WSJ slams the new US national security strategy

From UNIAN:

"Trump's new national security strategy will upset US allies but delight China and Russia, according to the WSJ 

Karina Bovsunovskaya, 12/09/25 

Instead of outlining real threats, Trump's strategy is to lash out at allies.

During his first term, US President Donald Trump outlined a national security strategy that acknowledged the existence of a new world of great-power competition. However, the new strategy unveiled by the American leader last week is a clear departure from this competition, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

As the publication notes, this strategy will please China and Russia, but will upset US allies...

"Most importantly, the strategy prioritizes the Western Hemisphere, downplaying the rest of the world. This makes geographic sense, but not strategically, since the greatest threats to US security are not Brazil, Colombia, or even Cuba. The strategy usefully emphasizes the importance of eliminating malign interests from the hemisphere, although it doesn't mention Russia, China, or Cuba as such influences. It also points out that migration and drugs are the two most serious threats to America," the article adds.

The publication believes that the greatest threat to the United States is a country on the other side of the Pacific Ocean that has tripled its nuclear arsenal in five years: China. However, the document describes trade as the "most important stake" in the Pacific region, and views trade imbalances as a greater threat to US prosperity than Beijing's military buildup.

"China is also the main sponsor of Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine, and it is precisely against Russia that the strategy loses its effectiveness. The document advocates 'strategic stability' with a state that has invaded Eastern Europe and is using nuclear blackmail against the US and NATO. Congratulations on making it more difficult to end the war in Ukraine. Putin uses this strategy as proof that NATO expansion and European degradation justify his imperialism," the publication noted.

At the same time, this strategy attacks America's friends across the Atlantic. As the WSJ points out, the Trump administration is right about Europe's declining self-confidence and decades of ignoring hard power. However, the US president is also lecturing Europe about freedom of speech, emphasizing that we should ignore how the world's dictatorships govern themselves.

"The strategy is riddled with other contradictions. It offers a shortened (and false) story of US decline before Trump's presidency, while simultaneously claiming the US has the best economy in the world. It argues that we should unite allies in a joint effort to counter Chinese mercantilism, but it welcomes the imposition of tariffs on these allies, which reduces the likelihood of their trust in the US," the publication adds.

The WSJ emphasizes that one can be sure that America's enemies are reading this document and see a country consumed by internal conflicts and unwilling to honestly acknowledge the real threats posed by China and Russia. 

"Americans elected Trump in 2016 in part because they disliked Barack Obama's naiveté about our adversaries and his retreat from U.S. leadership. The mystery is why Trump is reviving much of this failed grand strategy in his second term," the article concluded."       

CNN: Trump's conflict with Europe is a gift to Putin

From the CNN:

"The widening rift between Trump and Europe is a gift to Putin

Analysis by Nathan Hodge, Dec 9, 2025

US President Donald Trump’s emissaries to the Kremlin may have been spinning their wheels during talks last week in Moscow on a possible Ukraine peace deal, but the Russians can now press a new advantage: The deepening divisions between Washington and Europe.

On Tuesday, Trump doubled down on his administration’s criticism of Europe, saying in a newly published interview with Politico that European nations were “weak” and “decaying” because of their immigration policies.

He also argued that Russia has the “upper hand” in its war on Ukraine and that it was time for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “start accepting things” when it comes to efforts to end the conflict. “He’s going to have to get on the ball and start accepting things, you know, when you’re losing,” Trump said.

The US president’s remarks followed the release last week of a new national security strategy that aimed a broadside at European governments for their support for Ukraine, blaming “European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war” for standing in the way of a peace deal.

“A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes,” the document asserts.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pushed back against that strategy document Tuesday, saying in a news conference that... European nations do not need help from the United States to “save democracy” in Europe.

But the Trump administration’s formulation – casting Europe as an anti-democratic obstacle to stable relations with Russia – has been a godsend for Russian officialdom.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov welcomed the release of the document, saying Sunday that it was “consistent with our vision.”

In remarks Monday, Peskov elaborated further, saying: “The nuance we see in the new concept certainly appeals to us. It speaks of the need for dialogue and building constructive, good relations.”

Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and a key intermediary in the recent diplomatic back-and-forth between Washington and the Kremlin, has also seized on the moment. In a series of posts on X, Dmitriev celebrated Trump’s castigation of European countries, particularly Trump’s warning that “Europe has to be very careful” and that it “is going in some bad directions … very bad for the people.”

Trump’s remarks were in response to a question about X being hit with a $140 million fine by EU regulators Friday for breaching European online content rules. 

Elon Musk, the owner of X, responded with posts calling for the abolition of the EU. But it’s a bit rich for Russian officials to amplify the Trump administration’s accusations of democratic backsliding by Europe: Russian President Vladimir Putin has all but eliminated political competition and erased media freedom over the course of a quarter-century in power. What’s more, Russia effectively blocks access to social media such as Facebook and X, although that doesn’t stop well-connected Russian officials such as Dmitriev from using such tech platforms to broadcast their talking points in English...

We’ve been here before: The fallout in Europe over the release of the Trump administration’s new national security strategy resembles the shock felt by Europeans after US Vice President JD Vance delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February. And the jubilation likely expressed in Moscow over Washington’s put-downs of Europe is reminiscent of the glee over Trump and Vance’s public scolding of Zelensky in the Oval Office later that month.

Zelensky has been making the rounds in Europe this week, conferring with the leaders of Britain, France and Germany in London and meeting officials of NATO and the European Union in Brussels to shore up support for Ukraine. But in parallel, Russian messaging about – and warnings to – Europe have increased in volume.

In an interview on Russian state television, hardline Russian political scientist Sergey Karaganov said Russia was “at war with Europe, not with a miserable, pitiful, misled Ukraine.” 

Karaganov added that he does not speak for Putin, so he can give his unvarnished opinion: “This war will not end until we smash Europe, morally and politically.”

But even if Karaganov was not speaking on behalf of the Russian government, it was clear he is channeling threats made by Putin himself. 

On the eve of his meeting with Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner in Moscow last week, Putin warned that Russia was “ready right now” for war with Europe – even though it’s not planning to start one. 

“We are not planning to go to war with Europe. I have already spoken about this a hundred times, but if Europe suddenly wants to go to war with us and starts, we are ready right now,” he said last Tuesday.

But the audience for that kind of saber-rattling is clear, and the Kremlin wants to make sure that Europeans are rattled by the rhetoric that is shaking trans-Atlantic ties to their foundation."

The new US security strategy from Ukrainian point of view

From the Obozrevatel:

"The New US National Security Strategy: Threats to Europe and Ukraine, "Delicacies" for Putin, and Impotence Against China. Interview with Former Ambassador to the US Shamshur

Roman Pryadun, 12/10/2025 

 – Do you think this could be considered a revolutionary change in American foreign policy? Because Europe isn't an enemy, but it's not a friend either. Russia is more of a "partner." The Middle East and Africa are completely sidelined, considered secondary.

Yes, this is truly a significant, even radical, change. There's a saying: "turning the tables." Trump is doing just that in global politics: completely shifting the focus and emphasis.

Biden's strategy identified two key threats: China as the primary strategic threat, and Russia as a pressing, "here and now" threat. This is completely eliminated in the new document...

The section on Europe is most striking. It seems to contain phrases about an "important ally" and an "emotional connection," but it's presented in such a way that one wonders: does this strategy even need Europe?...

It's also interesting that the US is telling Europe how to live, but at the same time, it's writing that there's no need to "teach" Arab monarchies democracy. Russia's problems in this regard are also silent. 

And another point. For the first time, such a document contains virtually no discussion of values—democratic principles, their promotion, and protection. There's not a single hint of a mission to defend democracy. Everything is reduced to "it must be said because it's rude not to." This perfectly demonstrates Trump and his team's attitude toward democracy: they pay lip service to formal allegiance, without any real action. And this is unsurprising, given that Trump gravitates toward authoritarian leaders and a model of strong, almost authoritarian, executive power. This is immediately apparent...

Donald Trump is inconsistent. He advocates the war on drugs, sends a navy to the Caribbean, and targets Venezuela, but at the same time, the presidential pardon list includes very high-level figures connected to the US drug trade... 

– Regarding Russia, it seems Trump is maintaining a certain consistency in this area. Briefly examining the Russian block, the "restoration of relations" with Russia is explicitly stated. And, interestingly, the United States' fundamental interest is formulated as a desire to negotiate a swift end to the war in Ukraine. Apparently, this applies under virtually any terms. Moreover, the document never mentions Russia as a threat to the United States. 

Regarding Russia, this is entirely consistent with what we've already heard and seen from Trump. Clearly, outright writing into the doctrine that the US will build a "bright future" with Russia, legitimize it, and bring it back into the international community would be too much, even for Trump. But the phrase "strategic stabilization of relations" means something simple: the US intends to build new or restored partnerships with Russia. 

And against this backdrop, the topic of Russian aggression against Ukraine completely disappears. All that remains is the phrase about the "need to cease hostilities," specifically for the sake of stabilizing relations with Russia. It's no surprise that the Kremlin is already applauding. They're happy with everything. The same, incidentally, applies to China: they're also pleased because China is no longer considered the United States' main systemic adversary. 

 

And paradoxically, at the same time, Washington is making demands on Europe, trying to "teach" and remake it politically in the direction of Trump's America. But with regard to the autocratic aggressors, it's the opposite: they're proposing coexistence and building "stable cooperation." This is very disappointing.

 

– Another step toward Russia, which Trump previously voiced, is simultaneously a blow to NATO. One of the priorities of European policy in the strategy is formulated as follows: "to end the perception of NATO as an ever-expanding Alliance and prevent such a development in reality." In other words, the current administration is effectively officially putting an end to NATO expansion, ignoring the opinions of other NATO members. This is a clear and overt attack on the very existence of NATO as a fully-fledged and effective structure.  

Regarding NATO's non-expansion, Trump and his team have been consistent. They initially stated that they did not see Ukraine joining NATO. This became a de facto policy long before the strategy was released. The document so far contains mantras about the importance of NATO and cooperation, but in reality, it is a declaration of the beginning of the US distancing itself from its own alliance commitments. This has already been communicated to the Europeans: by 2026, they must assume the alliance's key defense capabilities and "stand on their own feet."

 

Moreover, even Trump's "peace plans" for Ukraine recommend resuming dialogue between NATO and Russia with US mediation. In other words, NATO remains a mere shell of an empty structure. The United States is demonstrating that it no longer considers itself committed to the Alliance and sees no future for it. And a careful reading of the European strategy section leaves the impression that the administration sees no future for the EU itself. And if the EU were to disintegrate altogether, Washington, judging by the text, would be rather pleased... 

– A significant part of this US national strategy – and even Russia acknowledges this – actually coincides with the Kremlin's vision for Europe and NATO. Why is this?

This is entirely consistent with Trump's worldview: there are big players—they negotiate. There are small ones—they listen and don't cause problems. The new friends are the authoritarian monarchies of the Gulf. The old partners are Vladimir Putin. This, in essence, is his vision of a new "world order." And it's very close to Putin's vision of the world. Trump promotes his model of "imperial presidency," and Putin his "imperial power." And as soon as this is put down on paper, the similarities are simply glaring. Especially in foreign policy. 

– There's a section there regarding Ukraine. It's in the interests of the United States to end the fighting as quickly as possible, avoid further escalation, stabilize relations with Russia, and ensure Ukraine's recovery—but only after the war. Nothing about a just peace. Nothing about aggression. All fundamental issues are absent. 

Yes, I agree with you. There's no evidence of Russian aggression. There's no definition of Ukraine as a victim. There's no statement that Ukraine's defense is in the interests of the US and the West. Instead, there's this abstract "cease hostilities," as if these are two countries that can't divide territory and need to be forced to come to an agreement. There's a formula about Ukraine remaining a viable state. But even this is presented in a "poor man's talk" style.

The document's primary focus is on restoring strategic stability with Russia. This explains why it contains no condemnation of Moscow or recognition of it as a threat. Trump still wants to speak to Putin as a partner, to build a "bright future" with him based on shared interests. This is a return to the good old "business as usual" that we've heard a million times before.  

– The tone toward Europe, unlike Russia, is much harsher. It seems as if the Trump administration has blamed all the problems and negative aspects of the new Strategy on Europe: the democratic deficit, the lack of freedom of speech, the suppression of right-wing political movements, migration, which, according to the authors, will transform Europe into something unrecognizable. And, of course, the topic of troop withdrawal—the idea that Europe should be responsible for its own security. The general sentiment was that the United States is questioning even the very NATO alliance with European countries. Why such harsh criticism and such language directed at our partner? 

Overall, this isn't much of a surprise. It all began with US Vice President Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference. It set a tone the administration hasn't let up: a profound critique of the foundations of the European political and social model.

For the first time, at least in my life experience, the United States is acting as a kind of "teacher" to Europe, explaining how exactly it should live and in what direction it should move...

Trump is creating an ideological matrix for how Europe should develop – its politics, its social life. In short, Europe should move toward Orbán's Hungary, strengthening precisely those principles championed by the European far right. And this is precisely the Europe that, according to the strategy, is "acceptable" to Trump. This is an entirely new approach in US security documents and, in essence, an attempt to define what Europe should be. In recent years, there has been much talk about Trump and his entourage attempting to create an internationalist far right. What we see in this strategy fits perfectly with this trend.

– So the phrase 'our goal is to help Europe correct its current course' seems like a direct signal to the far right: work to break up the bloc, and we'll help you? It's effectively a call to those who resist Brussels.

If we look at the ultimate consequences of these political signals, then yes, this is a path to the destruction of the EU. And this, incidentally, is entirely consistent with the plans of Putin and the Russian authorities. If I were a politician on the radical right, I would perceive this strategy as encouragement, a promise of support from political "like-minded" people in the United States. 

Note: some of Trump's actions not only align with the positions of the far right in Europe – they are even more radical than they can tolerate within their own countries. The EU has institutional safeguards, and Trump lacks these restraints. Therefore, what we are seeing in relation to Europe is essentially a manifesto of the far right, who would like to reshape Europe and the world according to their own rules. 

– For several years now, the argument has been made—from Democrats to Republicans—that China poses the most long-term threat to US interests. China is mentioned in the PLA strategy, but the wording is extremely cautious. Why such a lighter version of the story regarding Beijing? 

...In my opinion, the reason is that Trump already tried to strangle China with tariffs once – and lost. China proved better prepared and responded with steps that were painful for the US, including cutting off rare earth metal supplies. Trump was forced to back down and move on to negotiations.

Moreover, US Treasury Secretary Bessent insisted that the section on China be handled with extreme caution, without forceful statements. This fits Trump's worldview, where the "big guys"—large countries that negotiate among themselves—play the leading role. While there are indeed many grandiose statements, in reality, Trump avoids drastic moves against strong countries and only demonstrates toughness toward those he considers weak. 

– So, they don't have the resources to put significant pressure on China?

Exactly, they don't have the resources. And Trump wants to reach an agreement with China.

– In Congress, both Democrats and Republicans reacted quite harshly to the new Strategy, particularly its Russia component. To what extent can Congress influence the strategy's implementation in the form the administration has presented it? 

The only good news we've received from the United States in recent days is the results of public opinion polls. They show that support for Ukraine has grown... If this trend continues, it will encourage those Republican politicians who are willing to advocate for more active support for Ukraine and prevent its actual surrender, which is what the administration is unfortunately moving toward."

After chatting with Putin, US negotiators bullied Zelensky to capitulate immediately during a phone call

From UNIAN:

"Axios: The US demanded that Zelensky immediately agree to surrender Donbas

Ekaterina Girnyk, 09.12.25 

The US proposal worsened after a meeting between Trump's representatives and Putin and included tougher conditions on territorial issues and control over the Zaporizhzhia NPP.

The United States is pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to quickly agree to territorial and other concessions as part of President Donald Trump's peace plan. 

According to Axios, the Ukrainian-American talks focused on two issues: Russia's demand that Ukraine cede all of Donbas, including parts not controlled by its troops, and Ukraine's request for serious security guarantees from the United States to prevent future Russian aggression. 

At the same time, one Ukrainian official noted that the US proposal had worsened in Kyiv's view after a five-hour meeting between Trump advisers Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Putin last week in the Kremlin.  

According to the official, during a two-hour phone call with the Ukrainian president following this meeting, Whitkoff and Kushner "wanted a definitive 'yes' from Zelenskyy." 

"It seemed as if the US was trying to convince us, through various means, of Russia's desire to seize all of Donbas and that the Americans wanted Zelenskyy to fully agree to this in a phone call," the Ukrainian official said. 

At the same time, Ukrainian and American officials note that, despite some progress, there were no breakthroughs on territorial issues or security guarantees. 

According to Axios sources, Zelenskyy stated during a phone call with Whitkoff and Kushner that he had received the US proposal only an hour earlier and had not yet reviewed it. 

"The US official called this odd, since the US had submitted an updated proposal the day before. The Ukrainian official noted that while some documents were provided the day before, others were received shortly before the phone call," the publication notes. 

At the same time, a Ukrainian source told the publication that the US proposal included tougher conditions than previous versions on issues such as territory and control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and left key questions about security guarantees unanswered: 

"There are important territorial issues that need to be discussed in more detail: who controls what, who remains where, who withdraws troops, and if Ukraine withdraws troops from the line of contact, how can we guarantee that Russia will do the same and [not continue] military operations." 

However, as the Ukrainian official stated, the American side apparently expected Zelenskyy to simply agree over the phone. 

At the same time, the American official insisted that the current draft was significantly influenced by the Ukrainian side's proposals, and that Kushner and Witkoff pressured Putin to agree to some of Ukraine's demands."

Politico: Americans keep thinking how to satisfy Russia's demands

From the Politico:

"What the US wants from Ukraine: Leave Donbas, one way or another

December 8, 202

 

By Veronika Melkozerova

Peace talks between the U.S. and Ukraine have stumbled over one main issue: how to force Ukraine to give up what the Kremlin has failed to seize during the war — the entirety of the Donbas region.

 “On the territory issue, Americans are simple: Russia demands Ukraine to give up territories, and Americans keep thinking how to make it happen,” a senior European official familiar with the negotiation process told POLITICO on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

 “The Americans insist that Ukraine must leave the Donbas … one way or another,” the official added.

Ukraine has insisted that any peace deal must involve the war being frozen on current lines. At present, some 30 percent of Donbas is still in Ukrainian hands.

“In general, the most realistic option is to stand where we stand. But the Russians are pressuring Kyiv to give up territories,” the European official said.

And the U.S. keeps pushing Ukraine to agree to the deal quickly, with President Donald Trump once again getting visibly frustrated with Kyiv...

Kyiv has been trying to explain to the U.S. that giving Vladimir Putin what he has not managed to win in more than three years of war will only encourage him to take more. It also feels pressured by the speed at which the Americans want to move.

“Maybe Trump also wants it to happen fast, so his team is forced to explain to him they are not the ones to blame for why this is not happening as fast as he wanted it to happen,” the European official said...

“Therefore, it is important how America will behave, as a mediator or will it lean toward the Russians?” the European official said, adding that Ukraine is also waiting for clarity on what security guarantees the U.S. is ready to provide."

Kasparov: Putin will never bring his murderous army back home

From the Dialog, Dec 7, 2025:

"Kasparov explained what to prepare for and predicted Putin's next steps: "There will be a big battle" 

Garry Kasparov described how an attack on European countries would unfold: "You need to look at the map... The first blow, of course, will fall on the Baltic states, absolutely."

The Russian opposition leader voiced his opinion on Putin's aggressive plans on the YouTube channel Free Russia Forum.  

The world chess champion offered his prediction for Europe in the near future: "It's not even a question of a military strike, but Putin will be preparing for it. This is a concentration of troops, a military-psychological component, and, of course, there will be a sharp intensification of all elements of hybrid warfare in Europe, because elections are in France in 2027. Incidentally, there will be a major battle now. Putin will throw all his resources into supporting Orban. He needs to keep Orban."  

"We understand that Putin's agent is currently being pumped up again. He's losing the election, but he'll be 'charged' with money... And Putin will be gathering ground. For now, he doesn't need to attack anyone. The war in Ukraine is still ongoing, but there's one thing we must understand: the army of murderers and rapists created by Putin will not return to Russia. This army will move on," Kasparov concluded." 

Europe must be united to face MAGA-ruled America

Bulgarian political scientist Ognyan Minchev in the Faktor:

"America is not MAGA, but today MAGA is in power - the US is radically changing its geopolitical interests 

December 7, 2025 

Washington's published National Security Strategy leaves little room for doubt that the United States is radically – and now officially – changing its basic understanding of its geopolitical interests. At least as long as this wing of the Republican Party – MAGA – is in power, this change will be serious and – in all likelihood – long-term. 

I. Europe is no longer a major ally

 

Moreover, Europe is an obstacle, an obstacle to the realization of Washington’s strategic priorities. This 180-degree turn is provoked by three main arguments. First, Europe (at least for now) is an ideological opponent of Washington. After J. D. Vance’s notorious speech in Munich in February, there can be little doubt about this. As well as after the persistent insistence that power in European countries be fully taken over by national populist parties – like-minded of MAGA. Second, the EU has been an old and beloved enemy of the radical right in America for decades. This right is in power today. The EU is an economic rival and – to some extent – ​​an obstacle to the unchallenged dictate of Washington and its associated corporate interests over small, individually taken European countries. Thus, the attack on Europe aims to disunite the EU (which is also the main goal of most national populists) so that the real estate group around the White House - and other similar corporate interests in power - can exert effective pressure and impose their schemes and interests on the individually helpless European countries. Third, a united Europe is a structural obstacle to the "cloudless" development of a good business between Washington and Moscow. Respectively - a disunited and helpless Europe is a good terrain for geopolitical deals and dividing the Old Continent into "spheres of influence".

II. Russia is no longer a rival

 

At least, it is not a major rival. The understanding that the “great powers” ​​– the US, China and Russia – are in a system of mutual rivalry, but also have many common interests, is at work. Russia has become too close to China – it is practically under China’s control in the most important dimensions of its economic and – to a large extent – ​​geopolitical presence on the international power map. America is not interested in this – and it will try to “pull” Russia towards itself through a system of well-executed and mutually beneficial “business deals”. Insolent “small subjects” like Ukraine are currently preventing this cordial understanding, but Washington and Moscow are “working on it”. Unlike Trump and his real estate group, those who know Russia well know that the Kremlin will play all possible “fairy tales from 1001 nights” to make the most of the assertive “businessmen” and will ruthlessly throw them into oblivion when it decides that it no longer needs them. Of course – if the Kremlin itself is destined to have the political and historical time to play this game. This is not at all certain. For now, the Kremlin is excellently managing the “offers” of the real estate group and is ready to gain the most from them – refusing to give anything in return, except for “miraculous projects for miraculous money”, with which it is flooding the “realtors”...

 

III. It would be a mistake to treat the National Security Strategy as a temporary document, expressing only the current biases of the current administration in Washington

 

Experts in the field of geopolitics and security strategies show the inertia to interpret the transatlantic relationship as a “transcendent”, eternal axis – a fundamental dimension of the international system dominated by the United States as a world leader. This was indeed a fact after 1945 until the end of the Cold War, and during the decades of the Western global project after it – almost to the present day. In this international system, the united efforts of America and Europe are a prerequisite for containing the main opponent of Western geopolitical hegemony – the Soviet Union, armed with a huge nuclear potential and a radical ideology of destroying the West with the aim of a global communist revolution. After the end of World War II, Washington was forced to build NATO and spread a nuclear umbrella over Europe to prevent the complete occupation of the Old Continent by the Stalinist Red Army. After 1990, the Soviet threat passed, but people with long-term strategic thinking in Washington understood that selective control over processes in Eurasia was key to realizing American hegemony in the global world. That is why NATO expansion was carried out - to counter the Kremlin's revisionism and to bind Russia long-term to the geopolitical community of the West. The failure to admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO left the strategy for controlling Eurasia in a state of half-realization. And it opened space for Putin's geopolitical revanchism.

IV. How is it possible – some think – for America to abandon Europe and ally itself with the Kremlin – that this is “unnatural”

 

No, it is not unnatural. The transatlantic shield of cooperation between the US and Europe after 1947 is a moment in history – albeit a prolonged moment. If we look back in time, we will see that the Anglo-Saxon world – whose leader for almost 100 years has been Washington – has a long history of using the geopolitical potential of the most retrograde empire in human history – the Russian Empire. In the 19th century, London and Vienna used Russia as an instrument to defeat Napoleon. In the early 20th century, London and Paris promised Russia the realization of its most cherished dreams – the conquest of Constantinople and all of Central Europe – in order to bring it to its side in the war against Germany. Roosevelt and Churchill took advantage of the unrestrained aggressiveness of the two totalitarian monsters in Berlin and Moscow to pit them against each other and to act as arbitrators – choosing cooperation with Stalin against Hitler. (Churchill said – “Even if the devil guaranteed me that he would fight Hitler, I would go down to hell to shake his hand”). American President Roosevelt gave Stalin half of Europe in the hope of building a new “European Concert” with him – but it led to the division of the Iron Curtain... The division of Europe lasted half a century, and after the Soviet concentration camp was finally about to give up its spirit to God, another American president – ​​Bush senior – openly asked the parliament in Kiev in 1991 not to break up the Soviet Union, to abandon “excessive nationalism”, and the independence of Ukraine. Is it any wonder that Trump and Putin are making plans for the capitulation of Ukraine and for a new breakup and subjugation of (Eastern) Europe?

