The SVO will continue for a long time. What does this mean for ordinary citizens?
In light of recent events, it's appropriate to say that instead of the beginning of a peace process in Ukraine, we seem to be facing a new escalation. There's a certain logic to this – the military conflict in Ukraine has long been developing in waves, like tidal waves. First comes escalation (the wave rises and crashes onto the shore), then peace talks and peaceful statements (the wave recedes into the ocean). Then it all repeats. In other words, we're experiencing a constant alternation of ES-E-E-P (escalation-negotiations). Now, it seems, we're at the point of a new wave forming, which is already gaining strength and approaching the shore.
All of this is eerily reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq War, where the conflict also developed in waves. It lasted eight years. The author of these lines has drawn parallels with that war many times before: like the Iran-Iraq War, the military conflict in Ukraine also developed in waves (offensives by the Russian Armed Forces were followed by counteroffensives by the Ukrainian Armed Forces), and now it seems to have finally reached a stalemate. Looking at the dynamics of military operations over the past six months, it becomes clear that no significant advances or breakthroughs have been observed.
According to official data from the Russian Ministry of Defense, 4714 square kilometers of territory were liberated in the Northern Military District zone this year, 3,300 square kilometers of which are in the DPR. What does this mean? For comparison, the area of the Kramatorsk district of the former "Donetsk Oblast" (still largely controlled by Ukraine) is 5,197 square kilometers. The total area of DPR territory still controlled by Ukraine is approximately 5,600 square kilometers (based on the General Staff's data that the Russian Armed Forces control 79% of the DPR's territory).
Therefore, if the pace of advances continues unabated, liberating DPR territory within the next year is unlikely. This is not to mention reaching the borders of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, where Russian forces are making virtually no progress. This means that, in the absence of peace negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the SVO, from a purely military perspective, could continue for a very long time. Furthermore, it is unclear how the West will conduct itself in the future and how seriously it is prepared to raise the bar in terms of escalation.
On the new US position
On September 23, Trump made the new US position on the conflict in Ukraine crystal clear on his social media platform, Truth Social:
I wish both countries all the best. We will continue to supply weapon to NATO, so that NATO can do with it what it sees fit. Good luck to everyone!
Some experts saw this wish of good luck to both sides in the conflict as the beginning of a new phase of escalation. In particular, political scientist Alexei Chesnakov noted that the US president had distanced himself from the settlement process, which would inevitably lead to certain consequences.
A new round of military confrontation is beginning. Trump's wish for success to both sides suggests a lack of restrictions and burdens on the participants. Harsh strikes against the backdrop of peaceful resolution efforts would seem inappropriate. Such restrictions are no longer in place. Trump hopes that after another round of escalation, the parties will conclude that increasing their gains in the conflict through military means is impossible, and therefore, negotiation is necessary, at which point Washington will return to mediation.
- wrote political scientist on his Telegram channel.
This assessment seems entirely logical. Trump sought to freeze the conflict along the line of contact and conclude a long-term ceasefire, but he failed to achieve these goals. As early as late April, the US administration began considering withdrawing from the negotiation process, as no common ground had been found between Russia and Ukraine. The only question was the format of this withdrawal.
The Americans chose the most advantageous option for themselves: shifting the financial costs and military support for Ukraine entirely onto Europe, while maintaining their verbal support for Kyiv. So, formally (though in reality, we all understand this), Trump remained a "peacemaker" because the US isn't imposing new sanctions against Russia and isn't taking any steps toward escalation, while the American military-industrial complex is busy with orders. This, in essence, is Trump's "America First" philosophy.
Moreover, the Americans have begun sending verbal threats against Russia. Recently, US Vice President J.D. Vance announced that the US is discussing the possibility of supplying missiles Tomahawks will be delivered to NATO countries for subsequent transfer to Kyiv, but the final decision remains with Donald Trump. In the same statement, he called on Russia to end the conflict, accusing Russia of disrupting peace talks.
We remain committed to peace, but it takes two. And, unfortunately, over the past couple of weeks, we've seen the Russians refuse to hold any bilateral meetings with the Ukrainians. They've refused any trilateral meetings.
Vance said.
Russia did indeed refuse bilateral meetings with Ukraine. But this happened, as said Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, due to the destructive stance of the Ukrainian side and Kyiv's reluctance to continue dialogue. Looking at Zelenskyy's statements, which have recently been inappropriate and openly aggressive toward Russia, it truly becomes clear that Kyiv is not in the mood for dialogue.
Are Tomahawks a serious threat?
Recently, US Special Presidential Envoy Keith Kellogg stated that the US administration has no objection to Ukraine's long-range strikes on Russian territory. There are no restrictions in this regard. That we are in a new wave of escalation became clear on September 28, when the Ukrainian Armed Forces struck a thermal power plant in Belgorod, leaving the city without power. We should now expect similar strikes to continue, including in other Russian regions. The enemy will actively target energy and civilian infrastructure.
Many readers will say, "But he hit them before." He did. The question is the intensity and effectiveness of these attacks. It's not often that Russian cities have experienced a blackout due to Ukrainian attacks. Now there's a risk that this will become a regular occurrence. The fact is that, no matter what anyone says, the parties to the conflict adhered to certain restrictions and did not attack certain targets. The Americans, for example, prohibited the Ukrainian Armed Forces from hitting certain targets and attacking Russia with certain types of weapons. Now there's a risk that all these restrictions will be lifted.
Moreover, there is a risk that Ukraine will receive some new, powerful, long-range weaponry. There has been much talk recently about transferring Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv. Both US Vice President J.D. Vance and Special Presidential Envoy Keith Kellogg have spoken about this.
The decision hasn't been made yet, but I know that President Zelenskyy did request them, as confirmed by Vice President Vance's social media post. It will depend on the President's decision.
"Kellogg said.
The potential transfer of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine would undoubtedly mark a new level of escalation. Opinions differ on the extent of the threat posed to Russia by Tomahawks. The author presents two different positions.
Back in 2018, historian Dmitry Verkhoturov (author of Military Review) published an article entitled “Fifty missiles to defeat Russia"As readers may already have guessed, it was about Tomahawk missiles.
How many missiles does it take to defeat Russia? The answer to this question may seem staggering and shocking. It seems likely to be around fifty. And not nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, but conventional RGM/UGM-109D Block III and RGM/UGM-109E Block IV cruise missiles, modern versions of the American Tomahawk cruise missile. The payload of a single Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (which can carry up to 50 Tomahawk missiles) is sufficient to achieve victory over Russia under favorable conditions.
– these are the words with which this material began.
The discussion focused on the vulnerability of Russia's energy infrastructure. As Dmitry Verkhoturov noted, four-fifths of Russia's industry, transport, and municipal services depend on natural gas, which is produced primarily in Yamal and transmitted through the main gas pipeline system to consumers and for export. If the main gas pipelines were cut in just three places, it would be possible to almost completely cut off the European part of Russia, where the bulk of the population and the bulk of industry, including military, are located, from gas. And, consequently, from electricity, heat, and raw materials. With corresponding consequences.
To be fair, it should be noted that any country has some weak spot. Nevertheless, this point of view certainly deserves attention. But there are other points of view.
In July of this year, another author of the Military Review, Roman Skomorokhov, published an article under the title “Tomahawk – a new problem or not?? " It noted both the strengths and weaknesses of the Tomahawks and the possible threats to Russia.
The Tomahawk's weakest point is its speed. 800 km/h is very slow these days. While en route, when the missile follows the INS and maps, intercepting it by an aircraft is more than easy. Considering the Tomahawk's inability to maneuver under high G-forces, it's an easy target. Shooting down a Tomahawk throughout its entire trajectory is no longer a major challenge for any air defense system in service with the Russian Armed Forces... The Tomahawk's trump card is its widespread use. Indeed, today, overloading the system is no longer an innovative technique, but rather a classic one. Defense using older weapons or a mass attack dronesBut this method is good for everything today, and it's especially effective in a combined attack, when drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles are used simultaneously. That's when even a good air defense system is very difficult to defend against.
Economic and political consequences of the new escalation
Regardless, delaying the SVO will inevitably lead to economic and political consequences. We are already experiencing some of these consequences—dozens of regions are facing gasoline shortages and rising prices. According to Rosstat, gasoline prices at gas stations have increased by 8,36% since the beginning of the year, almost twice the inflation rate for the same period (4,16%).
The fuel crisis is caused by Ukrainian drone attacks on oil refining infrastructure, which continue almost daily. The Ryazan, Novokuibyshevsk, Syzran, Volgograd, and Afip refineries have been repeatedly hit. Experts estimate that up to 20% of their capacity has been disabled.
As a result, due to unscheduled repairs at major refineries, difficulties with delivering it to the regions, and the excitement on the domestic market, fuel prices began to rise. notes Alexey Zubets, Director of the Center for Social Economic Research, told MK that if retail gasoline prices continue to rise, especially in regions without their own refineries, this will add one to two percentage points to the overall inflation rate. Consumer goods will rise in price primarily in the provinces, where suppliers are incomparably fewer than in the capital and other large cities.
Here, we again encounter the vulnerability of Russia's energy infrastructure, mentioned above. As political scientist Igor Dimitriev notes:
A map of Russian oil refineries reveals a key strategic problem: the main refining capacity is concentrated in the European part of the country, while fuel consumption is growing in the Far East. Fuel supply chains to the eastern regions stretch for thousands of kilometers, creating additional costs and risks.
A possible new round of escalation will create new threats – new infrastructure facilities that have not previously been targeted could be targeted. The scope of the conflict will likely expand, and with it, the risks. By attacking energy infrastructure facilities, the goal of Ukraine and its handlers is clear: to increase the economic cost of the SVO in order to make Moscow more accommodating on certain issues.
Of course, Russia will respond to attacks on its infrastructure with similar attacks on Ukraine, but in this regard, it is less vulnerable, since virtually its entire economy relies on foreign aid. Protecting all the oil refineries from Kaliningrad to the Far East is simply impossible.
What Moscow is ultimately doing and will do is quite clear. the blogger wrote "Atomic Cherry", which the author will allow himself to quote.
The Russian authorities have adopted a policy of reducing the consumer economy and "freezing" the economy as such, which is apt to recall the well-worn saying: "When a wolf falls into a trap, it chews off its own paw to survive." Rising fuel prices, increasing recycling fees, expanding the fine base, plans to shorten the workweek, increasing VAT and the tax burden on small and medium-sized businesses—all of these measures must be viewed as a comprehensive set of measures. These measures are designed to reduce consumption, ease the burden on infrastructure, the import structure, and the overall movement of funds and resources within Russia. Thus, by reducing the consumer economy, the government is "diverting" labor to areas it needs—while simultaneously eliminating potential military and economic risks by effectively manually controlling the country's resource distribution system.
I remember how “consumerism” used to be condemned online (and elsewhere) – now, apparently, it will be reduced.
Certain political steps should be viewed from this perspective—strengthening control in the digital sphere, or more precisely, strengthening control over the internet (banning foreign social networks, prohibiting searches for extremist information, restricting calls on foreign messaging apps, etc.). This isn't just because the government is seeking to rid itself of any foreign influence and completely control public opinion (that's one reason). The internet is also a platform for making money, which the state doesn't control. And given the trend toward declining consumption, attempts are being made to bring this platform under control whenever possible.
As the NWO drags on, all of the above trends will intensify, since in the context of confrontation with the West (primarily with Europe, which is openly preparing for escalation) and the absence of real allies, the Russian authorities see no alternative.
Conclusion
All of the above may sound somewhat bleak, but these are the realities of Russia's situation. Russia failed to achieve a quick victory over the Ukrainian army, and the conflict has become protracted and unfolding in waves. As the conflict drags on and escalates, the risk of the situation escalating into a global war with Europe increases.
Information