Yes, Absolutely.

They try to cope, but even in this--not enough real professionalism. 

Despite claims of battlefield momentum in Ukraine, the data shows that Russia is paying an extraordinary price for minimal gains and is in decline as a major power. Since February 2022, Russian forces have suffered nearly 1.2 million casualties, more losses than any major power in any war since World War II. At current rates, combined Russian and Ukrainian casualties could reach 2 million by the spring of 2026. After seizing the initiative in 2024, Russian forces have advanced at an average rate of between 15 and 70 meters per day in their most prominent offensives, slower than almost any major offensive campaign in any war in the last century. Meanwhile, Russia’s war economy is under mounting strain, with manufacturing declining, slowing growth of 0.6 percent in 2025, and no globally competitive technology firms to help drive long-term productivity.

This is from CSIS. This drivel is produced by one boy and this dude. 

Prior to CSIS, Dr. Jones was director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation. Before that, he served in several positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and U.S. Special Operations Command. He served as representative for the commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to the assistant secretary of defense for special operations. He was also a plans officer and adviser to the commanding general, U.S. Special Operations Forces, in Afghanistan (Combined Forces Special Operations Component Command–Afghanistan). Dr. Jones served on a congressionally mandated panel that reviewed the FBI’s implementation of counterterrorism recommendations contained in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Dr. Jones despite a fountain of "credentials" does not understand war, as most of Pentagon doesn't and despite his good-sounding CV would be laughed out with his level of awareness (euphemism for butthurt) because he is ... a political "scientist", meaning he has no viable academic and experience bases to pass judgement on anything other than upcoming Oscars and new line of lingerie from Victoria Secret. RAND at which this "academic" worked too didn't produce any serious strategic paper like ... ever, and the high pitch coping and continuing to come up with numbers, such as "production of Iskanders" by these amateurs is met with Homeric laughter among people who are responsible for both manufacturing and combat use of these systems. But I am sure that Jones knows better. Of course he does--look at the war record of "the finest fighting force in history". 

And so, they cope, hard, because the butthurt is insufferable and recognizing oneself being in the midst of the collapsing structure of military fairy tales is extremely painful. It also requires a personal courage to face the reality. But the guy continues to produce things like this compendium of amateurish military BS and propaganda not understanding that he and his buddies from Capitol Hill and Pentagon do not have a tool kit to recognize how badly they lost. Meanwhile Russians, using Iskanders, organized the slaughter of US HIMARS in 404. 

But then again, can you imagine what it takes to explain to American political "scientist" what modern RUK/ROK are, how they integrate into overall netcentric structure of Russian military, and how real air defense should work. Nope, impossible. Here is Larry explaining how the famous now colonel ... well, read for yourself)). 

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon (a retired British Army colonel, former commander of the 1st Royal Tank Regiment, chemical weapons expert, and frequent commentator on defense/military matters) is at it again, having just published an article on January 30, 2026 in the Telegraph titled, “Desperate Putin is coming to the end of the road” (also headlined as “Putin’s army is on its knees. When it still has them”). This is not the first time that Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon makes a fool of himself… He has a proven track record of being completely wrong about the war in Ukraine. Consider his bold and totally wrong predictions on Ukraine’s 2023 offensive that was supposed to push the Russians into the Black Sea. (Spoiler alert: The Russians completely defeated the Ukrainian offensive by the end of August 2023.)

Delusion is a foundation of military edukeishn in NATO. 

And, in conclusion--Happy Birthday to Larry. We all wish him good health, good fortune and long-long years of productive life. 

Yes, That Was The Plan.

And Lula really doesn't provide any new information here. Still, the testimony of the leader of one of the BRICS countries is important. 

Former US President Joe Biden wanted to see Russia “destroyed” during his time in office, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said in an interview with Le Monde. The Brazilian leader, who has consistently pushed for a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, objected to attempts to single out Moscow as the sole culprit behind the conflict, telling the French newspaper on Tuesday that “Western countries also bear part of the responsibility.” “Joe Biden, with whom I spoke at length, thought Russia needed to be destroyed,” Lula said, without elaborating when the conversation took place. “And Europe, which for a long time embodied a middle way in the world, has now aligned itself with Washington and is spending billions on rearmament. That worries me. If all we talk about is war, there will never be peace.”

Joe Biden is a moron, as was his admin--a collection of war criminals and ignoramuses. In its present state the US, as represented by its "elites" is an existential enemy of Russia and Russian people. Trump admin is no different, just with its own twist and flavor. Hence this from Putin today:

Президент России Владимир Путин заявил, что требование Киева о проведении саммита с Россией выглядит странно на фоне террористических атак украинских формирований, передает ТАСС. Глава государства отметил, что украинская сторона одновременно просит о приостановке боевых действий на 30 или 60 суток и о встрече на высшем уровне. Путин задался вопросом: «Но как же проводить в этих условиях подобные встречи. О чем говорить?» Он также подчеркнул: «Кто вообще ведет переговоры с теми, кто делает ставку на террор? С террористами? И за что их поощрять, предоставляя передышку в боевых действиях». Российский лидер указал на несостоятельность подобных инициатив в условиях, когда Киев продолжает атаки на объекты мирной инфраструктуры, и выразил сомнение в возможности переговоров на таких условиях.

Translation: Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Kyiv's demand to hold a summit with Russia looks strange against the backdrop of terrorist attacks by Ukrainian forces, TASS reports. The head of state noted that the Ukrainian side is simultaneously asking for a suspension of hostilities for 30 or 60 days and a summit meeting. Putin asked the question: "But how can such meetings be held under these conditions? What should we talk about?" He also stressed: "Who negotiates with those who rely on terror? With terrorists? And why should they be encouraged by providing a respite from hostilities." The Russian leader pointed out the inconsistency of such initiatives in conditions where Kyiv continues to attack peaceful infrastructure facilities, and expressed doubt about the possibility of negotiations under such conditions.

So, it is kind of self-evident. About NATO losses:

(Bloomberg) -- The US is refusing to provide air defenses to back the “reassurance force” the UK and France are planning in a postwar Ukraine, people familiar with the matter said. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has insisted a US so-called backstop is essential to deter Russia from breaching any future ceasefire deal. But European allies have concluded during discussions with their American counterparts that President Donald Trump won’t provide the guarantees they have sought to back the Europe-led ‘coalition of the willing,’ according to the people, who requested anonymity disclosing private discussions. 

As I repeat ad nauseam, NATO is simply not in the position to fight a conventional conflict in Eastern Europe against Russia. Especially in the air where combined NATO air forces are paper tigers and it is worth mentioning that already by late 1970s Russia's central industrial district could withstand massive NATO air (space) operation. Since then ... well, since then the US lost the arms race and a bunch of sore losers from US Military, who migrated to abuse sinecures in all kinds of "think-tanks" continue to write "briefs" like that, from CSIS:

Russia will likely hit the 1 million casualty mark in the summer of 2025—a stunning and grizzly milestone.

No, no, no, Mr Seth G. Jones, why so low, go for 2, nay 5 million. After all, with you background in "government" and bottom feeding in the rear of the "finest fighting force in history" you have zero qualifications to even understand war dynamics, not to speak of how REAL armies operate and fight. But with "professionals" like that, the US will continue to have humanities dumb-down morons represent what passes in the West for strategic thought. Or as they say--cope harder. 

In conclusion, Vladimir Putin verbatim:

Спонсоры Украины — пособники террористов.

Translation: Ukraine's sponsors are accomplices of terrorists.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak. This is the message to Trump who, yet again, failed as a statesman.

What IS "Ukraine Model"?

Thanks to Brian Fruman, who pointed me towards initially piece by well known clown and amateur military porn masturbator David Axe who in his piece in Forbes informed us about this:

The U.S. Navy Submarine Force Could Sink The Chinese Fleet And Save Taiwan, But At The Cost Of A Quarter Of Its Boats

But these were not his ideas--I doubt he understands the difference between the Operational Sweep in ASW and Swiffer for the floors, although both are related. No, he described to the best of his very limited abilities by far more interesting paper from real military professionals from CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) which is called The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan. You can download the paper (PDF) and read summary here:

CSIS developed a wargame for a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan and ran it 24 times. In most scenarios, the United States/Taiwan/Japan defeated a conventional amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan. However, this defense came at high cost. The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of servicemembers. Taiwan saw its economy devastated. Further, the high losses damaged the U.S. global position for many years. China also lost heavily, and failure to occupy Taiwan might destabilize Chinese Communist Party rule. Victory is therefore not enough. The United States needs to strengthen deterrence immediately.

Putting aside all those traditional tropes about China and BS about "international relations", whose real study doesn't functionally exist in the US anymore--died out together with always substandard US "diplomacy"--there are reasons to view paper with interest and it is absolutely normal to game possible wars and everybody does it. So, in this respect this paper is interesting. 

I am not going to review all of it, but apart from interesting admissions such as these:

1. Shift to smaller, more survivable ships and develop rescue mechanisms to deal with crippled ships and multiple sinkings. Surface ships are extremely vulnerable, with the United States typically losing two carriers and 10 to 20 large surface combatants in game iterations.

2. Prioritize submarines and other undersea platforms. Submarines were able to enter the Chinese defensive zone and wreak havoc with the Chinese fleet, but numbers were inadequate.

or this:

3. Continue development and fielding of hypersonic weapons but recognize that they are niche weapons. Their high cost limits inventories, so they lack the volume needed to counter the immense numbers of Chinese air and naval platforms.

among many others, the paper continues to emphasize this: 

 There is no “Ukraine model” for Taiwan.

One may ask what is this "Ukraine Model"? If the authors and CSIS gamers (this time it is a respectful term) mean that the US will have to physically become a full blown party to the "defense of Taiwan", well, they have a point. But other than that, what is perceived as a "Ukraine Model" didn't complete forming itself. Far from it, albeit I do personally view a direct US participation in SMO as unlikely. But, but, that is the other issue altogether--even authors of paper admit some extremely serious military-industrial limitations of the United States, especially in terms of stand-off weapons, and mind you--the US has zero supersonic anti-shipping missiles, forget about hypersonic ones. And not only that, when discussing possible involvement of the United States in Taiwan's war, one has to seriously consider a strategic ambiguity in Europe, as IN WESTERN Europe, due to SMO and it, seemingly, growing scale. 

Yes, the United States has a very good, top notch submarine force--I write about it for years--but what will be the effect of the US losing completely in 404, and then in Europe? And that is not just in Kremlin's plans, it is being done as I type this. What are those "black swans", what are those random variables thrown into the mix, considering a historic strategic miscalculation the US committed when getting involved in perversion of 404 and NATO? There are many interesting points to discuss in this paper and, unlike David Axe's sophomoric writing, this paper certainly deserves to be discussed. So, the link is there, download and enjoy, if you will. I already briefly browsed it, many interesting admissions. And yes, "Ukraine Model" needs to be discussed too. 

In the end, look at the dynamics of rebuilding of Russia's Pacific Fleet, especially subs and surface carriers of 3M22 Zircons, and expansion of both strike combat aviation and delivery of Novella-equipped IL-38N ASW and patrol aircraft. Russia is anticipating some events and if Russia backs China up in this conflict, which is very likely, boy, we may see some spectacle for the ages. But, I am also on record, that PLAN nuclear submarine force is no contest to the state-of-the-art US Navy's subs and well trained crews and the issue of ASW against such a force is of a strategic importance to China, as is of Air Defense. China has very little time to get ready.  I am sure Xi and Putin discuss this often.