Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why Merz’ comments show he is two steps down the escalation ladder from Putin

By Ian Proud | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 29, 2025

Russia has established escalation dominance in Ukraine in November 2024 by raising the bar on the military capabilities that it is willing to use. Merz’s comments on western cruise missile use haven’t changed that calculus and, instead, have illustrated German weakness in Russia’s eyes.

For some time now, western media outlets have pushed the argument hard that Zelensky should be free to use longer-range weapons deep inside Russia. In his bid to offer a tougher line on Ukraine’s war effort during his honeymoon period in office and ahead of Zelensky’s visit to Berlin today, Friedrich Merz announced a lifting of restrictions on the use of western missiles within the territory of Russia. In doing so, he showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Russian strategy.

I have seen at critical points over the past decade that Russia seeks escalation dominance, a Cold War concept holding that a state can best contain conflicts and avoid escalation if it is dominant at each successive rung up the “ladder of escalation,” all the way to the nuclear rung.

Since the onset of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, Russia has sought to dominate each step up the escalation ladder. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 were major escalations that NATO didn’t meet head-on. This strategy is also seen in the diplomatic sphere, for example, Russia escalated a dispute with the U.S. in 2017 when it kicked 755 American diplomatic staff out of Russia. When Moscow over-escalates, it makes a gamble that its adversary will not be willing to step another rung higher on the escalation ladder.

There is a hard-wired view in Moscow that Russia will always overmatch a divided and morally weak Western alliance when push comes to shove. Russia has something that the West does not have — the sovereign power and the political will to act unilaterally. Putin had been subject to criticism from hardliners in Russia that he hasn’t responded to the slow ratcheting up of military support to Ukraine from the West.

What was surprising about Merz’s comments were their blindness to recent events. On Nov. 21, 2024, Vladimir Putin presented a huge escalation challenge to the West: are you ready for Russia to strike NATO facilities anywhere in Europe with hypersonic munitions that you don’t possess?

At that time, much as now in Berlin, bombastic British ex-military saber rattlers had been at the forefront of calls that such weapon systems as Scalp, Storm Shadow, U.S. ATACMS missiles could make on the battlefield in Ukraine.

On Nov. 19, the first salvo of ATACMS was lobbed at a military facility in Bryansk — outside the area in which Ukrainian forces were battling in Kursk. The following day, British Storm Shadow missiles were fired into Kursk, with the jubilant approval of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, no less. These strikes elicited widespread attaboy jingoism from the Western media, with hardly a word of caution.

On Nov. 21, Russia over-escalated. Specifically, they deployed a more powerful and destructive hypersonic Oreshnik missile at a well-fortified Ukrainian weapons facility in Dnipropetrovsk. This is the first time an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile has been used in combat. The claimed range of Oreshnik is 16 times greater than ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles. Its deployment put any NATO targets within Europe in the scope of a conventional strike.

This represented a major escalation in destructive capabilities. Russia had been trying unsuccessfully to destroy the Yuzhmash weapons facility since 2022 using the battlefield weapons at its disposal. Built during the Soviet era, Yuzhmash has workshops buried deep underground to protect them from attack. Among other purposes, the facility is thought to be where Rheinmetall had set up a plant to repair German Leopard tanks. It was also used in missile and long-range drone production. The Oreshnik strike levelled it.

The destruction of valuable Western repair facilities at Yuzhmash will have satisfied Kremlin hawks that Oreshnik has taken Russia two steps up the escalation ladder. Putin also sent a clear message to military planners from the U.S. and UK who supported the deployment of the ATACMS, that a more specifically NATO target may be next.

Carefully described by Putin at the time as a “test” the Oreshnik is now a deployed capability far beyond those that Western powers have allowed Ukraine to use, namely ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles. And also beyond the capabilities that Zelensky had requested — namely Tomahawk cruise missiles — that the U.S. has so far refused to sanction. Putin has left the door open for further “tests” of the Oreshnik.

Following Merz’s surprise announcement, speculation quickly mounted that Germany would finally relent on allowing Ukraine to use German Taurus cruise missiles. Even if supplied, Taurus offers nothing Ukraine doesn’t already have, as its range is slightly lower than the British Storm Shadow and its payload only slightly higher. The U.S. ATACMS has more destructive capability.

So, all that Merz did by grand-standing was to put Germany and Ukraine in a position where a more devastating weapon i.e. Oreshnik – may be used against strategic or battlefield targets that would overmatch the theoretical use of Taurus missiles. Taurus is therefore a battle-losing capability. To make matters worse, the new German Chancellor has already backtracked on supplying Taurus, following blowback from members of his coalition government.

Following the first deployment of ATACMS and Storm Shadow at targets in Bryansk and Kursk, western powers deescalated and placed greater restrictions on their tactical use. This made both Joe Biden and Keir Starmer look weak in President Putin’s eyes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the pro-ATACMS advocates largely fell silent, at least for a little while. Ukraine has gone on to lose further territory in the Donbass since that time.

So, the question for Merz when he meets Zelensky today is, what escalation card is he empowered to play next to overmatch a future Oreshnik strike at a target in Germany? If he hasn’t thought that through, and I suspect that he has not, Merz should reconsider his rhetoric, or risk looking weak and feckless, as Biden and Starmer did in November of last year.

Following the Oreshnik deployment, Prime Minister Starmer conceded in his December Manion House speech that Britain needed to help Ukraine get into the strongest position to secure a negotiated settlement to the war. That sill hasn’t happened. Perhaps Merz might consider a negotiated end to the conflict, rather than more empty sabre-rattling that he cannot deliver upon.

May 29, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

The Media Is Falsely Labeling Ukraine-Russia Talks a ‘Failure’

By Ted Snider | The Libertarian Institute | May 28, 2025

On May 16, Russia and Ukraine held their first direct talks since the first months of the former’s invasion. Despite the pessimistic evaluation by Ukrainian and European leaders, the return to diplomacy is itself a major achievement and step forward. The talks lasted an hour and forty minutes.

Western leaders and Western media have given the first round of talks a failing grade. They have dismissed it for three reasons. They claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin first suggested direct negotiations and then did not show. They claim that he sent an insultingly low-level delegation. And they claim that nothing was accomplished.

All three of these claims are false.

Putin did suggest direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, but he did not say that those talks would take place at the leadership level. Putin said, “We are proposing that Kiev resume direct negotiations without any preconditions…We offer the Kiev authorities to resume negotiations already on Thursday, in Istanbul.” Putin referred to the Kiev authorities and never to the two presidents.

It was unlikely that Russia would resume talks for the first time at the presidential level. Customarily, before presidents meet, a great deal of preparation and negotiation takes place at lower levels. Then, typically, the foreign ministers would meet to iron out most of the details prior to a presidential meeting.

It is also misleading to present the meeting as Putin not showing up while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did. Zelensky did arrive in Turkey, but he declined to agree to direct talks with Putin unless Putin first agreed to a thirty-day ceasefire, posting that “We expect Russia to confirm a ceasefire – full, lasting, and reliable – starting tomorrow, May 12th, and Ukraine is ready to meet.” Ukraine’s Head of the office of President, Andriy Yermak, confirmed, “First a ceasefire for 30 days, then everything else.” According to White House officials, Trump “never agreed” that that a ceasefire was a precondition to the direct talks.

But Zelensky’s precondition was an annulment. Russia was never going to agree to a ceasefire prior to negotiations for two reasons. First, they do not want a ceasefire empty of a settlement because that would maintain the conditions that would likely lead to future war, as happened in the ceasefire in Donbas from the end of the coup in 2014 to the start of the war in 2022. Second, they do not want a ceasefire without a settlement that would allow Ukraine to rest, regroup, rearm and dig trenches simply to return to war thirty days later like the Minsk deception that stung Russia earlier.

Russia has insisted that these negotiations resolve the “root causes” of the war. The Western media continues to deceptively define that insistence as the determination to deflate Ukraine’s sovereignty and calls it a delaying tactic. There is nothing on the historical record to suggest that Putin has ever identified that as a root cause of the war. Russia has always identified the root causes of the war as NATO’s encroachment toward their border and into Ukraine and the need for the protection of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

The security proposal that Russia presented to the United States and NATO in December 2021 in the days before the war had as its central point that NATO not expand to Ukraine. Then-NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has confirmed that the “promise [of] no more NATO enlargement… was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine.” Ukraine’s chief negotiator in the Belarus and Istanbul talks with Russia has also said that stopping NATO from expanding to Ukraine and Russia’s borders was the “key point” for Russia and that “[e]verything else was simply rhetoric and political ‘seasoning.’” Zelensky, himself, has said that the promise not to join NATO “was the first fundamental point for the Russian Federation” and that “as far as I remember, they started a war because of this.”

Russia is not asking for something unimaginable or new. They are asking for what they were promised. Not only did NATO promise to stay out of Ukraine, but Ukraine promised to stay out of NATO. Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance: that included NATO.

Russia is not going to agree to a ceasefire without resolving this root cause of the war for the same reason that it went to war to resolve it.

The second reason for giving the first round of direct talks a failing grade is that Putin sent an insultingly low-level delegation. This is not only unfair for the reasons already discussed—that initial talks are usually conducted at a low level—but also because it ignores who Putin sent to conduct the talks. The Russian delegation is led by Vladimir Medinsky, the same person who led the Istanbul talks at the beginning of the war. Those talks nearly succeeded, and the nomination of Medinsky is a signal both that Russia is serious and that Russia sees the current round of talks as a continuation of the previous round. Putin said, “It was not Russia that broke off negotiations in 2022. It was Kiev. Nevertheless, we are proposing that Kiev resume direct negotiations without any preconditions.”

The third reason is that nothing of substance was accomplished. That, too, is untrue. The very resumption of direct talks is a major breakthrough. But, beyond that, some things of substance were accomplished.

The first is an agreement to exchange 1,000 prisoners each. Though prisoner exchanges have occurred during the war, this would be the largest exchange agreed to yet. It may also represent a goodwill gesture on the part of Russia, since it has been suggested in the Ukrainian press that Ukraine may not have 1,000 Russian prisoners of war.

The second is that the two sides each agreed to present a detailed document on its vision for a ceasefire. This is a significant achievement for a first round of talks.

The third is that, once the documents are presented and discussed, Medinsky said that “we think it will be reasonable to continue our negotiations.” Agreeing on a second round of talks is another positive and significant achievement.

Undercutting the negative assessment of Western officials and Western media, the Ukrainian delegation told The Washington Post that, “despite the heated exchanges… the talks eventually became constructive.” The Russian delegation agreed that they were “satisfied” with the first meeting.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that the next round of talks could take place in mid-June, though their location is in doubt. Originally reported to be taking place in the Vatican, the Kremlin has suggested that the Vatican may not be the ideal location for two Orthodox Christian nations.

For the next round to get past the “heated exchanges” and continue to progress, key compromises will need to be made by both sides. Ukraine will have to agree not to join NATO. This is a big concession but should not be a deal breaker. Russia was promised this at the end of the Cold War, and Ukraine agreed to it during the Istanbul talks at the beginning of the war. If it was acceptable to Ukraine then, it should not be a fatal obstacle now.

In return, Russia will have to agree to real security guarantees for Ukraine. They will not agree to NATO nations as guarantors of the peace but could be open to countries from the Global South who have not sanctioned Russia or condemned its invasion of Ukraine but who also have not condoned it and would not want to see a ceasefire broken.

The West could agree to allow Ukraine to be armed, but not allow it to be armed with long-range weapons capable of striking Russia. The guarantors could agree to come to Ukraine’s aid if Russia breaks the ceasefire and attacks but not agree to come to Ukraine’s aid if they provoke Russia in hopes that they will come to Ukraine’s aid, much as China has been willing to promise Pakistan help if they are attacked but not if they irresponsibly cause the attack.

Both sides will need to make concessionary moves from their current territorial demands. Ukraine will never agree to Russia’s claim on more territory than it has conquered. Russia has hinted at some willingness to compromise on this. Russia will never agree to Ukraine’s demand to return territory to the prewar, or even pre-2014, borders. Ukrainian insistence on this condition for peace will guarantee that there will be no peace. And no peace will mean only that Ukraine will cede more territory to Russia. It is practical, then, for both sides to agree to negotiations beginning along the current line of conflict.

The recent return to direct talks between Russia and Ukraine can only be positive. And they accomplished more than the Western media and European leaders have suggested. Continued progress will require compromise and a genuine desire to build a peace that is workable and lasting.

May 28, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

EU state blasts Germany over Russia threats

RT | May 28, 2025

Slovakia will not be bullied into changing its foreign policy, Prime Minister Robert Fico has said, calling German threats to cut EU funding due to its stance on Russia “aggressive and unacceptable.”

Fico’s remarks came in response to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said member states that resist the EU’s policies on Russia could face financial consequences.

“Member states that violate the rule of law can be confronted with infringement proceedings,” Merz warned at the WDR Europaforum in Berlin on Monday. “There is always the option of withdrawing European funds from them.”

Merz mentioned both Slovakia and Hungary in response to a question about countries resisting the EU’s policies on sanctions and military aid for Ukraine.

Fico hit back at Merz. “Slovakia is not a little schoolchild that needs to be lectured,” he said on Tuesday on X. “Slovakia’s sovereign positions do not stem from vanity, but are based on our national interests.” He added that “the politics of a single mandatory opinion is a denial of sovereignty and democracy.”

He went on to describe Merz’s remarks as “aggressive” and an indication that “we are not heading into good times.”

“The words of the German Chancellor are absolutely unacceptable in modern Europe. If we don’t obey, are we to be punished? This is not the path toward cohesion and cooperation,” Fico said.

Since returning to office in 2023, Fico has halted Slovak military assistance to Ukraine and has been critical of Western sanctions on Russia. He has also called for economic ties with Moscow to be rebuilt once the conflict with Kiev is over. Late last year, he became one of the few Western leaders to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss energy supplies to Slovakia, which were jeopardized by Ukraine’s refusal to extend a gas transit agreement.

On Monday, Merz also said Ukraine’s European backers are no longer restricting the country from launching long-range strikes into Russia using Western-made weapons, later adding that the decision was made months ago. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, however, said he had not received the go-ahead, while suggesting that it could happen later.

Responding to Merz, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned of a “serious escalation,” adding that the potential move “severely undermines attempts for a peaceful settlement” of the conflict.

May 28, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

The Right Approach to the US-Iran Nuclear Negotiations

By Glenn Diesen | May 27, 2025

I recently attended a media festival in Tehran and also had the opportunity to explore Iran’s weapon systems and one of its nuclear facilities. Iran’s nuclear program is cited as the main reason for Israel and the US to threaten war with Iran. Such a war would likely escalate into a disastrous regional conflict, and perhaps even pull in the other great powers in a world war. Israel obviously needs to bring America on board to attack Iran, so the discussions between the US and Iran are of great importance. What do the Americans and Iranians want, and is there common ground that can be reached?

If the only demand by the US was for Iran to abstain from developing nuclear weapons, then an agreement could be reached, as Iran claims it does not intend to develop nuclear weapons and has accepted that inspectors are there to ensure compliance. Indeed, Iran agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and honoured its obligations before the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement. The US now demands a renegotiation and demands the complete dismantlement of Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program, which it is entitled to have as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Furthermore, the US has linked its hegemonic policies in the region to the nuclear issue. The US demands that Iran limit the range of its ballistic missile program and also suspend its support for allies in the region – primarily Yemen, Lebanon and Hamas. From Tehran’s perspective, this represents a complete capitulation that would make its security dependent on the benign intentions of Israel and the US. This neglects that the US has had Iran in its crosshairs for the past 45 years, and Iran does have legitimate security concerns.

What can be considered a legitimate security concern by the US is that Iran has become a nuclear threshold state, with the knowledge and material to develop a nuclear weapon. Restricting the extent to which uranium is enriched and imposing strict inspections could possibly be negotiated.

However, threatening to bomb Iran would not eliminate its know-how or all of its material, and such an attack would only incentivise Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. Even US threats to attack Iran unless it complies with US demands must be making the political leadership in Iran consider acquiring a nuclear weapon. So far, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, because doing so would encourage other states, such as Saudi Arabia, to also pursue nuclear weapons. Recognising the security competition, the result would not be greater security for Iran.

In my opinion, another approach to negotiations would be to do what is rarely done anymore in Western diplomacy: to recognise and mitigate the security concerns of the other side for the purpose of reducing the security competition. Threatening and bullying Iran into making unilateral concessions has become the new normal in the unipolar era. The US offer to remove sanctions on Iran is merely an offer to stop punishing Iran. The point of departure in any diplomatic approach should be to address mutual security concerns and explore where an agreement that enhances security for both sides can be found. Threatening Iran with capitulation and linking nuclear issues to unrelated matters will only ensure the failure to reach an agreement.

May 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

China Just Punched a Massive Hole in Trump’s Golden Dome

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 27.05.2025

Trump’s new missile defense shield could cost taxpayers up to $831B, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.Too bad it won’t work against China’s new super-duper stealth tech.

Scientists at China’s Zhejiang University have created a composite, multi-layered, heat-absorbing stealth material they say can evade detection by infrared and microwave systems at long ranges.

The best part? It operates at temperatures up to 700 °C, meaning it can be potentially used in an array of military and space applications.

That’s bad news for Golden Dome, which will rely on ground and space-based early warning, tracking, fire control and AESA radars to detect and track threats. Without help from its sensor-based eyes and ears, Golden Dome’s interceptors would be essentially useless and firing blind in the event of a crisis.

China’s Anti-Golden Dome Toolkit

If implemented in a real-world defense application, the new stealth tech will add to the list of means China already has at its disposal to render Golden Dome obsolete, like:

  • pairing ICBMs or carrier-killer missiles with electronic warfare drones or aircraft,
  • deploying decoy/dummy warheads
  • cyber warfare

Individually and together, these systems can jam radar, spoof sensors, mimic missile signatures and suppress communications.

China could even announce a drone and missile buildup to simply overwhelm US defenses and exhaust interceptors. It worked for Moscow when Reagan toyed with his Strategic Defense Initiative in the 80s. It can work for Beijing against Trump’s Golden Dome.

Targeting the Dome Itself

The US system could be targeted with:

  • ground/space-based anti-satellite weapons (missiles, killer satellites)
  • hypersonic weapons that maneuver to evade interception
  • laser & microwave weapons targeting sensors
  • sabotage & cyber ops

Trump’s Only Winning Move: Not to Play

Like Reagan before him, President Trump sees Golden Dome as a magical weapon with which to defend America.

In reality, it will serve to undermine strategic stability, since its real purpose, whether Trump realizes it or not, is to give the Pentagon the ability to launch first strike attacks with a false sense of impunity, thus undermining the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine.

Unless it’s cancelled, the Golden Dome will trigger a new global arms race unlike anything seen so far this century, pushing rivals to:

  • build more warheads to saturate US defenses
  • create new hypersonic weapons to evade it
  • develop decoys, new multiple independent reentry vehicle, early warning and radar-absorbing materials to defeat it

As for the US, it will spend up to $831B on a system that doesn’t work.

May 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Russia warns US about Golden Dome scheme

RT | May 27, 2025

The US is taking a “reckless approach” to global stability through its pursuit of a worldwide anti-ballistic missile defense system, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.

The initiative, backed by President Donald Trump and dubbed the Golden Dome, envisions a layered defense network capable of intercepting long-range threats. The system would include space-based interceptors and options for preemptive strikes. The Congressional Budget Office has projected the program’s cost could exceed $542 billion over two decades.

Zakharova warned on Tuesday the plan “directly undermines the foundations of strategic stability,” a view she said is also held by China. Addressing a Chinese media inquiry at a regular briefing, she noted that both governments had outlined their shared concerns in a joint statement earlier this month.

The statement, released on May 8, accused Washington of disregarding the longstanding link between offensive and defensive strategic forces, a principle the two countries described as central to maintaining global equilibrium. Moscow and Beijing also criticized the US declaration of space as a “warfighting domain” and the fact that the Golden Dome project requires further militarizing it.

Zakharova called on the US to reconsider its position and back a Russian-proposed treaty aimed at banning the deployment of weapons in space. Such a measure, she argued, would reduce the risk of an arms race beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

Earlier on Tuesday, North Korea issued a similar warning, stating that countries perceiving a threat from the US would be compelled to expand their military arsenals in response to the deployment of the Golden Dome.

In 2002, US President George W. Bush withdrew from a bilateral treaty with Russia that limited the development of anti-ballistic missile technologies. Bush argued the move was necessary to defend against so-called “rogue states.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that the decision had forced Moscow to develop advanced nuclear weapons capable of penetrating any missile shield in order to preserve its strategic deterrence. Last December, he contended that Washington’s missile defense investments “cost a lot to taxpayers and contribute little to the security for their country.”

May 27, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Merz’ Missile Intimidation Tactics Won’t Work Because America Calls the Shots in Germany

Sputnik – 26.05.2025

“In short, you shouldn’t take the Germans too seriously,” veteran German legal scholar and ex-AfD MEP Gunnar Beck told Sputnik, commenting on Chancellor Merz’ announcement that Germany, the UK, France and the US are no longer restricting how far Ukraine can strike using its NATO-sourced missiles, potentially including Taurus.

“Germany today only needs to be taken seriously if it acts as a US satellite… We are not an independent nation. We are governed partly by the EU and partly by the US. Did the EU and the US agree?” That’s the real question, according to Beck.

Merz’ threats are meant as an intimidation tactic, the observer says, but Berlin doesn’t “seriously consider that it may be a crucial step in terms of escalating the conflict so that ultimately Germany herself could be involved either in terms of ground troops in Ukraine or even being affected by the war.”

No One to Challenge ‘Governor Merz’

“Merz as much as previous German chancellors, doesn’t really regard himself as a representative of Germany’s interests. He doesn’t really want to pursue ends which serve Germany’s. He regards himself as something like a governor of Germany for the interests of the globalist elite,” Beck stressed.

He doesn’t have opposition against the CDU-CSU-SPD-Green “uniparty,” which controls two thirds of parliament and is opposed only by AfD and Linke, nor among the financial and media elite (the latter “owned and effectively managed by the government,” apart from Springer Group, “essentially controlled by transatlantic interests”).

Bottom Line?

“Europe is not capable and probably reluctant to take independent action, whatever they may be saying. America still calls the shots in Europe because there’s just such a huge disparity in terms of economic and military power. We have to bear in mind that the EU is in decline. It is, economically speaking… in the worst economic position of all the industrialized countries, including Japan,” Beck summed up.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia to respond to West’s attempted restrictions in Baltic Sea – Putin aide

RT | May 26, 2025

Russia is readying response measures to potential hostile NATO acts in the Baltics, Nikolay Patrushev, a senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has said. The military bloc’s heightened activity in the area increasingly resembles acts of piracy, he told the government’s Maritime Board meeting on Monday.

A set of measures has already been coordinated and agreed with the president, Patrushev said, without revealing the steps Moscow plans to take in response to what it calls a threat to its security and interests in the area. The presidential aide said the Russian Baltic Fleet is currently “strengthening its positions” in the Baltic Sea to ensure the safety of navigation and prevent any “provocations” by “unfriendly” nations.

“The threats posed by NATO are rapidly growing,” the presidential aide said, claiming that the bloc has effectively dismantled the international security architecture established after World War II. NATO is now “stepping up its presence” in the Baltic region and expanding its “combat and reconnaissance capabilities,” Patrushev warned.

He added that these actions are part of a broader effort by Ukraine’s Western backers to increase pressure on Russia. According to Patrushev, Western countries are preparing legislation that would allow them to inspect vessels operating in Russia’s interests in international waters. They are also considering measures to restrict the navigation of these ships in the Baltic Sea or even block their passage through international straits.

“Against this background, the Western nations are de facto committing acts of piracy,” he said, citing an “attempt by the Estonian Navy, backed by NATO aircraft, to detain a civilian vessel in the Gulf of Finland.”

Patrushev was referring to an incident on May 13 involving the Jaguar, a Gabon-flagged ship en route to a Russian port, which the Estonian Navy tried to detain.

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna later claimed that the vessel was unflagged and uninsured, and said the navy attempted to “inspect” it.

He also acknowledged that Estonia “has started to harass” what he described as Russia’s “shadow fleet” – a term used in the West to refer to tankers operating outside Western insurance systems.

Last month, Patrushev warned that EU and UK plans to tighten maritime restrictions on Russia “increasingly resemble a naval blockade.” He added that if diplomatic and legal means fail, Russia would be ready to deploy its navy to safeguard navigation.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

West’s Long-Range Missiles to Ukraine All Essentially the Same & Russia’s Shooting Them Down

By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – 26.05.2025

Germany, the UK, France, and the US have removed range restrictions on weapons for Ukraine, Chancellor Friedrich Merz confirmed on May 26.

Whether it’s the Taurus, Storm Shadow, or SCALP, Russia will just keep knocking them out of the sky, Yevgeny Buzhinsky, Chairman of PIR-Center Think Tank Executive Board, Professor of Higher School of Economics who served as the Russian military’s top arms control negotiator from 2001 to 2009, told Sputnik.

The real issue with Germany’s Taurus missile isn’t its 500 km range, but rather what Merz rightly pointed out -without the Bundeswehr, Ukrainians can’t launch them, pointed out the pundit, adding:

“Which makes this a case of direct German involvement [in the Ukraine conflict], plain and simple.”

Germany, the UK, France and the US are no longer imposing restrictions on how far Ukraine can strike with Western-supplied weapons, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz revealed on May 26.

“There are no longer any range restrictions on weapons supplied to Ukraine — not by the British, not by the French, not by us, not by the Americans. This means that Ukraine can now defend itself, including, for example, by striking military positions on Russian territory. Until a certain point, it could not do this,” Merz said in an interview with the WDR TV channel.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that any Taurus missile strike on Russian targets will be seen as Germany entering the war on the side of the Zelensky regime.

Moscow maintains that Western arms deliveries only escalate the conflict and drag NATO deeper into the quagmire.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Peace-Oriented Norway Learned to Stop Worrying and Love War

By Prof. Glenn Diesen | May 26, 2025

Norway identifies itself as a model of a liberal and tolerant peace-oriented nation. Yet, a collective mindset has developed with intense distrust and loathing of anyone who deviates from the government’s official truth and war narratives.

Here is a social experiment to test the claim above. I am a professor of political science, but I am also a politician running for Parliament. My recently established political party is primarily an anti-war party, and we started a poster campaign on public transportation in Oslo. The core message was that we are for negotiations and against weapons for the war in Ukraine. This seemed like a reasonable position as Norway previously had a policy of not sending weapons to countries at war (as it escalates and can make us a participant), and our country used to advocate for diplomacy and negotiations as the path to peace. Norway has abandoned these policies and unified under the new mantra that “weapons are the path to peace”, and we have boycotted basic diplomacy with Russia even as hundreds of thousands of young men died in the trenches. Was our peace-oriented nation ready to at least consider the argument that we should return to our former policies of negotiating instead of fueling the war with more weapons to fight the world’s largest nuclear power?

The country lost its collective mind… Politicians called it a dangerous Russian influence operation. I had taken the side of Russia in supporting the invasion. I am an agent for Russia spreading Russian propaganda. It was argued that the national intelligence services should get involved, as I am likely financed by the Russian state. Soon thereafter, the national intelligence agency, PST, reassured the public that they are looking into people who may, at the behest of a foreign power, attempt to make Norwegians critical of the government’s policies on sending weapons to Ukraine.[1] Almost every media outlet in the country framed the issue on the premise that I am “pro-Russian” and “anti-Ukrainian”. People began tearing down the posters, and some compared their political vandalism with liberating the country from Hitler during the Second World War. People were intoxicated with self-righteousness and moral superiority as the tribe united in virtue and the fight for freedom. Their hatred of the evil “other” was celebrated as evidence of their righteousness as they formed a resistance against us, fascist agents of Russia who support the destruction of Ukraine and would like to see Russia conquer Europe.

At this point, it should be noted that I consider myself a friend of Ukraine. I have warned against war in Ukraine for the past 20 years, and I have obviously not supported the invasion of Ukraine. Much like many political leaders across the West have argued over the past 30 years, I believe that NATO expansion triggers a security competition and eventually war, much like it would if Russia established its military infrastructure in Mexico. My argument is that Russia considers NATO expansion an existential threat and responds based on these convictions, irrespective of NATO not agreeing with Russia’s threat assessments. I therefore argue for diplomacy and against sending weapons, as it will only escalate the war, destroy Ukraine, and take us closer to nuclear war.

I consider this to be a pro-Ukrainian position and a pro-Western position, to speak in the language of my tribal countrymen who do not care for arguments about security competition. It should be noted that our own Prime Minister argued after the Russian invasion that it was “out of the question” to send weapons, yet this position has since been criminalised and reserved for agents of Russia. I discovered that my position is not sufficiently anti-Russian, since I believe the broken security architecture is the source of the war, and the discourse in Norway is reduced to basic tribal loyalties of picking one side or the other. Norwegian society only tolerates arguments that are based on the premise that we are not to blame and our solidarity must be based on condemning the “other”. The premise of an “unprovoked invasion” is therefore sacred. Consequently, enhancing our security by mitigating the security competition with Russia is impossible, as we are not allowed to discuss Russian security concerns. War predictably becomes the only path to peace.

The political campaign resulted in a televised public debate where our former defence minister / foreign minister was represented on the other side. In what resembled a show from Jerry Springer rather than a debate, her tactic was to be condescending and accuse me of being a propagandist for Russia. Whatever could have resembled an actual argument was premised on the idea that I am “pro-Russian”, while the government is “pro-Ukraine”. My dissent was thus a threat to national security. The purpose was never to discuss whether Russia is pursuing an empire or responding to what it considers to be an existential threat, and the purpose was certainly not to discuss whether weapons and boycott of diplomacy are the path to peace.

Then the media, functioning as a branch of government, stepped in to “fact-check” the debate. Or more precisely, the media only “fact-checked” one side, while the obvious lies told by our former defence minister / foreign minister went unchecked. Also, the “fact-checkers” were more like narrative checkers, as I was accused of “using several arguments that fit Russia’s most important narratives about the war in Ukraine”.[2]

The more dishonest media never bothered to check the facts supporting my arguments, and instead approached “fact-checking” by picking one ambiguous source to conclude I am not reliable. For example, I made the argument that Boris Johnson sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement at the behest of the US and UK, yet the newspaper then only picked Davyd Arakhamia as an ambiguous source. Why did they not mention the two mediating sides, the Turkish (the foreign minister and President Erdoğan) or the Israeli (former Prime Minister Bennett), who confirm the negotiations were sabotaged to use Ukrainians to weaken a strategic rival? Why did they not cite the former head of the German military, General Kujat, who says the same? Why not reference interviews with American and British leaders who argued that the only acceptable outcome was regime change in Moscow? Why did they not cite the words of Boris Johnson himself as he expressed his disdain for the negotiations and warned against a “bad peace”?

The more honest media had the decency to at least publish the facts I presented, although they still had to muddy the waters. For example, I argued that the West knew that we backed the coup in Kiev in 2014 and pushed NATO expansion, despite knowing that only a small minority of Ukrainians (about 20%) wanted NATO membership and despite knowing it would likely trigger a war. The evidence cannot be disputed, so the fact-checker argues the Ukrainians were “ignorant” of NATO’s mission and had been propagandised, and points out that after the Russian invasion, there has been a majority support. This information and these claims have absolutely nothing to do with the argument that we knew only a small minority wanted NATO membership in 2014, and we knew it would likely result in war. All the “fact-checking” was intended to discredit.

The considerations of the rational individual have been defeated in Norway by the tribal mindset and groupthink. The government’s policies and war narratives represent virtue and truth, and all opposition is thus immoral and deceptive. The premise of every argument from politicians and their stenographers in the media was that they were on the side of the innocent Ukrainian victim, and I represented the evil Russian aggressor. There is no interest in engaging with arguments; rather, there is an obsession with exposing the hidden evil intentions of their opponents. Toward this end, anything is permitted in the “good fight”. The national intelligence services warned, with a not-so-subtle hint to me, that they are aware of efforts to polarise the public. Not only is it completely unacceptable for me to enter Parliament as I allegedly represent Putin, but my employment as a professor at a Norwegian university is also problematic, as I repeat “Russian narratives. How did Norway become authoritarian and gung-ho about war?

The Propagandised Norwegian

I will write here about “the Norwegian”, the collective national consciousness that serves the purpose of overwhelming the rational individual. Sigmund Freud famously recognised that the individual is rational, although human beings are also influenced by an irrational group psychology. Human beings have throughout their entire history organised in groups for security and meaning, and adjusting to the group is one of the dominant instincts in human nature. Carl Jung famously wrote about the limits of reason: “Free will only exists within the limits of consciousness. Beyond those limits there is mere compulsion”.[3]

The key component of group psychology is to divide individuals into “us” (the in-group) and the “other” (the out-group). When human beings are exposed to uncertainty and fear, there is an instinct to demand internal solidarity and denounce the out-group. Authoritarian tendencies tend to thrive when exposed to external threats.

