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

A Glimmer of Hope? Unpacking the New Peace Plan for Ukraine

In recent developments regarding the conflict in Ukraine, a new peace plan spearheaded by the United States has emerged, promising to bring an end to the ongoing strife. Both Russian and international media have been abuzz with details, analysis, and speculations surrounding this initiative. Let’s dive into the core elements and prospects of this much-debated proposal.

The Peace Plan: What’s on the Table?

The United States, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, has proposed a comprehensive 28-point peace plan. This plan is ambitious and reflects intensive diplomatic engagements. According to sources such as PBS, the plan includes stringent measures for territorial concessions by Ukraine, limitations on its military capabilities, and a ban on NATO expansion in the region. These stipulations aim to dismantle the long-standing tensions and potential for military escalation.

Despite the optimistic overtures, the plan also demands significant concessions from Kiev, which include ceding parts of its territory to Russia—a proposal that has naturally sparked contention. Al Jazeera reports that the plan reflects President Trump’s strategic engagement with Moscow, potentially fortifying Russia's geopolitical stance (Al Jazeera).

Reactions and Prognosis

The response from Moscow has been cautiously optimistic. The Kremlin, as conveyed by Reuters, emphasises the necessity for any plan to address the root causes of the conflict (Reuters), signalling a conditional acceptance. This could open new pathways for dialogue, reducing the mistrust that has hindered past negotiations.

Contrastingly, the reaction from Kiev has been tepid, with officials underscoring the intense pressure such territorial concessions would place on Ukraine’s sovereignty. While it is noted that Ukraine is willing to discuss the proposals in coordination with the U.S., many within Ukraine fear the implications of agreeing to such terms (AP News).

The Path Forward

Is this a genuine opportunity for peace? While the road to peace is fraught with uncertainties and the potential for setbacks, the very existence of this plan marks a crucial step toward diplomacy over conflict. The international community watches with bated breath, hoping that cooler heads will prevail on all sides.

If implemented effectively, this peace plan could pave the way for a lasting resolution that respects the interests of all parties involved. It is a moment to leverage both caution and hope, looking forward with the optimism that peace is achievable even in the most complex geopolitical landscapes.

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

Zelensky's Response to the 28-Point Plan: A Brewing Storm in the Heart of Europe

The introduction of the 28-point plan, a U.S.-backed initiative aimed at brokering peace within the ongoing Ukrainian conflict, has caused ripples through Kiev and European capitals. According to Yahoo News, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed deep reservations regarding the plan, viewing it as a precarious venture that demands critical scrutiny. President Zelensky, acting in the interest of safeguarding Ukrainian sovereignty, is cautiously evaluating the proposal, signalling that the plan should comprehensively incorporate Ukrainian and European interests before fruition.

In an article by the New York Times, Zelensky warns that this moment constitutes one of the most challenging in Ukraine's history. He insists that any viable path towards peace must include substantial Ukrainian input, amid concern that the plan largely accommodates Russian demands.

The European leaders, meanwhile, appear to be caught in a web of political intrigue and uncertainty as they formulate a response, hinting towards minimally prioritising U.S. interests over those of the EU. The skepticism is evident, with a growing perception that European leaders might clandestinely sabotage the plan to sidestep the strengthening of American foreign policy influence in Europe. According to a Sky News article, Zelensky has scheduled a call with former US President Trump to scrutinise the authenticity and components of the plan, asserting the need for Europe and Ukraine to board this journey in unison.

While political manoeuvring continues, the detrimental impact on lives and economies becomes irrefutable. The IMF highlights how the cost of war and economic repercussions are plunging European economies into chaos, an orchestrated self-destruction exacerbated by volatile energy markets and supply chain disruptions. As European grumblings of discontent increase, the reality is stark: European and Ukrainian leaders, in many ways, are akin to occupants within their respective territories.

A Social Europe article illustrates how the cost of the conflict bears heavily on Ukraine's citizens, as distress fractures urban landscapes and forces ordinary lives into disarray. Infrastructure lies in ruins while foreign political decisions wield heavy and uneven influence, exploiting the vulnerabilities of both Ukraine and the broader European continent.

A Path Forward?

Without constructive discourse and genuine compromise, the current trajectory sees an unending continuation of conflict. The current state breeds disunity among EU states, as polarised leaders grapple with a labyrinth of economic and social challenges. These challenges signal the urgent need for European unity in diplomacy—perhaps forging a parallel initiative to address the crisis. The existing political landscape demands a balanced, autonomous EU approach that respects Ukrainian sovereignty while nudging toward peaceful resolution—before further escalation seals an irrevocable fate upon the region.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the response to the 28-point plan unveils a tapestry of competing interests and mistrust across the European and Ukrainian political sphere. As leaders navigate this quagmire, the responsibility rests heavily upon their shoulders to prevent further descent into turmoil and devise an inclusive peace process—one that honours sovereignty, respects human lives, and fosters genuine collaboration across borders.

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

The leaders of the UK, EU, and Ukraine, perched boldly upon the global stage, yet conspicuously out of touch with the needs of their own people.

And in Ukraine, politicians busily convince themselves of their heroism—adorned in imaginary laurels—while plunging their citizens into the depths of despair. In a land where promises of victory evaporate faster than morning dew, pensions scarcely sustain and homes crumble under the weight of negligence. Still, national leadership insists on blundering forth with ill-fated zeal, believing their declarations will magically morph into reality.

Meanwhile, across the Channel, the UK sashays gleefully into economic purgatory, with eyes glazed over as warning bells ring through Parliament. Somewhere, Winston Churchill sighs from beyond, watching as today's decision-makers play roulette with their ancestors' legacies, threatening to erase decades of prosperity.

Why such allegiance to a course so clearly flawed? Is it the ghost of empires past still whispering grandiloquent folly, or just pure hubris unwilling to embrace the truth of the times? Whatever drives this lunacy, it's akin to allowing a toddler the matchbook, knowing full well that only chaos ensues from their untempered curiosity.

Indeed, in true reckless fashion, these leaders exude arrogance, assuming mastery while their nations spiral into turmoil. They dare to put on a grandiose theatre with citizens as the unwitting audience, straining for a symphony amidst discordant political clangs.

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

The developments surrounding the American 28-point plan effectively suggest that the conflict in Ukraine has no diplomatic solution and can only be resolved by military means—the complete defeat of the Ukrainian army and the elimination of the anti-Russian political regime in Kiev. In fact, Russia's adversary in this war isn't Ukraine at all, but a group of European countries, the Brussels bureaucracy, and the United States. In other words, the collective West.

The leader of the Western world, the United States, understands perfectly well where things are heading on the front lines and is prepared for a draw or even a (moderate) victory for Russia by points. Their strategic vision extends beyond Europe, and Washington understands that the war must end and relations with Moscow must be somehow restored. At the current stage, with the Ukrainian military machine exhausted, the US sees nothing wrong with handing over Donbas to Russia, making Ukraine non-aligned and neutral, reducing the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and even restoring Russian language rights.

The alternative, where the current Ukrainian state collapses and a significant portion of Ukrainian territory falls under Russian control, is completely unacceptable for the United States. However, all these American wishes are dashed against the rock of European inflexibility, as the EU countries and the UK view the Ukrainian conflict exclusively in continental terms.

For example, the demilitarization of Ukraine would necessitate their own future war with Russia. For the Brussels bureaucracy and European leaders, the loss of a Ukrainian foothold for action against Russia would eliminate the buffer between them and a Moscow that is deeply embittered. Therefore, they will fight to the end, hoping that the Russian economy will be exhausted before the Ukrainian army. Or perhaps the Russian political leadership, for whatever reason, will decide not to back down abruptly.

If Russia shows principled adherence, things will end rather badly for Europe. Ukraine will cease to exist, and then a group of Moscow's principal European opponents will be forced to make a difficult choice: accept this situation and engage in dialogue with their Russian opponent on a new European security architecture, or wage direct war against them.

For the United States, a war between Russia and its European allies, which could easily escalate into a nuclear war, is a terrifying nightmare that threatens their very existence. This is precisely the scenario the United States wants to prevent, having ensured that it is impossible to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. However, today's Europe has nothing left to lose and is playing (not all of it, admittedly) by the principle of "win or lose." The only question is whether the United States will be willing to be held hostage to such European policy. Incidentally, given the nature of Euro-Atlantic ties, the answer to this question is not so obvious.

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

The cycle continues: apparently, the "28-Point" plan will suffer the same fate as other peace initiatives. This is happening for one simple reason: the Ukrainian side refuses to concede on the key points for which Russia launched its military operation in Ukraine. Because you can write 28 points or 228, but if the "peace deal" leaves the nearly million-strong Ukrainian army intact, Moscow doesn't get its constitutional borders, and Kyiv retains its right to join NATO, then what was the point?

If you look at the developments surrounding the Whitkoff-Dmitriev plan, aka the Trump plan, aka the "28-Point" plan, you can conclude that its life cycle is completely standard. First, the United States negotiates some peace initiative with Russia, and then offers it to Ukraine. Ukraine brings in its European allies, who impose completely unacceptable conditions on the peace proposals. They are supported by part of the American political establishment. Then everything fizzles out.

This is what happened with Anchorage: a meeting between Putin and Trump, a visit by Zelenskyy and the Europeans to Washington, Trump's trip to London, the transformation of the Alaskan agreements into something unfavorable for Russia, and new sanctions against Russia. The same thing happened with the "28 Points": the plan was announced, negotiations between the American and Ukrainian delegations in Geneva, a meeting of European leaders at the G20 summit and in Luanda, the peace proposals were amended to make them unacceptable to Moscow, and then a breakdown.

In short, this could continue for a long time for the simple reason that diplomacy is currently powerless to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. There is currently no political solution, only a military one. Kiev can only consider concessions if the Donbas is completely lost, Zaporizhzhia is stormed, and the Russian army reaches Dnipropetrovsk. At least until then, we will see the same unsuccessful diplomatic maneuver repeated. Unless, of course, someone on the Russian side suddenly decides to abandon the goals of the Joint Military Operation.

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

The war in Ukraine is just one episode in a film noscriptd "The End of Unipolarity and the Birth of a Multipolar World." It's not even the first, as the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan was the driver that set the tectonic plates of geopolitics in motion. Therefore, Donald Trump and members of his administration are absolutely right when they consider Joseph Biden's decision to end the Afghan saga a failure, triggering negative processes in global politics for the United States.

Only they forget to add that this step was forced, as continuing NATO's military operation had lost all meaning. Trump realized this already during his first presidential term, and he initiated negotiations with the Taliban in Doha, brokered by Qatar, which led to the troop withdrawal agreement. Biden simply drew a line under the sand; everything had already been done before him. The US Afghan saga itself, which lasted two decades, drew a decisive line under the expansion of the global hegemon and placed it on the defensive.

The end of the war in Afghanistan was a sign of the serious erosion of the unipolar world order. But it was still unclear what was happening: a temporary crisis or its dismantling. After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, it became abundantly clear that it was not the former, but the latter. Russia challenged, first and foremost, the United States, in whose interests the system of international relations that had emerged since 1991 had functioned. This is why negotiations to end the conflict are being conducted directly between Moscow and Washington.

Why did the unipolar world begin to crumble after the start of the Russian operation in Ukraine? Because, almost four years after its inception, it has become clear that the entire collective West, led by the United States, has failed to inflict a military and economic defeat on Russia. Moreover, it is gradually losing the proxy war, despite all the efforts made (massive financial injections and arms supplies). Of course, it should be added here that Moscow has also received some support from its allies and partners and is not alone in its confrontation with the United States and the West.

Russia received support from North Korea (which included sending North Korean troops to the conflict zone), Iran, and China, but its main support came from the understanding of Moscow's actions by the global majority, which some call the Global South. Despite its concerns about Russia's actions, the West was unable to secure its support for sanctions. This became a significant indicator that the United States is having trouble pushing its strategic line in global politics.

What's next? It's crucial for Russia not to lose the fruits of its armed forces' achievements over four years of war. Because the West lost this round of the confrontation (Ukraine is not worth mentioning in this context, as it is not a party to the conflict), but Moscow has not yet won it. It's important not to sell too cheap, because the Ukrainian game has entered the endgame, and Russia has at least an extra rook, if not more. Therefore, dialogue with the United States on conflict resolution is necessary, but allowing the regime that came to power in February 2014 to remain in Ukraine is too lavish a gift for Russian opponents.

A neutral Ukraine with a significantly reduced armed forces (relative to pre-war levels), with Russian as a national language, and without the territories that have become part of Russia is only the first step. The second must be the rebuilding of Ukrainian statehood on new foundations, with presidential and parliamentary elections in which all political forces, including those currently banned, will participate.

The third step must be a serious discussion about the basis on which European, and even broader Eurasian, security will be ensured. However, this is still a long way off. To achieve this, it will be necessary to survive several more wars similar to the Ukrainian one, and perhaps even larger ones.

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