US Consolidates Control Over Proxies Amid War on Multipolarism

February 2, 2026 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Behind the political theater that is the “US-European split,” exists an aggressive campaign of US consolidation over its many proxies - including and perhaps especially over Europe itself. 

Narratives floating through Western media space depict the US as challenging or threatening not only Europe over control of Denmark’s Greenland territory, but also Canada in North America. Articles are written telling tales of Europe and Canada seeking leverage against Washington and countermeasures to protect themselves and their interests up to and including preparations for “guerrilla warfare” against potentially invading American forces. 

In reality, nothing of the sort will take place. 

Already, opportunities for gaining actual leverage against the United States have been eagerly surrendered to the United States, particularly with the recent decision by the EU for a “complete ban on Russian gas imports by 2027.”

The ban means the EU will completely eliminate any alternative to its growing dependence on US LNG imports leaving the US with disproportionate leverage over the EU as a whole and its members individually regarding virtually any matter of foreign or even domestic policy. It is inconceivable that the EU’s leadership would surrender such leverage to the US amid a supposed and growing “split” with the US unless of course there was no real split to begin with. 

A Matter of Perception Management 

Instead, what is unfolding is perception management meant to shape both the American and wider Western public ahead of implementing the publicly declared “division of labor” and “burden-sharing network” announced by the Trump administration and already taking shape during the previous Biden administration. 

It was under the Biden administration that the first National Defense Industrial Strategy was published - admitting to the US’ failure to match Russian let alone Chinese military industrial production and the necessity for the United States to consolidate control over its vast network of “allies and partners,” combining their collective resources, industrial capacity, and military power to confront Russia and China’s growing power across all relevant domains. 

Under a section titled, “Engage Allies and Partners to Expand Global Defense Production and

Increase Supply Chain Resilience,” the Biden-era paper noted:

“The global activity of pacing threats increasingly requires a global approach to defense industrial relationships, concerns, and competition. International allies and partners, each with their own robust defense industries, will continue to be a cornerstone of the DoD’s concept of Integrated Deterrence. Indeed, the global system of alliances and partnerships is central to the NDS, which calls to incorporate allies and partners at every stage of defense planning. Such linkages and relationships will continue to be a cornerstone of Integrated Deterrence in resisting and, if necessary, defeating known and emerging threats.”

The paper also noted: 

“The United States has a complex web of friend-shoring-suitable alliances and partnerships around the world; a partial list includes Australia, Canada, the European Union, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.”

The paper defines “friend-shoring” as, “a process that engages allies and partners in production and processing of critical and strategic materials and supplies.” 

The concept of the US exploiting its “web” of “friend-shoring” partners to compensate for the US’ own limits regarding military industrial production and to serve as an extension of America’s own military power has been continued - even accelerated - during the subsequent Trump administration. 

In a February 2025 directive US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered to Europe in Brussels, he made it clear that Europe in particular would have to increase defense spending from 2% of each member nation’s GDP to 5% which all European nations have subsequently agreed to do.  

US Plays “Mediator” in its Own War on Russia

April 22, 2025 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Recent comments from current US Secretary of State Marco Rubio have signaled Washington’s intent to abandon peace efforts if progress isn’t made between Russia and Ukraine.

CNN in a recent article has reported that: 

The United States could end its efforts on ending the Ukrainian conflict within “days” if there are no signs of progress, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Friday. 

“If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on,” he told reporters before departing Paris, where he had held high-level talks with European and Ukrainian officials. “We need to determine very quickly now, and I’m talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable,” he said. 

This is framed as if the US is serving as some sort of mediator between Russia and Ukraine. In reality, the US is one of two primary parties to the conflict - the other being Russia with whom this war was provoked. 

A US War on Russia Since the Cold War Ended… 

The US had since the end of the Cold War invested billions of dollars in political interference within Ukraine, including regime change operations attempted in 2004 and successful regime change finally taking place in 2014. From 2014 onward, Ukraine was transformed into a military proxy of the United States aimed specifically to threaten the Russian Federation just as a politically captured Georgia in 2003 was used to attack Russian peacekeeping forces in 2008. 

The growing security threat this posed to Moscow precipitated the launching of Russia’s February 2022 Special Military Operation (SMO) and the subsequent fighting that has continued ever since. 

A series of articles from the Western media itself has revealed over recent years the degree to which the US had not only politically captured Ukraine, but also institutionally captured its military and intelligence agencies, reconfiguring them to operate as armed extensions of the US along Ukraine’s border with Russia, and even across it within Russia itself. 

Among these admissions is the New York Times’ February 2024 article titled, “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin,” which admits to, “a C.I.A.-supported network of spy bases constructed in the past eight years that includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border.” 

What’s Wrong with Boris Johnson’s Plan to “Save” Ukraine?

September 29, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - A September 21, 2024 article published in The Spectator written by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson titled, “It’s time to let Ukraine join NATO,” attempts to formulate a theory of victory for Ukraine as war with Russia continues to grind on.

Johnson provides a “three-fold plan for Ukrainian victory.”

Johnson demands that the collective West “end the delays” and that the West “get it done and get it won.” By this, he means lifting all restrictions on the use of Western long-range weapons on pre-2014 Russian territory.

Next, he demands the US and Europe provide a “package of loans on the scale of Lend-Lease: half a trillion dollars,” or “even a trillion.” Johnson claims such support will send a message to the Kremlin that, “we are going to out-gun you financially and back Ukraine on a scale you cannot hope to match.”

Finally, he demands Ukraine be allowed membership into NATO immediately, even as the conflict rages on. In respect to NATO’s Article 5 regarding “collective defense,” Johnson proposes that:

…we could extend the Article 5 security guarantee to all the Ukrainian territory currently controlled by Ukraine (or at the end of this fighting season), while reaffirming the absolute right of the Ukrainians to the whole of their 1991 nation. We could protect most of Ukraine, while simultaneously supporting the Ukrainian right to recapture the rest.

While Johnson points out the political implications of this policy, meaning all of NATO would, “have to commit to the defence of that Ukrainian territory,” he falls far short of considering the practical implications.

NATO Intervention in Ukraine: Political vs. Practical Considerations

Far from a lack of political will or financial resources, the collective West has fallen short supplying Ukraine with the military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and ammunition required to match or exceed Russian military capabilities because its collective military industrial base itself is incapable of physically producing the quantities required, regardless of the money allotted to do so.

Military industrial production requires several fundamental factors in order to be expanded – financial resources being only one of many. Expanding production also requires the physical enlargement of existing facilities, the building of new facilities, the expansion of trained workforces which includes reforming and expanding primary, secondary, and specialized education, as well as the expansion of downstream suppliers and the acquisition of additional raw materials required for production across the entire industrial base.

Any one of these measures could take years to implement. Implementing them all would take longer still.

Then there is the very structure of the collective West’s military industrial base. Consisting of corporations prioritizing the maximization of profits, not performance, the collective West’s military industrial base has for years focused on low quantities of highly-sophisticated (and very expensive) weapons systems and munitions.

For the duration of the so-called “Global War on Terror” these weapon systems were adequate, if inefficient. They enabled US-led forces to roll over the antiquated, poorly-trained, poorly-equipped Iraqi army in 1991 and again in 2003, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. Such weapon systems also proved effective in the destruction of Libya in 2011.

But as the global balance of military and economic power has shifted throughout the 21st century, limits to this military industrial approach became apparent. In 2006, Israel’s vast Western-backed military machine categorically failed in its invasion of southern Lebanon, confounded by Hezbollah leveraging modern anti-tank weapons.

Georgia Fight Against US Subversion & its Implications Worldwide

April 22, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Throughout the 21st century, the United States has invaded and occupied multiple nations, including Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and Syria in 2014. It has also led to military interventions rendering once prosperous nations into failed states, including Libya from 2011 onward.

Beyond this more destructive and direct approach, the US has also admittedly interfered in the internal political affairs of other nations, attempting to overthrow elected governments and install client regimes in their place.

In a 2004 Guardian article titled, “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev,” it admitted (emphasis added):

…the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.

Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box. 

Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze. 

Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko..

This startling admission exposes the US government as deeply involved in interfering in and subverting the political independence of not one, but multiple, nations in Eastern Europe.

The same article admits that the US government achieves this through funds distributed by the National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) many subsidiaries, including the International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), and Freedom House. It also mentions adjacent private foundations like George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

West Declares Russian Elections “Undemocratic” Because it Doesn’t Like Winner

March 19, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) In the wake of Russia’s 2024 elections and President Vladimir Putin’s landslide victory, the collective West has condemned the outcome as “rigged,” “stage-managed,” a “rubber-stamp presidential election,” and “pre-determined.”

Headlines range from CNN’s, “Putin extends one man-rule in Russia after stage-managed election devoid of credible opposition,” which admitted President Putin amassed 87.3% of the vote, and Politico’s, “Putin ‘wins’ rigged Russian election with 87 percent of the vote,” to the New York Times’, “With New Six-Year Term, Putin Cements Hold on Russian Leadership,” which claims, “a rubber-stamp presidential election with no real competition allows Vladimir Putin to claim strong public support for his domestic dominance and the invasion of Ukraine.” 

Omitted from all of these articles meant to portray Russian elections as a farce is the reality that Russian President Vladimir Putin is indeed an immensely popular, widely supported, and well-respected leader among the Russian public. This isn’t the conclusion of the Kremlin’s own polling, but instead conclusions drawn annually by the US government-funded polling organization, the Levada Center.

