Bit by bit Ukraine builds its capacities. The choice for the Gripen is historical, showing the US legacy arms industry Europe can and will prevail on its own. It's so very strange to see that NATO cannot deliver what it was intended for: to engage Russia on the battlefield. It's almost unreal to watch Russia get beaten on this scale by Ukraine. It's happening through innovation and resilience, although Russia has already shown this war it can adapt to changing Ukrainian tactics. Ukraine is simply outpacing Russian innovation at the moment. Let us hope it stays that way.
Has anyone any idea what morale is like in the Russian army? I would have thought it was rock bottom given the vulnerability to Ukrainian drones. I sometimes wonder if the current situation has parallels with 1917. Finally, what are the feelings in the provinces where most of the army recruitment takes place? Families get paid large sums of money for losing their sons but is that all that matters?
The stories are not good for the Russians, but we need to be careful as the evidence is mostly anecdotal and the Russians often cycle through their soldiers so quickly that it could prevent morale collapses from happening.
During WW1, men were being slaughtered on both sides due to advances in technology, machine guns etc, yet morale held with the exception of the Russian front. Perhaps I underestimate Russian belief in their ‘cause’ as expounded by Putin. Rather than morale, exhaustion could be the key factor, as it was with Germany in 1918.
So that's an interesting point. Morale in the army doesn't matter because they'll be dead and replaced in a week.
The question then is morale among the people being RECRUITED for the army. When they just start refusing to go, or shooting the recruiters; or when they go to training, but as soon as they get issued guns, immediately shoot their "commanding officers"; then it's over. What will it take to get to this point?
Has anyone any idea what morale is like in the Russian army?
I don't think it is much different from usual. It was never "highly motivated patriots". But the draconian measures, the officers bullying the enlisted, threats and punishments and the general sense of fatalism tend to keep things moving more than high morale. Given that money is the main motivation, I think there is little short of it being widely known that no one is being paid any more that would actually cause them to stop joining. Once you're in, though, there's a gun to your head.
Finally, what are the feelings in the provinces where most of the army recruitment takes place?
My friend who lives in Moscow is originally from Chita. In her words not only the families but also the soldiers themselves were happy to go because of the big bag of cash which would go to the family. The ones who aren't, I suppose, have to deal with the fact that their husband etc was keen enough to go before they deal with the government having sent him there. So a large part of the public dissent has still got a lid kept on it because it is still mostly a volunteer system. If there was another mobilisation you might see a public outcry.
Yes, I can see the bags of cash argument, particularly in the remotest and poorest regions. But there had to be limits, surely. A woman has 3 sons, they are all killed, but no problem, she had $100,000 plus to enjoy in her old age. I am sceptical.
I haven't heard of three sons dying. There are for sure a small cluster of women who have made some form of public address or protest having lost their sons in war. However, the main problem is that most of the deceased are actually older (40-60) and are usually from the lowest caste socially - sometimes unemployed or underemployed, sometimes without families, poor upbringing - and these are the most aggressively targeted men by recruiters.
There is also the fact that Russian society particularly in the more rural areas is quite conservative, and that women are generally expected to keep quiet and support their husband's decisions. Add that to the inundation of militaristic propaganda from an early age onwards, the constant veneration of dying for the Motherland in a great patriotic war, and the repression, and you get a mostly quiet acquiescence. At least that's my best understanding of it at the moment.
We have to stop viewing Russia through the lens of European values. Europeans we liberated from serfdom hundreds of years before Russians. The mentalities are very different. Also, Russia isn’t just Russia. It is an empire of dozens of countries and peoples. Moscow has perfected its system of extraction. Look at GDP per capital in Moscow vs. the rest of Russia.
Not good. Rock bottom is a good description. I do a weekly roundup that includes 'Russia's 'Invincible' War Machine'. This week, that section covers empty first aid kits, two more fake stormings of Ukrainian towns so that officers can claim bonuses whilst their men die, claims of a 'drone drought' on the frontline, more ill-equipped cripples being sent to their deaths, the confirmed death of a serial killer and multiple rapist, and more. And those stories could have appeared in the bulletin at any time since 2024.
With Ukraine controlling the southern supply routes, the possibility of another 1917 on the Southern Front is rising. That said, Putin and the Kremlin are well aware of this. Their Chechen and FSB barrier troops are shoot anyone who mutinies or deserts and the frontline soldiers know this. It's why they keep on marching into the meat grinder in the face of 95% casualties.
According to my friend, yes they are, though maybe there are cases where it doesn't happen. As low info as these 'kontraktniki' are, it would still be pretty bad for Russia's recruitment if it became known that they weren't getting paid at all. The govt seems to be prioritising the payments.
So then does it collapse when the payments stop being *worth anything*? I.e. when hyperinflation is triggered?
Seems like the key weak point here is the Russian economy. Russia has obviously been doing strange things to prevent the ruble from collapsing. How long can they keep that up? The expertise of Elvira Nabiullina is the only thing keeping the war going, it seems like.
Are they having to drag people off the streets yet? Have recruitment centres been subject to arson attacks yet? Are recruiters beaten on the streets? Are they requesting that other countries return any military aged males who have left? One side has.
That has been happening for years now, and yet the long-awaited collapse in Ukrainian manpower that certain people have been hoping for simply hasn’t happened.
I don't like forced conscription any more than the next man, but it happens in instances where nations are fighting for their survival.
One of the biggest instances of forced conscription in human history took place in the Soviet Union during WW2, on a scale many magnitudes larger than what is happening in Ukraine today. It does make the ostentatious celebration, by supporters of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of the Soviet Union's "Victory Day" over the Third Reich heavily ironic because such people are assiduous in noting as many instances of forced conscription in Ukraine as they possibly can.
Oh, you’re referring to Ukrainians who are paid as Russian contractors and proved to be such in a court of law? Yes, the Russian hybrid warfare machine is always at work, well-developed after decades of use, and highly dangerous. (Just look at what’s it’s done to Adrian Kent.)
I have heard two themes repeated from reporters interacting with Russian solders. The soldiers have been:
(1) propaganda believers. I.e., Ukrainians are evil OR big bad Europe is the hidden hand we are fighting
(2) total lack of agency / total fatalism and very low expectations from those seen to deciding their lives. I.e., my lot in life is not to wonder why but to do as I am told and probably die.
It is amusing and weird to read about European NATO members seeing wardrones entering their territory and exploding on their soil. They cry for NATO to come help them. NATO responds helplessly by deploying fighter jets, observing Shahed flight paths and taking notes.
When will the affected states themselves start building/ buying interceptor drones and drone sensors in mass, and distribute that equipment and their own soldiers across their own exposed borders? Just like Ukraine has to do.
European states, not the least European electors, must realize that we are increasingly dragged into this new kind of warfare.
Ukraine had to learn the hard way. Europe is 4 years behind in those lessons. Europe could start by reading and understanding this newsletter.
I’m not sure they all see it as lucky. A cynic would say they are using Ukrainian suffering to buy them time to reorganize their militaries, test their weapons, and to use defense spending for economic stimulus. That’s not just me talking. That’s what the heads of several European militaries have said.
I don't know if it's cynical because Europe chose helplessness. There is no way to turn around their defense industry in a short timespan. In fact, it would be cynical if they were not doing that so their politicians don't have to do the hard work of rallying their citizens and taxing their billionaires to pay for it.
The Europeans are extremely reluctant to admit that Russia might have plans beyond Ukraine. The mindset is, we do not want war!!!! If we ignore this, maybe it will go away.
"These states combined have the money, technology and military capabilities to both help Ukraine and establish a new Europe". Agree, and looking more closely at the map, Belarus, which is just as much a European state as Poland and Ukraine, once Putin is gone and Lukashenko toppled, would fit in very nicely to this new European grouping.
Not clearly enough. Not as clearly as the Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Finns, Romanians, East Germans, Moldovans, Czechs and Ukrainians have done.
Wait, what? I thought once you hit 3.50001% of popular support for non-violent resistance that you automagically won and everything was rainbows and unicorns. Are you saying that this didn't happen in Belarus? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked 😱
"NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte affirmed “that NATO stands ready to defend every inch of Allied territory.”"
Well, it would be nice if they could start any time. I thought putting AD assets west of the Dnipro would allow Ukraine to send them further east, but it seems even being bombed NATO does not have the will to put any troops in Ukraine at all (publicly).
On the media issue: there have been some truly dreadful lines showing either how little they understand things, or how nuance just flies out the window. Example, from this CNN video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9GkUkIaOno
Description: "Nine months ago, Ukraine was near collapse—short on troops and money and losing ground. A surge of robots, drones and tech has flipped the war, turning Ukraine into a frontline startup military that's now challenging Russia’s larger force." Near collapse? Who decided that? They were hard pressed sure, and still are, but collapse is Germany in November 1918, not this.
About the mid-range strikes: "This, at least, is what the Ukrainians are saying. Take a Russian army that has to attack and collapse it from behind." This makes me think of the 'infrastructure campaign' of 1944-45, and that while it was really hard to destroy all of Germany's production, being all spread out and pushed underground, it was more effective to ruin their rail and road systems and this additionally made production less efficient. It does seem to be the right strategy, though I would like to see that Alabuga drone factory being destroyed too.
I think that is overly simplistic. Ukraine can collapse economically in a matter of months of the Europeans stop the finding. It was weeks away from a crisis before Orbans defeat.
Yes, and all the sides could collapse in a week's time if all the soldiers decided to go home and all the workers decided to go on vacation, but that isn't going to happen either. The EU would have stepped in either way even as individual countries to prevent a funding collapse, they can't afford to let that happen.
When? There is no European movement to include it while it is at war with Russia. The current situation is working to well for them (see my previous comment).
Since the EU is not a real federation and NATO is practically toothless, I find it very good news that the Nordic and Baltic states (especially Germany) are forming an alliance with Ukraine. They have the strength and the will to form an effective challenge to Russia, maybe effective enough to discourage more attempts by Russia to re establish its old empire.
Alliance is way to generous a word. They are providing far more financial support than other EU countries (5-10x). Because they need Ukraine to keep fighting the Russians for them.
In terms of logistic attacks, I have not heard much new. The Russians were doing alot of that earlier, but they do not seem to be able to keep the Ukrainians from deploying their piloted drone forces for now. I will ask around.
Let me rephrase : just as Ukraine is progressing well with attacks on Russian economic, military industry and logistic targets, to what extent is Russia doing the same to Ukraine?
Technology favouring the attacker in this specific instance? Or should your comment about piloted drones be taken to mean Ukraine is managing to shoot down incoming missiles better than Russia is ?
For reasons which must be ideological, Russia prefers to waste its limited deep-strike capabilities on schools, apartment buildings, and post offices. This is definitely an advantage for Ukraine.
Whatever my motivations Punksta - I remain the only commentor around here who is in any way bothered by Ukrainian losses - which is why I keep plugging away with the chickenhawks.
Actually I'm a supporter of the traditional idea of mutual, indivisible security - the idea that the security of one side shouldn't always take precedence of that of the other. The kind of traditional thinking that led to the Helsinki accords.
This Jeffrey Sachs essay/lecture is a good primer on this in the Russian context:
Within certain bounds yes - but that would include recognition of the rights of the Russian speaking East - and I think that ship has sailed. What would be wrong with a neutral Ukraine? There are plenty of benefits as being such - trade, diplomacy, cultural exchange etc. The Finns used to benefit from this, but their Atlanticist elites blew it now their cut off from all the cheap Russian goods and raw materials they used to have access to.
The Russian-speaking east too voted to leave Russia. Only Russian covert invasion provoked warring.
A 'neutral' Ukraine is of course just Russian imperialist (and your) spin for a defenceless Ukraine. One unable to defend against perpetual Russian aggression and invasion; subjugated, effectively recolonised.
So No, I didn't miss your comments saying Ukraine should be defendable. Because there aren't any. As suspected your agenda is 100% pro- Russian imperialism.
How many people from the 'Russian speaking East' do you actually know Adrian? Curious. The idea of a 'Donbas genocide' or some other type of oppression has been thoroughly debunked. I have a friend born and raised in Donetsk, and she now lives in Kyiv, speaks Russian and works for the government all without any problems. Her thoughts on Russia:
"I agree, but as my practice shows my former Donetsk friends were exposed to propaganda. but I think it’s because of the influence of their parents. We were 16 when the war started
They had the Internet, but they weren’t interested in why it happened or who started the war. Before the war in Donetsk in addition to Ukrainian TV channels were also Russian.
I also watched them, in 2013, when started Maidan. in Russian TV channels began to actively discuss the events that were happening in our country and prepare the Russian population for war. My mother and I knew immediately that something suspicious was happening but it was hard to believe that Russia would attack Ukraine
because the power that was in Crimea was treacherous. And in 2014, Ukraine had no weapons and no people to take back the Crimea. As I remember Crimea was taken when Yanukovych had already fled to Russia. In fact, we did not have a president. Yanukovych has been preparing Ukraine to join Russia since 2009. but the Ukrainians had other plans😅
Some in Crimea - I think they wanted to, but not everyone. Just like in Donetsk and Lugansk. There were those who went to pro-Russian rallies, and there were those who went to pro-Ukrainian rallies, and supposedly the referendums that were held they can not be taken seriously at all. Obviously, the way Russia conducts the voting.
We also had no problems with the language. it was invented by Russia to somehow justify the attack on Ukraine."
Ukraine WAS neutral. Before 2014 they were refused entry into NATO, and their opinion of Russia was more positive than today. Then Putin decided he couldn't let his puppet state slip away with Yanukovych and decided to invade, leading to where we are now.
Ukraine was neutral, then Russia demanded they veto a popular EU Accession Referendum to stop letting the Russians crash their economy. When the people protested - they were shot. The Russian-backed president fled in the Euromaidan. Seems to me that there was plenty wrong with a neutral Ukraine - in Russia.
Ukraine and Sweden have been allies fighting against russia since 1709. Swedish warrior king Charles XII was an enemy of Tsar Peter I's and his imperialist dreams to create the first russian empire. Charles XII formed an alliance with Ukrainian Hetman Ivan Mazepa to fight Tsar Peter but in 1709, Sweden and Ukraine's forces were defeated by the Muscovites at the Battle of Poltava. However, Charles XII continued to support Mazepa's successor and Ukraine's fight to become an independent state.
In 1730 Voltaire published his first book which was a history of the life and accomplishments of Charles XII. In it he wrote these immortal words:
"Ukraine has always desired to be free".
Thank you Sweden, for always standing with Ukraine!
Can the Baltic-North Sea group function as a NATO within NATO, able to act effectively without having to consider the member governments that are less committed?
France still is in business with Russia at Yermal (Total). Lots of French companies ati do business in Russia. Per capita support for Ukraine is very low compared to other countries.
Thanks Professor for the update and insights, one thing that leaves me perplexed. Why will Russia attack other NATO countries when it is having trouble with Ukraine. Wouldn’t it be wise to focus the resources against Ukraine instead of wasting on minor incursions against other NATO countries?
I don’t think Romania needs much from the US or NATO to bolster its air defenses around Galati in a way that modestly covers the other side of the Ukrainian border.
Russia will not attack in a traditional armies across the border way. They will nibble bibe nibble. Like they are doing in Moldova. Watch for the little green men in Estonia. Remember that Russia spent 10 years invading Ukraine at a low level before it went full scale.
I think the notable thing about the drones falling in Romania is that it really doesn't matter whether it was accidental as opposed to purposed. The Russians will draw the same conclusion: that NATO and by extension "the West" is not prepared to defend itself. It's very dangerous to encourage this as it might well provoke what we are desperately hoping to avoid. The ideal response would have been to say that NATO or a formation of the willing would join the Ukrainians in defending the skies over the Western section of Ukraine including shooting down all drones - not just those directed towards the border. If not this, the minimum was another round of Russian diplomatic expulsions.
I second the idea of defending the NATO nations airspace including the western section of Ukraine but I'd go further with a shoot down order for russian drones, military aircraft, and missiles. Lil' putin needs to be pushed back now before he decides he has permission to start WWIII.
I recommend people follow the war in Ukraine on YouTube by watching the frequent reports of Denys Davydov and also the ATP Geopolitics channel. While both are pro-Ukraine they report both Ukrainian successes and setbacks aggregating information from many sources and contain less outright propaganda than many other YouTube channels.
Thank you, I would welcome Ukraine becoming Nordic in spirit, and complement the contributions of the Scandis to the struggle. Also having the Nordic/Baltics continue to demonstrate leadership within NATO for a more robust response.
I'd be curious what you have to say on the recent "Heroes of the UPA" dust-up with Poland a key ally in the struggle. What this a self-inflicted wound, or just a minor flare-up driven by the media and Polish politicians?
I have to say that calling a unit the Heroes of the UPA will play about as well as naming a unit Heroes of the SS in Germany. A boneheaded move by Zelensky, who needs Polish support. Not sure what he was thinking, an unforced blunder.
Bit by bit Ukraine builds its capacities. The choice for the Gripen is historical, showing the US legacy arms industry Europe can and will prevail on its own. It's so very strange to see that NATO cannot deliver what it was intended for: to engage Russia on the battlefield. It's almost unreal to watch Russia get beaten on this scale by Ukraine. It's happening through innovation and resilience, although Russia has already shown this war it can adapt to changing Ukrainian tactics. Ukraine is simply outpacing Russian innovation at the moment. Let us hope it stays that way.
That is so important--Europeans are going to need to do more of this to build up resilient capabilities
Has anyone any idea what morale is like in the Russian army? I would have thought it was rock bottom given the vulnerability to Ukrainian drones. I sometimes wonder if the current situation has parallels with 1917. Finally, what are the feelings in the provinces where most of the army recruitment takes place? Families get paid large sums of money for losing their sons but is that all that matters?
The stories are not good for the Russians, but we need to be careful as the evidence is mostly anecdotal and the Russians often cycle through their soldiers so quickly that it could prevent morale collapses from happening.
During WW1, men were being slaughtered on both sides due to advances in technology, machine guns etc, yet morale held with the exception of the Russian front. Perhaps I underestimate Russian belief in their ‘cause’ as expounded by Putin. Rather than morale, exhaustion could be the key factor, as it was with Germany in 1918.
So that's an interesting point. Morale in the army doesn't matter because they'll be dead and replaced in a week.
The question then is morale among the people being RECRUITED for the army. When they just start refusing to go, or shooting the recruiters; or when they go to training, but as soon as they get issued guns, immediately shoot their "commanding officers"; then it's over. What will it take to get to this point?
Has anyone any idea what morale is like in the Russian army?
I don't think it is much different from usual. It was never "highly motivated patriots". But the draconian measures, the officers bullying the enlisted, threats and punishments and the general sense of fatalism tend to keep things moving more than high morale. Given that money is the main motivation, I think there is little short of it being widely known that no one is being paid any more that would actually cause them to stop joining. Once you're in, though, there's a gun to your head.
Finally, what are the feelings in the provinces where most of the army recruitment takes place?
My friend who lives in Moscow is originally from Chita. In her words not only the families but also the soldiers themselves were happy to go because of the big bag of cash which would go to the family. The ones who aren't, I suppose, have to deal with the fact that their husband etc was keen enough to go before they deal with the government having sent him there. So a large part of the public dissent has still got a lid kept on it because it is still mostly a volunteer system. If there was another mobilisation you might see a public outcry.
Yes, I can see the bags of cash argument, particularly in the remotest and poorest regions. But there had to be limits, surely. A woman has 3 sons, they are all killed, but no problem, she had $100,000 plus to enjoy in her old age. I am sceptical.
I haven't heard of three sons dying. There are for sure a small cluster of women who have made some form of public address or protest having lost their sons in war. However, the main problem is that most of the deceased are actually older (40-60) and are usually from the lowest caste socially - sometimes unemployed or underemployed, sometimes without families, poor upbringing - and these are the most aggressively targeted men by recruiters.
There is also the fact that Russian society particularly in the more rural areas is quite conservative, and that women are generally expected to keep quiet and support their husband's decisions. Add that to the inundation of militaristic propaganda from an early age onwards, the constant veneration of dying for the Motherland in a great patriotic war, and the repression, and you get a mostly quiet acquiescence. At least that's my best understanding of it at the moment.
Strange place… no wonder that my Russian Jewish ancestors fled for their lives
Indeed. Not a good place.
You are overestimating women.
We have to stop viewing Russia through the lens of European values. Europeans we liberated from serfdom hundreds of years before Russians. The mentalities are very different. Also, Russia isn’t just Russia. It is an empire of dozens of countries and peoples. Moscow has perfected its system of extraction. Look at GDP per capital in Moscow vs. the rest of Russia.
Exactly what I was going to write! For a very different POV, read Misha Fisher on Quora.
Not good. Rock bottom is a good description. I do a weekly roundup that includes 'Russia's 'Invincible' War Machine'. This week, that section covers empty first aid kits, two more fake stormings of Ukrainian towns so that officers can claim bonuses whilst their men die, claims of a 'drone drought' on the frontline, more ill-equipped cripples being sent to their deaths, the confirmed death of a serial killer and multiple rapist, and more. And those stories could have appeared in the bulletin at any time since 2024.
With Ukraine controlling the southern supply routes, the possibility of another 1917 on the Southern Front is rising. That said, Putin and the Kremlin are well aware of this. Their Chechen and FSB barrier troops are shoot anyone who mutinies or deserts and the frontline soldiers know this. It's why they keep on marching into the meat grinder in the face of 95% casualties.
But are they REALLY getting paid that promised money for their conscripted man?
According to my friend, yes they are, though maybe there are cases where it doesn't happen. As low info as these 'kontraktniki' are, it would still be pretty bad for Russia's recruitment if it became known that they weren't getting paid at all. The govt seems to be prioritising the payments.
So then does it collapse when the payments stop being *worth anything*? I.e. when hyperinflation is triggered?
Seems like the key weak point here is the Russian economy. Russia has obviously been doing strange things to prevent the ruble from collapsing. How long can they keep that up? The expertise of Elvira Nabiullina is the only thing keeping the war going, it seems like.
Any thoughts on why Russia likely attacked Romania on purpose? Or should I say Putin (as maybe their interests diverge)?
Are they having to drag people off the streets yet? Have recruitment centres been subject to arson attacks yet? Are recruiters beaten on the streets? Are they requesting that other countries return any military aged males who have left? One side has.
That has been happening for years now, and yet the long-awaited collapse in Ukrainian manpower that certain people have been hoping for simply hasn’t happened.
I don't like forced conscription any more than the next man, but it happens in instances where nations are fighting for their survival.
One of the biggest instances of forced conscription in human history took place in the Soviet Union during WW2, on a scale many magnitudes larger than what is happening in Ukraine today. It does make the ostentatious celebration, by supporters of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of the Soviet Union's "Victory Day" over the Third Reich heavily ironic because such people are assiduous in noting as many instances of forced conscription in Ukraine as they possibly can.
I'm not hoping for it - I'm heartbroken that it's likely happening. Except for the Nazi ones obvs.
Oh, you’re referring to Ukrainians who are paid as Russian contractors and proved to be such in a court of law? Yes, the Russian hybrid warfare machine is always at work, well-developed after decades of use, and highly dangerous. (Just look at what’s it’s done to Adrian Kent.)
I have heard two themes repeated from reporters interacting with Russian solders. The soldiers have been:
(1) propaganda believers. I.e., Ukrainians are evil OR big bad Europe is the hidden hand we are fighting
(2) total lack of agency / total fatalism and very low expectations from those seen to deciding their lives. I.e., my lot in life is not to wonder why but to do as I am told and probably die.
The hot girl in the village receiving a widows allowance will keep the recruits coming in
It is amusing and weird to read about European NATO members seeing wardrones entering their territory and exploding on their soil. They cry for NATO to come help them. NATO responds helplessly by deploying fighter jets, observing Shahed flight paths and taking notes.
When will the affected states themselves start building/ buying interceptor drones and drone sensors in mass, and distribute that equipment and their own soldiers across their own exposed borders? Just like Ukraine has to do.
European states, not the least European electors, must realize that we are increasingly dragged into this new kind of warfare.
Ukraine had to learn the hard way. Europe is 4 years behind in those lessons. Europe could start by reading and understanding this newsletter.
European states are so lucky they have Ukraine protecting them
For now, Ukraine is our lightning rod. A Russia defeated in Ukraine will still be able to inflict a whole lot of shenanigans in the rest of Europe.
That's why Russia needs to be defeated and demolished. The slogan "Make Russia small again" comes to mind.
I’m not sure they all see it as lucky. A cynic would say they are using Ukrainian suffering to buy them time to reorganize their militaries, test their weapons, and to use defense spending for economic stimulus. That’s not just me talking. That’s what the heads of several European militaries have said.
I don't know if it's cynical because Europe chose helplessness. There is no way to turn around their defense industry in a short timespan. In fact, it would be cynical if they were not doing that so their politicians don't have to do the hard work of rallying their citizens and taxing their billionaires to pay for it.
The Europeans are extremely reluctant to admit that Russia might have plans beyond Ukraine. The mindset is, we do not want war!!!! If we ignore this, maybe it will go away.
"These states combined have the money, technology and military capabilities to both help Ukraine and establish a new Europe". Agree, and looking more closely at the map, Belarus, which is just as much a European state as Poland and Ukraine, once Putin is gone and Lukashenko toppled, would fit in very nicely to this new European grouping.
Indeed it would
The Belarusian people have made it very clear 6 years ago that they want Lukashenko gone.
Not clearly enough. Not as clearly as the Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Finns, Romanians, East Germans, Moldovans, Czechs and Ukrainians have done.
Wait, what? I thought once you hit 3.50001% of popular support for non-violent resistance that you automagically won and everything was rainbows and unicorns. Are you saying that this didn't happen in Belarus? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked 😱
Luka's tricky -- he's *far* more competent than Putin.
"NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte affirmed “that NATO stands ready to defend every inch of Allied territory.”"
Well, it would be nice if they could start any time. I thought putting AD assets west of the Dnipro would allow Ukraine to send them further east, but it seems even being bombed NATO does not have the will to put any troops in Ukraine at all (publicly).
On the media issue: there have been some truly dreadful lines showing either how little they understand things, or how nuance just flies out the window. Example, from this CNN video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9GkUkIaOno
Description: "Nine months ago, Ukraine was near collapse—short on troops and money and losing ground. A surge of robots, drones and tech has flipped the war, turning Ukraine into a frontline startup military that's now challenging Russia’s larger force." Near collapse? Who decided that? They were hard pressed sure, and still are, but collapse is Germany in November 1918, not this.
About the mid-range strikes: "This, at least, is what the Ukrainians are saying. Take a Russian army that has to attack and collapse it from behind." This makes me think of the 'infrastructure campaign' of 1944-45, and that while it was really hard to destroy all of Germany's production, being all spread out and pushed underground, it was more effective to ruin their rail and road systems and this additionally made production less efficient. It does seem to be the right strategy, though I would like to see that Alabuga drone factory being destroyed too.
It was nowhere near collapse--that is the media trying to pretend their earlier reports were accurate
I think that is overly simplistic. Ukraine can collapse economically in a matter of months of the Europeans stop the finding. It was weeks away from a crisis before Orbans defeat.
Yes, and all the sides could collapse in a week's time if all the soldiers decided to go home and all the workers decided to go on vacation, but that isn't going to happen either. The EU would have stepped in either way even as individual countries to prevent a funding collapse, they can't afford to let that happen.
It is very expensive to rebuild dams, power plants, hospitals, etc.
Ukraine's relations with the Nordic and Baltic countries are a major theme at the moment. Mohyla Strategic Agency just ran a strategic game, chaired by Budanov, in which an "Arctic-Baltic-Black Sea arc of deterrence" was a major theme. Also see this (if you haven't) from the Sahaidachnyi Security Centre on the Nordic-Baltic 8:https://sahasec.org/research/deepening-nb8-ukraine-defence-industrial-cooperation-a-strategic-win-win-for-european-security.
As it should be. It will be the core of a European security arrangement
When? There is no European movement to include it while it is at war with Russia. The current situation is working to well for them (see my previous comment).
The update did not cover the most important part of the war: the current status of Mala Tokmachka.
Well, lets actually see what is happening on the ground, but if the Ukrainians can move forward there....
I just wonder what that analyst on Russian TV is saying about that village now...
How important can it be? It’s name contains TWO diminutives :-)
It must be pretty important, judging by the frequency of its mentions on Russian TV. The battle for it lasted much longer than Verdun.
Since the EU is not a real federation and NATO is practically toothless, I find it very good news that the Nordic and Baltic states (especially Germany) are forming an alliance with Ukraine. They have the strength and the will to form an effective challenge to Russia, maybe effective enough to discourage more attempts by Russia to re establish its old empire.
I would not go so far yet--that is the alliance that I would like to see and which makes sense. it still has a ways to go
Alliance is way to generous a word. They are providing far more financial support than other EU countries (5-10x). Because they need Ukraine to keep fighting the Russians for them.
What though of the (rising?) attacks by Russia on Ukrainian rear areas ?
In terms of logistic attacks, I have not heard much new. The Russians were doing alot of that earlier, but they do not seem to be able to keep the Ukrainians from deploying their piloted drone forces for now. I will ask around.
Let me rephrase : just as Ukraine is progressing well with attacks on Russian economic, military industry and logistic targets, to what extent is Russia doing the same to Ukraine?
Technology favouring the attacker in this specific instance? Or should your comment about piloted drones be taken to mean Ukraine is managing to shoot down incoming missiles better than Russia is ?
Russians are targeting undefended schools and appartment buildings! Much easier than defended C2 units.
For reasons which must be ideological, Russia prefers to waste its limited deep-strike capabilities on schools, apartment buildings, and post offices. This is definitely an advantage for Ukraine.
A very good question Punksta - and as such it will likely go unanswered here.
Ha! Already answered
Yes well done you Professor, although "I'll ask around" isn't particularly impressive given your position.
It's not like the Ukranian senior command informs the professor of what's happening.
As our resident supporter of traditional Russian imperialism and fascism, I take it you put great store in those attacks.
Whatever my motivations Punksta - I remain the only commentor around here who is in any way bothered by Ukrainian losses - which is why I keep plugging away with the chickenhawks.
Your thinly disguised desire for Ukrainian capitulation noted.
Actually I'm a supporter of the traditional idea of mutual, indivisible security - the idea that the security of one side shouldn't always take precedence of that of the other. The kind of traditional thinking that led to the Helsinki accords.
This Jeffrey Sachs essay/lecture is a good primer on this in the Russian context:
https://consortiumnews.com/2025/12/24/jeffery-sachs-two-centuries-of-russophobia-rejection-of-peace/
Anyway - good luck with getting an answer to your original question.
So you'd agree Ukraine needs something like Nato to defend itself against perpetual Russian imperialism. I must have missed your comments on that.
Within certain bounds yes - but that would include recognition of the rights of the Russian speaking East - and I think that ship has sailed. What would be wrong with a neutral Ukraine? There are plenty of benefits as being such - trade, diplomacy, cultural exchange etc. The Finns used to benefit from this, but their Atlanticist elites blew it now their cut off from all the cheap Russian goods and raw materials they used to have access to.
The Russian-speaking east too voted to leave Russia. Only Russian covert invasion provoked warring.
A 'neutral' Ukraine is of course just Russian imperialist (and your) spin for a defenceless Ukraine. One unable to defend against perpetual Russian aggression and invasion; subjugated, effectively recolonised.
So No, I didn't miss your comments saying Ukraine should be defendable. Because there aren't any. As suspected your agenda is 100% pro- Russian imperialism.
How many people from the 'Russian speaking East' do you actually know Adrian? Curious. The idea of a 'Donbas genocide' or some other type of oppression has been thoroughly debunked. I have a friend born and raised in Donetsk, and she now lives in Kyiv, speaks Russian and works for the government all without any problems. Her thoughts on Russia:
"I agree, but as my practice shows my former Donetsk friends were exposed to propaganda. but I think it’s because of the influence of their parents. We were 16 when the war started
They had the Internet, but they weren’t interested in why it happened or who started the war. Before the war in Donetsk in addition to Ukrainian TV channels were also Russian.
I also watched them, in 2013, when started Maidan. in Russian TV channels began to actively discuss the events that were happening in our country and prepare the Russian population for war. My mother and I knew immediately that something suspicious was happening but it was hard to believe that Russia would attack Ukraine
because the power that was in Crimea was treacherous. And in 2014, Ukraine had no weapons and no people to take back the Crimea. As I remember Crimea was taken when Yanukovych had already fled to Russia. In fact, we did not have a president. Yanukovych has been preparing Ukraine to join Russia since 2009. but the Ukrainians had other plans😅
Some in Crimea - I think they wanted to, but not everyone. Just like in Donetsk and Lugansk. There were those who went to pro-Russian rallies, and there were those who went to pro-Ukrainian rallies, and supposedly the referendums that were held they can not be taken seriously at all. Obviously, the way Russia conducts the voting.
We also had no problems with the language. it was invented by Russia to somehow justify the attack on Ukraine."
Ukraine WAS neutral. Before 2014 they were refused entry into NATO, and their opinion of Russia was more positive than today. Then Putin decided he couldn't let his puppet state slip away with Yanukovych and decided to invade, leading to where we are now.
Ukraine was neutral, then Russia demanded they veto a popular EU Accession Referendum to stop letting the Russians crash their economy. When the people protested - they were shot. The Russian-backed president fled in the Euromaidan. Seems to me that there was plenty wrong with a neutral Ukraine - in Russia.
Are you thinking of the massive attacks on civilian personnel and infrastructure perpetrated by the Russian missiles?
Ukraine and Sweden have been allies fighting against russia since 1709. Swedish warrior king Charles XII was an enemy of Tsar Peter I's and his imperialist dreams to create the first russian empire. Charles XII formed an alliance with Ukrainian Hetman Ivan Mazepa to fight Tsar Peter but in 1709, Sweden and Ukraine's forces were defeated by the Muscovites at the Battle of Poltava. However, Charles XII continued to support Mazepa's successor and Ukraine's fight to become an independent state.
In 1730 Voltaire published his first book which was a history of the life and accomplishments of Charles XII. In it he wrote these immortal words:
"Ukraine has always desired to be free".
Thank you Sweden, for always standing with Ukraine!
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/6702
Slava Ukraini!
Can the Baltic-North Sea group function as a NATO within NATO, able to act effectively without having to consider the member governments that are less committed?
It would have to function more outside of NATO now, as the USA would be an impediment.
They are starting to do so with NORDEFCO.
NORDEFCO looks like it could serve as a think tank for planning much of the future of a NATO in which American participation is optional.
The Romanian episode should and might strengthen the need and reliance on a European defense organization. NATO is basically ethereal.
I would be happy to, Philip, to know your thoughts on the exact place and role of France into the war
France has been great rhetorically but a disappointment in actual hard military support. It needs to do more.
And yet it was the first to send tanks ( amc10) , caesar 155mm Mirage 2000 and scalp are used by Ukrainian military. So it’s a bit paradoxical
France still is in business with Russia at Yermal (Total). Lots of French companies ati do business in Russia. Per capita support for Ukraine is very low compared to other countries.
Thanks Professor for the update and insights, one thing that leaves me perplexed. Why will Russia attack other NATO countries when it is having trouble with Ukraine. Wouldn’t it be wise to focus the resources against Ukraine instead of wasting on minor incursions against other NATO countries?
Good question--perhaps to intimidate Europeans and show them how useless US security guarantees really are.
I don’t think Romania needs much from the US or NATO to bolster its air defenses around Galati in a way that modestly covers the other side of the Ukrainian border.
Russia will not attack in a traditional armies across the border way. They will nibble bibe nibble. Like they are doing in Moldova. Watch for the little green men in Estonia. Remember that Russia spent 10 years invading Ukraine at a low level before it went full scale.
I think the notable thing about the drones falling in Romania is that it really doesn't matter whether it was accidental as opposed to purposed. The Russians will draw the same conclusion: that NATO and by extension "the West" is not prepared to defend itself. It's very dangerous to encourage this as it might well provoke what we are desperately hoping to avoid. The ideal response would have been to say that NATO or a formation of the willing would join the Ukrainians in defending the skies over the Western section of Ukraine including shooting down all drones - not just those directed towards the border. If not this, the minimum was another round of Russian diplomatic expulsions.
I second the idea of defending the NATO nations airspace including the western section of Ukraine but I'd go further with a shoot down order for russian drones, military aircraft, and missiles. Lil' putin needs to be pushed back now before he decides he has permission to start WWIII.
Slava Ukraini!
I recommend people follow the war in Ukraine on YouTube by watching the frequent reports of Denys Davydov and also the ATP Geopolitics channel. While both are pro-Ukraine they report both Ukrainian successes and setbacks aggregating information from many sources and contain less outright propaganda than many other YouTube channels.
Also, if you are able, please support Ukraine by donating to United24 at https://u24.gov.ua/https://u24.gov.ua/
As a supporter of United24, I thank you for posting this!
Slava Ukraini!
Thank you, I would welcome Ukraine becoming Nordic in spirit, and complement the contributions of the Scandis to the struggle. Also having the Nordic/Baltics continue to demonstrate leadership within NATO for a more robust response.
I'd be curious what you have to say on the recent "Heroes of the UPA" dust-up with Poland a key ally in the struggle. What this a self-inflicted wound, or just a minor flare-up driven by the media and Polish politicians?
The dispute with Poland now seems at least partly motivated by domestic politics on both sides--and as such is really not helpful now.
I have to say that calling a unit the Heroes of the UPA will play about as well as naming a unit Heroes of the SS in Germany. A boneheaded move by Zelensky, who needs Polish support. Not sure what he was thinking, an unforced blunder.