The literature on political propaganda originates primarily from Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, who built on his uncle’s work. Bernays recognised that manipulating the stereotypes of what represents “us” and the “other” diminishes the relevance of objective reality and the considerations of the rational individual. When we use military force, is it for freedom, and when our adversaries do the exact same thing, it is to advance empire and destroy freedom. The core of propaganda is therefore to present the world as good versus evil, and as superior versus inferior. The Western political propaganda that previously framed the world as the civilised versus the barbaric has been recast as the struggle of liberal democracy versus authoritarianism. If the public accepts this basic premise, the complexity of the world is simplified and dumbed down to the extent that dissent is immoral and dangerous. All that matters then is that you display loyalty to the in-group.

Walter Lippmann famously argued that political propaganda had the benefit of mobilising the public for conflict, yet it had the disadvantage of preventing a workable peace. When the public has bought into the premise that they are in a struggle between good and evil, how could they accept mutual understanding and compromise? The propagandised public reaches the conclusion that peace depends on the good defeating the evil. In almost every conflict and war of the West, the opponent is presented as a reincarnation of Hitler, and the Western political-media establishment lives perpetually in the 1930s as negotiations are appeasement and war is peace. This is profoundly problematic as the first step in reducing the security competition is recognising mutual security concerns.

Carl Schmitt, the scholar from Hitler’s Nazi Party, argued that organising politics along the friend-enemy binary also enabled governments to purge dissent. Schmitt’s concept of the enemy within strengthens political unity by purging those who do not display in-group loyalty and fail to conform to the beliefs and behaviour of the social order. The Norwegian has now experienced a decade of non-stop obsession with the Russiagate Hoax, Covid and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fear and the search for enemies within to purge has exhausted the rational individual. We have now outsourced our critical thinking to the government and seek comfort in Orwell’s two-minute hate, in which we join the media-fuelled moral outrage against the enemies of the state. The moral indignation gives safety, meaning and unity.

The problem is spreading across Europe. In France, the main opposition leader has been arrested in what is seemingly a politically motivated attack. In Germany, the largest political opposition party has been labelled an “extremist organisation”, which enables the intelligence agencies can go after members. It is likely also a first step to banning the opposition party. In Romania, the election results in the presidential election were cancelled, and the winner was not allowed to run again. In the do-over of the Romanian elections, France and the EU were accused of interfering in the election to make sure the Romanians would [not] vote the wrong way again. Interference in Moldova and Georgia was also done under the banner of defending democracy from Russia. The irony is that the internal solidarity of the West as a “liberal democratic community” is, to a large extent, reliant on the Russian “other” playing the role of the bogeyman, which creates the groupthink that tears away at the liberal character of the West.

People tend to exaggerate what they have in common with the in-group, and exaggerate the differences with the out-group. The Norwegian has some contempt for America when compared with Norway, especially when they vote the wrong way. The Norwegian can, for example, not understand why the Americans would vote for Trump. This is because the Norwegian does not actually know why Americans voted for Trump, since the Norwegian media functioned as a campaign manager for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It is common to portray Americans as stupid, aggressive, and under Trump, it is not uncommon to introduce the word fascism. However, when in conflict with Russia, the American transforms into the in-group. With the simplistic division of good versus evil, the American is cast as the good guy. The US has a security strategy of global primacy, yet the Norwegian is suspicious of arguments that the US security strategy does not consist of advancing liberal democratic values. By extension, NATO is a “force for good”, and you would not question it unless you are seeking to sow divisions to undermine our goodness. NATO occupied Afghanistan for 20 years in a strategic part of Central Asia so small girls would be allowed to go to school, Libya and Syria were destroyed to defend human rights, and the expansion of the military bloc is solely motivated by the goal of offering protection to other peoples. Moscow could not possibly think the US would ever attack Russia, while ignoring the current proxy war and the continuous talk of possible wars with Iran and China. The Norwegian must refer to NATO as a defensive alliance even whilst it is bombing countries that never threatened a NATO country. Leading NATO countries are now complicit in genocide in Gaza, yet the benign liberal democratic identity we have assigned to ourselves is impervious to reality. If you criticise the West, it is not because you advocate for course correction, but because you stand with our enemies.

The Norwegian as a Moral and Liberal Authoritarian

Liberalism is renowned for having an internal contradiction that must be managed. Liberalism is based on tolerance to accommodate the rights of the individual to deviate from the group, yet liberalism is also based on the assumption of universalism in terms of all societies conforming to the liberal ideals.

The Norwegian accepts that all people are different and tolerate diversity, yet his liberal convictions are universal and more developed in Norway, others must thus follow the same path. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. The Norwegian has embraced liberal principles such as mass immigration, radical secularism, gay marriage, gender ideology and humanitarian wars, and will ostracise and crush anyone who does not follow the same conviction. For example, believing that marriage is between a man and a woman was an acceptable opinion 15 years ago, but today it makes you intolerant and there is no tolerance for your intolerance. The Norwegian politician may not know the first thing about China, with its thousands of years of history and population of 1.4 billion, yet the Norwegian politician has a remarkable confidence in knowing exactly how China should be run as a country.

The Norwegian has been trained to speak in the language of morality to suppress factual discussion. Framing all arguments as moral implies that the opponents are immoral. Critical debate and open debate suffer as rational arguments, and nuance is replaced with moral righteousness and condemnations.

“Helping Ukraine”

The good versus evil premise that cannot be contested is that the Norwegian government is on the side of Ukraine, it is “pro-Ukrainian”, it “supports” and “helps” Ukraine. In contrast, dissidents such as myself who criticise the government’s policies are “anti-Ukrainian” who legitimise or support the invasion in solidarity with Russia. For the Norwegian, even a democratic debate between the two sides is morally repugnant as it gives voice to Russian propaganda.

I usually counter the false premise by arguing that NATO’s “help” entailed supporting the toppling of Ukraine’s government in 2014, which did not have the support of the majority of Ukrainians or their constitution. This was largely done to “help” Ukraine join NATO, but only about 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO in 2014. The US merely “helped” when it took control over key governmental positions in Ukraine and had to rebuild Ukrainian intelligence services from scratch as an ally against Russia, from the first day after the regime change in 2014.

When 73% of Ukrainians voted for the peace platform of Zelensky in 2019, NATO decided to “help” destroy the popular peace mandate as it represented “capitulation”. Nationalists, supported by the “NGO” Ukraine Crisis Media Centre, presented “red lines” that Zelensky was not allowed to cross.[4] Zelensky had his life threatened repeatedly and publicly if he dared to cross these red lines, and he eventually abandoned his peace mandate. Several Western governments, including the Norwegian government, finance this “non-governmental organisation”.[5] There is an abundance of evidence that the US sabotaged the Istanbul peace negotiations in April 2022 and wanted a long war that uses Ukrainians to bleed Russia, yet the proxy war is fought under the banner of solely “helping” Ukraine. Criticising the idea that NATO, the world’s largest military alliance and an important instrument to advance US global hegemony, is solely preoccupied with helping Ukraine, is a key premise that cannot be challenged. Anyone attempting to question it is met with vicious attacks and accusations of standing with the enemy.

To ensure that the groupthink is managed, “democratic institutions” such as government-funded NGOs are tasked to herd the masses. The government-funded Norwegian Helsinki Committee, another “non-governmental organisation”, is also financed by the US government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Reagan and the CIA Director established NED in 1983 as a “human rights organisation” to manipulate civil society in other countries. It is an ideal propaganda arm for the government, as competing power interests in the world and subsequent conflicts can be sold to the public as a struggle between good and evil. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee, a government-financed “non-governmental organisation”, writes regular hit-pieces on me, smears me non-stop on social media as a Putin-propagandist, attempts to cancel my invitations to speak, and attempts to have me fired by always shaming the university for giving me credentials that I allegedly abuse to spread propaganda. This includes calling and sending letters to the university. I must hide my address and phone number as the public is regularly told I am “anti-Ukrainian”, while an employee at this “human rights organisation” posted a picture of the sales advertisement of my house on social media. The leader of this NGO that has spent more than four years to smear, intimidate, censor and cancel me explained to the media that it was done as a nice gesture to help me sell my house. When I compared their intimidation to the intimidation of the brownshirts at universities, the scandal was that I compared this virtuous “democratic institution” to the brownshirts.

The Norwegian as a Sociopath

The rational individual is humanistic, but the collective consciousness of the Norwegian has taken on sociopathic traits with a lack of empathy, chronic lying, deceit, aggression, irresponsibility, and an absence of remorse.

The Norwegian is taught to express empathy for Afghans when it justifies occupation, Syrians when it justifies regime change, Libyans when it justifies military intervention, etc. However, once the strategic objective is achieved, there is no attention or empathy expressed. As we leave behind death and destruction, there is no remorse, as our alleged intentions were good. In Ukraine, the Norwegian is taught to have great empathy when it comes to advancing the war efforts. In contrast, the Norwegian will react with suspicion and anger if anyone mentions the suffering of the people in Donbas over the past decade, “military recruiters” dragging people off the streets and out of their homes, the attacks on the media, the denial of political rights, language rights, cultural rights or religious rights. The empathy for Ukrainians is instrumental, it is evoked or suppressed based on the purpose it serves.

Ukrainians who want to fight the Russians make the headlines, while Ukrainians such as former Western-backed presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko have disappeared from the media after she accused the West of using Ukrainians to weaken Russia. Ukrainians who fail to play the role of wanting to fight to the last man are also met with suspicion and should not be allowed to speak on behalf of their country. The narrative must be defended from facts, and in the good fight, it is virtuous to lie and deceive. Irresponsibility is now framed as being principled, as, for example, Russia’s nuclear deterrent must be referred to as an unacceptable nuclear blackmail that must be rejected. Insisting on continuing to fight a losing war in which Ukrainians lose more men and territory every day is “pro-Ukrainian”, because the alternative is a Russian victory that is “pro-Russian”. The deeper the belief in the righteousness of the cause, the easier it becomes to love the war that serves it.

[1]

PST snakker om utenlandsk påvirkning etter FOR-debatten

[2]

Faktasjekk: Partiet Fred og rettferdighet (FOR) og russiske påstander om krigen i Ukraina

[3] Jung, C.G., 1973. Letters 1: 1906-1950. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p.227.

[4]

Joint statement by civil society representatives on the first political steps of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky | UACRISIS.ORG

[5]

Donors – Uacrisis.org

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Germany arming for possible conflict with Russia – Reuters

RT | May 26, 2025

The German military must significantly increase its weapons stockpile by 2029, the year the current government anticipates a potential threat from Russia, according to a directive issued by the country’s defense chief, obtained by Reuters.

The order, titled ‘Directive Priorities for the Bolstering of Readiness’, was signed on May 19 by Carsten Breuer, the inspector general of the Bundeswehr, the news agency reported on Sunday.

Moscow has denied that it has any aggressive intentions toward NATO countries, dismissing Western speculation of a possible attack as fearmongering aimed at justifying extensive militarization by the bloc’s European members.

Breuer’s order emphasizes the procurement of advanced air defense systems and long-range precision strike capabilities effective at ranges exceeding 500km. He has also reportedly directed the military to increase the stockpiling of various types of ammunition and to develop new capacities in electronic warfare, as well as space-based systems for both defensive and offensive missions.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced on Monday that his government has lifted restrictions on the range of weapons it can supply to Ukraine to fight Russia. The news is perceived as a hint at the possible delivery of long-range Taurus missiles, which the previous government refused to donate.

In March, the German parliament amended the nation’s law to exempt military spending from the ‘debt brake’, a measure that limits government borrowing. Merz has proposed allocating up to 5% of the nation’s GDP to security-related projects by 2032, a significant increase from the current level of around 2%. He claimed that this expenditure would transform the Bundeswehr into Europe’s most formidable military force.

The rearmament plans necessitate a corresponding increase in personnel. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius indicated in a recent interview that the ruling coalition aims to introduce a recruitment model similar to Sweden’s, potentially ending the current volunteer-only system as early as next year.

The military initiatives come amid economic challenges, including de-industrialization and stagnation. On Sunday, the newspaper Bild said that ThyssenKrupp, a company with over two centuries of history, is undergoing a significant restructuring amounting to dissolution. According to the report, the company plans to reduce its headquarters staff from 500 to 100, transfer its steel mills to Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky, sell its naval shipyard Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) in the public market, and divest most other divisions.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

How Russia Quietly Revolutionised Warfare

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | May 25, 2025

On May 23rd, The Times published an extraordinarily candid probe into how militarised drones have irrevocably revolutionised warfare in the 21st century, with Russia far at the forefront of this radical shakeup of how conflicts are waged. Meanwhile, there is little indication NATO members even vaguely comprehend this battlefield reality, let alone a single one of them is undertaking any serious measures whatsoever to prepare for conflict such as that currently unfolding and evolving daily throughout Ukraine’s eastern steppe.

The Times piece is a first-person report of a visit to the assorted headquarters of Kiev’s 93rd Mechanised Brigade, in basements of abandoned buildings and homes throughout the Donetsk city of Kostiantynivka. It’s a devastating picture of the realities of war in the era of drones, which has “[altered] the physical make-up of the front line, the tactics of the war and the psychology of the soldiers fighting it,” while “having a devastating impact on Ukraine’s logistical ability.”

At one stage, The Times reporter was warned they were standing nine kilometres – 5.5 miles – from the nearest Russian position, and thus “well inside the kill range.” A Ukrainian soldier told them with a shrug, this was “now an easy range in which to die”:

“No other weapon type has changed the face of the war here so much or so fast as the FPV drone. Almost any vehicle within five kilometres of the front is as good as finished. Anything moving out to ten kilometres is in danger. Drone strikes at 15 or 20 km are not that unusual.”

Since the proxy war erupted, both Ukraine and Russia have innovated in the field of FPV drones to an unprecedented degree. Kiev has become so reliant on drones, they are her “weapon of choice.” Yet, as The Times records, Russia has now decisively “taken the lead in the drone race, outproducing Kyiv in the manufacture and use of medium-range FPV drones and fibre optic variants that have changed the shape of the entire 1,200 km front line.”

Not only are FPVs “dramatically” striking ever-deeper into Ukrainian territory, but fibre optic FPV drones have gained “dark prominence over the killing fields.” While emulating the quadcopters equipped with munitions typically deployed by both sides previously, this “highly manoeuvrable killer drone” is connected directly to pilots by “a gossamer thin fibre optic thread.” This makes the contraptions difficult to track, and impervious to electronic jamming. A local infantry battalion commander told The Times:

“The changes posed by drones are so fast that concepts we implemented just a month ago no longer work now. We live in a space of perpetual fast adaptation. In the past week alone, Russian drone strike ranges have increased by four kilometres.”

These developments have sent Ukrainian forces scurrying en masse to regroup at regular, abrupt intervals ever-further away from the front line (also known as “zero point”), while logistical convoys to Kramatorsk – “long considered the bastion of Ukraine’s defence of the Donbas region” – have been repeatedly struck. One lieutenant recorded how Russian drones “swarm our armoured vehicles whenever they get near the zero point,” obliterating them and their crews. He believes drones represent such a world-changing military hazard, “the days of the tank are truly over.”

‘Danger Estimate’

The “drone-filled skies” of Donbass are so deadly, getting soldiers and equipment to the ever-expanding frontline and back is not only a logistical and practical horror, but also a frequently suicidal task. The Times reports that until late 2023, Ukrainian infantrymen “were usually carried to a position near the front in armoured personnel carriers, walking the last few hundred metres on foot.” Today, they are dropped off up to eight kilometres away at night, walking “meandering routes through trees to avoid detection, just to take up their positions.”

Rotations from the frontline have also vastly extended in length. While at the start of 2024 Ukrainian soldiers spent “a week or two” at zero point, now they’re routinely trapped there for months at a time, “often devoid of almost any other human contact, resupplied with water, rations and ammunition by agricultural drones.” Resultantly too, “casualty evacuation has become a nightmare.” Wounded fighters are “commonly” rescued at night, and “even then the operation is fraught.” A senior logistician for the 93rd Brigade’s drone crews lamented:

“As a word ‘stressful’ doesn’t even come close to describing it. Every mission I think, ‘God forbid we get a casualty and have to work out how to get them back’.”

Ukrainian soldiers always keep shotguns close, to attempt to blast attacking drones out of the sky

Each night too, the Brigade’s frontline drone crews are resupplied with batteries, drone frames and munitions. Logistics teams are dropped off up to seven kilometres from the frontline, then carry up to 36 kilograms of equipment forward on foot. The risk to these crews is “enormous”. One driver was quoted as saying he conducted three missions nightly, “and I never know if each one will be my last, if I’m going to make it there and back in one piece.”

The Times records how a logistics vehicle was recently struck by a Russian drone while returning from a resupply mission. The driver lost an arm, but there were so many drones buzzing nearby, he couldn’t be evacuated from the position for five hours, so bled to death. Five Ukrainian armoured vehicles were destroyed by drones in the same sector the next day. However, none of this is seeping out to the world via the mainstream media, which once published videos of Ukrainian strikes on Russia daily.

As The Times notes, drones have adversely affected a core component of Kiev’s war effort – “media communications”. The 93rd Brigade was once “renowned for allowing reporters good access to…the war from the front.” Now though, “access for journalists has been dramatically reduced,” with “many media organisations…reluctant to commit reporters into areas within 15 km of the front.” Ukrainian brigades are likewise “wary” of the risks “they expose their own troops to in taking journalists by vehicle to the front.”

The Times reports that in 2023, the 93rd Brigade’s press officer “organised hundreds of visits to the front by reporters.” The number of visitors has now “dwindled to a trickle”. Since the proxy war’s eruption, the psychological field of battle has been where Ukraine has performed most effectively, eagerly assisted in its propaganda efforts by a media apparatus reflexively reporting the fantastical claims of officials in Kiev and their Western proxy backers as fact. Now, those days are long over. The press officer complained:

“The risks get bigger and bigger, and the coverage gets less and less. We get a journalist’s request to go to the front now and we wonder how rational is it? What is the danger estimate? What is the benefit?”

‘Technological Adaptations’

The Times report is a vanishingly rare mainstream acknowledgement of how the conflict currently raging Donbass is a war unlike any other in history, and its key spheres of battle are wholly unfamiliar to Western militaries. Despite this media omertà, the proxy conflict’s unparalleled operating environment, and obvious lessons, have not gone entirely unheeded in certain elite quarters. Nonetheless, despite alarm bells ringing accordingly, they are clearly falling on deaf ears in American and European centres of power.

In September 2024, Britain’s House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee published a bombshell report, Ukraine: a wake-up call. It found the proxy war had “exposed fundamental weaknesses” in the “military strength” of both Britain and NATO, concluding London was effectively defenceless, with its “small” military reliant on unaffordable “status symbols” such as non-functional aircraft carriers. The country lacks the ammunition, armour, equipment, industrial capacity, personnel and vehicles to withstand a Donbass-style conflict for more than a few weeks at absolute most.

Amidst relentless condemnation of the state of Britain’s armed forces, the report contained a dedicated section on how “the use of drones in Ukraine” had “exposed the sheer variety of possible drone threats in a conflict scenario, ranging from disposable and commercially available drones to high-end, sophisticated ones.” It noted the development has “inserted an extra layer of weaponry between the land and air domains” and augmented “existing capabilities that both sides have, particularly offering new defensive options in the absence of air superiority.”

As such, the House of Lords Committee called for London to “invest in research and development to maintain a strategic edge in drone technology (including amphibious drones), and support the rapid development of new technologies that can compete in contested environments.” It urged decisionmakers to constantly consider and monitor “the pace of technological adaptations on and off the battlefield,” and the Ministry of Defence “to support continuous adaptation,” such as “[incorporating] learning on the use of drones in Ukraine across all domains.”

The report went entirely unremarked upon by the media contemporaneously, and today there is no sign of its multiple urgent calls to action having produced any meaningful results in any tangible regard in Britain’s armed forces. Similarly, despite NATO officials warning the alliance is wholly dependent on US electronic warfare capabilities, which in any event are woefully inferior to Russia’s own, public indications of Western leaders or militaries taking the drone warfare revolution seriously are unforthcoming. Should they end up in direct conflict with Russia, they’ll be in for quite a shock.

May 26, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »