Tag: Russia

A Proposed Peace Plan

The USA and Russia are discussing the possibility of imposing a peace on Kiev and the European Union:

A US-proposed peace plan to resolve the Ukraine conflict, reportedly developed with Moscow, requires concessions from Kiev and would amount to it giving up its sovereignty, sources have told Axios and the Financial Times. Russia has neither confirmed nor denied the proposal.

The 28-point draft framework agreement was reportedly delivered to Kiev this week by US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, according to people familiar with the matter, cited by various outlets. The sources said Witkoff has made clear that he wanted Vladimir Zelensky, who is meeting a senior US military team on Thursday, to accept the terms.

According to the Axios and the FT, the proposed plan would require Ukraine to relinquish the parts of the new Russian regions in Donbass still occupied by Kiev, cut the size of its armed forces by half and abandon key categories of weaponry. A rollback of US military assistance is also included in the framework.

On the plus side, the perspective on the Donbass appears to be realistic and the bellicose little yappy dogs are being kept out of the discussion. On the downside, I don’t see any reference to Odessa, and I am skeptical that Russia will settle for any surrender that doesn’t provide the Russians with control of that port city. Considering how things are proceeding, I don’t think I would settle for any less if I were commanding the Russian forces, given that another year of military action will probably suffice to give them control of it.

DISCUSS ON SG

Kiev Surrender in 2026

Larry Johnson observes that the fat lady appears to be singing in Ukraine:

The fat lady is singing from a balcony overlooking a city that is ablaze. Zaporhyzhia, Dneipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kherson, Kharkiv, Sumy… The Russian ground forces are attacking in all of these locations, which represents about 1,000 miles of territory stretching from Sumy in the north to Zaporhyzhia in the south. Russia is inflicting an average of 1,335 casualties a day on the Ukrainian forces, which translates into 456,695 losses in 2025 as of November 17. That is almost 40,000 per month. Add to that an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 desertions each month… That means Ukraine must recruit a minimum of 60,000 new conscripts each month just to maintain its current troop strength. That ain’t happening.

The recruitment figures cited by the Atlantic Council and the Institute for the Study of War, which represent partisan pro-Ukrainian sites, reinforce the dire state of the Ukrainian forces. When your very best friends are telling you that you are 50% short, you know things are grim.

Meanwhile, back in Kiev, Zelensky ain’t home. He’s scampering about Europe pleading for more money, but the Europeans are focused intently on the brewing corruption scandals haunting the Z-man. There is not a lot of enthusiasm for sending billions of dollars more to Ukraine as key officials in Zelensky’s government seek sanctuary in Israel.

And not just Israel either. There are reports that at least one high-ranking official has already applied for asylum in the USA.

The sooner this war ends, the better. The senseless slaughter of Ukrainian men is as pointless as the bellicose rantings of the EU politicians trying to preserve their collapsing “liberal democracies” that are by threatening to force their peoples to go to war with Russia against their collective wills.

I think the primary sticking point will be Odessa. Russia wants it, but doesn’t currently hold it. So it’s Kiev’s one significant bargaining chip, but I don’t think the war will end until Kiev’s masters are willing to cash it in for some concessions on Russia’s part.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Banned Interview

The Italian media spiked this interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for some reason:

Corriere della Sera: Units of the Russian Armed Forces are currently controlling less territory than in 2022, several weeks into what you call a special military operation. If you are truly prevailing why can’t you deliver a decisive strike? Could you also explain why you are not publicising official losses?

Sergey Lavrov: The special military operation is not a war for territories but an operation to save lives of millions of people who have lived on those territories for centuries and whom the Kiev junta seeks to eradicate – legally, by prohibiting their history, language and culture, and physically, by using Western weapons. Another important goal of the special military operation is to ensure Russia’s security and to undermine the plans of NATO and the EU to create a hostile puppet state at our western borders that, by law and in reality, relies on Nazi ideology. It is not the first time we have stopped fascist and Nazi aggressors. That happened during World War II and it will happen again.

Unlike Westerners who have wiped out entire neighbourhoods, we are sparing people – both civilians and military personnel. Our armed forces are acting extremely responsibly and delivering high-precision strikes exclusively at military targets and associated transport and energy infrastructure.

It is not customary to publicise battlefield losses. I can only say that this year, Russia has transferred over 9,000 bodies of Ukrainian personnel in repatriation. We have received 143 bodies of our fighters from Ukraine. You can come to your own conclusions.

This isn’t, and has never been, a conventional war about territory and the industrial slaughter of civilians. Even if the Russians hadn’t been consistently telling everyone that for nearly four years, it’s entirely obvious from their conduct of the Special Military Operation.

If the Russians ever decide to go to actual war with NATO or the EU, the difference will be very, very clear to everyone.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Clock Ticks in Kiev

It’s increasingly clear that the Kiev regime’s Western backers are about to pull the plug on Zelensky:

The corruption scandal currently enveloping Ukraine is being described in stark – and even dire – terms by Kiev’s most ardent Western media backers. Although hardly the first instance of corruption coming to light under Zelensky’s rule, many commentators see this week’s events as the gravest threat the Ukrainian leader has faced thus far. Here’s a sampling of what’s being said.

Owen Matthews penned a widely read piece for The Spectator titled ‘The scandal that could bring down Volodymyr Zelensky’ in which he described the investigation as possibly having “momentous consequences for Zelensky’s political future.”

“A full-scale war seems to be about to break between independent anti-corruption agencies and Zelensky’s inner circle, and the consequences are likely to be ugly,” Matthews warns, while describing in vivid terms the power struggle between Ukraine’s National Security Service (SBU), which is loyal to Zelensky and “wields considerable domestic power through its control of the judicial system and prisons” and the country’s Western-backed anti-corruption agencies.

None of this is news. The corruption of the Kiev regime was well known prior to the launch of the Special Military Operation in 2022. What has changed is that the mouthpieces of Clown World have been instructed to start covering it, or in some cases, finally been given permission to pay attention to the obvious.

And that indicates that regime change is coming, sooner rather than later. Whether the new puppet will be permitted to surrender to the inevitable is the only real question that matters.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Warning to the EU

In response to Russia’s military victories in Ukraine, the desperate and unpopular leaders of the European Union’s member-states are getting increasingly bellicose with regards to Russia.

  • Berlin is prepared for a war with Moscow and stands ready to facilitate the deployment of 800,000 NATO troops towards the Russian border, the head of the nation’s joint operations command, Lieutenant General Alexander Sollfrank, has said.
  • Swedish Prime Minister calls for ‘long-term isolation’ of Russia. Ulf Kristersson has pledged to contribute to the military budgets of European NATO members, citing the alleged threat from Moscow.
  • The Belgian military has sent 149,000 letters to all 17-year-olds in the country, outlining the benefits and encouraging them to consider a year of voluntary service once they turn 18, Defense Minister Theo Francken has announced.

Which, I suspect, is why Russia has stepped up its campaign to turn off the lights and heat in Ukraine.

Last night Russia struck Ukraine with what is being called the largest ballistic missile attack of the entire nearly-four-year-long war. Ukraine’s main energy authority reported literally every one of their thermal power plants was down in the country amid widespread blackouts.

I think this was the most perspicacious take on the increased size of the attacks on the Ukrainian energy grid.

The purpose of the energy grid strikes isn’t to take out the grid, but to 1) create problems, tension and lots of busywork for the ukrainian rear, 2) bring the grid to the edge, to a point where a single strike package targeting 750 kVs and NPPs could take it out for real, 3) as a consequence of 2), be ready to escalate at a moment’s notice once a “third party” comes into play. I think people severely underestimate how much Russian planning goes into preparing for the eventual open NATO/EU entry into the war. it’s also a demonstration for the latter to disincentivize that. “look at how much stuff in europe we could be blowing up every single night and there’s nothing you could do against it, so stay the fuck out”

Neither 800,000 troops nor universal military drafts can protect the European states against Russia destroying all of their electrical grids and literally putting Europeans right back into the dark ages without risking a single Russian soldier’s life. The fundamental vulnerability of Europe was revealed by the Germans’ foolish decision to stop buying Russian gas, and the intrinsically industrial nature of attritional 5GW illustrates how shutting down the grid is directly related to eliminating a military’s ability to produce the drones it needs to fight.

NATO not only cannot hope to win a war with Russia, but the advent of 5GW means that NATO cannot even defend the European standard of living against a Russian decision to reduce it to below the first-world standards of the last fifty years.

Ukraine has already been reduced to moving its drone factories outside of Ukraine in order to keep manufacturing them. Russia is now making it very clear that if the EU doesn’t stand down and stay out of the war, it will eliminate the EU’s very ability to wage war without even needing to invade any of the EU’s member states.

DISCUSS ON SG

Russia Takes Pokrovsk

  • NOVEMBER 6: Ukraine appears at increasing risk of losing the city of Pokrovsk, an important stronghold in eastern Ukraine where its embattled defenders have held off Russia’s grinding assaults for more than a year and a half.
  • NOVEMBER 7: Russian forces appear to be on the brink of finally seizing the eastern Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk.
  • NOVEMBER 8: The city of Pokrovsk in Ukraine has fallen to the Russian Army.   The Ukrainian Army defending Pokrovsk utterly collapsed.  Zelensky has been notified the city is lost.

The significance of the Russians taking control of Pokrovsk is that it was the last fortified position between the Russian front and the Dnieper River, which I have always believed to be one of the Russian’s primary objective. Given the nature of the terrain to the west of the city, it should take very long for the Russians to push the front forward to the river, and thereby extend the effective battlespace to 25 kilometers beyond the far side of the river.

The advent of 5GW is going to have a major change on tactics, operations, and strategy alike. For example, having control of the dronespace means that river crossings are almost certainly going to be much, much easier than they were in the WWII era, which has obvious operational and strategic implications.

It’s also worth noting that the Russians took Pokrovsk much faster, and at much lower cost, than they did previous fortified cities like Maripol and Bakhmut.

DISCUSS ON SG

5GW: The Extension of the Battlefield

As I previously wrote in The Fifth Generation of Modern War: Drones, Attrition, and the Collapse of the Logistics Sanctuary, the advent of drone warfare, combined with the digital elements that make it uniquely lethal, genuinely represents a new generation of modern war. It is clear that the Russians understand this much more clearly, and are able to describe it and articulate the issues much better than Western military historians and strategists, because they are actively engaged in it.

Simplicius quotes the retired General Yuri Baluyevsky, Russia’s Chief of General Staff from 2004-2008, from his recent article on the current revolution in military affairs, as well as a Russian source working in logistics on the Pokrovsk front, that explain and underline how this really is a new generation of war, the chief aspect of which is the massive extension of the battlespace well beyond the traditional battlefield.

The piece urges for Russia to adapt to this ‘new reality’ as soon as possible. The urgency stems from the stated thesis that drone tech capabilities will increase faster than the effective means of countering them:

It is unlikely that there will be an expert who denies the revolutionary changes in military affairs – the “unmanned revolution” or the “drone war revolution.” Perhaps, in a broader sense, it could be called the “digital war.” There is every reason to believe that this process will continue to expand and deepen, as the potential for increasing the “drone war” exceeds the ability to effectively counter this type of weapon.

The authors go on to elaborate that drones are getting progressively cheaper and smaller while increasing their range. In the near future, they note, the tactical rear will become a total “zone of extermination”—which it has essentially already become according to many frontline reports.

The tactical battlefield and the rear, tens of kilometers away from the line of contact, will essentially become a “zone of extermination.” Naturally, countering these threats will be a top priority. As a result, the armed struggle will primarily focus on gaining “drone supremacy” in the air. Consequently, the organization of military forces must align with the goals and objectives of achieving such supremacy in the air and space.

In light of the above, here is an interesting breakdown from a Russian channel on the Pokrovsk direction, describing just how the situation has evolved in terms of logistics and putting units in positions.

