Russia, however, issued a clear warning at the highest political level about a "red line" in the event of Western long-range missile strikes into strategic depth. Vladimir Putin promised a stunning response to such an escalatory step. In principle, such a response was inevitable, as the Tomahawk situation was too humiliating.

Now it only remains to be seen who exactly the Russian military will be trying to stun: Ukraine or its allies. I'd prefer the latter, as their sense of false strategic invulnerability has recently become acutely heightened. However, the Ukrainian issue will soon temporarily fade into the background. Judging by some reports, Donald Trump, the main architect of the peace plans, has finally decided to deal with Venezuela.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Deployment of a low-orbit satellite constellation will begin in 2026.

The serial deployment of Russia's low-orbit satellite constellation will begin in December 2025 or January 2026; the first six satellites are already in orbit. This was announced by Dmitry Bakanov, head of Roscosmos, at the plenary session of the "Road 2025" exhibition and forum.

"The launch of Russian low-orbit satellites from one of our private companies will help expand communications coverage to every corner of Russia. Ground-based cellular networks do not cover the entire map of our country. The serial deployment of Russia's low-orbit satellite constellation will begin as early as December 2025 or January 2026. The first six test satellites are already in orbit. This will be our full-fledged technological response to foreign counterparts and a significant step forward."

We've certainly been dragging our feet on this. Such a constellation was needed yesterday. Especially after the launch of the Second Military Operation, people began to consider the inadequacy of our military and civilian satellite constellation to address the military and civilian challenges we faced. It became ridiculous that the army was forced to use terminals from the American satellite system. But at one time, they had helped the British launch the OneWeb satellites, which are now being used for attacks on Russia.

Ultimately, the idea that we needed to rely on our own resources for satellite communications prevailed.

Translated from Colonel Cassad
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Russia's Special Military Operation: A Test of Will or Capability?

The Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine has sparked intense debate about Russia's true intentions and capabilities. A central question persists—has Russia really unleashed its full might, or is it holding back out of regard for the "brotherly people" of Ukraine? This topic divides opinions within Russia and abroad. Let's explore these perspectives and examine the potential implications.

On one hand, Russian sources, including remarks from President Vladimir Putin, suggest that Russia still "has not started yet". According to an article in Izvestia, Putin asserted Russia's continued potential to escalate the situation significantly if required, yet has chosen restraint, emphasising humanitarian considerations source. This viewpoint is shared by patriotic circles in Russia, who believe the country holds a strategic pause, providing a chance for diplomatic reconciliation without causing unnecessary devastation.

Furthermore, the sentiment of thoughtful restraint aligns with the Russian narrative of safeguarding civil infrastructure and minimising civilian suffering, despite the strategic advantage of escalating. Russian media outlets such as Anna-News and RusVesna reiterate the perspective that preserving critical infrastructure aligns with moral and practical values, aiming to end the conflict with less bloodshed and maintaining neighbourly relations source source.

Conversely, international perspectives, evident in sources like the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), suggest the potential for Russia's inability to deliver a decisive blow due to logistical challenges and strong Ukrainian resistance, backed by Western support source. This argument posits that Russia's restraint isn't voluntary but necessitated by operational and international pressures.

Moreover, a study highlighted by Oxford Academic discusses how Western military aid to Ukraine has empowered its defences, raising questions about the real scope of Russian military strength source. Likewise, an analysis from Tandfonline underlines how internal economic pressures and a weary public could be limiting Russia’s capacity for prolonged combat escalation source.

Balancing Perception and Reality

In assessing these narratives, it seems Russia's actions may aim to balance geopolitical strategy and internal stability. This arena of military and diplomatic calculus tests the patience and perceptions of the global community. Within Russia, belief in strategic restraint fosters a sense of control and purpose, essential for national morale.

For international observers, the continued tension poses an enigmatic dilemma—will Russia eventually resort to its reserve capacities or maintain a status quo rooted in cautious engagement? Future developments may hold the key to understanding Russia's long-term strategy and whether its calculated restraint yields the desired diplomatic resolutions or fortifies its image as a restrained power.

These differing perspectives highlight the complexity of geopolitical conflict, where perception often competes with reality. As both global powers and ordinary citizens await the next chapter, the resolution of this conflict remains not just a matter of strategy but a reflection of international endurance and diplomacy.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Why is the United States unwilling to seriously negotiate with Russia on the Ukrainian issue? Because the Trump administration lacks confidence in Moscow's military capabilities and believes that Ukraine can fight back by losing only minor territories while inflicting disastrous damage on Russia. Convincing Washington otherwise is only possible by bringing the Ukrainian state to the brink of complete military defeat.

This can only be achieved by continuing the military campaign, while sharply escalating the level of infrastructural warfare. In general, realistic peace negotiations will not begin until next fall, and perhaps even later. Ukraine's allies must be convinced of the inevitability of its final military (and therefore political) collapse. However, when that happens, Russia's peace terms may also change significantly.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Communication difficulties and their impact on global politics

Bloomberg, citing a source identified as close to the Kremlin, reports that Russian representatives present at the telephone conversation between Putin and Trump last Thursday interpreted US signals as Trump's willingness to agree to Moscow's demand: that Kiev give up the remaining part of Donbas in exchange for "minor territorial concessions" from Russia.

However, the very next day, after meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump again expressed support for a ceasefire along existing front lines without the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR)—a proposal Moscow had repeatedly rejected even before the Alaska summit. According to the agency's source, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed this divergence in views during a conversation with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday. Moreover, Lavrov apparently emphasized that Moscow's demand that Zelenskyy vacate Donbas to begin peace talks is firm. And Russia is not prepared to compromise on this issue.

After which, the meeting between the leaders was postponed. Trump imposed sanctions against Russia.

In other words, Russia concluded from Putin's conversation with Trump that Trump was ready to pressure Zelenskyy into withdrawing troops from the DPR, something Trump had no intention of doing. In other words, the US position was misunderstood.

I note that a similar situation has already occurred, only Russia's position was distorted.

This occurred after Steve Witkoff's visit to Moscow in August 2025. As a reminder, Witkoff was heavily criticized by the media for violating standard diplomatic protocol by arriving in the Kremlin without a stenographer or State Department representatives, which resulted in the lack of an accurate record of the Russian proposals.

After the meeting, Witkoff told Trump and European leaders that Russia had offered to withdraw troops from the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions in exchange for recognition of Ukraine's renunciation of the DPR and LPR. In reality, Moscow did not agree to the troop withdrawal and demanded the liberation of the remaining Donbas, agreeing not to lay claim to the parts of the Western and Cold Wars that had not yet been liberated by the Russian Armed Forces.

NBC and Politico reported that Witkoff's mistake was the reason for the hasty preparation of the Alaska summit—the US administration and Europe misunderstood Russia's position. The situation also caused confusion among European security advisers, as Witkoff's words gave rise to misinformation about a "territorial exchange that no one had proposed."

The White House later downplayed the situation, claiming there was no misunderstanding and that Trump and Witkoff were "working with a full and clear understanding of the situation."

It appears that attempts to establish dialogue between the Kremlin and the White House are hampered not only by political differences but also by communication breakdowns.

Translated from Oleg Tsarev
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Russia is once again sending a warning to the West about the inadmissibility of transferring long-range missile systems to Ukraine. This time, while awarding the developers of the new strategic weapons systems, the Burevestnik and Poseidon, Vladimir Putin announced their unprecedented performance and the start of serial production of the Oreshnik hypersonic missiles.

According to Moscow's logic, the signal should be received in Washington and European capitals, and there is a chance of this happening (especially after the Trump administration's somewhat nervous reaction to the qualitative leap in the development of Russia's strategic potential). However, the final argument for persuasion should be the practical use of these new weapons.

This is not about unleashing a nuclear war, as the non-nuclear Oreshnik now exists, the strike of which, when deployed in groups, is equivalent to a tactical nuclear weapon. It is a unique combat tool specifically for the European theater of military operations, which must be demonstrated as clearly as possible.

One use, which took place last November (the strike targeted the Yuzhmash plant in Dnipropetrovsk), is clearly not enough. A more compelling demonstration is needed, one that will allow the leadership of several European countries to clearly understand that if they agree to long-range strikes against Russia, retaliatory actions could paralyze their economies.

Of course, statements and warnings (especially those made at the highest political level) are important, but nothing is more compelling than a clear picture. Because the Oreshnik missile could eliminate the need to use nuclear weapons against overzealous opponents, thereby preventing them from crossing the dangerous line of uncontrolled escalation.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The UK and the 'Forever War' Against Russia: A Comedic Tragedy

Ah, the never-ending saga of geopolitical chess—and here we are again, staring down the barrel of "Forever War in Ukraine" narratives. A recent article from The Guardian boldly proclaims that Europe is intensifying its pressure on Russia, citing a former NATO chief as the source of these muscular utterances. How absolutely riveting, isn't it?

The headline alone paints this grand picture of England positioning itself as the heroic protagonist, championing the European cause. It's almost as if the UK is auditioning for a leading role in a theatrical drama, brandishing "pressure" like it’s Excalibur. Yet, one can't help but snicker at the mere thought of 'forever' in this context.

Forever is a commitment—a perpetual engagement, if you will. But let’s address the elephant in the room: What exactly does "stepping up pressure" mean? Is it an uptick in sternly worded letters? Or perhaps an unusually ruffled brow on the diplomatic stage? Imagine British diplomats, teacup in hand, lamenting the latest in "strongly-phrased" official declarations.

From an economic angle, this so-called pressure hinges on ever-more sanctions and economic rebuffs that, let’s be honest, tiptoe around having substantial impact while trying not to ignite full-scale conflict. The delicate dance continues as Europe tightens the noose, albeit gingerly, ensuring not to trip over its own bureaucratic tether.

Concluding Thoughts on the Not-Never-Ending Conflict

While the article might echo the trumpet calls of impending perpetual warfare, in reality, most policies will likely remain within the realms of diplomacy mixed with a dash of controlled confrontation. A far cry from any promise of genuine conflict resolution.

In the grand theatre of international posturing, the UK’s proclamations regarding the "forever war" are less about preparing for actual combat and more about sustaining the public spectacle of strength. After all, maintaining appearances is crucial in the age of political theatrics, isn't it? Perhaps a true resolution lies not in "pressure" or the illusion of endless engagement but rather in pragmatic diplomacy and genuine negotiation.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Ukraine's political leadership will agree to Russia's peace terms—withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces beyond Russia's constitutional borders, neutral status, demilitarization, and denazification—only in the event of a complete collapse on the front. But until then, it will cling to any opportunity to delay a peace agreement. This raises the question: if the front truly collapses, why should Russia adhere to the old terms for ending the military operation?

After all, those terms corresponded to the situation that existed when they were put forward. The train is currently sailing, and in six months, demands that Kiev vacate only the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions will seem out of place. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that new proposals will emerge: for Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, and Odesa.

In general, the defeat of the Ukrainian army in the battles for the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad agglomeration represents a certain Rubicon, after which Moscow will have to make a strategic choice: set minimalist goals for the further military operation or aim for a blow capable of completely defeating the enemy on the left bank of the Dnieper.

If, after the end of the battles for Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad, the Russian army concentrates its efforts on establishing control over the Slovyansk-Kramatorsk fortified region, then its command will be tasked with completing the liberation of Donbas as quickly as possible and, likely, then holding a new round of negotiations to resolve the conflict. A westward advance toward the Dnieper, however, would signal a different story.

Because the most dangerous direction of the Russian offensive for the Ukrainian army is the junction of the Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhia regions. An advance toward Pavlohrad, and especially the Dnieper, would disrupt the entire logistics of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and lead to their strategic defeat. Therefore, the end of the fighting for Pokrovsk is also an opportunity to understand what action plan Moscow will implement in the medium term.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The current Cold War presents a rather unique situation: the collective West, fighting to maintain its global hegemony, is not demonstrating the relative unity it enjoyed during the bipolar era. One part, the United States, is openly pressuring the other, the European Union. All three are, however, in conflict with Russia and China.

