A recent DIA report to the US House of Representatives indicates that Vladimir Putin remains committed to his original war aims in Ukraine: Ukrainian neutrality and territorial partition. Putin views the conflict as an existential struggle against the West, impacting his power and legacy. Despite substantial military losses—estimated at over 10,000 ground vehicles and 700,000 personnel—Russia plans to continue its war of attrition through at least 2025, while simultaneously engaging in asymmetric warfare and destabilization efforts against the West. This strategy is pursued despite a weakened military capacity to directly confront NATO.
Read More
Russia’s military advantage in Ukraine is diminishing due to critical shortages of weapons and manpower, leading to unsustainable losses despite numerical superiority. This decline, evidenced by stalled advances and dwindling tank reserves, presents an opportune moment for increased international pressure on Moscow. However, despite this weakening, Putin remains confident in a Russian victory, fueled by potentially inaccurate internal reports and a strategy of delaying peace negotiations while intensifying attacks. This confidence, coupled with Trump’s reluctance to engage in sanctions, creates a complex geopolitical landscape.
Read More
Overnight attacks on May 24-25th targeted Kyiv and multiple Ukrainian regions, resulting in explosions and injuries. Seven injuries were reported in Kyiv alone, with damage to a student dormitory and residential buildings. The attacks followed a previous night of heavy assaults and involved waves of drones and missiles, prompting widespread air raid alerts. Russia’s continued targeting of civilian areas underscores the ongoing conflict and disregard for international pleas for a ceasefire.
Read More
A recent US intelligence assessment reveals Vladimir Putin’s unwavering commitment to victory in Ukraine, pursuing a strategy of attrition to weaken Ukrainian resistance and Western support. Despite slow progress and substantial Russian losses—exceeding 700,000 soldiers and 10,000 pieces of equipment—Moscow’s military command deems this approach acceptable. Russia’s offensive, aided by North Korean troops and sustained attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, aims to achieve Ukrainian neutrality and further partition of the country. This strategy, while costly, is predicated on outlasting Ukraine and its Western allies.
Read More
On May 23, Finnish authorities reported a suspected airspace violation by two Russian military aircraft, prompting an ongoing investigation. This incident follows a pattern of Russian military provocations near NATO’s eastern flank, including a recent Polish interception of a Russian bomber. The suspected violation is particularly concerning given Russia’s anticipated military buildup near the Finnish border post-Ukraine conflict. Finland’s NATO membership strengthens its security posture against these threats, although the risk of further Russian aggression remains. The Finnish Defense Ministry is actively investigating and will release further details as they become available.
Read More
President Zelenskyy denounced Russia’s week-long drafting of a ceasefire memorandum as a mockery of the global community, emphasizing the urgent need for a genuine peace process and increased pressure on Russia. He highlighted the recent prisoner exchange as the only tangible result of Russo-Ukrainian talks, with Russia obstructing further progress. Zelenskyy stressed the daily loss of life necessitates immediate action, including new sanctions against Russia. The lack of a concrete date for further negotiations underscores the stalled diplomatic efforts.
Read More
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the creation of a security buffer zone along the border with Ukraine, a task currently underway by Russian armed forces. While the exact location remains unspecified, this follows Putin’s earlier claim of liberating the Russian settlement of Gornal in Kursk Oblast. The Ukrainian General Staff, however, refutes these claims of Russian territorial gains. The announcement was relayed via video link to government officials.
Read More
Following a May 19th phone call between Presidents Trump and Putin, Russia, through Foreign Minister Lavrov, rejected calls for a Ukrainian ceasefire. Instead, Russia insisted on negotiating a future peace treaty addressing what it terms the “root causes” of the conflict. These negotiations, including a May 16th meeting, saw Russia reiterate maximalist demands, including Ukrainian concessions on Crimea and eastern territories, and featured a low-level Russian delegation, signaling a lack of commitment to meaningful progress. Lavrov accused Western leaders of pressuring Trump for stricter sanctions, further hindering peace efforts.
Read More
Following the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys urged immediate commencement of work on the 18th EU sanctions package against Russia. This package should target Russia’s most vulnerable sectors, including energy, finance, and the defense industry, to counteract Putin’s delaying tactics. Budrys stressed the need for swift action, emphasizing that the previous sanctions package is already outdated and decisive measures are necessary to maintain credibility. The 18th package may include targeting banks from non-EU countries supporting Russia’s military. This follows discussions between Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and European Commission President von der Leyen regarding further restrictions on Moscow.
Read More
Boris Pistorius criticized Trump’s initial approach to the Ukraine conflict, highlighting his premature concessions on NATO membership and territorial claims as a significant misstep. This weak negotiating stance, according to Pistorius, hinders prospects for peace or a ceasefire. While acknowledging a potential shift in Trump’s strategy, Pistorius suggests that relying solely on pressure tactics against Putin is unlikely to yield success. Ultimately, Pistorius believes Trump needs to adopt a more nuanced and effective approach.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker