If you accept that Ukraine has lost the 'War of Attrition', because the country is no longer able to field the necessary soldiers and 'stuff' they need to 'hold the line', let alone go on the offensive and reverse the direction of where the front is heading, while NATO (Europe) insists on prolonging the war, you will agree with me that the war has entered a 'new phase'.
It is entirely possible that you do not subscribe to my assessment, because you are sold on the 'Ukraine is winning' and 'Russia is Paper Tiger' narrative. If you are thus inclined, you will welcome the changes I will list below as reenforcement, and not as a *very* dangerous change in strategy.
All kinds of hostile moves are happening at the same time around the globe. While Trump *insists* on being rewarded the 'Nobel Peace Prize', he appears to be unbuttoning his shirt for some serious 'power-play'. Both domestically, and in 'regions' far and wide. Some observers believe he is set to lead the US into a war on three separate fronts, Venezuela, Iran and China. Others are saying he is a barking dog, but that he won't bite. In fact, this last group will point to his decision to bomb Iran as a fine example of defusing a 'tense' situation. Bombing some empty bunkers, allow Iran a ceremonial response, and be done with that war Israel kicked off. (Not my reading).
While Trump remains a question mark, the Europeans are marching towards war with Russia. To save a situation they themselves created if you accept my line of thinking. Or to provide the final push if you are hooked on NATO-propaganda, discarding all information related to Russia's advances on the battleground, while insisting that Russia's losses are already enough to predict Russia's near term defeat. The Russians, and all the 'leaders' of those NATO-countries are speaking with confidence, pointing out why the other side is on the end of a burning rope, hanging over the abyss. Obviously one side is lying, or badly misjudging the situation. Or maybe they are both not entirely honest?
Thus far I have not been disappointed with my 'sources'. I do not 'translate' the story one particular commentator is offering into a rehashed narrative of my own related to world-events. I've got some bloggers and vloggers, and people posting on 'X' who contribute, unknowingly, and I can rely on my own personal knowledge and experience related to the subjects which come to pass, since my memory is pretty solid, and I do not shy away from reading, listening, or watching 'niche' sources which fill in the blanks, often not directly related to the subject I want to write about. Yet, I'm certainly *not* glued to my screen, sucking up every bit of information, about every twist and turn. Actually, I spend many hours going on biking tours, in the gym, and socialising with friends and family, while often writing two articles in a day, while contributing to discussions on 'X'. I also travel a lot. And yes, I'm retired, and no longer required to 'baby-sit'. Even my grandchildren go about their own lives without requiring permanent monitoring. But my consumption of entertainment is negligible. I do not readily share information about myself, because that is a time-consuming distraction. But here you go.
I've been frank about my conviction that Russia *planned* a 'War of Attrition' beforehand, in case their attempt to force Zelensky to return to the 'Minsk-Format' failed. It was not an aborted attempt to take all of Ukraine. Nor, and that is at least as important, did they have to improvise after Zelensky slammed the door in their faces. I've written about that at length. Yet, they didn't know beforehand how bad it would become if they were forced to exhaust Ukraine on the battlefield. Note that the NATO strategy was to lure Russia into a war with Ukraine, their patsy, while they were convinced that it would take no more than a couple of weeks, months at most, for Russia to collapse under the full weight of their economic sanctions. NATO never bothered with a 'Plan B'. Europe was fully prepared to fight that economic war, but not a 'hot war'. It didn't have the military to fight a 'peer' on the battlefield, nor the equipment needed, and no current battle plans. Today there is nobody left who will deny it, but in as far as the narrative is that Europe relied on the US, we need to draw attention to the fact that the US isn't ready to fight a 'peer' either.
All this bravado about the US having no 'peers' in that recent meeting of all those generals and admirals who had to listen to a cocky Hegseth, and a weird Trump has me wondering if they are still in contact with the real world. Same for Rutte and European 'leaders' claiming that NATO is, by *far*, the most powerful military grouping that ever existed in the entire universe, and beyond. In no time at all, they exhausted themselves as they gave *everything* they had to Ukraine. Which country burnt through it and lost an untold number of men on battlefield thus far. Putin spoke at 'Valdai', and claimed that Ukraine lost 40.000 men in one month, in September. And don't tell me, I know that Zelensky is claiming the opposite is true. But without feeling the urge to pick sides, I'm watching the Russian battlefield strategy, and their *vast* capacity in artillery, bombs, missiles and drones, and what they are aiming at, and I get it when people say Russia is killing many more Ukrainian soldiers, than the other way around. You do not have to take my word for it. But don't pay too much attention to 'brave propagandists' like Keith Kellogg, or a flippant Donald J. Trump. Go and check out the YT channel of Willy OAM, History Legends, and others who refuse to parrot political correct nonsense.
