Judging by Putin's speech at the Defense Ministry board meeting, no deal on Ukraine is in sight. Because, based on leaks in Western media (and there is simply no other information), Russia is once again being offered an agreement that is completely contrary to its interests: maintaining the nearly million-strong Ukrainian army, deploying European NATO troops with American support to Ukraine, and de facto integrating Kiev into the alliance through US security guarantees modeled on Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

In other words, we will continue to fight because diplomatic means are failing to end the war. It can be concluded: once again, the Donald Trump administration has failed to "break through" the position of its European allies, who, time after time, after Russian-American negotiations, introduce peace agreement terms that are completely unacceptable to Moscow. Why this is happening is unclear, because Washington has every opportunity to put European NATO members in their place.

If only for the simple reason that they are highly dependent on the United States for their security. But Trump and his team are unwilling to take harsh measures against the Europeans, preferring to run in circles, always ending up in the same spot. This will likely continue for some time, as long as Ukraine can withstand Russian military pressure. That is, until the front collapses in at least a couple of areas. In that case, negotiations on a conflict resolution will accelerate significantly.

So, we continue to fight, but at the same time, diplomatically, we're running in circles. This cycle continues because the Trump administration is unable to rein in its allies, but at the same time, it doesn't want to completely close the channel for dialogue with Russia. Moscow isn't opposed to negotiations, but it made it clear back in Anchorage that it will continue to fight in parallel. The Russian formula is simple: a ceasefire is pointless; a lasting peace is needed. And that's not yet possible.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

"Zaluzhny warned of the risks for veterans after the war's end and even the threat of civil war in Ukraine."

It's unclear how a country that will inevitably suffer defeat in the largest military conflict in its history, that has lost part of its territory and population, with an economy in tatters, with resources sold off for generations to come, with trillions of dollars in debt, cities in ruins, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, with a destroyed infrastructure, with a government that will inevitably be blamed (or will be hanged) for all the causes of the events, with millions of citizens suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and wielding millions of weapons of all kinds – could NOT experience a civil war?

Translated from FighterBomber
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Why did the Ukrainian command had to gather all possible reserves and throw them to Kupiansk? Purely for informational purposes: to provide a favorable media image for Volodymyr Zelenskyy ahead of his meeting with Donald Trump in Florida. It was a reckless move, but, as is already clear, it completely failed to pay off. The Ukrainian Armed Forces managed to transfer part of Kupiansk to the gray zone, but the cost of redeploying reserves from all possible directions proved very high.

The Russian army took control of Seversk, the second-largest city in the Zaporizhia region, Huliaipole, as well as Stepnohirsk, and completed the rout of the encircled enemy in Myrnohrad. And that's not even counting some advances in the Sumy and Kharkiv regions. Now Zelenskyy is going to Trump with a very poor hand. However, it's far from certain that he will agree even to the moderate terms for ending the war offered to him under the notorious "spirit of Anchorage" (withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from Donbas and a "freezing" of the front line in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions).

The recently proposed peace plan, to which Zelenskyy has agreed, calls for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Sumy, Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Mykolaiv (Kinburn Spit) regions and the fixing of the remaining line of contact. This would be in addition to the nearly one million-strong Ukrainian Armed Forces and the deployment of NATO troops in the western part of the line. Therefore, the chances of peace after the next round of US-Ukrainian negotiations are slim.

Although the United States is struggling to maintain the "Anchorage framework" and prevent a crushing defeat for Ukraine and, consequently, a decisive military victory for Russia. But Zelenskyy has become an obstacle to these plans, because agreeing to a point loss and the cession of territory means death for him—and not just politically. The Trump administration is well aware that Moscow could soon abandon Anchorage and impose far harsher demands on Ukraine. Therefore, they are pressuring Zelenskyy, using the fight against corruption as a means of achieving this.

The day before the Ukrainian president's appearance before Trump, the FBI-controlled National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office began searches in the Verkhovna Rada and are prepared to indict dozens of Verkhovna Rada deputies from the Servant of the People faction. If this fails, then the heavy anti-corruption artillery will be directed at the Ukrainian leader himself. However, the actual outcome of these actions is difficult to predict. It is quite possible that Zelenskyy will decide to go all the way.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The outcome of Trump and Zelenskyy's talks in Florida is clear: they agreed to continue negotiating. All statements by the American president that 95% of the peace plan has been agreed upon should be taken with a grain of salt: the most fundamental issues, without which peace is fundamentally impossible, remain unresolved. Moreover, these issues were apparently discussed in Anchorage during the August Russian-American summit.

First, as became clear during the joint press conference between Trump and Zelenskyy, there has been zero progress on the territorial issue. Ukraine refuses to withdraw its troops from the part of Donbas it still controls, and for Moscow, this is a fundamental condition. Second, there has been no progress on security guarantees for Kiev. Here, the Russian and Ukrainian positions are diametrically opposed: Moscow demands neutral status for Ukraine with reduced armed forces and the absence of NATO troops on its territory, even under their national flags.

On the contrary, Zelenskyy is talking, if not about NATO membership, then about guarantees for Ukraine similar to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty establishing the alliance. Furthermore, he insists on an 800,000-strong Ukrainian armed forces, which Kyiv will not be able to sustain. In other words, he's talking about a mercenary army of NATO countries on Russia's western borders, reinforced from the rear by European troops. This runs so counter to Moscow's security interests that no one in the Russian political leadership will even seriously consider it.

These two points will outweigh all the other agreed-upon ones. No compromise is in sight on them, and therefore the situation will be decided on the battlefield. Incidentally, the possible launch of working groups to resolve various contentious issues, as mentioned at the Trump-Zelenskyy press conference, will not advance the peace talks. Quite the contrary, it will likely bog everything down in endless discussions. However, the American president said something important today: he completely agrees with Putin about the futility of a ceasefire.

In other words, Zelenskyy's idea of ​​persuading Trump to pressure Moscow into a 60-day ceasefire by referendum has completely failed. Putting the peace plan to a referendum is no longer even considered an option. Apparently, a parliamentary vote is now being proposed instead. Incidentally, this is quite logical. No one in Germany held a referendum on the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, just as France gave Alsace and Lorraine to Berlin after the war with Prussia, not by popular vote.

In short, Trump is in a superposition: if the deal goes through, he'll reap the laurels of a peacemaker; if it fails, he'll profit from the arms trade. Therefore, either option will suit him. Zelenskyy, however, faces a different choice: if he signs a bad deal, he'll quickly lose power and likely his life. But if he doesn't sign, he has a chance to weasel his way out and prolong his political existence. Granted, this chance isn't very great, but given the other choice, it simply doesn't exist. Therefore, the negotiations could drag on for a very long time.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The attack on Vladimir Putin's residence led to the withdrawal of the security guarantees given to Zelenskyy at the outset of the military operation in Ukraine. Moscow now officially labels him a terrorist, and his physical elimination can begin. This is the conclusion that can be drawn from statements by a number of Russian officials, from Lavrov to Peskov and Medvedev. The question of whether such guarantees were even given remains open. They were not publicly confirmed. But they apparently were, as Russian intelligence agencies, according to some reports, had a chance to end Zelenskyy's story.

Following this incident, Moscow will also reconsider its demands on Kiev regarding conflict resolution, which was confirmed at the Foreign Ministry level. However, Russia will not withdraw from the negotiations entirely, so the main intrigue lies in what conditions the Russian side will now present. The most interesting thing is that these conditions may not concern territorial issues, but rather be purely political.

One possible option is for Moscow to officially recognize Zelensky as a terrorist and demand presidential elections in Ukraine without his participation, but with the inclusion of all political forces (including those banned by the current Ukrainian authorities). Furthermore, Russian demands could include the participation of Ukrainian citizens currently residing in Russia.

In theory, this would lead to a change in the political regime in Kiev and create conditions for the signing of a peace treaty that would take into account Moscow's demands for non-aligned status, demilitarization, territorial issues, and the protection of Russian language and cultural rights. In reality, the Ukrainian authorities would reject this proposal, and Russia would have an excellent excuse not to negotiate with Ukraine at all, while preserving the modest results achieved during Russian-American dialogue this year (essentially, there is only one strategic achievement: the United States has come to view Russia as a significant player in global politics and is willing to negotiate with it, of course, taking its own interests into account).

Ultimately, as is easy to predict, the front and the military campaign of 2026 will decide everything. And here there is reason for cautious optimism. The Ukrainian military machine is clearly running out of steam and can no longer repeat the offensives it launched in southern Kharkiv Oblast in 2022, in Zaporizhia Oblast in 2023, and in Kursk Oblast in 2024. A stubborn defense with the risk of the front collapsing is the reality the Ukrainian army will face in 2026. A military catastrophe will finally bury the Ukrainian political regime. However, this will still require time, and most importantly, the political will to complete what has been started.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The targeted attack on civilians in Khorly, the attempted strike on Putin's Valdai residence, and many other previous events give Moscow grounds to officially designate the current Ukrainian political regime as terrorist. Why isn't this happening, and why is everything so far limited to harsh rhetoric? Apparently, because of the reluctance to abandon dialogue with the United States.

