A Change in Tone

Over the weekend, we saw something remarkable start to happen. We are watching a change in tone. Politico is not that shocking, since they have an audience outside the United States. Still, this was a change in tone. And yes, this is directed at the chattering classes. And both excerpts are coming to you via Ukrainian channels, because even they are noticing this.

Mind you, this matters; the above tweet is the most recent drone incident in Poland:

Why Putin Won’t End His War Against the West — Politico

According to the publication’s analysts, the Russian dictator positions himself as a military leader, and transitioning to peacetime would be a political demotion for him.

As Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine approaches its fourth year, Putin arguably has the most reasons for optimism since the early weeks of the war, when the Kremlin expected to capture the country in a matter of days.

The Ukrainian army is experiencing a severe shortage of weapons and personnel, and Russia is gradually advancing deeper into the country. But this progress remains slow and extremely costly: Russian army losses are estimated at about a million people, and the economy is teetering on the edge of recession.

Nevertheless, ending the war carries no fewer political risks for Putin. The Kremlin’s control over the media and the internet would theoretically allow even a compromise agreement to be presented as a “victory,” but the greatest threat to the regime comes not from ordinary Russians, but from a group of radical nationalists who expect a “great victory” — not only over Ukraine but also over the “collective West.”

“There is a desire among the hawkish wing of the military-political establishment to destroy NATO, to show that the alliance is useless,” explains Alexander Baunov, a former Russian diplomat and now an expert at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.

Recent Russian drone attacks on Poland signaled that Moscow is ready to expand the confrontation beyond Ukraine.

Russia is intensifying hybrid attacks, conducting large-scale exercises with Belarus, and relocating some strategic production further from NATO borders.

According to analysts, such actions are meant to shake faith in the alliance’s collective defense and demonstrate its “helplessness.” Trump’s reaction, calling the incident at the Polish border a “mistake,” only strengthened Putin’s confidence that he can continue pressure without serious consequences.

Then there is the piece reported a bout from The Atlantic. Again, this is directed at the chattering classes, but should soon stream down to the yellow press. I will explain why next:

Russia has become a model of self-destruction

From the very beginning of the war in Ukraine, Russia itself has claimed that Putin’s goals go far beyond territorial conquest. He seeks to undermine the post-war international order, restore the Soviet sphere of influence, and return Russia to the status of a world power on par with the United States.

Summits like the one with Trump in Alaska were meant to symbolize this aspiration. Lavrov even arrived there wearing a sweatshirt with the inscription “CCCP.”

But, as Jeremy Shapiro, director of US studies and the European Council on Foreign Relations, writes in The Atlantic, summits and symbols do not make a country a superpower. That requires real force.

The war in Ukraine, from Putin’s point of view, was meant to demonstrate Russia’s might, but it has become a demonstration of its decline — not a revival, but national self-destruction.

Russia has invested enormous resources, people, and political will in aggression against a neighboring country. But even if it manages to consolidate the captured territories and exclude Ukraine from NATO, Moscow will only get a Pyrrhic victory: Russia’s future is destroyed for the sake of a few destroyed square kilometers.

In other words, Russia is effectively losing the war — not to Ukraine, but to the rest of the world.

Whatever the outcome, Ukraine will remain an armed and hostile neighbor for Russia. Europe will refuse Russian goods and build an energy sector without Gazprom.

The Russian army, having lost equipment and its best personnel, will become dependent on foreign suppliers. Restoration will take years and billions, and the “achievements” in the drone war will be obsolete by that time.

🇷🇺 Meanwhile, old partners are moving away from Moscow
In Africa, the heirs of Wagner are losing ground, and China and the Gulf states are buying influence. In the Middle East, Russia’s role as a mediator looks empty. The example of Syria is particularly illustrative: until recently, the Kremlin called it the arena of the “Russian revival”, but now it is effectively divided between Turkey, Israel, the United States and the Arab monarchies.

Moscow’s influence in the South Caucasus has also disappeared. Armenia, which for many years relied on Russian guarantees, has been defeated twice by Azerbaijan in recent years, and today the United States is leading peace negotiations.

The Kremlin’s only real “success” is the unification of Europe against it. NATO has expanded at the expense of Finland and Sweden, and countries have increased their military budgets. Russia, by sacrificing young people in Donbass, has actually helped Europe strengthen its defense.

🇷🇺 The Russian economy is increasingly reminiscent of the stagnant Soviet model
Factories produce shells and missiles, while the rest of the world invests in artificial intelligence, “green” energy and microchips. Russia has built a “serf economy” protected more from the future than from enemies.

🇨🇳 The defeat is most clearly seen in relations with China
Russia is depleting its reserves of precision weapons and is increasingly dependent on Chinese components and loans. China buys up to 40% of Russian energy resources at reduced prices, turning Moscow into a junior partner. For Xi Jinping, the war has become a profitable deal, for Putin — a trap.

Instead of an imperial revival, Russia received: a hostile Ukraine, a united Europe, a destroyed economy, a weakened army, lost positions in the world and dependence on Beijing. This is not a victory, but self-destruction.

This is precisely why the Kremlin is in no hurry to end the war: a peace agreement would show not a defeat at the front, but a lack of strategy. Russia has found itself in a position where it can neither win the war nor afford to lose it.

By destroying Pokrovsk in Donbass, Moscow has proven not its strength, but its futility. The imperial destiny has not returned. All that remains is the ability to destroy — the only thing that Russian foreign policy can offer today.

Mind you, Shapiro is writing what we all know. And by we all know, I mean those of us following this conflict very closely. But most people who are busy with other matters are not that aware.

This looks to me like the beginning of the preparation of the American people for possible war. And it is not just the people. Mind you, again, this is not the low-level press. This is directed at the upper echelons of society.