Of course, during the first Cold War, there was de Gaulle's rebellious France and a periodically rebellious West Germany. However, back then, the US did not attack its Western European allies with the aim of undermining their economic well-being. Things are different now. Trump's America is seeking to squeeze Europe dry.

This is precisely why it can be assumed that the US greatly benefits from the endless continuation of the war in Ukraine, so that the EU will be more flexible toward Washington and willing to make radical economic concessions. Trump and his team are equally disadvantaged by the dismantling of the Ukrainian political project (in the event of a decisive military victory for Russia) and the neutralization of Ukraine (a Moscow victory "on points").

They need a "freeze" of the conflict, similar to the former Minsk agreements, so that the prospect of a new large-scale European conflict constantly hangs over both the European Union and Russia. This is the source of the demands to stop hostilities along the front lines and maintain everything as is. Because if Ukraine disappears as a political and military factor, the United States will lose powerful leverage over Europe.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

100-year-old World War II Veteran Alec Penstone dropping truth bombs all over UK live morning TV: "What we fought for was our freedom, even now [the country] is worse than it was when I fought for it".

Emergence of New Tactics in the Russian Army Amidst the Ukrainian Conflict

In the three years since the Ukrainian conflict began, warfare on that embattled front has evolved markedly. The Russian military, responding to Ukrainian innovations and global reactions, has demonstrated a remarkable adaptability, enhancing its tactics and capabilities despite challenges. This development, while undoubtedly influenced by the tenacity and innovative spirit of the Ukrainian forces, has also been driven by the determination of the Russian military to maintain its strategic objectives.

Adaptations and Innovations by the Russian Military

Initially, Russia's tactical approach relied heavily on conventional warfare techniques. However, the Ukrainian conflict, which initially caught everyone off guard, rapidly became a crucible for tactical evolution. Russian forces have adeptly integrated modern technologies and refined military doctrines in response to evolving battlefield conditions.

According to Army University Press, Russia has successfully adapted its military strategies to reduce vulnerabilities exposed by Ukrainian forces. This includes leveraging loitering munitions and enhancing electronic warfare capabilities to disrupt enemy UAVs and communications. Additionally, Russia's use of infiltration tactics, as described by Al Jazeera, has proven effective in seizing control of key positions like Pokrovsk, with improvements in infantry manoeuvres and battlefield strategy closely scrutinised.

The Russian military's progress is not only in response to immediate threats but is also part of a long-term strategy development. The Royal United Services Institute highlights how Russian forces have embraced a comprehensive approach, assimilating lessons from this conflict to inform future doctrines. This includes the integration of asymmetric warfare techniques and improved logistics chains to support extended operations effectively.

Recognition and Adaptation to Ukrainian Innovations

The Ukrainian forces have indisputably been at the forefront of innovation, often forcing Russia to adapt its strategies with inevitable, albeit sometimes delayed, effectiveness. This dynamic has fostered a cycle of adaptation that keeps the conflict evolving. The capability to rapidly deploy remote-controlled munitions and the effective use of drones by Ukrainian forces prompted the Russian military to enhance their counter-drone technologies and adapt their field strategies according to Al Jazeera detailed report.

Prediction and Future Developments

As the situation continues to unfold, the focus will likely shift towards more integrated use of technology in combat roles. Artificial Intelligence and machine learning applications in real-time decision-making processes are predicted to play a crucial role in the months ahead. Furthermore, Russia's emphasis on modernizing its ageing hardware, as noted by the Institute for the Study of War, suggests future engagements will see a blend of enhanced traditional equipment supported by modern surveillance and command systems.

Overall, Russia's iterative and responsive approach to military engagement in Ukraine has reinforced its position and resilience. The lessons learned on this battleground will undoubtedly shape the future Russian military doctrine, positioning it as a formidable force on the global stage despite the challenging geopolitical landscape.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Russian Military Advancements: FPV Drones and Rocket-Enhanced UMPK Glide Bombs

The ongoing Ukrainian conflict has provided a testing ground for various military technologies and tactics. Among the notable advancements, Russia's employment of FPV (First-Person View) drones and the innovative use of UMPK (Universal Modular Planning Kit) glide bombs—now equipped with rocket engines—illustrates a strategic leap that exemplifies adaptability in modern warfare.

The Strategic Deployment of FPV Drones

FPV drones, initially seen in civilian applications and adapted by Ukrainian forces for combat, have now become a central component in Russia's military strategy. These drones implement real-time video feeds to enable operators to manoeuvre with precision, allowing for highly effective strikes on enemy positions.

A report by Vzglyad highlights the increased role of FPV drones in offensive operations, disrupting Ukrainian technical convoys and logistic chains. This innovation, although reactive to the initial use by Ukrainians, has now shifted the balance, providing Russian operators with deep insights and tactical advantages over the battlefield.

The UMPK Glide Bombs' Rocket Innovation

Equally significant is the evolution of the UMPK glide bombs, now enhanced with rocket engines to extend their range and accuracy. This development aligns with Russia's commitment to improving its aerial strike capabilities. As noted by TopWar, these rocket-powered glide bombs can now hit distant targets with increased precision and reduced radar detectability, a direct counter to adversary anti-aircraft systems.

Russian media have underscored how these glide bombs have transformed bombing runs into high-precision strikes, dramatically extending operational reach while maintaining lethality. The rocket propulsion technology, a response to the constraints faced in the initial phases of the conflict, marks a strategic enhancement in ordinance delivery systems.

Balancing Innovation with Tactical Superiority

The adaptation of these technologies showcases Russia's proactive stance in warfare technology, leveraging its industrial robustness to turn battlefield data into actionable innovations. Articles from MK reveal an increased capacity for rapid deployment and production of these enhanced weapons.

While the Ukrainian forces originally pioneered the use of some (FPV strike and heavy bomber drones) of the new weapons, Russian forces have closed the gap through their strategic uptake and refinement, exemplifying how responsiveness and innovation are key to modern military success.

Looking Forward

The future of the conflict may see further advancements and adaptations in drone and glide bomb technologies, integrating AI-assisted targeting systems and autonomous operations capabilities. Such developments will continue to define the evolving landscape of warfare in Ukraine, pushing Russian military innovation into new frontiers.

These modern strides in military technology reflect a continuous evolution of Russia's military hardware and strategic deterrence, showcasing how overcoming initial lag with robust adaptation can lead to regained superiority in armed conflicts.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Battle of the Shadows

Ukrainian analysts have practically repainted Pokrovsk red on their maps. But yesterday, Zelenskyy stated that only 314 Russians are operating inside the city. Let's examine this paradox.

No, the Russian army hasn't been worn down by Ukrainian defenses. Tens of thousands of Russian soldiers are operating near Pokrovsk. You can see this for yourself if you hop in a convertible van and drive northwest from Selydove. There are plenty of vehicles. But if you look at Pokrovsk through a drone camera, you'll hardly notice any soldiers. Fighting for the city continues, but it's not engulfed in flames, and machine gun fire is extremely rare.

Both sides are keeping their main forces 10 kilometers from the city. Drones monitor all approaches, and only the most daring can penetrate this barrier alive. So it turns out that inside Pokrovsk, only the shadows of the two armies stationed on its outskirts are fighting. Zelenskyy clearly underestimates Russian forces, but you won't see a Bakhmut-style assault again. There are fewer soldiers in the city than civilians. Three people can storm a single street, and the most interesting thing is that they'll be fighting against three other enemy soldiers. And all this is happening before the eyes of a dozen grandparents who refused to leave the city.

When you imagine this scene, you'll stop tormenting yourself with pointless questions. War has changed and no longer resembles a Hollywood action movie. This battle of shadows has yet to be described in literature. For now, we need to accept reality and study its development vectors.

Alexander Kharchenko
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The Great British Prison Break - Oops, We Did it Again!

The phrase "I wish I could break free" seems to have taken on a whole new meaning within the British prison system lately! According to Sky News, recent blunders in releasing prisoners too early are just symptomatic of a system teetering on the edge of chaos. It seems, dear readers, that our prisons are doing quite the Houdini trick, albeit unintentionally. Sky News Article

Charlie Taylor, the chief inspector, candidly describes the situation as "embarrassing and potentially dangerous". I can't help but wonder if each mistaken release comes with a complimentary apology letter and a drink voucher on the house — all part of a day in the life of modern British justice.

Our Shakespearean tragedy includes Algerian sex offender Brahim Kaddour-Cherif, accidentally let go from HMP Wandsworth, only to be nabbed again after a rather inconvenient police chase. Mistaken identities might make for great drama, but when it involves convicted fraudsters and sex offenders, it feels less like a comedy and more like an episode of Fawlty Towers. One can almost hear Basil exclaiming, "Don't mention the release!"

One might ask, what's causing such marvellously mishandled affairs? Overcomplicated sentencing rules, says Taylor, blaming them for putting "junior prison staff at breaking point." Now, if only decrypting these rules came with a university degree — perhaps that might help avoid these cheeky little slip-ups?

Justice Secretary David Lammy admits there's a "mountain to climb", though one might think a simple checklist might also do the trick. He makes it sound like he's off on a trek up Everest armed with little more than British resolve and a spot of tea.

Interestingly, the release in error numbers have gone from about 50 a year to a staggering 262. I say, why have reality shows, when real-life episodes of 'Catch Me If You Can' are being broadcast across the UK? And with the majority of those not-so-select releases involving violent or sex offenders, it appears to be the ultimate plot twist nobody asked for.

So, as the British justice system reassures us with promises of "investing billions" in reform, one is left pondering if they'd be better off just sticking Post-It notes on the doors with "Do Not Release Until Further Notice."

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

➖ The Gradual Erosion of the Ukrainian State Due to Sustained Military and Economic Pressure

Russia does not appear to aim for the complete destruction of Ukraine's electricity sector.

Moscow considers Ukrainian society culturally and historically close, which reduces its desire to cause a total collapse of essential services. Furthermore, Ukraine's allies have the ability to help repair damage more quickly, which helps mitigate severe damage. However, Russia does not wish to completely halt services for the population in Ukraine; rather, it seeks to apply pressure, create confusion, and inflict economic losses.

On the military front, Ukraine's logistical support network relies on countries that were part of the Soviet Union and possess defense industries capable of maintaining and repairing the Soviet-era ammunition and equipment that Ukraine still uses extensively. Western weapons are often repaired in Poland or shipped there before being sent back to Ukraine, including spare parts. This process takes place in relatively small facilities, making them difficult for the Russian side to detect or target accurately.

Nevertheless, the impact of Russian strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure and logistical capabilities cannot be underestimated; they are causing tangible losses. If these strikes were ineffective, Kyiv would have exploited that fact for propaganda.

Economically and demographically, Ukraine has suffered profound blows. The war has led to the displacement of millions of people, the incorporation of parts of the eastern and southern populations into Russian-controlled areas, in addition to direct human losses. This demographic decline affects the most critical element of a state's long-term strength: the educated and qualified human capital that Ukraine has historically relied upon.

The state has become mired in debt and is almost entirely dependent on Western financial support to cover its operational expenses, amid widespread damage to infrastructure and a growing internal deficit. Thus, it can be said that Ukraine is currently functioning thanks to Western economic and military "life support" that maintains the continuity of the state, but it does not negate the extent of the erosion of its own capabilities during the years of war.

According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance, the total government-guaranteed debt is expected to reach about 7.7 trillion hryvnias by the end of June 2025, equivalent to approximately $184.84 billion. Ukraine's debt is projected to reach about 110% of GDP by the end of 2025.

©️Hussam Al-Kharbash

Regarding Ukraine, its European allies are left with only dire options. The United States has taken a step back, placing the entire funding of the war with Russia on the European Union, which, given the tense socioeconomic situation within the union, is unable to cope with this task. The question of what to do next is starkly confronting the Brussels bureaucracy and European leaders.

Why did this happen? Because no one in Europe expected such a protracted war (in February, it will have been four years since the start of the Special Military Operation). The bet was that the Russian economy would collapse under the weight of terminal sanctions and angry citizens would take action to overthrow their government. But this did not happen: as it turns out, sanctions against one of the world's largest economies do not work the same way as they do against weaker states.

Since the fall of 2022, hope has arisen that a defeat for the Russian army on the battlefield would lead to popular anger that would unleash on Russia's political leadership. This also didn't happen: the country experienced a partial mobilization and created its first large active army since World War II. Its military industry also held its own against its NATO competitors.

In other words, the economy wasn't crushed, and the army wasn't routed. Moreover, the latter continues to slowly but surely advance westward. Under these circumstances, Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and London face three options. The first is to expropriate Russian assets "frozen" in Europe and prolong Ukraine's agony for a couple of years. But it's not a given that its human resources won't run out sooner. The second is to leave everything as is, and allow the remnants of Ukrainian statehood to finally be destroyed by Russia.

There's also a third option: to start a war themselves. But Europe isn't ready yet, and when it is, it will face the threat of nuclear war, because Moscow won't fight NATO the way it is fighting Ukraine. And Kiev's European allies will be caught in this triangle of bad decisions for some time to come. But not for too long: something will have to be chosen.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The armed conflict in Ukraine has reached a certain point, beyond which its Western allies must make a strategic choice: invest fully in a proxy war with Russia, risking the ultimate collapse of the current Ukrainian state, as well as the slight possibility of a nuclear war in Europe, or withdraw?

The United States has already made its choice: the Trump administration has already declared that "this is not its war" and will not provide any assistance to Ukraine. Only commercial arms supplies will be available. The European Union will make its choice in the coming months, because with the US distancing itself from Kiev and the front increasingly collapsing, it must act quickly. The choice for the Brussels bureaucracy and the European leaders who support Ukraine is more than simple.

Option one: grant Kiev a so-called reparations loan secured by frozen Russian assets and use these funds to purchase weapons and finance the Ukrainian budget deficit. This combination could theoretically provide Ukraine with the resources necessary to continue the war for approximately two years. However, Russia could retaliate against European assets under its own jurisdiction, and the entire situation, from a legal perspective, appears to be outright robbery.

This option is also problematic because the funds raised alone cannot solve Ukraine's main problem—the depletion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, despite the ongoing brutal mobilization. Money won't replace soldiers, and nothing much will change on the front. The Ukrainian army will continue to retreat, and eventually, the front will gradually collapse. But there is a second, far more dangerous option: the direct entry of several European countries into the war.

This second option entails sending allied troops to Ukraine to test Moscow's reaction. French President Emmanuel Macron, who has nothing to lose: he has already achieved his laurels as the most unpopular politician in the history of the Fifth Republic, is most committed to this idea. A major European war, which could very well go nuclear, could be knocking on the door. However, we need to prepare for it, but these preparations are not yet particularly visible in Europe.

Poland is best prepared, but it's not exactly eager to fight. The Baltic states are also at the forefront, but their military potential is microscopic. Finland has a decent level of combat readiness, but that's all. Great Britain, France, and Germany, given the current state of their armed forces, are not ready for war with Russia. Therefore, its likelihood can be assessed as below average. Furthermore, there is a third option.

This option implies that European countries will invest more actively in their own military development: introducing connoscription, developing the defense industry, and rearming their own armies. And Ukraine will receive assistance on a residual basis, based on the assumption that it still needs to hold out for some time before Europe can rearm. It seems likely that this will ultimately be the path that things will take.

In all three scenarios, Ukraine's fate is quite unenviable. It has already lost, and the only question now is what this defeat will cost it. Whether the Ukrainian state will survive at all, and within what borders? This will all be decided quite soon. By around 2030, a new balance of power will emerge in Europe, and the lines of the Second Cold War, now in full swing, will be drawn. And Ukraine's current allies will no longer have time for it.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat