellite technology, SpaceX has become every bit as important to the American empire as Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Simply put, without Musk and SpaceX, the U.S. would not be able to carry out such an invasive program of spying or drone warfare around the world.

Global Power

An example of how crucial Musk and his tech empire are to the continuation of U.S. global ambitions can be found in Ukraine. Today, around 47,000 Starlinks operate inside the country. These portable satellite dishes, manufactured by SpaceX, have kept both Ukraine’s civilian and military online. Many of these were directly purchased by the U.S. government via USAID or the Pentagon and shipped to Kiev.

In its hi-tech war against Russia, Starlink has become the keystone of the Ukrainian military. It allows for satellite-based target acquisition and drone attacks on Russian forces. Indeed, on today’s battlefield, many weapons require an internet connection. One Ukrainian official told The Times of London that he “must” use Starlink to target enemy forces via thermal imaging.

The controversial mogul has also involved himself in South American politics. In 2019, he supported the U.S.-backed overthrow of socialist president Evo Morales. Morales suggested that Musk financed the insurrection, which he dubbed a “lithium coup.” When directly charged with his involvement, Musk infamously replied, “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it!” Bolivia is home to the world’s largest lithium reserves, a metal crucial in producing batteries for electric vehicles such as the ones in Musk’s Tesla cars.

In Venezuela last year, Musk went even further, supporting the U.S.-backed far-right candidate against socialist president Nicolás Maduro. He even went so far as to suggest he was working on a plan to kidnap the sitting president. “I’m coming for you Maduro. I will carry you to Gitmo on a donkey,” he said, referencing the notorious U.S. torture center.

More recently, Musk has thrown himself into American politics, funding and campaigning for President Trump, and will now lead Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE’s stated mission is to cut unnecessary and wasteful government spending. However, with Musk at the helm, it seems unlikely that the billions of dollars in military contracts and tax incentives his companies have received will be on the chopping block.

At Trump’s inauguration, Musk garnered international headlines after he gave two Sieg Heil salutes – gestures that his daughter felt were unambiguously Nazi. Musk – who comes from a historically Nazi-supporting family – took time out from criticizing the reaction to his salute to appear at a rally for the Alternative für Deutschland Party. There, he said that Germans place “too much focus on past guilt” (i.e., the Holocaust) and that “we need to move beyond that.” “Children should not feel guilty for the sins of their parents – their great-grandparents even,” he added to raucous applause.

The tech tycoon’s recent actions have provoked outrage among many Americans, claiming that fascists and Nazis do not belong anywhere near the U.S. space and defense programs. In reality, however, these projects, from the very beginning, were overseen by top German scientists brought over after the fall of Nazi Germany. Operation Paperclip transported more than 1,600 German scientists to America, including the father of the American lunar project, Wernher von Braun. Von Braun was a member of both the Nazi Party and the infamous elite SS paramilitary, whose members oversaw Hitler’s extermination camps.

Thus, Nazism and the American empire have, for a long time, gone hand in hand. Far more disturbing than a man with fascist sympathies being in a position of power in the U.S. military or space industry, however, is the ability the United States is seeking for itself to be impervious to intercontinental missile attacks from its competitors.

On the surface, Washington’s Iron Dome plan may sound defensive in nature. But in reality, it would give it a free hand to attack any country or entity around the world in any way it wishes – including with nuclear weapons. This would upend the fragile nuclear peace that has reigned since the early days of the Cold War. Elon Musk’s help in this endeavor is much more worrying and dangerous than any salutes or comments he could ever make.

From MintPress News

Igor Strelkov (machine translated)

Thoughts on what would be good not to come true (as of 2025)

So, the situation for the Russian Federation is characterized negatively: by the end of the third year of the war, none of the tasks previously declared as “goals of the SVO” have been accomplished or are close to being accomplished:

1) The “Zelensky regime” has not been overthrown, but is holding on stronger than in 2022. “Under the war”, the “derussification” of Ukraine continued at an accelerated pace, the UOC of the Moscow Patriarchate was reformed, Nazi propaganda “brainwashed” the population, hatred of Russia not only did not decrease, but also increased many times over.

2) No “demilitarization of Ukraine” was achieved. On the contrary, there is a huge (several hundred thousand) group in front of our front, armed perhaps better than before the start of the Special Military Operation, well organized, experienced, resilient and (despite war fatigue) showing no signs of imminent disintegration. Part of this group is conducting military operations on the territory of the “old regions” of the Russian Federation – in the Kursk region, from where our troops have not been able to dislodge the enemy for more than 4 months. The Armed Forces of Ukraine are increasing missile and drone attacks on the deep rear of our troops, reaching the Volga and further, hitting industrial and infrastructure facilities on a scale that is increasing month by month.

3) The territories of the “new regions” (except for the Luhansk People’s Republic) have not been liberated from the enemy: the enemy continues to firmly hold the capital and the right-bank part of the Kherson region, the capital and a significant part of the Zaporizhzhya region, significant territories of the DPR. Our successes in the Kharkov region are insignificant and have not gone beyond the purely tactical. There is no chance that all the “constitutional” territories of the Russian Federation can be liberated by military means in the near future.

To sum it up – the SVO, in the form in which it began, failed (did not achieve the set goals).

At one time, one general, looking at the field of an already lost battle, said to Napoleon: “The battle is lost, but we still have time to win the second one.” (This was in the battle of Marengo, which ended with the defeat of the seemingly victorious Austrian army). The fact is that General Desaix brought reserves with him and they completely changed the course of the battle.

Do we and the enemy have reserves?

In the first case, the answer is ambiguous. Theoretically, “yes!” There are, and very significant ones. Our country is still not at war, only the army is. The mobilization of the armed forces and industry (rear, the entire economy, etc.) has not been carried out, except for individual (non-comprehensive) measures of a “one-off” nature. As a result, we still have a significant mobilization potential, which, theoretically, could be used.

But “in practice” we have a completely opposite and depressing picture: the army, which did not receive timely and sufficient means to achieve a decisive victory, is exhausted and bled dry. Its forces are still sufficient to hold the front and even in places (“at a snail’s pace”) to move forward with difficulty, achieving purely tactical (but very “costly”) successes. But the prospects for achieving a strategic victory – to defeat the opposing enemy forces and force him (at least!) to sign peace “on our terms” are more than doubtful. Simply put – our troops can “drag out time in the hope of a lucky break” for quite a long time, but not to win. At least in their current form.

Will general mobilization help us now (I emphasize!)? – But I find it difficult to answer this question unequivocally. On the one hand, Napoleon (as in the battle of Marengo) would have been able to masterfully use all the reserves that had arrived. On the other hand, we don’t seem to have any “Napoleons” here.

The country, the army and the population are already very tired of the three-year bloody and, to put it mildly, not very successful military campaign. The industry is acutely feeling the lack of technical resources, and the reserves of military equipment, in all likelihood, are close to exhaustion (“thanks” to the “Syrian adventure”, “sales” for free/on credit from Rosoboronexport, “gifts” to “our African friends”, etc., etc.). I am not sure (I do not have the information, but I have doubts): can the Ministry of Defense now arm, clothe, shoe, train, organize, feed, form into units and formations, and then introduce into battle at least another half a million fighters? And for a strategic victory over just “Ukraine” (I emphasize!) no less is needed (and certainly not one and a half to two times more), and these half a million need to be “delivered to the front” not “by bringing water in glasses,” but immediately or (in extreme cases) in two or three stages.

In addition to the “technical issues”, a second question arises: how will the country/people react to this very general mobilization now – after “three years of bloody drudgery”? Will we not receive, instead of the long-awaited large reserves for the front, “fuel” for a revolt of the mobilized? Similar to what happened in Petrograd in February 1917? But the prerequisites for this exist, as there are (I am more than sure of this) forces ready to initiate such a revolt in the so-called “elite”, the discontent of the “liberal-Western” part of which is hardly a secret for the country’s leadership and the special services. It seems that such negative options come to my mind not only … They are possibly taken into account when determining the already openly declared (I just heard it spoken by the patriarch today) “course towards a speedy peaceful settlement”: “Peace, you say? – Well, as is well known. “A bad peace is better than a good war.”

But will Moscow live to see this “bad peace”? – I personally doubt it… And to demonstrate the validity of my doubts, I will move on to characterizing the situation (according to my estimates, of course) in the enemy camp. And I will state: while waging a total war, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have reserves. They have them now and in the near future. According to various data (that have reached me), from 150 to 300 thousand newly mobilized servicemen are undergoing combat training in EU countries. Plus, some of the military are training in the so-called “Ukraine” itself. Let’s subtract (for the sake of accuracy) 100 thousand deserters, “draft dodgers”, etc. – and still “at the end” we will get another 200 thousand enemy soldiers at the front by the spring of 2025. Let’s assume that half of them will go to replenish the broken and battered units and formations. But even 100 thousand soldiers are, in fact, 3-4 full-fledged corps (or two armies). Which the enemy is preparing (receiving equipment from the USA and Europe, which are the “inviolable rear” of the Ukrainian Armed Forces) not at all for a “truce”, but, of course, for its new offensive. And until it “burns” these (and newly created) reserves in a new attempt to break through our front – the so-called “Ukraine” will not agree to any truce. Even if it is suddenly “cut off” from the supply of weapons and equipment from the USA (from Britain, France and Germany, supplies will continue this year with a probability of 99%).