Ukraine has already shifted it's attention to hitting Russian oil refineries and storage facilities as their *only* important target, letting the frontlines 'rot'. Even though various 'Talking Heads' are discussing a new Ukrainian offensive. The former UK minister of war, Ben Wallace, suggested that Ukraine should make Crimea 'uninhabitable'. Clearly with full European support. The French pirated a Russian oil tanker, and the highest French general urges the military to be ready to go to war 'tomorrow'. Donald Tusk is saying Europe is already at war with Russia. And various 'leaders' in European capitals are saying the same thing. 'Leading' from behind. Russia likely did *not* plan this far ahead when they decided to launch their 'Special Military Operation'. By which I mean to say that they *must* have understood that if pushing Zelensky into reviving the 'Minsk-Format' failed, they would have to exhaust NATO before some kind of settlement would be possible. And they knew that NATO was in the driver's seat from the start, picking the targets, offering all the support and staff to run this war from 'Wiesbaden', and locally when needed. But that stage is behind us now, and it is clear that the NATO-countries *themselves* are now preparing to throw *themselves* under the bus.
That is the 'new phase'.
Remember that NATO's strategy hinged on economic warfare, with the kinetic stuff in Ukraine as an excuse to unleash 'Sanctions from Hell', and steal all the Russian assets parked in Europe and the US for NATO's benefit, while the military part of that plan was merely meant to overextend Russia as it would struggle to control Ukraine, which it would *occupy*. The Ukrainian military was *not* equipped to fight a classic ground-war with the Russians, but to fight as 'insurgents', Al Qaeda-style. Russia operating the way it does, with a 'Dust before the Broom' pace, is an entirely different ball-game. And though the European 'leaders' are anxious about a very *real* war with Russia, they are *beyond* serious in their attempt to use what is left of Ukraine as a launching pad for missiles and drones bought from the US, or 'home-grown', to destroy the Russian oil and gas infrastructure. Write this down as 'economic warfare by other means'.
Let's assume that these drones hurting air traffic all over Europe are Russian. Not necessarily Russian drones, nor Russian operators, but meant as an answer to Europe's escalation. I'm not sure that is the case, because Europe is stuffed with people who desperately want civil aviation to be *prohibited*, and even 'Brussels' is encouraging those activists in various ways. So who knows? Maybe it is a 'dual use' weapon, controlled by 'Brussels' itself? Or maybe it is a mix? Whatever, it is used as an excuse to tighten the screws on Russian commercial shipping, with France pirating a Russian tanker, because Zelensky said they *might* have been used as a launching platform for drones. Proof? Non required. At the same time Europe proceeded with axing the Euro as an alternative for the Dollar, by making it absolutely clear that European banks and financial institutions are a play-tool for 'Brussels', and cannot be trusted in trade. The predecessor of Mark Rutte, who oversaw the implementation of that plan to 'Overextend and Unbalance Russia from Advantageous Ground', Jens Stoltenberg, today Norway's socialist minister of finance, sitting on Norway's huge 'Wealth Fund', but in addition the 'chairman' of the Munich Security Conference, that venue where Putin in 2007 announced that there would possibly be a war brewing if NATO kept expanding, and 'chairman' of the steering committee of the notorious anti-socialist Bilderberg Group, came out with a statement that Europe needed to axe all social security, education and health care to fund this war with Russia. A socialist? Yes. A very 'modern' one. The Dutch socialists are similar, with a former EU-commisioner being a notorious Russophobe, trained as a 'military interrogator' during his time as a drafted officer, which launched his career as a 'diplomat' serving in Moscow during the 'Cold War'. In other words, an 'Intelligence Asset'.
The short version is that Europe is preparing for a 'showdown at the O.K.-Corral', essentially economic warfare, praying it will be the only party which will be using 'military means' to destroy stuff, launched from Ukraine, because Russia will want to avoid a shooting war. Now, those coming out in favour of that strategy, or rather 'strategy-extension', not scripted, as the original plan *was*, are telling themselves, and us, that Russia will not respond to Europe/NATO crossing their 'Red Lines', because they haven't done so yet. My take is different. I think they *did* respond, always in a measured, and shrewd way, while these 'War-Fans' are waiting for a kinetic response. It is my assumption that *when* Russia has finally had enough, and *will* resort to a kinetic response, it won't be measured, but meant to 'Shock and Awe', and not something similar to what Putin had in mind with Zelensky in 2022. Something much more akin to a 'First Strike', even though nukes are not needed if you possess hypersonic, multi-headed Oreshnik conventional missiles, no doubt capable of destroying bunkers holding French and British nukes, assuming Trump won't mind, quietly proceeding to 'secure' Canada and Greenland. Though 'quiet' is not his strong suit. There will not be a 'new phase' after that if he *does* mind.