Future Global Order Pivots on Ukraine Proxy War

October 21, 2025 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Russian forces in recent weeks have been increasingly encircling the cities of Pokrovsk in central Donetsk while approaching Lyman and Siversk further to the north. Looking at various live mapping projects tracking the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, nascent pincers appear to be emerging in what some analysts believe could be a large-scale encirclement of what remains of Ukraine’s “fortress belt” in the Donbass region.

Comprising a number of heavily-defended built-up urban centers from Kostiantynovka and extending northward toward Kramatorsk and Slovyansk closer to Lyman, Ukraine’s remaining fortress belt likely comprises thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainian forces. Their encirclement by Russian forces would deal a catastrophic defeat to Ukraine and its US sponsors and signify the achievement of a major Russian objective amid its ongoing Special Military Operation (SMO) - the full capture of the Donbass region. 

Over the next weeks and months, the fate of this military operation will be decided, both on the battlefield in the Donbass region, far beyond it in the strategic depths of both Ukraine and Russia, as well as geopolitically worldwide. 

Realities of a Major Donbass “Encirclement”

While many may imagine a World War 2-style physical encirclement of Ukraine’s fortress belt by rolling columns of Russian armored and infantry units, the encirclement will much more likely take the form of an operational, rather than physical envelopment. 

Russian ground forces will continue their incremental advance along the line of contact, approaching Ukrainian-held towns and cities, besieging them, and eventually taking them, ensuring salients that emerge are well-protected from Ukrainian-counter attack as well as from the sort of operational envelopment Russia itself has been and seeks to continue to impose on Ukrainian forces. 

Instead, Russian long-range warfare capabilities and drone warfare in particular - which has evolved rapidly in terms of both quality and quantity - will be able to target Ukraine’s line of communications along the entire rear of its remaining fortress belt. With the inevitable fall of Pokrovsk to Russian forces in central Donetsk and Russian forces approaching Lyman in the north, Russian FPV (first-person view) and fiber optic drones will be in range of virtually everything in between. 

The encirclement of Pokrovsk and the emerging salient extending north reaching almost directly west of Kostiantynovka has already compromised logistics for Kostiantynovka itself. As Russian forces consolidate control in this region, drone operations targeting logistics for Kramatorsk and Slavyansk will become increasingly effective together with Russian forces doing likewise while moving from north to south near Lyman and Siversk.

The closer these pincers get to one another, the more effective operational encirclement will become and the more precarious Ukrainian positions will become in between them. 

Just as Pokrovsk itself does not require complete physical encirclement by Russian forces to severely compromise Ukrainian logistics and thus undermine defensive positions inside the city, Russia does not necessarily need to physically encircle the Kramatorsk-Slavyansk section of Ukraine’s fortress belt to severely compromise both logistics for it and military positions within it.

In some ways, an operational encirclement would be preferable to a physical envelopment. 

Because Russia is fighting what is essentially a war of attrition seeking to demilitarize Ukraine rather than focusing on the rapid seizure of territory, it seeks to force Ukraine to commit huge amounts of reserves to Pokrovsk and elsewhere along the fortress belt to meet well-established Russian military positions and long-range fires.

A rapid Russian advance toward the Dnieper River or beyond, would be costly and would afford what remains of Ukraine’s forces the ability to operate closer and closer to their own base of material support along its border with NATO. Instead, Ukraine is forced to continuously send troops and material to the current line of contact where Russia is destroying it.

Western Actions On and Beyond the Battlefield  

The Western media now accepts that Russia is both fighting and decisively winning this war of attrition and that there is little the US and its European client states can do to stop it - at least in terms of continued military support for Ukrainian forces. 

US Threatens Russia with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Amid Latest Escalation

October 17, 2025 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - US President Donald Trump in recent weeks has repeatedly mentioned the possibility of sending long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, following a now-revealed US-directed drone campaign targeting Russian energy production deep inside Russian borders, all after US attempts to deceive Russia into a “Minsk 3.0” freeze has categorically failed. 

The predictable escalation confirms for Russia the necessity of continuing military operations into the near and intermediate future to end the conflict on the battlefield in Ukraine rather than at the negotiation table. 

The introduction of Tomahawk cruise missiles will constitute a further escalation amid a war current US President Trump both accused previous US President Joe Biden of unnecessarily starting and had campaigned for office in the first place by promising to end within “24 hours.” 

It is also a war the US continues escalating current US Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself has described as a US proxy war fought against Russia through Ukraine.

While Russia has reacted to each US provocation with patience and persistence in pursuit of its national security objectives, the Tomahawk cruise missile represents another step closer to provoking direct conflict between Russia and either Europe and/or the US itself.  

Predictable Escalation Amid Predictable Continuity of Agenda 

Despite claims of wanting to end the conflict, the Trump administration had no intention of ever doing so, and simply sought to freeze it as it prioritized containing China before circling back to restart hostilities with Russia once Ukraine’s battered armed forces were reconstituted and Western military industrial production sufficiently ramped up. 

Even before the 2024 election, then US Vice President nominee JD Vance simply prioritized war with China over proxy war with Russia and sought the creation of a “heavily fortified demilitarized zone” at the existing line of contact - not actually resolving the conflict - so the US could divert resources toward confrontation with China. 

Following the 2024 US presidential election, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in a February directive delivered to Europe in Brussels told European nations to double down on both military industrial production and arms shipments to Ukraine as well as prepare European and non-European troops to enter into Ukraine to enforce what was essentially a “Minsk 3.0” freeze to the conflict despite explicitly claiming the directive “must not be Minsk 3.0.” 

Secretary Hegseth also mentioned Russian energy production and its role in funding the “Russian war machine,” claiming: 

To further enable effective diplomacy and drive down energy prices that fund the Russian war machine, President Trump is unleashing American energy production and encouraging other nations to do the same. Lower energy prices coupled with more effective enforcement of energy sanctions will help bring Russia to the table.

While Secretary Hegseth publicly mentioned American energy production and sanctions as  means to lower energy prices and target Russian energy production, the Financial Times has since revealed that Ukrainian drones striking at Russian energy production to further this stated US policy objective were overseen by the US itself and was enabled by US intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) without which such drone strikes would not be possible.  

While the FT article confirmed the US’ role in drone strikes deep inside Russia, it was by no means a revelation.

US Sows Chaos Across Asia as it Aims for China

September 30, 2025 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - In late May 2025 US Secretary of Defense (now called the “Secretary of War”) Pete Hegseth warned the world the US was in the process of implementing a division of labor in both Europe and the Middle East while pivoting its attention and all of the interference, instability, conflict, and even war that comes with it toward Asia. 

More specifically, Secretary Hegseth stated, “we are reorienting toward deterring aggression by Communist China.” 

By “deterring aggression by Communist China,” Secretary Hegseth meant preventing China from defending itself and the stability of the region it is located in from Washington’s attempt to maintain primacy over Asia from the other side of the planet. 

Among the manufactured threats Secretary Hegseth cited as justification for US meddling in the Asia-Pacific (referred to as the “Indo-Pacific” by the US government) was China “invading Taiwan.”

Taiwan is recognized both under international law and by the US State Department itself as part of “One China.” 

On the US State Department’s official website under, “U.S. Relations With Taiwan,” it states explicitly that, “the United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations.  The United States has a longstanding one China policy,” and that, “we do not support Taiwan independence.” 

In practice, however, the US maintains the political capture of Taiwan’s local administration, arms and politically supports it, while encouraging it to pursue separatism from the rest of China.  

This, not “Chinese aggression,” is at the root of US-Chinese tensions, a modern-day continuation of Western colonialism over the Asia-Pacific region spanning generations. China’s growing economic and military power threatens to overturn centuries of Western hegemony. 

This is the true “threat” Washington is reacting to - not unwarranted Chinese influence over its own region of the world, but the irreversible end of America’s unwarranted influence over the opposite side of the planet. 

Turning Asia Upside Down 

Despite hallucinations of a US “retreating” from Asia under the current Trump administration, the US is in the middle of region-wide destabilization carried out by the various tools of US political coercion and capture, namely the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID programs now continuing more quietly under the US State Department itself, and adjacent Western foundations like George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. 

Much in the same way the US targeted North Africa and the Middle East during the “Arab Spring” in 2011, it is now targeting first Indonesia with deadly riots disrupting the new BRICS member’s participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting which took place in early September, then toppling the government of Nepal right on India and China’s borders with equally deadly violence, and more recently targeting both the Philippines and border regions of India with the same “Gen Z” branded unrest.

By doing so, the US is shaping the region as part of a continued effort to encircle, contain, and undermine China itself. 

New US Administration, New Wonder Weapons for Ukraine

August 30, 2025 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - The US has announced plans to ship 3,350 air-launched Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) missiles to Ukraine in yet another escalation amid a war the current Trump administration vowed during the 2024 US presidential campaign to end in “24 hours.”

 

As another example of US foreign policy continuity of agenda, the ERAM program began under the previous Biden administration and has simply been continued without interruption under current US President Donald Trump.  

The ERAM (not to be confused with the anti-air RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile also referred to as ERAM or SM-6) is essentially a turbine engine-powered glide bomb. A likely candidate for the arms program is the Boeing PJDAM  which literally stands for “powered joint direct attack munition.” The ERAM is similar to glide bombs the US has already shipped to Ukraine in large quantities but with a longer range expected to reach between 240-450 kilometers according to The War Zone (TWZ). 

The powered glide bomb would be used to strike much further behind Russian lines than previous Western weapons have allowed including HIMARS, ATACMS, various air-launched cruise missiles, and the standard glide bombs the ERAM is likely based on, but with limitations. 

Hype Versus Reality 

Reporting on the ERAM’s delivery to Ukraine has been particularly ambiguous amid flagging fortunes for Ukraine’s US-sponsored (and directed) armed forces on the battlefield and chronic weapons shortages owed to the collective West’s inadequate military industrial base. 

Headlines claiming 3,350 missiles are on their way to Ukraine belie the likely details of the arms program with production only having just started and the first 1,000 missiles likely to reach Ukraine over the course of 2 years, and the rest over a period of up to 3 years or longer. 

Even if 3,350 missiles were available today to send Ukraine, the fact that these are air-launched missiles means the most significant bottleneck for use on the battlefield will be combat aircraft and pilots available to deliver the weapons on target. 

Limitations regarding Ukrainian airpower have prevented other air-launched and air-dropped munitions from reaching their full potential on the battlefield including Storm Shadow and SCALP air-launched cruise missiles (with ranges of up to 250 km) as well as the aforementioned US-made JDAM glide bombs and even French-made AASM Hammer glide bombs which are powered with a solid rocket motor but fall far short of the ERAM’s longer range of 240-450 km at only 70 km.  

Ukrainian airpower, beyond issues of quantity, also face significant challenges from active Russian measures to defend against their use including extensive air defense capabilities targeting both Ukrainian warplanes and the munitions they launch, but also constant efforts to target Ukrainian military aviation on the ground where they operate from.

The longer range of the ERAM will afford Ukrainian warplanes greater safety while conducting stand-off attacks in ways US JDAM and French Hammer munitions cannot, but the low quantities of ERAM missiles and aircraft to deliver them means that - at least in the first 2-3 years -  only about 1 missile could be launched per day, or more likely, 1 larger-scale coordinated attack carried out once a week, every other week, or even more infrequently. 

A larger number of ERAMs would be required per strike to saturate Russian air defenses in the hopes that at least some of the munitions would make it to their targets. 

Compared to Russia’s tempo of airstrikes, missile strikes (ballistic and cruise) as well as long-range drone strikes, the inclusion of ERAMs for Ukraine will make no noticeable difference in terms of the balance of military power on and above the battlefield. 

A Battle of Attrition Russia is Still Winning 

By the end of 2023 alone, Reuters would report Russia had carried out 7,400 missile and 3,700 Geran-2 drone strikes alone. Since then, Russia has drastically increased the production and use of both. 

By 2025, Russia would launch a staggering 6,400 missiles and drones into Ukraine in just a single month, ABC News would report. 

Trump-Europe-Ukraine Meeting: Selling Division of Labor and Strategic Sequencing

August 20, 2025 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Following the recent meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and the following meeting of European leaders, the Ukrainian president and President Trump in Washington, a predictable US policy had begun to take shape.

As stated as early as February of this year by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, speaking to European leaders at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, Europe was tasked with taking over Washington’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine by ramping up NATO spending, arms production, and the transfer of material support to Ukraine, allowing the US to pivot to the Asia-Pacific prioritizing the containment of China there. 

Secretary Hegseth was clear that the conflict would be frozen, not ended, and that European and non-European troops (not American troops) would be transferred into Ukraine to ensure a freeze, followed by Europe reorganizing and rebuilding Ukraine’s armed forces. 

As Secretary Hegseth explained, “the reality of scarcity” prevents the US from engaging directly and fully in two great-power conflicts with both Russia and China simultaneously, requiring the freezing of one conflict while the US pursues another. 

The very fact the US seeks to confront China in the Asia-Pacific in the same manner it has confronted Russia in Ukraine, demonstrates a complete lack of interest in actual peace with either (or any) nation. The US believes that if it can contain China sooner, it can circle back to confront and contain Russia later. 

The Marathon Initiative’s 2024 paper, “Strategic Sequencing, Revisited,” by Wess Mitchel, a former Trump administration official, stated explicitly: 

The idea of sequencing is simply to concentrate resources against one opponent in order to weaken its disruptive energies before turning to another, either to deter or defeat it.

Mitchel also used the term “division of labor” in regards to US “allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific,” a term Secretary Hegseth would repeat verbatim in Brussels earlier this year, revealing “division of labor” and “strategic sequencing” as tandem policies Washington is pursuing. 

First Principles: America’s Pursuit of Primacy 

At the end of the Cold War, as the New York Times (NYT) reported in its 1992 article, “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring no Rivals Develop,” the US sought to create “a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.” 

The same article would note Washington’s rejection of “collective internationalism,” referred to today as “multipolarism.”