We continue our difficult work to supply our assault units in the Pokrovsk direction. This month, the main focus was on the assault units and their communication and survival on the battlefield.

First, we need to explain what the line of contact looks like in this direction, and in general, in general, now-on the entire front. First, military personnel assembled and ready to perform their combat tasks are brought to the assembly point 20-25 km from the front line. Then they wait for the command. They are loaded at the beginning of the next segment and dropped off at a point approximately 10-13 km from the LBS (line of contact), where they can stay for some time – from several hours to several days. This is a nearby evacuation point from which you can almost guarantee to escape and survive.

Then there is the next drop-off at a point 5-7 km from the LBS – it is not possible to drive any further. All drops-offs and movements across the terrain among minefields and open areas are carried out by guides.
Then, on foot, they reach the point from which the assault may begin. From there, they approach the positions. As a rule, only half of them reach the positions, while the rest are injured or killed by drone strikes.

A pair of stormtroopers who have reached the ruins of a house usually travel in pairs, hiding in the ruins and basements. They do not venture outside unnecessarily. From there, they must maintain communication with their commander to stay informed about what is happening outside, coordinate their actions with their neighbors, provide assistance, and engage in assaults. They may spend a week, a month, or two in the ruins.

If the weather is bad: fog, rain, snowfall, then losses are sharply reduced. FPV drones almost do not fly in the rain – droplets stick to the camera. The water curtain strongly jams the signal at 5.8 Ghz. However, the enemy artillery begins to work more actively.

The wiring of any armored group is usually noticed by the enemy 10-15 km before the LBS. By the time it reaches the initial positions for the attack, there are already dozens of enemy FPV drones in the sky and dozens more ready to launch. All of this then falls on the armored group and the paratroopers. Yes, it’s difficult for our troops, and there are casualties, but we are still able to drop paratroopers and advance. Our main losses are in the form of wounded soldiers.

As per the description above, the 25km-from-LoC zone has already become extremely dicey, where dispersion is necessary for survival. Then from 5-7km onward, it essentially becomes the ‘death zone’, to borrow mountaineering terminology.

Baluyevsky and his co-author state that the chief development of the modern battlefield is the total doing-away with the ‘fog of war’, initiating an era of complete battlefield transparency.

War has fundamentally changed and these changes don’t just change and expand the tactical battlefield, it indicates tremendous changes to the logistical art, the operational art, the strategic art, and even the geostrategic balance of power.

DISCUSS ON SG

London Throws in the Towel

One of Clown World’s senior mouthpieces, The Times, indicates that London and Brussels have given up any hope of winning their proxy war in Ukraine.

It is bitter to say, but Kiev will not last until spring. Despite all the encouraging words from the EU, there is simply no money or desire to continue to defend Ukraine.

Like others in the West, I admire the steadfastness of Ukrainians in their long, often inventive struggle against the Russians. However, with the approach of winter, Vladimir Zelensky‘s chances of holding out are melting before our eyes. Money for weapons, medicine and heat for Ukraine is running out. The Western will to support the conflict is fading. The defense of Kiev as an independent capital is no longer considered a strategic priority.

A different picture may emerge when looking at the rhetoric of European officials — the same von der Leyen calls on Europe to “fight for its values and the right to self—determination” – or at the lively actions at the front and in diplomatic corps. American sanctions are hitting Rosneft and Lukoil, trying to undermine the economic basis of the Putin regime.

But none of the above changes the course of the conflict much.

It will probably be another six months before Clown World bows to the inevitable, another half-year of needless suffering and death in Ukraine and unnecessary economic damage to the Western economies, but the end is now in sight.

Putin and the Russian generals have been very patient, and very cautious, as befits the heirs of Kutuzov, but the time will come when the mass Zhukovian offensive will be launched and it will probably be much larger than any Western analyst expects.

DISCUSS ON SG

A US Military Withdrawal

The US pulls a brigade out of Romania:

The US is withdrawing some troops from Romania, on NATO’s eastern flank, as the Pentagon works to shift its focus away from Europe and toward homeland defense and Latin America, US and European officials said on Wednesday.

The US is sending home the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division back to Kentucky and will not be replacing the unit after its scheduled rotation out of Eastern Europe, according to US Army Europe and Africa. The redeployment comes as eastern flank NATO countries have faced a spike in threats from Russia in recent weeks, including multiple drone incursions in Polish airspace and repeated violations of Lithuanian airspace.

The Army said the reduction in troops is part of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “deliberate process to ensure a balanced U.S. military force posture. This is not an American withdrawal from Europe or a signal of lessened commitment to NATO and Article 5,” the Army press release said. “Rather this is a positive sign of increased European capability and responsibility. Our NATO allies are meeting President Trump’s call to take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe. This force posture adjustment will not change the security environment in Europe.”

Translation: the US military is not going to help Ukraine defend Odessa.

The Army press release notwithstanding, European military capabilities have declined over the last two years, they have not increased in the slightest as their economies collapse and social unrest rises. While the US is unlikely to do what it obviously should, and withdraw entirely from the European zone in order to focus on its own sphere of influence, whoever is calling the shots clearly recognizes that fighting Russia in Europe is a war that it cannot hope to win.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Last Bluff

Big Serge explains the real reason why the USA cannot afford to provide any Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine:

The basic pattern here is well established. The United States has done what it can to backstop Ukrainian strike capabilities, but it has held them at a level where Ukraine’s damage output falls far short of decisive levels. So long as that is the case, Russia has clearly demonstrated that it will simply eat the punches and retaliate against Ukraine. Hence, when the United States helps Ukraine target Russian oil facilities, it is Ukraine that receives the reprisal, and it is Ukraine which has its natural gas production annihilated as the winter approaches. In a sense, neither side is really trying to deter the other at all. The United States has raised the cost of this war for Russia, but not enough to create any real pressure for Moscow to end the conflict; in response, Russia punishes Ukraine, which is something the United States does not really care about. The result is a sort of geostrategic Picture of Dorian Gray, where the United States vicariously inflicts cathartic damage on Russia, but Ukraine accrues all the soul damage.

In the case of Tomahawks, the risk-reward calculus is just not there. Tomahawks are a strategically invaluable asset that the United States cannot afford to hand out like candy. Even if the launch systems could be provided (highly doubtful), the missiles could not be made available in sufficient quantities to make a difference. The range of the missiles, however, significantly raises the probability of miscalculation or uncontrolled escalation. Ukraine shooting American missiles at energy infrastructure in Belgorod or Rostov is one thing; shooting them at the Kremlin is another thing entirely.

There is, however, another aspect of this which seems to be garnering little attention. The biggest risk of sending Tomahawks is not that the Ukrainians will blow up the Kremlin and start World War Three. The bigger risk is that the Tomahawks are used, and Russia simply moves on after eating the strikes. Tomahawks are arguably one of the last – if not the last – rung in the escalation ladder for the USA. We have rapidly run through the chain of systems that can be given to the AFU, and little remains except a few strike systems like the Tomahawk or the JASSM. Ukraine has generally received everything it has asked for. In the case of Tomahawks, however, the United States is running the most serious risk of all: what if the Russians simply shoot down some of the missiles and eat the rest of the strikes? It’s immaterial whether the Tomahawks damage Russian powerplants or oil refineries. If Tomahawks are delivered and consumed without seriously jarring Russian nerves, the last escalatory card will have been played. If Russia perceives that America has reached the limits of its ability to raise the costs of the war for Russia, it undercuts the entire premise of negotiations. More simply put, Tomahawks are most valuable as an asset to threaten with.

The USA has been relentlessly bluffing, and the Russians have been relentlessly calling those bluffs, since the launch of the Special Military Operation nearly four years ago. There can be little doubt that the Russians will do the same thing if the Tomahawks are deployed against them, and then the US military will be revealed as the paper tiger it is so far outside its zone of influence.

Which, of course, is the one thing the US military cannot afford to happen in light of its global pretensions and asymmetric war with China.

DISCUSS ON SG