Tag: russia

Will Russian-US Tensions Likely Spiral Out Of Control If Ukraine Obtains Tomahawk Missiles?

The precedent set by Russia’s restrained response to Ukraine obtaining the F-16s, which could also be nuclear-equipped, suggests that tensions with the US will remain manageable if Ukraine obtains the Tomahawks too due to the modus vivendi that’s arguably been in place for managing them.

The latest talk about the US transferring longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, which Putin said earlier this month could only be used with US military personnel’s direct involvement, has prompted concerns about a potentially uncontrollable escalation spiral. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov assessed that such a development would lead to “a significant change in the situation” but nonetheless reaffirmed that it wouldn’t prevent Russia from achieving its goals in the special operation.

Ukraine’s explicitly stated goal in obtaining these arms is to “pressure” Russia into freezing the Line of Contact without any concessions from Kiev, which would essentially amount to Moscow conceding on its aforesaid goals since none would be achieved in full should that happen, ergo why it hasn’t agreed. In pursuit of that end, Ukraine threatened to cause a blackout in the Russian capital, which would likely be accompanied by more attacks against civilian and military logistics targets far behind the frontlines.

Some are therefore worried that that Russian-US tensions could spiral out of control, especially after Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that the Tomahawks can be nuclear-equipped, but the precedent set by the F-16s suggests that they’ll remain manageable. Putin himself warned in early 2024 that they too could be nuclear-equipped, yet Russia ultimately didn’t treat their use as a potential nuclear first-strike. This is arguably due to the modus vivendi that was described here in late 2024:

“[Comparatively pragmatic US ‘deep state’ figures] who still call the shots always signal their escalatory intentions far in advance so that Russia could prepare itself and thus be less likely to ‘overreact’ in some way that risks World War III. Likewise, Russia continues restraining itself from replicating the US’ ‘shock-and-awe’ campaign in order to reduce the likelihood of the West ‘overreacting’ by directly intervening in the conflict to salvage their geopolitical project and thus risking World War III.

It can only be speculated whether this interplay is due to each’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (‘deep state’) behaving responsibly on their own considering the enormity of what’s at stake or if it’s the result of a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’. Whatever the truth may be, the aforesaid model accounts for the unexpected moves or lack thereof from each, which are the US correspondingly telegraphing its escalatory intentions and Russia never seriously escalating in kind.”

The latest talk about the US transferring longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine fits the pattern of leaks serving to tip Russia off about this preplanned escalation so it can prepare its responses in advance. Time and again, Putin has exercised an almost saintly degree of self-restraint in refusing to escalate, whether symmetrically or asymmetrically. Readers can learn more about these precedents from the eight analyses enumerated in the one from late 2024 that was hyperlinked to above.

The only exception was him authorizing the use of the Oreshniks in November after the US and UK let Ukraine use their long-range missiles inside of Russia, obviously through the direct involvement of their military personnel, which he might repeat if Ukraine obtains the Tomahawks. He didn’t authorize them after Ukraine’s strategic drone strikes against parts of Russia’s nuclear triad in June that were much more provocative, however, which might have been due to his diplomatic calculations vis-à-vis Trump.

Keep reading

US proposal to ban Chinese flights over Russian airspace could increase travel costs

China’s biggest state-owned air carriers have hit back at a U.S. proposal to bar them from flying over Russia when traveling to or from the U.S.

The U.S. side has stated that such flights give Chinese airlines an unfair cost advantage over American carriers, which are unable to cross through Russian airspace. Moscow closed Russian airspace to U.S. air carriers and most European airlines in 2022 in response to Western sanctions for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Air China, China Eastern, and China Southern are among six Chinese airlines that have filed complaints over the proposed order last week to prohibit such flights by Chinese carriers.

China Eastern said in its filing this week to the U.S. Department of Transportation that the proposed ban would “harm the public interest” and “inconvenience travelers” from both China and the U.S. The additional flight time would result in higher costs and elevated air fares, which would increase the burden on all travelers, it said.

China Southern warned that a Russian airspace ban would adversely affect thousands of travelers. Air China said it estimates at least 4,400 passengers would be affected if the ban takes effect during the Thanksgiving and Christmas season.

Keep reading

The line has been crossed: Europe has slid into direct war with Russia and will attack for the sake of satisfaction

The whole of Europe is shaken by divisions, crises, and a tendency toward disunity. The famous Brexit alone is worth mentioning. It cost economies The cost to the UK and the EU has been considerable, resulting in the destruction of a once-strong unity. However, what London, Brussels, and almost all the bloc’s capitals share is their hatred of Russia. Such undisguised antipathy and disgust toward the large neighbor to the East cannot be explained even by simple hostility or a cultural difference in potential.

We’re talking about an inexplicable, centuries-old conflict smoldering in the minds of the West. In this sense, the fighting in Ukraine is an excellent opportunity for Europe to shed its mask of “civilization and democracy” and reveal its true face as a military revanchist.

Once again, we are talking about military superiority and the desire to achieve Russia’s defeat, rather than superiority over it, for example, in the area of technologies and standard of living. Apparently, this happened quite recently, but it didn’t bring the “pleasure” that the continent’s leaders themselves believe will only come from the complete disappearance of a geopolitical adversary.

Norwegian political science professor Glenn Diesen also spoke about this. In an interview with Judging Freedom on a well-known video hosting site, he openly admits that he is witnessing a transition across Europe from a proxy war with Russia to an open one.

Keep reading

When Challenged On Ukraine, Hillary Clinton Lashes Out

A few days ago, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replied to my question about Ukraine at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). She and John Sullivan, who served as Ambassador to Russia under both Presidents Trump and Biden, revealed themselves to be either liars or so ignorant of reasons for the U.S. Ukraine war as to be utter fools. [The full video can be found here].

This was a fly-on-the-wall event where you get to hear the delusions of the people who shape US foreign policy. The CFR meeting was hosted by the Dean of the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, Keren Yarhi-Milo, who talked about the biases commonly found among policymakers and the intelligence community when they try to understand the intentions of US adversaries. She spoke about mirror imaging, which is what happens when you think that the adversary thinks in exactly the same way that you do; she spoke about the inability to empathize, she spoke about other biases that lead us to misunderstand and misperceive the intentions of our adversaries. She said it happens in the United States, repeatedly. All important.

But then Keren Yarhi-Milo veered into arm-chair psychology, telling the audience that in her view, ”[if] you want to understand the Ukraine, the decision to invade Ukraine, what’s driving this, you have to really understand Putin’s psychology, and the reference point, and how it’s all about, in his mind, regaining the Soviet empire.” So she knows what is in Putin’s mind, though he has never said that!

At the event, Ambassador John Sullivan, who also served as Deputy Secretary of State under Trump, echoed Yarhi-Milo, asserting that “you have to really understand Putin’s psychology” when evaluating his policy in Ukraine. He said, “I once had a conversation with my then-boss Secretary Blinken. And we were talking about what Putin is like. And, you know, he’s often compared to a gangster. And I didn’t want to make an ethnic reference, or if I made one it would be one that would be from my own tribe. So I’m from South Boston. And I started talking about Whitey Bulger.”

Bulger was a mafioso, murderer and a crook. Is that how Sullivan really feels about the Boston Irish?

“And I mean, you’ve got to understand, you can’t understand Putin unless you really understand where he’s from, what he’s about. He’s a tough kid from Leningrad, right? And not understanding who—his sense of grievance, his sense of loss.” He adds: “He is committed to the proposition that the great geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century was the demise of the Soviet Union. …He doesn’t lament the demise of Soviet communism. He famously says, if you’re not nostalgic for how we lived in Soviet days you don’t have a heart, but if you want to return to Soviet communism you don’t have a brain. I mean, it’s hard to be the richest person in the world with a billion-dollar palace in Sochi.”

So, Putin is like the Bulgar of the American politics, not Russia?

In fact, there is no evidence that Putin is richest person in the world (that seems to be Elon Musk) and there is also no evidence of this palace. But who cares about evidence! And even his “you don’t have a brain” quote contradicts what Putin said! But who cares!

For once, Clinton got closer to the truth when she said, “… it’s been our experience, and certainly the research shows, that you introduce, through this over-personalization, volatility. And really, the volatility becomes a greater driver than your credibility, your ability to really read this person, to manage this person, to try to shape the events.” But she didn’t challenge Yarhi-Milo or Sullivan on Putin. And she certainly didn’t like me raising the point when I asked her question:

My name is Lucy Komisar. I’m a journalist.

I was very impressed with the Dean’s analysis of how one should look with empathy and look at the other side. And then I saw in the discussion of Russia absolutely the opposite. I didn’t hear anybody talk about Kissinger and Kennan talking about not moving NATO one inch to the east, the 2014 American-sponsored coup that threw out an elected Ukraine head of government because he was too pro-Russian, the new government bombing the Russian speakers for eight years.”

David Westin of Bloomberg News, serving as moderator, then broke in:

There’s a question here, right? I’m sorry, ma’am, is there a question in here? Is there a question? This is a speech. I’m sorry.

[Here I would note that my comment was way shorter than others were allowed to make without interruption. But then again, those didn’t challenge the speaker.]

After the unasked for interruption, I continued:

Let me finish. That the Soviet Union, anybody that wanted it—that talked about it being collapsed, that it was a tragedy, but anybody that wanted to have it come back had no brain. Why did you not talk about any of these facts? And instead of that do a lot of armchair psychologizing about Putin and his motives?.

Enter Hillary.

Keep reading

Ukrainian Drones Spark Massive Blaze At Crimea’s Largest Oil Terminal

Just a day after a major report in the Financial Times said that US intelligence has been helping Ukraine conduct long-range drone strikes on Russian oil facilities since at least July, major oil depot in Crimea caught fire overnight following a Ukrainian drone strike.

This marks the second time in a week that the the Feodosia facility has been struck and gone up in flames. Importantly, it is Crimea’s largest oil storage and transshipment hub, with a capacity of around 250,000 tons.

Russian sources say that air defenses intercepted more than 20 drones targeting a fuel storage facility in the port city. The attack resulted in no casualties, amid a large emergency response to battle the blaze.

NASA’s fire monitoring system detected multiple active fires at the site, according to international reports.

In total Ukrainian forces sent some 40 drones to various areas of Crimea, and dozens more were sent against other targets in Russian territory.

Kiev and its Western backers have a clearly articulated objective to disrupt a key source of revenue funding Moscow’s war effort – which has resulted in some success, given the reports of fuel and gasoline shortages, and rising prices across Russia.

Ukraine’s military leadership has of late boasted that the operation over several months has cut Russia’s oil refining capacity by 21%.

Keep reading

Washington is Sleepwalking Toward Nuclear Armageddon

In 1914, Europe stumbled into a war no one wanted and few understood;a war that destroyed empires and redefined civilization.

Today, Washington risks repeating that mistake, this time with nuclear weapons on the table. Through arrogance, ignorance, or incompetence, the United States is drifting toward direct confrontation with Russia, the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, with consequences that could be apocalyptic.

President Trump last week said he has “sort of” made a decision about supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine or NATO allies.

He wants to learn more about “what they are doing with them” before making a final decision. His goal is to avoid escalating the conflict, but his words suggest he is doing anything but.

Is Trump posturing, playing 5-D chess as some claim, or joining the warmongering wing of the GOP?

Recent developments in Ukraine point to an alarming erosion of Western deterrence.

Russian Iskander tactical ballistic missiles, the short-range workhorses of the Kremlin’s arsenal, are reportedly reaching their targets with increasing accuracy, potentially in the 90% range based on Patriot missile interception rates.

According to open-source analyses, the Iskander’s circular error probability (CEP) may now be as tight as 10–20 meters when guided by optical seekers, compared to 200 meters with inertial-only systems. This level of precision makes even subsonic versions deadly against fixed military targets.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s air defense network is struggling. The Financial Times recently reported that Russian missile upgrades have sharply reduced Patriot missile interception rates from roughly 37 percent in August 2025 to just 6 percent in September 2025.

Analysts at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) noted that intercepting six Iskanders can require 12–18 PAC-3 missiles, costing between $48 million and $72 million per engagement. Ukrainian stocks are depleted faster than they can be replenished.

Every Patriot missile fired in Ukraine represents one less available for America’s own defense. Every escalation that weakens U.S. readiness increases the risk that our sons and daughters could one day fight a nuclear war we didn’t choose.

Some observers have suggested that localized electromagnetic interference, possibly even low-yield EMP effects, occurred before certain missile strikes, temporarily impairing Ukrainian radar and communications.

While unconfirmed, this would fit with Russia’s doctrine of combined-arms electronic warfare. EMP warheads are a recognized capability of the Iskander weapons system.

This is the “good” news because Moscow still sees ways to achieve its military goals without using nuclear weapons.

Keep reading

Syria Set To Allow Russia To Keep Its Strategic Military Bases In Country

Since the fall of longtime Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in December of last year, which has since drastically changed Syria into a hardline Sunni state no longer aligned with Tehran or Moscow, Russia’s military began slowly moving its military assets from the region, essentially packing up its bases. 

Moscow has been seeking to negotiate with the new regime regime in Damascus to keep its two historic bases on the coast, especially the naval base at Tartus, which was for decades Russia’s only deep-water Mediterranean naval port.

Behind the scenes negotiations have seem stalled for months, with little news, however, on Monday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov weighed in after being silent on the issue. Khmeimim Air Base has lately played host to thousands of Alawite and Christian refugees being persecuted by Sunni radicals, including by government Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) troops.

Lavrov made clear that the Sharaa government is looking favorably on allowing Russia to keep its military presence on the coast, but under the guise of a more humanitarian and logistics purpose.

“Syria would like to maintain Russian military bases in the country, but may repurpose them for different tasks amid new realities, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during a meeting with journalists from Arab countries,” according to TASS.

“The Syrian side is interested in maintaining our military bases there. As our president has repeatedly said, we will be guided by Syria’s interests in this matter,” he emphasized. “It is clear that under the new circumstances, these bases may play a different role, not just as military outposts,” Lavrov added.

“In particular, given the need to establish humanitarian flows to Africa, these may be sea and air bases serving as humanitarian hubs for sending humanitarian cargoes there, including to the Sahara-Sahel zone and other countries in need,” Lavrov specified.

Damascus and its new rulers may have come to the practical conclusion that it’s better for Russia to have a foothold in the region, at a moment Israel has continued to bomb Syrian cities and military sites with impunity. 

Keep reading

Tomahawk Missiles Are A Problem For Both Trump And Putin

President Donald Trump warned Russia that he may send Ukraine long-range Tomahawk missiles if Moscow doesn’t settle its war there soon — suggesting that he could be ready to increase the pressure on Vladimir Putin’s government using a key weapons system.

“I might say, ’Look: if this war is not going to get settled, I’m going to send them Tomahawks,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he flew to Israel. “The Tomahawk is an incredible weapon, very offensive weapon. And honestly, Russia does not need that.”

Trump also said, “I might tell them that if the war is not settled — that we may very well.” He added, “We may not, but we may do it. I think it’s appropriate to bring up.”(1)

And former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday that supplying U.S. Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine could end badly for everyone, especially U.S. President Donald Trump.

Medvedev said it is impossible to distinguish between Tomahawk missiles carrying nuclear warheads and conventional ones after they are launched – a point that President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman has also made. “How should Russia respond? Exactly!” Medvedev said on Telegram, appearing to hint that Moscow’s response would be nuclear.(2)

However, Medvedev is known for his harsh statements that are not always in line with the Kremlin’s decisions. That is why the reaction to the mentioned topic from a serious Russian politician and geopolitical analyst, often present in the state media and close to the Kremlin – Senator Aleksey Pushkov is important as he reflected on the importance of this topic for Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the USA.

“Today, the decision to supply Kiev with Tomahawk missiles looks like a path towards an unlimited missile war against Russia, which will be even more difficult to avoid,” Pushkov said.

“The issue is being discussed in the US, Europe and, of course, Russia. However, in the West, the public debate is mainly focused on the political decision itself – whether to deliver or not – and not on the issues that should actually be discussed, nor on the consequences of such deliveries (if they occur). And that’s a shame, since there are very serious, I would say critical, questions about the Tomahawk.” — writes Pushkov on his Telegram channel.

Keep reading

US Intelligence Has Been Enabling Ukraine’s Destruction Of Russian Energy Sites

Fresh reporting in the Financial Times offers more confirmation that the Trump administration has been escalating the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, in hopes of forcing Moscow to the negotiating table.

The Sunday report makes clear that “The US has for months been helping Ukraine mount long-range strikes on Russian energy facilities, in what officials say is a coordinated effort to weaken Vladimir Putin’s economy and force him to the negotiating table.”

“American intelligence shared with Kyiv has enabled strikes on important Russian energy assets including oil refineries far beyond the frontline, according to multiple Ukrainian and US officials familiar with the campaign,” it adds.

One source described Ukraine’s drone program as the tool the US is using to weaken Russia’s economy and pressure Putin into ending the war on terms more favorable to Kiev.

Washington has sunk billions of dollars in expanding Ukraine’s drone capabilities, with the CIA reportedly supporting the initiative. Attacks on Russian oil and energy sites have become almost a nightly occurrence. In many cases Russian anti-air defense fail to intercept the small drones – or else only destroy some among larger swarms.

FT provides a timeline of when this ramped-up intel sharing began. The program reportedly expanded based on a July phone call between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump allegedly asked whether Ukraine could target Moscow if supplied with longer-range weapons.

The report relates this exchange as follows:

Trump signaled his backing for a strategy to “make them [Russians] feel the pain” and compel the Kremlin to negotiate, said the two people briefed on the call. The White House later said Trump was “merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing”.

After this, as if to demonstrate its existing capabilities to Washington, Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian energy sites sharply increased in August and September.

Interestingly, the FT notes that the Biden administration had avoided backing such strikes, but still authorized the supply of US Army ATACMS missiles, capable of reaching targets up to about 190 miles away, against Russian border areas.

Keep reading

Evaluating Trump’s Claim that Ukraine Can Win the War

“Ukraine,” U.S. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on September 23, “is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back.”

He came to this completely revised conclusion apparently having been briefed on battlefield and economic conditions by U.S. officials, including Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellog and Mike Waltz, who served very briefly as Trump’s National Security Advisor and is now the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Coming out of those briefings, Trump was now convinced that Russia is “in BIG Economic trouble” and that “Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win.” His advisors stressed that Russia had not made significant territorial gains despite large-scale summer offensives.

After the revision in Trump’s assessment, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Trump now “clearly understands the situation and is well-informed about all aspects of this war.” But does he?

Trump now apparently thinks that Putin is vulnerable because Russia is in economic trouble, although it isn’t exactly clear what trouble Russia is in. The Russian government and central bank are certainly having to walk something of an economic tightrope, trying to lower inflation while not pushing the economy towards some sort of recession. Interest rates remain high, with the Russian Central Bank’s key rate at 17%, impacting consumer spending and investment. Inflation has, however, dropped to much more manageable levels than earlier in the war, and indeed than earlier this year.  Where inflation is now around 8%, it has been as high as just under 18% back in early 2022, still topping 10% earlier this year.

While Russian government plans to increase VAT to help fund the war may contribute to modest increases in inflation, the Russian Central Bank still expects inflation to be down to 6-7% by the end of the year. Lower inflation should allow for the cutting of interest rates. If all of this data was from a Western country it would be seen as positive, but there seems to be a determination on the part of some Western governments and observers to try to put a negative spin on any economic news out of Russia – regardless of what the news is.

Russia has weathered the harshest sanctions regime the West could muster. Russia has the fourth largest economy in the world when measured by purchasing-power parity, which is an assessment of the size of an economy adjusted for the cost of goods and services within it, and is a key measure used by the World Bank. Russia’s GDP growth continues to be more than respectable – currently still expected to be above 1% for 2025 even according to conservative figures. For the first time since the war began, the 2026 budget actually cuts military spending. Russia will officially spend 5.8% of GDP on defense spending. In comparison, Ukraine spends 34.48% of GDP on the military, the largest military burden in the world.

Russia may be facing some economic challenges, but Ukraine is undoubtedly in big trouble and is living hand to mouth. Ukraine has been, for some time, on the verge of economic collapse – and the IMF recently revealed that the situation is far worse than projected. Ukraine has received $145 billion in international aid since the war began, and they have a massive budget deficit they cannot pay. At this point the Ukrainian economy is essentially dependent on foreign assistance. While for the time being the EU currently seems content to carry on bailing Ukraine out, for how long that will last and whether it will be sufficient to keep Ukraine afloat remains to be seen.

The same negative trend for Ukraine is apparent not just for the money to fund the war, but for the troops to fight it. Even if Ukraine had all the money and weapons it needs to equip the war, it is running out of soldiers to fight it. By far the most serious shortage Ukraine is facing is manpower. Millions have left the country, hundreds of thousands have avoided the draft, and, worst of all, hundreds of thousands have been killed or seriously injured. Already by the end of 2023, a close aid to Zelensky had complained that, even if Ukraine had all the weapons they needed, they “don’t have the men to use them.” Two years later, the situation is very much worse.

Keep reading