|
Ukraine – Intensity Of War Has Decreased
Over the last month the war in Ukraine has become less intense.
The number of daily losses on the Ukrainian side, as provided by the Russia Ministry of Defense, has decreased from an average 2,200 per day in early November 2024 to an average of 1,600 per day in late January 2025.
bigger
Ukraine has acknowledged that the level of violence has decreased (edited machine translation):
Over the past seven days, the number of assault operations of the Russian army on the entire front line has been significantly reduced.
This is evidenced by the data of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, according to the military telegram channel Deep State.
Just yesterday, 80 attacks by Russians were recorded, while at the peak in December, this figure had reached 292.
Deep State provided statistics on Russian attacks by month (daily average):
- November – 5,205 (174);
- December – 6,247 (202);
- January – 5,087 (164);
- 4 days of February – 381 (95)
The reasons for the decrease are unknown. It may well be weather related as a relatively warm winter has caused a prolonged muddy season which makes assaults over open land more difficult.
Another reason might be ongoing negotiations.
Ukrainian ATMCMS attacks on Russia seem to have stopped for now as have Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. (This observation may be deceiving though as such attacks usually appear in bursts.)
Yesterday the Russian side confirmed for the first time that diplomatic contacts with the U.S. have intensified:
"There are indeed contacts between individual departments, and they have intensified recently. But I can't tell you any other details, there is nothing else to say," Peskov told reporters, according to Russian state-owned media.
Next week General Kelloggs, Trump's Ukraine envoy, is supposed to announce further plans for peace talks over Ukraine. I do not expect any real change of U.S. strategy. Russia will have to win the war on the battle field.
Meanwhile: Europe’s Ukraine Delusion continues.
And a lecture in political history (recommended!):
Glenn Diesen and his book The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order in a Book Club discussion with Jeffrey Sachs (video).
Are you sure that Russia’s attacks have decreased, or are they just not being reported as much as we were used to?
And why is it no longer being made public, out of consideration for Trump’s dreams or the world in which he lives when it comes to Russian successes and losses??
Excerpt: 06.01.2.25
Night attacks on the Ukrainian military infrastructure
On the night of February 6, 2025, Russian troops launched a combined attack on airfields, launch sites for unmanned aerial vehicles, naval guard firing ranges and important railway infrastructure of the Ukrainian armed forces. Western-made equipment was destroyed, including mobile drone launch pads, communications and command systems and the BG-28 boat, which was used for patrols on the Danube and sabotage attempts in the Black Sea.
Gusarovka, Kharkiv region (20:00, 05.02.2025)
Two Iskander-M missiles hit the launch bases of the drone units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which performed the tasks of the operational reconnaissance and strike complex.
Results of the attack:
– Three mobile UAV launchers were destroyed, including one converted to transport Boeing Insitu ScanEagle drones (USA).
– The UAV control station, equipped with a Harris RF-7800W (USA) communication system, which provided data transmission and control of the drones, was disabled. – The explosions destroyed an ammunition depot, which contained, among other things, aviation ammunition for the Switchblade 600 kamikaze drones and components for the RQ-20 Puma attack drones (USA). – Personnel: at least 7 confirmed dead, including drone operators and electronic warfare specialists. Uman, Cherkasy region (01:50, 06.02.2025) As a result of a drone attack, the airfield of the 110th Aviation Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which was one of the reserve bases of tactical aviation, was hit. Results of the attack: – The command and control center of the airfield, which included equipment of Western production, including a Vaisala MW41 weather station (Finland) and flight navigation systems Thales TopSky (France), was completely destroyed. — Spare radar modules were disabled, including the Indra Lanza-N 3D mobile complex (Spain), used to control tactical air operations. — A maintenance hangar, where repair work was carried out on the fuselages of the F-16 fighter aircraft supplied to Ukraine, was destroyed. Danube estuary (03:35, 06.02.2025)
Attack drones struck fortified positions of the tactical unit of the naval guard of the State Border Service of Ukraine , which ensured control over the water space and cover of sea routes for arms deliveries from Romania.
Results of the attack:
– The patrol boat “BG-28” was destroyed . On board was a group of five soldiers tasked with monitoring the water area. The boat was seriously damaged and sank.
— A maritime surveillance radar station , presumably a Furuno FAR-3000 (Japan) , responsible for coordinating the actions of the maritime guard, was disabled . — Personnel: 1 missing and 2 wounded confirmed as a result of the attack on ground positions . This area was used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces to organize sabotage attacks from the sea and control the flight of Russian drones over the Danube. — Railway infrastructure in Kharkiv: The destruction of important railway junctions damaged facilities used to transport military goods and equipment of Western production. — Kharkov (01:00, 06.02.2025) – Three contact lines of railway tracks in the area of Uspenovsky Lane were damaged. Three overhead line network supports were destroyed, which led to a power outage at the railway junction and a complete stop in traffic on the section. The explosion damaged the relay cabinet of the switch control, which made restoration work difficult. — Kharkov – As a result of the air defense shooting, debris from the drone fell on the territory of the Barabashov market. A fire broke out in the warehouse pavilions, and the shopping arcades were damaged by the blast wave. @don_partizan
.Addendum:
I think that’s a lot of attacks…
by the way, it’s less than 5 km to the border of Donets to the west…so Donets would theoretically be liberated.
Posted by: berthold | Feb 6 2025 16:20 utc | 34
How geostrategists from Russia and the USA assess the dangers of the new year.
At the beginning of the year, think tanks like to publish their forecasts for the coming year. It is interesting to see how the forecasts and priorities of experts from the USA and Russia differ.
.
by Anti-Spiegel
February 6, 2025 12:00 p.m.
In my opinion, Andrei Shitov is one of the best USA experts in Russia. He was a correspondent in the USA for four decades and is well connected there and knows the Washington apparatus from the inside. That is why I have already translated many of his analyses that he writes for the Russian news agency TASS.
Excerpt:
Peace or global conflict: What risks does the year 2025 hold?
Andrei Zhitov on how analysts in Moscow and New York assess Donald Trump’s new odyssey and a return to the “law of the jungle”
Difficulties are expected this year, primarily from America and for America. This is what experts in risk assessment in global politics, both domestically and abroad, warn of. All in all, in their opinion, the year promises to be turbulent. But how could it be otherwise in a year that began with the return of the nationalist, populist and voluntarist Republican Donald Trump to power in the USA?
In my assessments of the expected global risks, I usually rely on the assessments of the “Eurasians” from the banks of the Moscow and Hudson Rivers: the consulting agency of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Eurasian Strategies, headed by Andrei Suzhentsov, and the Eurasia Group, a New York company with the same profile, founded and headed by Ian Bremmer.
This year’s report of our analysts is titled “International Threats 2025. Change of Archetype?”, and the cover image shows a plot from the story of the Trojan War: Odysseus next to the Trojan Horse, a painting on an ancient Greek vase.
The image, in my opinion, is apt: we remember how many kinds of tricks, cunning and deception were present in the stories about Odysseus. Probably, in order to protect themselves from tricks, this time our authors preferred not to publish their text, and Suschentsov simply explained the essence to me in words. As I understood it, the researchers see a likely change of archetype in the expected transition of the US under Trump from an implacable confrontation with Russia (archetypes of “overcoming” and “retaliation”) to a strategy of searching and choosing options (archetype of “search”, like Odysseus). At the same time, they warn in advance that success is not guaranteed and that everything can return to “overcoming”, that is, to tough confrontation.
“Law of the jungle”
The New Yorkers, who work mainly for the business world in the USA and the collective West, have printed their report as usual. Let’s start with it, especially since the very first lines, one could say, sound the alarm. “We are moving back to the law of the jungle,” write Bremmer and his people. “To a world in which the strongest do what they can and the weakest are condemned to endure what they must endure. And the former – be they states, companies or individuals – cannot believe that they are acting in the interests of those who are in power in their country. This is not a sustainable path.”
The phrase about the strongest and the weakest is a quote from the ancient Greek (an unexpected echo of our report) “History of the Peloponnesian War” by Thucydides, who is considered the founder not only of history but also of political science. Despite its age, however, it immediately reminded me of a relatively recent confession by former US President Bill Clinton about his scandalous affair with the young White House intern Monica Lewinsky: “I did it because I could.” That is, he could afford it; he believed he could get away with it.
Here you have, in my unprofessional opinion, the most stable and unchanging historical archetype, and that without any Aesop language. For me, these six words sum up the essence of US politics as I have experienced it in my life. There is and never has been any morality there. And how sustainable and rational this approach is (which is exactly what the term “sustainable” implies) is an open question, but I think it is more rhetorical. Like Clinton, no one usually thinks about it; everyone just looks at how they can get more. Don’t we see that in what Trump has done since the first days of his new presidency?
.
Geopolitics “set to zero”
But back to the report. As always, it describes and comments on the ten biggest risks to normal life on the planet this year, as the Eurasia Group sees it. First and foremost is “the victory of G-Zero”. G-Zero is Bremmer’s favorite concept, which he outlined in his 2012 book Every Nation for Itself; at its core, it is about a “global leadership deficit” that is now, according to the US analyst, “becoming critically dangerous”.
“The central problem of the global order is that the basic international institutions – the UN Security Council, the IMF, the World Bank and so on – no longer reflect the fundamental balance of power in the world. This is a geopolitical recession,” argue the authors of the report. They estimate that “in 2025… the risk of a global generational crisis and even a new global war is higher than at any other time in our lifetime”. I would of course like to emphasize the last words.
I think it is clear from what has been said that Hudson’s analysts do not believe in Trump’s global leadership. Judging by the data they cite, Americans as a whole are not particularly prepared for it either. Last summer, in a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, almost half of respondents (49 percent), including most Republicans (57 percent) and independent voters (54 percent), agreed that the United States has enough problems at home and should interfere less in the affairs of the outside world due to limited resources.
And as for domestic leadership, the second risk factor in the report is specifically titled “The Don’s Reign.” It highlights that Trump is now much stronger and more experienced politically than he was in his first term, that he has a much stronger foothold in the electorate, in his party, and in all three branches of government. Accordingly, he will now crack down on undesirables and expand his own powers in every possible way; under him, “an even greater shift in the balance of power in favor of the executive and to the detriment of the legislative” is likely.
For this reason, I call Trump a voluntarist. Americans generally stigmatize this style of leadership – in others, not in themselves – as authoritarianism. While they do not expect their new administration to pose a threat to democracy as such, despite fearing that in their last report a year ago, they are under no illusions about their system: the “Oligarchs and Workers” section begins with an eloquent admission that this system is “two-tiered,” with “different standards” for the “haves and the have-nots.” I remember that in Soviet times, we were told exactly that about class inequality.
Russia is “rogue”
The most important section for us – “Russia is still rogue” – comes in fifth place. It states: “Despite a likely ceasefire in Ukraine, Moscow will continue to undermine… the US-led global order this year.” And further: “Russia will take hostile asymmetric steps against EU countries – especially those on the front lines – as they continue to support anti-Russian policies. It will also maintain its leadership role in the Axis of Rogues, the strategic military partnership with Iran and North Korea, which could significantly disrupt global stability this year.”
Of course, these theses raise their own questions. What kind of disruption of the US-led global order can one speak of if American analysts themselves do not see such an order in the world? And if Moscow, as they themselves say, is simply reacting to the irreconcilably hostile foreign policy, is this not normal?
When I pointed this out to Bremmer, he agreed with me, albeit with one reservation: yes, for Russia this is normal, but NATO sees it completely differently. On the first question, he wrote that the “zeroed” order in the world arose primarily because of Russia. And he added that now “many are playing from the defensive, trying to save what they can from the existing multilateral architecture (including the preservation of a strong and united Europe),” but “Russia’s interests are a risk factor for these efforts.”
But Moscow has repeatedly stressed at the highest level that it does not intend to jeopardize these interests, including the highest of them – national sovereignty. And that, to quote Thucydides, we will have the strength to determine our own destiny.
Joint source
The Eurasia Group cites third SThe top global risk factors are the “uncontrolled decoupling” between the US and China, i.e. in the “most important geopolitical relationship in the world”; fourth, “Trumponomics,” including the US tariff war against other countries, including allies and partners. The New Yorkers predicted in advance that reality would exceed expectations.
In sixth place is the “highly dangerous” Middle East due to the “weakest Iran in decades.” And then: “accelerated geoeconomic fragmentation,” mainly due to the aforementioned decoupling of the US and China; the “unbridled” development of artificial intelligence; the preservation of “almost ungoverned and forgotten spaces” in the world – from Gaza, Syria and Libya to Sudan, the DR Congo and Haiti (incidentally, this category also includes the new Russian territories in the former east of Ukraine). The list closes with “the dispute [between the US] and Mexico.”
Whatever way you look at it, most of the risk factors are directly or indirectly linked to Washington. And that’s without analyzing Trump’s interventions in Canada, Greenland and Panama in more detail.
No preconditions for a major war
As mentioned above, Moscow’s Eurasians are keeping quieter this year. When asked how great they currently assess the threat of a “major war”, Suschentsov replied that they “do not expect this threat to intensify this year for several reasons.”
First of all, he pointed out that Trump is not as reckless as he sometimes appears to the outside world and that he has never done anything that would have endangered “the physical security of the United States” – and also his personal security and that of his family. For example, he has been bankrupt several times, but not personally, only professionally. And he himself has publicly called for people not to exaggerate their own willingness to take risks.
Therefore, the interlocutor is sure that the American president “has absolutely no intention of escalating the confrontation with Russia over the Ukrainian issue now, this year.” “There is no ideological and emotional fuse for this, there is no means that could be used immediately to escalate the situation,” the political scientist said.
“The situation in the Middle East, where Israel has considered attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities as one of the scenarios, is dangerous,” the interlocutor continued. In his opinion, this “cannot be ruled out” to date, but nevertheless “after the agreement with Hamas, Israel seems to have put its ambitions on hold.” Otherwise, he believes, Tel Aviv would not have agreed to the US military sending Patriot anti-missile missiles from Israel to Poland for transfer to Ukraine, but would have preferred to keep them in its own arsenal.
Better not to hesitate
Posted by: berthold | Feb 6 2025 16:30 utc | 40
|