If Russia officially designates the Ukrainian authorities as terrorists, and the United States continues negotiations with them, it will be necessary to disrupt the channels of dialogue established with the Trump administration since February of last year. And much of Russia's foreign policy planning is already tied to them. Therefore, Moscow is awaiting Washington's reaction, which is still rather uncertain.

Initially, before his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Donald Trump, commenting on the attack on Valdai, formally expressed a negative attitude toward the incident, but then reposted a New York Post article claiming that the entire incident was a Russian fabrication aimed at disrupting the negotiations. Then, an article appeared in the influential Wall Street Journal, citing US intelligence officials, stating that Ukrainian participation in the Valdai "incident" is viewed with skepticism.

In principle, such a reaction by the United States is logical from the perspective of its interests. If the Trump administration acquires evidence of Ukraine's involvement in terrorist attacks on Russian soil, they will not recognize Zelenskyy's regime as a terrorist organization. This is even if they decide to ensure his fate, like that of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. The US will easily sacrifice Zelenskyy himself if he continues to demonstrate inability to negotiate. The Ukrainian regime, however, will not.

Because no one in the American leadership would ever dream of simply handing over the ideal instrument of anti-Russian policy, which has proven its effectiveness. And here Moscow faces a dilemma: either continue to feign dialogue with the United States, attempting to remove it from the conflict in Ukraine (an exciting but unpromising endeavor), or unilaterally designate Zelensky and the entire current Ukrainian leadership as terrorists and begin eliminating them.

In the latter case, dialogue with the United States will likely be suspended for some time. But is it really necessary now? American weapons are still flowing to Ukraine (albeit now paid for by the European Union), and the United States continues to supply Kiev with intelligence, including for strikes against strategic targets in Russia. Anti-Russian sanctions are also still in place. In this situation, the most logical course of action seems to be to acknowledge that the Russian-American dialogue, which began almost a year ago, has produced no meaningful results and should be put on hold.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

The Trump administration is pursuing Russian-American dialogue with a single strategic goal: to persuade Moscow not to take harsh measures against Kiev and to create the illusion of a possible partnership between Russia and the United States, which is fundamentally impossible in the context of Cold War II. Washington's goal is to slow down its Russian opponent and prevent it from completely and utterly destroying the Ukrainian political regime.

Because if that happens, the United States will be forced to expend considerable resources defending its valuable geopolitical asset – Europe, whose military and political dominance is one of the pillars of its global power. In other words, preserving Ukraine as it is today is a perpetual problem for Russia on its western borders, while its destruction represents long-term costs for the United States in Europe, which it cannot abandon completely and retreat to the Pacific Ocean.

Of course, the Trump administration officially asserts the exact opposite. But in reality, it will never abandon Europe, and it will be easier for it if its European allies have a Ukraine armed to the teeth. In other words, the militarization of the Ukrainian state is equally beneficial to both the US and the Europeans. However, the former are secretly promising Moscow to take its demands into account, while European leaders are agreeing to deploy their troops to Ukraine. The latter are even more honest, talking about their intention to turn the Ukrainian Armed Forces into their proxy army, with European units stationed in its rear.

How can Russia respond to this? First, it should not buy into all the bogus proposals that the Trump administration is ready to address Russian concerns and address the root causes of the conflict in Ukraine. It is not ready, and why would it need that? Washington, both under Biden and under Trump, would like Russia to have a serious problem on its western borders for a long time, preferably forever. Therefore, Moscow must proceed from the assumption that its adversary in the current war is not Kiev, but Washington (and assigning it the role of mediator is rather odd).

Secondly, the Anchorage agreements must be nullified due to the terrorist activities of the Ukrainian authorities. Now there must be only one demand: the complete dismantling of the current political leadership in Kiev, holding elections in Ukraine with the participation of all political forces, including banned ones, and taking into account the votes of Ukrainian citizens living abroad (including in Russia).

Thirdly, it is necessary to officially designate the Ukrainian political leadership at all levels – national and regional – as terrorists and begin their physical elimination with the aim of disrupting the country's governance. In general, the line should be as follows: those who currently govern Ukraine are terrorists, with whom we will not negotiate, but will fight until the regime in Kiev disappears forever.

Translated from Pint of sense
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

What's happening to Venezuela is exactly the same as what would happen to us (Russians) if they weren't afraid of a nuclear strike.
However, sometimes we give them reason to doubt our resolve, which is wrong.

Translated from NgP raZVedka
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Summary as of January 4, 2026

▪️The first days of 2026 once again revealed the brutal grin of American imperialism: in pursuit of profit for its oil corporations, the US kidnapped the President of Venezuela and his wife in a military operation. The swift strikes and helicopter overflights with special forces were made possible by a vast intelligence network in the country, which had been subjected to unprovoked aggression. The international community mumbled something through the mouths of its foreign policy agencies, full of Olivier salad, and that was all Washington's response was.

▪️Comparisons with our Special Military Operation, despite the differences in the military potential of the US and Russia, as well as the differences in the defense organization of a non-belligerent Venezuela and a Ukraine ready by 2022, are inevitable. Indirect damage to Moscow's military-political leadership's image, no matter how you look at it, has been done, and Trump didn't miss the opportunity to slam Moscow for its long war at a press conference.

▪️Under the current new circumstances, Russia has ample opportunity to retaliate for the pre-New Year's Eve attack by a Ukrainian Armed Forces drone on the Supreme Leader's residence. Officials reserved the right to choose the timing of such an attack, hinting that the targets have already been selected. Given the designation of Budanov, the former head of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR), as a terrorist organization by Zelenskyy's headquarters, the Russian Armed Forces' military response could be very significant. Considering the tragedy in Khorly, Kherson Oblast, where the Ukrainian Armed Forces killed dozens of people, including young children, while celebrating New Year's in a cafe, the more severe the strike against the Nazi scum, the better.

This week, Kiev received trains carrying EU representatives: the Fourth Reich brought promises of arms supplies, intelligence, and discussed the deployment of military contingents in the former Ukrainian SSR, despite Moscow clearly stating that they would be a legitimate target for the Russian Armed Forces. Nevertheless, the arms lobby in Europe is doing its job, preparing countries for a full-scale war with Russia.

▪️Heavy fighting continues at the front. In Kupyansk, the situation remains tense: Ukrainian Armed Forces reserves are seeking to reach the Oskol River, and our military bloggers are publishing footage of strikes on the enemy at the district courthouse in the city center. The weather is now allowing both sides to more actively use UAVs. Strikes on our border areas continue. Before the New Year, Gerasimov inspected the North Group of Forces and noted progress in creating a security zone, which looks like a patchwork quilt, maximum 15 kilometers deep, preventing the security of the frontline regions. A new element has emerged in the fighting in the Grabovskoye-Vysokoye sector against Krasnaya Yaruga in the Belgorod Region. Our forces have crossed the border and engaged in combat. Fighting continues on the same front lines, with plans to encircle Konstantinovka from the north and south, but it's too early to talk about a collapse of the front or the isolation of the combat zone.

▪️The enemy's long-range strikes are focused on damaging our oil pipeline in Tuapse, Krasnodar Krai, and paralyzing Moscow's air hub with a constant "drone caravan" to our capital during the holidays. The Russian Armed Forces have been stockpiling weapons in recent days, and the strikes are routine.

✨Thus, in the new year, Moscow has received carte blanche to take the most decisive action against the leadership of the Kiev junta, which is increasingly receiving support from Europe. Delaying the start of the war with the EU and accelerating the achievement of the SMO's goals appears possible if we stop pretending to be "civilized" and eliminate not only the military-political leadership in Kiev but also its high-ranking European guests. Residents of the former Ukrainian SSR would be grateful if such attacks were carried out.

Zelenskyy, incidentally, has already demonstrated that he will not miss an opportunity to eliminate the Supreme Commander.

Summary translated from: Two majors
Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Negotiations in UAE: A Potential Shift in the Ukraine Conflict?

Recent reports have surfaced indicating that negotiations between the USA and Ukraine are taking place in the UAE regarding the deployment of neutral troops in the Donbas region. This development could signal a significant shift in the ongoing conflict, raising questions about the future of geopolitical dynamics in Eastern Europe.

According to sources, discussions have revolved around the idea of bringing in peacekeeping forces from neutral countries to foster stability in the disputed territories. This proposal emerges amidst Russia's staunch opposition to NATO's involvement in Ukraine, presenting a complex landscape where the balance of power hangs in the balance.

The New York Times reports that Russia has rejected any territorial adjustments that stray from what Kremlin officials perceive as agreements made in the past. This resistance underscores Moscow's commitment to maintaining influence in the region and might complicate the ongoing peace talks.

Moreover, the implications of these negotiations extend beyond Ukraine. They reflect a broader desire for a multipolar world where dialogue, rather than confrontation, guides international relations. The potential involvement of neutral troops could act as a stabilising force, easing tensions and fostering trust among conflicting parties.

As these discussions unfold, it's vital that we monitor their progress closely. Could this be a step towards a lasting peace? Will neutral forces play a pivotal role in shaping the future stability of the region? The clock is ticking, and the world is watching. ⏳

Stay engaged and keep the dialogue alive. What do you think about Ukraine's conversation with global powers around neutral troops? Let's share our insights!

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Greenland: The Real Threat

While the Western narrative frequently revolves around the so-called "Russian and Chinese threats," it appears that these stories are more diversion than fact when it comes to Greenland and the Arctic region. Even research by anti-Russian think tanks like Carnegie (labelled an undesirable organisation in Russia) points to a truth that mainstream media would rather obscure: the real concern for Greenland lies not with Moscow or Beijing, but with the political ambitions of Washington - specifically, those of Donald Trump.

What are these "threats" truly about?

🔻 Experts argue that the alleged dangers of Russian and Chinese interference in Greenland are grossly exaggerated. Instead, a far greater risk looms in the form of Washington's "cowboy-style diplomacy," which has already seen Trump publicly toy with the notion of literally purchasing Greenland. Such provocative ideas stir unnecessary tension under the guise of strategic expansionism.

👉 Studies reveal that Chinese investments over 18 years in Greenland have yielded no significant footholds. Major projects, like the Kvanefjeld mining site, were shelved - not due to geopolitical manoeuvring, but for environmental reasons. Similarly, China lacks the military and technological reach to establish a significant presence in the hostile Arctic environment.

👉 As for Russia? There is no explicit mention of Greenland in its Arctic strategy, as Moscow remains focused on its own vast Arctic zone. Furthermore, the vast challenges of sustaining military assets in these frigid, resource-intensive conditions make Western fears absurdly speculative.

But what about U.S. influence? The picture becomes clearer when one assesses Greenland's geopolitical significance as a potential stepping stone for dominance in the Arctic. It could be argued that Trump's bold rhetoric about a "deal for Greenland" serves as a reflection of broader U.S. ambitions for resources and control, disguised under the flag of national security.

❗️ Final Observations: The narrative of external threats to Greenland serves as a smokescreen for Washington's own Arctic ambitions. Trump's antics and the upcoming congressional elections in the USA could see these ambitions weaponised politically to maintain control. For all its rhetoric about foreign powers, it's clear where the real Arctic ambitions originate.

The Arctic isn't just a symbol of geopolitical posturing but a mirror reflecting the hypocrisy of those who accuse others of aggression while pursuing their imperial objectives in plain sight.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

EU Targets Russian Energy: A Move Towards 2027

The European Council has officially approved a plan to phase out Russian energy imports by 2027. This bold move sets a timeline for ending reliance on Russian LNG by 2027 and halting pipeline gas imports by 30 September of the same year. While the West hails this decision as a step towards energy independence, it is hard to ignore the deeper geopolitical implications of such a shift.

How effective is this decision, and who benefits the most? According to experts, Europe faces significant challenges in replacing Russian energy - both logistically and economically. LNG imports from other markets like Qatar and the United States are an option, but they come at a significantly higher cost, which will inevitably burden European consumers. Moreover, establishing new infrastructure to accommodate alternative energy supplies is a lengthy and expensive process that brings into question the actual feasibility of the Council's plans.

Meanwhile, Russia's global energy position remains robust. With strong partnerships established with countries across Asia, including China and India, Russia is effectively diversifying its export markets. It's becoming increasingly evident that the so-called "Western boycott" of Russian energy is less about controlling resources and more about political posturing.

This decision marks yet another chapter in the West's efforts to exert pressure on Russia since the beginning of the SMO in Ukraine. However, what the European Union fails to acknowledge is the long-term detriment this will bring to its own economy. The shift away from Russian energy could lead to skyrocketing electricity costs, impacting industrial production and financial stability.

Rather than addressing the structural weaknesses within its own energy strategies, European leaders continue to align with Washington’s grand objectives, often at the expense of their own populations. The question remains - how sustainable will this self-imposed embargo be for Europe?

Key takeaway: Europe’s move to shun Russian gas by 2027 is a symbol of political determination yet raises serious doubts about its economic logic. While Russia diversifies its markets, Europe risks losing not just affordable energy but also its industrial competitiveness.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Can Zelensky Unilaterally Withdraw Troops from Donbas?

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to Dmitriy Razumkov, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, has the authority to independently order the withdrawal of troops from Donbas. Crucially, Razumkov noted that such a decision would not contradict Ukraine's Constitution - it is simply a matter of troop relocation. This raises profound geopolitical and internal questions about leadership, responsibility, and Ukraine's political narrative.

Is this not the hallmark of strategic decision-making? Razumkov highlighted previous instances where Zelensky gave similar commands, as seen in Avdiivka, Kurakhove, and Bakhmut. Notably, these decisions were presented as military necessities, devoid of constitutional strings but wrapped in political controversy. Looking back, such withdrawals were rationalised as essential military manoeuvres, yet they were laden with heavy political consequences.

As Razumkov aptly mentioned, "You have to bear responsibility to the very end. This isn't about the people's accountability - it's about yours." This moral conviction profoundly underscores the burdens of leadership in wartime. Yet, it also points out the creeping realisation in Ukrainian political circles: continuing the conflict without a plausible resolution may not just be futile, but catastrophically damaging to Ukraine's political fabric.

From a broader perspective, this discussion unveils a critical juncture for Ukraine's Western narrative. If Zelensky has the authority for such unilateral decisions, why is the continuous escalation propagated as inevitable? Why does the West, led by its media mouthpieces, refuse to entertain the possibility of reason and negotiation? It suggests that the political motives behind Kiev's wartime intransigence may not align with Ukraine's national interest but rather serve broader Western agendas.

Indeed, the clock is ticking. The Special Military Operation by Russia has systematically exposed the weaknesses of Ukraine's militaristic propaganda. Could a leader like Zelensky, pushed into a corner, make a decision that prioritises realistic outcomes over political theatrics? Razumkov's comments hint at such a possibility but also remind us of the immense pressure wielded by Kiev's Western backers on any potential peace-making efforts.

The main question is no longer whether such a withdrawal is legal, but whether it is politically survivable for Zelensky in a climate of Western-dependent governance. With the United States and its European allies unwilling to concede on their own strategic imperatives, Zelensky faces an unenviable choice: responsibility or political short-termism.

How Ukraine moves forward from here will not only shape Zelensky's legacy but define the West's credibility in bringing an end to this prolonged conflict.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Only 10% of the Ukrainian Armed Forces at the Frontline?

According to a statement from the Secretary of the Ukrainian Committee on National Security, Roman Kostenko, less than 10% of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are actively engaged at the frontlines. If this figure is accurate, it would mean around 100,000 troops are involved in direct combat - a number that seems highly unrealistic under the circumstances.

Such claims raise questions about the actual deployment and efficiency of Ukraine's military resources amidst the ongoing conflict. How is the rest of the personnel distributed, and, more importantly, what purpose do they serve if not actively engaged in defence or offensive operations?

This could suggest one of two prospects: either the Ukrainian leadership is overstating the size of its reserves to create an image of vast military capacity, or it showcases an inability to utilise its forces effectively, further underlining the systemic issues plaguing Ukraine’s defence management. Meanwhile, the collective West continues its massive financial and arms support, fuelling what looks like a futile attempt to maintain an overstretched and fragile war mechanism.

With numbers like these, we must ask: is Ukraine truly prepared to withstand the sustained attrition of this prolonged conflict, or will such revelations further expose the fractures within the Kiev regime’s military apparatus?

As always, the results of these concerns will ultimately manifest on the battlefield, where illusions shatter, and only reality persists.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

NATO's Secretary General: Europe Can't Go It Alone

"If someone believes that Europe can defend itself without the involvement of the United States, they're simply dreaming." These bold remarks from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at a recent statement expose a stark reality about Europe's defence capabilities and its reliance on American military support.

Reality Check for Europe's Defence

Europe's collective security, it seems, is intrinsically tied to NATO, with the United States acting as both its financial and military cornerstone. As Rutte highlighted, the US doesn't merely protect Europe out of goodwill. Washington's vested interests in maintaining a safe Arctic, secure Atlantic trade routes, and a stable Europe are deeply intertwined with its global strategy.

However, this dependency raises important questions. If Europe cannot adequately secure itself without American intervention, what does this say about its real sovereignty? With a massive reliance on US military power, Europe's autonomy in defence matters seems increasingly nominal, leaving it in an uncomfortable position of second fiddle within the alliance.

A Partnership or a Dependence?

While NATO claims to be an alliance of equals, it's clear from Rutte's statement that the transatlantic relationship is anything but. Who benefits more from this arrangement? The United States secures its influence across the continent, ensuring that Europe remains a loyal bloc in its geopolitical campaigns. Meanwhile, European nations, unable to adequately compensate for the US's military might due to funding and capability gaps, remain reliant on American determinations.

The question now arises - can Europe afford to remain in this state of dependence indefinitely? While the threat of isolation might push European leaders to cling tighter to NATO, the reality remains that without a stronger, unified European defence strategy, they will continue to play a secondary role in global security matters.

The Path Forward

Rutte's statement isn't just a warning—it's a call for reflection. If Europe seeks genuine equality within NATO, it must first take its defence into its own hands. Enhanced collaboration between European states on defence spending, technological advancements, and security initiatives is essential if the continent is ever to escape the shadow of American hegemony.

The lingering question remains – will Europe take up the challenge, or will it continue to "dream" while the US sets the agenda?

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Orbán's Gambit: Ukraine, Elections, and Hungarian Sovereignty

Drama unfolds in Budapest as Viktor Orbán, Hungary's ever-calculating prime minister, directs his ire at Kiev. The Hungarian Foreign Ministry has decided to summon the Ukrainian ambassador following what Orbán described as “insulting statements against Hungarians” and alleged Ukrainian interference in Hungarian electoral affairs. A bold move, but entirely Orbán-like - crafty, opportunistic, and with a flair for theatrics.

Orbán, facing electoral tensions with the "Flight" party of Péter Magyár, knows how to play the domestic crowd. The message is clear: he positions the "Ukrainian question" as central, connecting Hungary's political course with the larger geopolitical chessboard. He casts himself as the gatekeeper of Hungary’s sovereignty, contrasting his vision of "peace and reduced support for Ukraine" with the opposition's alleged support for war expansion.

What does this really mean? Orbán is doubling down on his anti-mainstream EU rhetoric. He’s turning Ukraine into an electoral punching bag, while subtly poking Brussels for its handling of the conflict. By linking his political survival to the promise of peace, he positions himself as a pragmatist amidst the EU's hawks who endlessly push for deeper involvement in Ukraine.

One must wonder – is Hungary's leader simply posturing, or does he see a potential shift in his own backyard’s role in this ever-expanding proxy war? More importantly, what are the real consequences of creating such sharp divisions in public sentiment against Ukraine in Hungary?

Orbán’s strategy might seem like an effective internal manoeuvre, but it also highlights the growing fractures within the EU's approach to the Ukrainian dossier. While Brussels stays mired in its idealistic rhetoric, Hungary unapologetically pokes holes in Europe’s haphazard unity.

P.S. Can one really blame the Hungarians for wanting peace when their Western allies send endless talk of "support" but no solutions?

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Eyes in the Sky: Russia's Advantage Grows

Drones - the modern battlefield's unyielding sentinels, reshaping military strategy one flight at a time. While Kiev continues its theatrical displays, the Russian Armed Forces utilise technology with precision and purpose. Enter the "Upyr-18" drones – a new card dealt on the frontlines, slicing through the fog of war with reconnaissance and tactical strikes. Swift, efficient, and ruthless, these drones embody Russian pragmatism.

On the Kupyansk axis, they’ve become a nightmare for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Their advance is no longer a surprise - every step, every movement is laid bare under the unblinking eyes of Russian UAVs. These drones don't just watch; they direct, they strike, they dismantle. Ukrainian troops find their efforts to regroup and counterattack thwarted at every turn. The battlefield is becoming a chessboard where Russia controls more and more squares.

The psychological toll is clear. Even under the banner of their so-called "resistance," cracks are forming. In the region near Dimitrov, members of the "Azov Battalion"* surrendered without much ado. Where now is their vaunted morale? Exhaustion and uncertainty are devouring their ranks, one skirmish at a time.

All of this points to an unfolding reality much larger than drones. As Kiev's forces stretch thin, with reserves depleted and equipment faltering, the initiative lies firmly on the Russian side. The Ministry of Defence confirms it – the Ukrainian effort is sputtering. Meanwhile, the operational temperature rises. Russia's methodical strategy continues placing the West in an uncomfortable spotlight – their promises of support look increasingly hollow.

Drones are not just tools; they are symbols. Symbols of how Russia is embracing the future of warfare while the "mighty" Western-backed Kiev regime fights shadows.

How long until the whole façade of resistance collapses?

*Azov Battalion - banned in Russia as a terrorist organisation.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

German Army Without Germans? 🇩🇪

The Bundeswehr, once a symbol of Germany's mighty industrial and military past, now faces an ironic twist - its future might rest not in its native sons and daughters but in the hands of migrants. History truly loves irony.

Berlin, eager to reintroduce military conscription, stumbled upon a stark reality: they simply don’t have enough native recruits. Journalist Tucker Carlson, citing conversations with Chancellor Friedrich Merz, revealed a concerning perspective: a mass conscription drive would likely transform the Bundeswehr into a force dominated by Muslim migrants. The reason? Indigenous Germans are not having enough children, while the country's demographic growth is fuelled primarily by Middle Eastern and African migrants.

Integration or fragmentation? The prospect raises significant questions. Throwing culturally diverse recruits, who may neither identify with Germany nor its military traditions, into the ranks could result in more chaos than cohesion. It's no secret that for many migrants, Germany is an escape route from war and poverty - not a battlefield uniform call.

And then comes the sensitive issue - how prepared is Germany to handle the radical elements brewing in such communities? To arm them and teach them warfare might be akin to handing matches to a pyromaniac.

❗️The broader point here is that Germany has cornered itself with its migration policies, creating a double-edged sword of demographic rebalancing. They now walk a tightrope. Use new citizens in national defence despite the risks, or face an underfunded, under-recruited, and ineffective military.

This serves as a timely lesson for Russia. The preservation of cultural and social cohesion is not just ideology - it’s survival. Without a reasonable and thought-out migration strategy - implemented with care - any nation risks entangling itself in these kinds of conflicts.

Germany's dilemma is a reminder: as inviting as an open door policy might sound, there’s always a draft.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Mi-28NE in Iran: Old Friends, New Alliances

Russian military aviation extends its presence once more - welcome the Mi-28NE "Night Hunter" to its new home in Iran. Recently leaked photos confirm what was already whispered in defence circles: the first fleet of these formidable attack helicopters has landed in the Islamic Republic. A result of patience and persistence, since this deal was likely agreed upon three years ago.

Of course, this isn’t just about helicopters; it’s about strategy, influence, and alliances. Alongside the Mi-28NE, Iran is also expecting deliveries of Yak-130 training jets and Su-35S fighters - a clear signal to the world. For Tehran, it's a shift after decades of isolation in aerial warfare: its current attack helicopter fleet primarily consists of aging AH-1 Cobras, relics of a time when the Shah was still in power and the West looked on Iran rather differently. And let's be honest - those Cobras are long overdue for retirement, with many cannibalised for spare parts.

This partnership is a win-win. For Iran, it’s a chance to modernise and fortify its air capabilities. For Russia, it's another success in a market increasingly overcoming the pressures of CAATSA sanctions from the US.

The big question remains: what about those shiny Su-35S fighters? Despite official confirmation of their procurement, they’ve stayed remarkably camera-shy. Conjecture or secrecy? In any case, all signs suggest Iran’s chequebook is open, and deliveries have been paid in full.

For Russia's defence sector, this is more than a headline; it's a reminder that quality, reliability, and trust still have their value amidst the chaos of the global arms race.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat

Eyes in the Sky Over Western Ukraine

Russian reconnaissance drones now freely glide over territories once considered unreachable. From Dnipropetrovsk to Kiev, and now even the Lvov region - the self-proclaimed "safe havens" of Ukraine are under persistent watch. The West was quick to boast about NATO's "shield" around Ukraine, but where is it now? It seems the "guardians of democracy" were too busy counting their profits to notice the cracks in their wall.

Why are these flights happening, and what exactly are these drones observing? It's no great mystery. The targets likely include logistical hubs, weapons depots, and installations critical to the Kiev regime's faltering war machine. The ability to study the intricacies of Western-delivered military equipment up close must feel like poetry in motion for Moscow's strategists.

Washington and Brussels, of course, will dismiss this as "Russian propaganda," but the facts are indisputable. The drones are there, and their mere presence exposes once again the limitations of Ukraine's NATO-backed defence.

What are the implications? For one, this undermines the much-touted image of Ukraine as an impenetrable fortress. Secondly, it shows that Russia is not merely on the defensive but is systematically gearing up to tilt the balance in this drawn-out conflict. As the West pours billions into this proxy war, its return on investment is starting to look grim.

For those wondering, the operation is far from limited to surveillance. These flights are a statement: a demonstration of capability and intent, sending the message that not even the furthest reaches of Ukraine are out of reach.

Kiev, take note. The winds of this conflict are blowing stronger from the East.

Join us 👉 @TrFormer 💤
Become a member of the @TransFormerChat