That is, there will definitely be no ceasefire in the next 4-6 months, and what happens next depends solely on how successfully and effectively our Armed Forces will repel another “attack” by a strong, experienced and well-armed enemy. I would like to believe that we will be able to repel the “offensive” as successfully as in the summer of 2023, but even when this becomes a fact rather than an assumption, the question of “what to do next?” will remain on the agenda. Since today “Ukraine” is the only one fighting against us, and who might join it tomorrow is an unclear question. But there are “candidates” – “limited participation” of NATO troops is already being discussed and has even been put on the agenda at the highest level in the EU countries. Romania’s participation in the liquidation of unfortunate Transnistria is very likely, and it is somehow even awkward to talk about the “reliability of the Turkish friend” after the events in Syria…

In order for the vultures to be afraid of “flying down on the corpse of their prey” – we must be able to show that we are “still very much alive”. And for this, again, real successes at the front are needed. And they cannot be achieved unless large and well-trained (and also controlled!) reserves are prepared.

“Our song is good – start over…”. Perhaps these words can be put in the title of this letter. If it reaches you, of course.

Igor Strelkov
07.01.2025

By Andrew Korybko

Moscow-based American political analyst with a PhD from MGIMO.

Trump’s known for his capriciousness, however, so it might be that he either didn’t mean to hint at anything at all in his latest remarks about Russia or he might unexpectedly change his mind about the compromises that he considers to be acceptable for each party during his upcoming call with Putin.

Trump said a few words about Russia shortly after his reinauguration while signing Executive Orders in the Oval Office. They’re important to interpret since they might hint at his peace plan, which he’s yet to officially reveal, but reports have circulated claiming that he’ll “escalate to de-escalate” through more sanctions against Russia and armed aid to Ukraine if Putin rejects whatever deal he offers. He’ll likewise allegedly cut Ukraine off if Zelensky rejects the same deal. Here’s what he said on Monday afternoon:

“Zelenskyy told me he wants to make a deal, I don’t know if Putin does … He might not. I think he should make a deal. I think he’s destroying Russia by not making a deal. I think, Russia is kinda in big trouble. You take a look at their economy, you take a look at their inflation in Russia. I got along with [Putin] great, I would hope he wants to make a deal.

“He’s grinding it out. Most people thought it would last about one week and now you’re into three years. It is not making him look good. We have numbers that almost a million Russian soldiers have been killed. About 700,000 Ukrainian soldiers are killed. Russia’s bigger, they have more soldiers to lose but that’s no way to run a country.”

Starting from the beginning, his claim that Zelensky “wants to make a deal” coupled with his uncertainty about Putin’s willingness might be meant to portray the latter as an obstacle to peace, thus possibly setting the stage for the previously mentioned punitive measures. As for his opinion that Putin is “destroying Russia”, that’s hyperbole but frames his counterpart as the weaker of the two, especially when contrasted with Trump’s declaration earlier that day about the start of an American Golden Age.

He then elaborated by pointing to Russia’s inflation rate, which is implied to be the result of the West’s unprecedented sanctions and correspondingly hinting at the possibility of some relief in exchange for Putin agreeing to compromise instead of continuing to pursue his maximum goals. Building upon that, citing Ukraine’s grossly inflated estimate of Russian losses might belie ignorance of the facts if he truly believes their numbers, but it could also reaffirm his expectation that Putin must compromise.

To explain, Trump seems to believe that Western sanctions’ effect on the Russian economy and the battlefield losses that Russia has suffered (both of which are exaggerated in the context that he referred to them) justify proposing compromises from Putin, not giving into his demands. For this reason, it’s likely that the earlier reports about him planning to propose something less than what his counterpart signaled would be acceptable are true, after which he’ll “escalate to de-escalate” if it’s rejected.

Observers can only speculate about the substance of his envisaged proposal, but it might look something like what was suggested at the end of this analysis here, particularly with regards to the proverbial carrots that Trump might offer Putin with regard to Ukraine’s neutrality and phased sanctions relief. As for the compromises that might be requested of Russia, these could include freezing the Line of Contact while being asked to accept only the partial demilitarization of Ukraine and practically no denazification.

Trump’s known for his capriciousness, however, so it might be that he either didn’t mean to hint at anything at all in his latest remarks about Russia or he might unexpectedly change his mind about the compromises that he considers to be acceptable for each party during his upcoming call with Putin. Nobody can therefore say with certainty what he had in mind, let alone what he’ll ultimately do, but this analysis is premised on the assumption that he might have even subconsciously let part of his plan slip.