The Levada Center’s US government funding is provided via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED*), who would admit in a page on their official website titled, “Russia: Polling for Democracy, The Yuri Levada Analytical Center,” that:

The Yuri Levada Analytical Center, a NED* grantee based in Moscow, is an independent polling agency that is well-known for its surveys on sociopolitical issues both within Russia and worldwide.

According to the NED* grantee, the Levada Center, Russian President Putin’s approval rating as of February 2024 stands at 86%. This is higher than 2023 where President Putin’s approval rating was 85% and 83% in 2022.

Comparing the Levada Center’s 86% approval rating for 2024 with the recent electoral outcome, 87.3% of voters reelecting President Putin, it is clear the recent elections reflect the genuine sentiment of the Russian public as even US government-funded polling confirms. How is it then that the collective West, its governments and media, draw the conclusion that elections reflecting public sentiment are somehow “stage-managed,” “rigged,” or amount to a “rubber-stamp presidential election?”

Those making these claims never explain.

Instead, the collective West’s media claim that the exclusion of “opposition candidates” left President Putin with “no credible challenge to his rule,” as CNN claimed in its article. Such articles cite the late Alexei Navalny as “Putin’s fiercest opponent,” but had Navalny stood for elections, is there any reason to believe he would have won?

No.

The same US government-funded Levada Center has conducted numerous polls regarding the popularity (or lack thereof) of Alexei Navalny. As recently as 2023, the Levada Center determined only 9% of the Russian public “approve of Alexei Navalny’s activities,” while 57% did not, with another 23% not even knowing who Navalny is.

Ukraine’s Black Sea “Victory” is a Distraction

February 5, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Ukraine has invested heavily in carrying out complex operations to strike at targets across Crimea including Russian naval vessels, ports, as well as striking at civilian infrastructure including the Crimean Bridge. According to Kiev, this is all part of a strategy meant to first isolate the peninsula, then seize it from Russia.

The Western media, for its part, has invested heavily in convincing the world that Ukraine is “winning” in the Black Sea, and is building on these victories not only toward seizing Crimea but also toward defeating Russia altogether.

In reality, Ukraine’s operations in the Black Sea are a distraction away from Ukraine’s growing crisis amid what is fundamentally a land war, a crisis that if left unaddressed will inevitably lead to Ukraine’s defeat.

A Heavy Investment 

Ukraine’s desire to isolate and seize Crimea has manifested itself as a long-term long-range strike campaign using everything from naval and aerial drones, to the most sophisticated and capable long-range strike capabilities transferred by the West to Ukraine.

Air-launched cruise missiles fired by what remains of Ukraine’s air force have targeted ports, military bases, and civilian infrastructure across the peninsula. Ukrainian warplanes are sometimes targeted and destroyed while launching salvos of air-launched cruise missiles, reducing even further Ukraine’s combat power. The salvos of missiles are met with Russia’s formidable air and missile defenses as well as electronic warfare capabilities, resulting in the loss of the vast majority of the munitions.

The remaining missiles, along with an equally sparse number of drones able to bypass Russian defenses have destroyed naval vessels, damaged buildings and infrastructure, including in one attack, damaging the Crimean Bridge. However, these successes are few and far between, occurring about once every 2–3 months.

The long-term campaign has nonetheless forced Russia to relocate the majority of its Black Sea Fleet further east along the coast of mainland Russia. This relocation in and of itself has been billed as a major victory for Ukraine in the Black Sea.

However, as recently as late last year, Ukraine itself warned of a persisting danger from the Black Sea Fleet and its use of Kalibr cruise missiles. With a range of up to 2,500 km, Kalibr cruise missiles can hit any target anywhere in Ukraine, even from the Black Sea Fleet’s new location.

Despite Ukraine’s occasional success in targeting Russian naval vessels, the vast majority of the Black Sea Fleet remains intact and continues to play a supporting role in Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO), a military operation primarily taking place on land.

Another aspect of Ukraine’s Black Sea “victory,” is the supposed opening of shipping corridors.

While it is true that Ukrainian shipping has resumed from levels close to zero following the opening phase of the SMO, it remains at a fraction of pre-war levels, according to an article published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in November 2023. Considering the damage the protracted conflict has caused Ukraine’s economy, even if shipping were to return to pre-war levels as a more recent Reuters article claims, it is unlikely to even help sustain Ukraine’s economy, let alone aid in economic recovery.

The premise that Ukraine has reopened the Black Sea despite Russia’s best efforts to blockade Ukrainian shipping is highly flawed. Analysts may assign many reasons as to why Russia is not stopping renewed Ukrainian shipping, but an inability to militarily do so is not among them. If semi-irregular forces in Yemen are capable of significantly disrupting shipping in the Red Sea, Russia’s much more advanced anti-shipping capabilities which include long-range anti-shipping missiles and diesel-electric attack submarines are more than capable of significantly disrupting shipping in the Black Sea.

Despite Western governments and the Western media claiming the term “Special Military Operation” is a euphemism for full-scale invasion, Russia has demonstrated significant restraint, including in terms of escalation in the Black Sea.

What is left, after separating headlines from actual strategic success, is an expensive Ukrainian and NATO investment for what amounts to a series of public relations victories. While Russia finds itself embarrassed by the necessity to relocate the Black Sea Fleet, the fleet’s role in launching cruise missiles continues uninterrupted. While Russia sought to block Ukrainian shipping through the Black Sea, primarily as a means of blocking arms shipments, considering the depletion of Western arms stockpiles, there is little left to send regardless of how it arrives in Ukraine.

Why Russia is Winning the Drone War in Ukraine

January 24, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - Ukraine is losing the drone war. This isn’t a claim made by the Russian Ministry of Defense or by Russian state media, but rather the headline of an article appearing in Foreign Affairs magazine, written by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt who now heads a think tank, the Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP), advising the US government regarding artificial intelligence and other emerging technology.

The article titled, “Ukraine is Losing the Drone War – How Kyiv Can Close the Innovation Gap With Russia,” makes a wide range of claims, from repeating unlikely narratives regarding astronomically high Russian losses, to admissions regarding Russia’s many and multiplying advantages over both Ukraine and its Western supporters. Schmidt’s narrative is contradictory, and the article ultimately fails to deliver a coherent explanation as to how Ukraine can actually “close the innovation gap with Russia.”

It is a mystery as to why Schmidt is even writing this article in the first place, not being a journalist or a politician, but rather a leader of the US high-tech industry. But the article demonstrates how even at the highest levels of political and industrial leadership in the US, there lies a fundamental misunderstanding of not only the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, but of the fundamental premise upon which all American foreign policy is built.

Why Ukraine is Losing the Drone War, and will Continue Losing

Schmidt’s article lays out a distorted account of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, following familiar narratives found across the collective West’s media. This includes the notion that Ukraine initially “held the upper hand in drone warfare” and had managed to keep “Russian forces on the back foot.” Such conclusions are drawn by focusing solely on the trading of territory, and in particular, on Ukraine’s Kharkov and Kherson offensives in 2022.

However, because the Ukraine conflict is fundamentally a war of attrition, the true measure of Ukraine’s success or failure is measured in the loss of manpower and equipment versus its ability to regenerate forces, replace equipment, and replenish ammunition stockpiles. In all of these regards, Ukraine has been losing the war from the moment it began – some may even look back in hindsight and conclude the war was lost before it even began.

The collective West for decades developed a large, for-profit military industrial base. It focused on maximizing profits through the production of high-cost systems built in relatively small quantities, while eliminating extra manufacturing capacity for large-scale production that rarely if ever was necessary to sustain the West’s “small wars” following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia, on the other hand, inherited the Soviet Union’s massive military industrial base, maintained certain aspects of it, modernized and expanded others, preparing for large-scale, high-intensity, protracted warfare within or along its borders.

From 2008, when US-armed and trained Georgian forces attacked Russian troops in the South Caucasus region, Moscow began preparing for a conflict by proxy with NATO it considered inevitable. From 2014, following the US overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government, it was almost certain that conflict by proxy with NATO would be fought in Ukraine.

From that point onward, Russia began building up the military industrial base required to fight and win a large-scale proxy war against a NATO-armed and trained Ukraine. Because Russia’s military industrial base consists of a large network of state-owned enterprises, a preference for purpose over profits prevailed.

Today, this fundamental reality is reflected in virtually every aspect of the fighting in Ukraine, from Russia’s advantage in quantity regarding low-tech artillery shells, to more advanced systems like main battle tanks, cruise missiles, and warplanes that both outnumber and outperform their NATO counterparts, to – perhaps especially – drones of all kinds.

Why Ukraine’s 2024 Strategy Will Fail

January 9, 2024 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - New Year’s 2024 saw Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky announce a new strategy toward winning its war with Russia.

The Economist, which published its interview with President Zelensky on January 1, 2024 would report:

Mr Zelensky gives little away about what Ukraine can achieve in 2024, saying that leaks before last summer’s counter-offensive helped Russia prepare its defences. But if he has a message, it is that Crimea and the connected battle in the Black Sea will become the war’s centre of gravity. Isolating Crimea, illegally annexed by Russia in 2014, and degrading Russia’s military capabilities there, “is extremely important for us, because it is the way for us to reduce the number of attacks from that region,” he says.

The Economist would elaborate, claiming that by destroying ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and evicting Russia from a “naval base that Russia has held for the past 240 years,” referring to Sevastopol Naval Base, would be a “huge embarrassment for Mr. Putin.”

The article also explains that President Zelensky requires additional weapons and assistance from Ukraine’s Western sponsors, including long-range stealth cruise missiles (specifically the German-made air-launched Taurus) to destroy the Crimean Bridge (also referred to as the Kerch Bridge).

However, the article never explains how a “huge embarrassment for Mr. Putin” would in any way shift the conflict strategically in Ukraine’s favor. The article does mention that the large-scale mobilization of both Ukrainian society and the Western World in February 2022 “is not present today” and “that needs to change,” hinting toward waning Western and Ukrainian resolve.

The article concludes by noting President Zelensky remains convinced “Ukraine cannot turn back from its plan to defeat Russia,” despite never actually articulating a sound plan that could actually defeat Russia, before inferring that Ukraine’s Western sponsors no longer share President Zelensky’s confidence.

Ukraine Cannot “Isolate” Crimea 

President Zelensky’s strategy of “isolating” Crimea and degrading Russian military capabilities based there is irrational and unrealistic, especially considering the stated means by which Ukraine would supposedly achieve this strategic objective.

The Ukrainian government, military, and their Western supporters have consistently stated that Crimea could be isolated and even captured if Ukraine could succeed in both destroying the Crimean Bridge and cutting the landbridge connecting Crimea to the rest of Russia via Kherson, Zaporozhiya, and the Donbass.

However, this ignores the reality that Crimea joined the Russian Federation following a referendum in 2014, while the Crimean Bridge was completed in 2018, the rail bridge in 2019, and the landbridge established only in 2022. This means that Russia was able to supply both the civilian population and its military bases on the peninsula for several years without either.

Should Ukraine succeed in destroying the Crimean Bridge and in cutting the landbridge, Crimea itself would still be able to move people, goods, weapons, and ammunition back and forth to the rest of Russia via a number of seaports and airports which are capable of moving millions of tons of cargo and millions of people each year.

The Kerch Port alone on its official website claims up to 3 million tons of cargo can be processed at its facilities. The port is also capable of receiving ferries carrying both passengers and vehicles. Crimea’s Simferopol International Airport, according to its official website, is capable of moving 6.5 million people a year. Additionally, there are numerous other airports and seaports across Crimea capable of handling large amounts of cargo and people.

To put these numbers into a military perspective, it should be noted that Russia’s other success story of using solely sea and air to supply a major military operation, its intervention in Syria at the request of Damascus, according to the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War, involved approximately 200,000 tons of cargo moved in the first 5 months (or extrapolated over 1 year, just short of half a million tons).

West Admits Ukraine is Losing Proxy War

November 27, 2023 (NEO - Brian Berletic) - After nearly 2 years of portraying the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as unfolding in Kiev and the collective West’s favor, a sudden deluge of admissions have begun saturating Western headlines noting that Ukraine is not only losing, but that there is little or nothing its Western backers can do to change this fact.

What had been a narrative of Ukraine’s steady gains and indomitable fighting spirit has now been replaced by the reality of Ukraine’s catastrophic losses (as well as net territorial losses) and a steady collapse of morale among troops. What had been narratives of Russian forces poorly trained and led, equipped with inadequate quantities of antiquated weapons and dwindling ammunition stockpiles, have now been replaced by admissions that Russia’s military industrial base is out-producing the US and Europe combined while fielding weapon systems either on par with their Western counterparts, or able to surpass Western capabilities entirely.

Ukraine’s Catastrophic Losses 

Ukrainian losses, especially after 5 full months of failed offensive operations, are almost impossible to hide now.

The London Telegraph in its article, “Ukraine’s army is running out of men to recruit, and time to win,” published as far back as August of this year admitted:

The war in Ukraine is now one of attrition, fought on terms that increasingly favour Moscow. Kyiv has dealt admirably with shortages of Western equipment so far, but a shortage of manpower – which it is already having to confront – may prove fatal.

The article also claimed:

It’s a brutal but simple calculation: Kyiv is running out of men. US sources have calculated that its armed forces have lost as many as 70,000 killed in action, with another 100,000 injured. While Russian casualties are higher still, the ratio nevertheless favours Moscow, as Ukraine struggles to replace soldiers in the face of a seemingly endless supply of conscripts.

The article paints a bleak picture of continued Ukrainian military operations that are almost certainly unsustainable.

The claim of 70,000 killed in action among Ukrainian troops is a gross underestimate, while claims that “Russian casualties are higher still” are not only unsubstantiated, but contradicted elsewhere among Western sources.

Mediazona, a media platform maintained by US government-backed Russian opposition figures, has tracked Russian casualties from February 2022 onward by allegedly tracking public information regarding the death of Russian soldiers.

Its numbers cannot be entirely verified, but on the few occasions the Russian Ministry of Defense released Russian casualty numbers, they were relatively close to Mediazona’s claims versus the cartoonish claims made by Ukraine’s General Staff – claims that are often unquestionably repeated by Western governments and media organizations.

A more recent article published by Business Insider in late October titled, “Ukraine official says it can’t properly use its Western kit because it has so few soldiers left, report says,” confirms that Ukraine’s losses and resulting manpower crisis is only getting worse.

The article reports:

A Ukrainian official said Ukraine’s army is suffering a manpower shortage that is hampering its ability to use Western-donated weapons, Time magazine reported. Since the start of the war, several Ukrainian officials have blamed their difficulty repelling Russia’s invasion on the slow pace of deliveries by its allies. 

However, in the Time report, an unnamed source identified as a close aide to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy highlighted a different problem. “We don’t have the men to use them,” the aide said in reference to the Western weapons. Although Ukraine doesn’t give public figures, Western estimates suggest it has suffered in excess of 100,000 casualties.

In addition to irreversible losses in manpower, Ukraine is also losing territory despite 5 months of intensive offensive operations and the fact that the Russian military leadership has repeatedly stated Russia’s goal is to eliminate Ukraine’s military, not take territory.

The New York Times in a September article titled, “Who’s Gaining Ground in Ukraine? This Year, No One,” would note:

Ukraine’s counteroffensive has struggled to push forward across the wide-open fields in the south. It is facing extensive minefields and hundreds of miles of fortifications — trenches, anti-tank ditches and concrete obstacles — that Russia built last winter to slow Ukrainian vehicles and force them into positions where they could be more easily targeted. When both sides’ gains are added up, Russia now controls nearly 200 square miles more territory in Ukraine compared with the start of the year.

Along with steep losses in manpower and a net loss in territory, Ukraine suffers from an equally damaging loss of equipment. Compounding materiel losses is the fact Western military industrial production is incapable of replacing these losses.

Military Industrial Production: West Running Out as Russia Ramps Up 

Last year, Western politicians and the Western media promoted the idea that superior Western military equipment would easily sweep aside Russia’s dwindling numbers of supposedly antiquated weapon systems. One article published by the London Telegraph in early June of this year was even titled, “British-made tanks are about to sweep Putin’s conscripts aside.”

Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Washington Wakes Up to Harsh Reality Amid Ukraine Proxy War

September 25, 2023 (New Eastern Outlook - Brian Berletic) - Long gone are Western headlines heralding Ukraine’s NATO-trained and armed forces and the prospects of them able to “sweep Putin’s conscripts aside,” as former British Army Colonel Hamish De Bretton-Gordon claimed in an article published as recently as June this year.

As Ukraine’s offensive forces broke across extensive Russian defenses all along the line of contact from Zaporozhye to Kharkov, the realization that Washington, London, and Brussels underestimated the Russian Federation economically, politically, diplomatically, and most importantly, militarily and industrially, began to set in.

Russian Military Production Grows, Western Stockpiles Dry Up 

Today, different kinds of headlines now appear across the collective West’s media.  The New York Times recently reported in an article titled, “Russia Overcomes Sanctions to Expand Missile Production, Officials Say,” that Russia ammunition production was at least seven times greater than the collective West.

The same article acknowledged that Russia had increased its tank production two-fold and was producing 2 million artillery rounds per year, a number that is larger than the combined planned expansion of shell production of the US and European Union some time between 2025 and 2027. Not only is Russia out-producing the West, it is producing weapons and ammunition at a fraction of the cost of Western arms and munitions.

As Russian military industrial production expands, producing more tanks, artillery, cruise missiles, and ammunition for the ongoing special military operation in Ukraine, Ukrainian forces find their sources of arms and ammunition drying up.

The BBC would report in a recent article, “Poland no longer supplying weapons to Ukraine amid grain row,” that:

One of Ukraine’s staunchest allies, Poland, has said it is no longer supplying weapons to its neighbour, amid a diplomatic dispute over Kyiv’s grain exports. 

Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said Poland’s focus was instead on defending itself with more modern weapons.

While both Poland and the BBC attempt to frame the decision as motivated by growing tensions between Poland and Ukraine, the reality is Poland had a finite amount of expendable arms and ammunition it could send Ukraine, and it has expended those stocks. This leaves a much smaller number of more modern systems Poland has acquired for its own defense. Neither Poland nor its foreign arms suppliers produce weapons and ammunition in the quantities required to sustain Ukrainian forces on the battlefield, meaning that should Poland continue supplying Ukraine from this point forward, it will eventually find itself “demilitarized.”

Update on Russian Ops in Ukraine (August 14, 2022)

August 14, 2022 (The New Atlas) - Update on Russian military operations in Ukraine for August 14, 2022.

• Russian forces continue to make incremental progress along the Siversk-Bakhmut defense line even according to pro-Ukrainian sources; 
• There is no sign of any Ukrainian offensive around Kherson, even according to the Western media;
• Another US-supplied HIMARS has been destroyed according to the Russian MoD, that is now 8 out of 16 sent to Ukraine destroyed; 
• The Pentagon is now struggling to explain why it is unable to supply Ukraine with sufficient weapons needed to execute the ever-pending “Kherson Offensive” yet to materialize;
• Claims made by the Pentagon regarding the effectiveness of various weapon systems sent have been contradicted by recently discovered documents from the US military itself; 
• The US Army claims the effectiveness of common US anti-tank weapons like the Javelin and the AT-4 is around 19% among trained US soldiers. This would be much lower among Ukrainian troops; 
• The Western media has decided to assign credit to Ukraine for a recent explosion in Crimea despite Kiev denying any involvement; 
• Ukraine is shelling Zaporozhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in an attempt to force Russian troops to leave through international pressure;

Poland’s Position as the “Next Ukraine”

July 30, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - While Western governments and the Western media continue clinging to the hope of an eventual “victory” for Kiev’s forces in Ukraine, the “frontline” is quietly being moved back to western Ukraine and even Poland just across the border. Recent pledges by NATO as well as arms deliveries this year and next appear to be headed in the direction of using Poland as the next battering ram with which US-led NATO will use against Russia.

More immediately, Poland could serve as a springboard for launching a NATO incursion into Ukraine, not necessarily to confront Russian forces directly, but to establish a “buffer zone” in western Ukraine just as the US and NATO-ally Turkey did in Syria.

The Build Up Continues

Poland has hosted a build-up of US troops since as early as the beginning of February 2022. US state media Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in their February 5, 2022 article, “US Soldiers Arriving In Europe To Reinforce NATO Amid Russian Buildup,” noted the movement of US troops to Europe and specifically Poland as well as the transfer of US troops in Germany to Romania which also shares a border with Ukraine.

More recently, a Retuers article, “US to boost military presence in Europe as NATO bolsters its eastern flank,” would note:

US President Joe Biden pledged more American troops, warplanes and warships for Europe on Wednesday as NATO agreed the biggest strengthening of its deterrents since the Cold War in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The article also mentioned Poland specifically, stating:

The United States will also create a new permanent army headquarters in Poland, which was immediately welcomed by Polish president Andrzej Duda, as Warsaw long sought a permanent US military base on its soil. “It is a fact that strengthens our safety a lot … in the difficult situation which we are in,” Duda said.

It should be kept in mind that similar sentiments had helped reinforce US-NATO involvement in Ukraine since 2014, ultimately precipitating the current crisis rather than strengthening any sense of “safety.”

Russia's Back Isn't "Against the Wall," and WON'T use "Chemical Weapons"

April 17, 2022 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - The US is once again waving around accusations against its adversaries of preparing to use “chemical weapons.” This time, the accused is Russia amid ongoing military operations in Ukraine. 

The Guardian in its article, “‘Clear sign’ Putin is weighing up use of chemical weapons in Ukraine, says Biden,” would claim: 

Russia’s false accusation that Ukraine has biological and chemical weapons is a “clear sign” that a desperate Vladimir Putin is considering using them himself, Joe Biden has said.

The US president said Putin’s “back is against the wall and now he’s talking about new false flags he’s setting up including, asserting that we in America have biological as well as chemical weapons in Europe – simply not true. I guarantee you,” Biden said at an event on Monday.

The article would also claim: 

“They are also suggesting that Ukraine has biological and chemical weapons in Ukraine. That’s a clear sign he’s considering using both of those. He’s already used chemical weapons in the past, and we should be careful of what’s about to come.”

Putin “knows there’ll be severe consequences because of the united Nato front,” he said, without specifying what actions the alliance would take.

However, US President Joe Biden did not explain “how” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s back was “against the wall,” or explain why Russia would use chemical weapons if Russia was also aware that “there’ll be severe consequences.” 

Is the "3 Seas Initiative" the West's Answer to China's Belt and Road?

June 9, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - To counter not only China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) but also Russia's growing ties with Western Europe, an "alternative" infrastructure drive is being proposed that if and when completed, Washington, London, and Brussels hopes will further contain Russia and cut China off from European markets. 

Called the "Three Seas Initiative," it is described in a Bloomberg op-ed titled, "This Is How Europe Can Push Back Against China and Russia," as:

...a joint endeavor by 12 eastern members of the European Union to update the physical and digital links between the Baltic, Adriatic and Black Seas.

The op-ed argues that the initiative is the only way to fight off "Russian bullying and Chinese meddling." 

But upon closer scrutiny - even the selling points made by the author - Andreas Kluth - reads instead like a thinly veiled attempt to bully and meddle in Europe - and at the expense of the obvious opportunities trade and ties with Russia and China will bring. 

Kluth's argument includes blaming the Soviet Union's neglect of Eastern European nations as the reason they lack modern infrastructure today, claiming: 

Though economically vibrant, most of this region still lags the rest of the bloc in infrastructure. Travel by road and rail takes two to four times longer on average than in the rest of the EU. 

What’s missing in particular is good highways, railway tracks and gas pipes running north and south. This is a legacy of the Cold War. The Soviet hegemons made sure that Russian gas, tanks and troops could easily move east-west, but cared not a hoot about other connections among the countries they occupied.

Yet the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 - 30 years ago. If Eastern Europe currently still lacks modern infrastructure - it would be more appropriate to state that it is Brussels who "cares not" about making improvements. 

US Continues Crusade Against Nord Stream 2

March 6, 2021 (Brian Berletic - NEO) - Despite the partisan political theater taking place in Washington - in terms of foreign policy - virtually nothing has changed with a new US president taking office. Even the rhetoric of the new administration is hardly discernible from that of its predecessor. 

From US tensions with China and Iran to continued pressure on Russia - the US continues to pursue a singularly belligerent foreign policy as part of a continued effort to maintain a US-led "international order" and to reassert US hegemony everywhere on Earth it is challenged. 

This includes in Western Europe where circles of political and economic interests have begun to stray from and even run contra to US interests. 

The best example of this is Germany's participation in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project - a joint effort between Russia and Germany to expand the flow of hydrocarbons directly into Western Europe - bypassing potential regions of instability in Eastern Europe targeted by the US specifically to impede Russian-European cooperation. 

Bliken Echos Mike Pompeo 

The new US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his confirmation hearing before the US Senate found himself in almost unanimous agreement with US Senators - Republican or Democrat - on the necessity to maintain or even expand US belligerence worldwide.  

Nord Stream 2: Potential Flashpoint as Pipeline Nears Completion

January 6, 2021 (Brian Berletic - LD) - Nord Stream 2 is a pipeline project extending from Russia to Germany that - when completed - will provide a secure means of exporting Russian natural gas to Western Europe - circumventing a now volatile Ukraine and other potential conflict zones, all while tying Russia and Europe together further through mutually beneficial economic activity.

The project has faced significant hurdles - mainly in the form of US sanctions aimed at pressuring Russia's European partners into backing out of the deal. The recent alleged "poisoning" of Alexei Navalny also appears to be an engineered provocation aimed at driving a wedge between Russia and Germany as the project nears completion. 

I explain the most recent developments regarding the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and why this project is critical to keep an eye on. 

RELATED: Nord Stream 2: Washington to "Free" Europe From Freedom to Decide for Itself

Its completion will be a victory for multipolarism and help draw Western Europe further out of Washington's orbit. It will also be severe blow to Washington's and Wall Street's unipolar international order - a prospect it appears the US is willing to anything to avoid. 

Brian Berletic, formally known under the pen name "Tony Cartalucci" is a geopolitical researcher, writer, and video producer (YouTube here and BitChute here) based in Bangkok, Thailand. He is a regular contributor to New Eastern Outlook and more recently, 21st Century Wire. You can support his work via Patreon here.

US Walks Away From Another Treaty, Closer to Confrontation with Russia

November 25, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The US has signaled a desire to withdraw from yet another agreement created specifically to reduce the likelihood of a military confrontation between the US and NATO versus Russia. 

The US State Department's own Voice of America in an article titled, "US Officially Withdraws from Open Skies Agreement," would report: 

The United States formally withdrew on Sunday from the Open Skies Treaty, an 18-year-old arms control and verification agreement that Washington repeatedly accused Moscow of violating.

The withdrawal is the latest blow to the system of international arms control that U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly scorned, complaining that Washington was being either deceived or unfairly restrained in its military capabilities.

Even the VOA article admits there is no evidence regarding US accusations that Russia has violated the agreement.

The Open Skies Treaty put into effect in 2002 made provisions for short-notice unarmed observation flights by both sides over each other's territory to help assure both sides that neither was secretly preparing forces for attack or amassing troops in sensitive areas. 

For Russia, this would mean amassing troops within its own territory but close to its borders with Western Europe. 

For the US, this would mean amassing troops thousands of miles from its own shores in European nations hosting them which now includes nations directly on Russia's borders, circumstances already decidedly in favor of potential American, not Russian aggression. 

Despite the treaty ultimately being designed to ensure European security from a potential Russian attack, European allies of Washington including Germany have reacted negatively to Washington's withdrawal from it. 

Germany's Deutsche Welle (DW) in an article titled, "US officially withdraws from Open Skies transparency pact," would note: 

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said Germany regrets the US decision and that Berlin still regarded the agreement as "an important part of the arms control architecture that contributes to mutual trust and thus security in the northern hemisphere."

Thus, one of the key nations the treaty is designed primarily to protect still stands by it, regretting Washington's decision to withdraw from it and even indirectly suggesting that Washington's actions threaten trust and security in the northern hemisphere.