V. Washington’s behavior is explicable in a longer historical context, but it should not cause pessimism and despair in an “abandoned” Europe

 

First of all, Europe today is much different – ​​more powerful and richer – than in 1945, as well as in 1989. Europe has three main problems. First – to restore its self-confidence and potential as a real international power – a factor capable of projecting military and organizational power, and not just the “soft power” of attractiveness. “Soft power” is a good resource when the international environment is favorable for positive examples such as European integration. When dark clouds gather in international life and big and ugly cannibals appear on the field, practicing exclusively integration attractiveness only increases the chances that “beautiful Europe” will turn into a feast – dinner for imperial cannibals. Second – Europe must quickly and decisively change the political, ideological and organizational foundations of its integration. The time of liberal utopias is over! Massive immigration with the aim of making Europe the prototype of tomorrow's global – multicultural world? No, thank you!

 

A green “deal” that would reduce Europe’s seven percent “emissions” while China and India spew out 30-40 percent each? No, thank you! 

 

A cultural hedonism that mocks Europe’s historical heritage, denies Christianity, and plays with radical utopias and hostile alternatives to “cultural diversity”? No, thank you.  

 

Europe needs to revive its cultural and civilizational brilliance – not by returning to the past, but by building for the future. Third, Europe must avoid the political polarization and culture war that is shaking America today and giving rise to the ugly realities of the far left and the far right. European status quo politicians must make efforts to integrate the more sensible and moderate factions of national populist movements into the legitimate mainstream of European politics. Giorgia Meloni’s success is a good example of such integration. A historical compromise is needed. The politics of the status quo must be stripped of its ideological fetishes and organizational weaknesses in the process of European integration. National populists must abandon their priority of disuniting Europe in the name of a utopian revival of national sovereignty. When large predators are hunting you down to eat you, disuniting is a polite invitation to them for a nice dinner – no matter what paid emissaries like Orbán tell you. Disuniting Europe and curtseying to Moscow must be abandoned by the national populist sector – and the liberal status quo must abandon its utopias – immigration, ideological greenism, cultural radicalism and utopianism. Europe must remain diverse – in culture, in education, in local government, in social security. Europe must federalize more quickly in terms of military security, border security, financial and trade systems, innovation and technological power. 

 

America is not MAGA. There are many different social trends in America – values, ideas, politics, there are many different interests in America – corporate, regional, community. Someday America may return as a friend of Europe. Someday... But today – MAGA is in power. It is time for Europe not only to wake up, but also to be filled with determination."

Putin's minion Dmitriev is lecturing Europe on free speech

From the Dialog, Dec 7, 2025:

"Putin's special envoy Dmitriev embarrasses himself while attempting to make a statement about Europe

Putin's special envoy Dmitriev accuses the EU of censorship. Social media users reminded him that approximately 100,000 different resources, including the world's most popular social networks, are currently blocked in Russia. 

Putin's special representative, Kirill Dmitriev, harshly criticized the EU, calling European bureaucrats "enemies of freedom of speech." However, the result was a comical gaffe.  

He did so on the social network X, which is officially blocked in Russia, and, according to his account data, using a French VPN. There's no other way to access a social network banned in Russia. Social media platforms are laughing en masse at the Kremlin's attempts to criticize Europe, making it so absurd and comical.

Russia itself is drowning in censorship

Moreover, within Russia, widespread and active blocking of everything from video calls to children's platforms continues. Total censorship has been in place on television for over 20 years. Opposition channels have been shut down or expelled from the country. But this doesn't stop Kremlin special envoy Kirill Dmitriev from discussing "freedom of speech" in Europe. His accusations highlight the Russian practice of total censorship, with specific examples. 

Blocked or restricted in the country

Facebook 

Instagram 

YouTube 

FaceTime 

Signal 

Snapchat 

LinkedIn 

Roblox 

Discord 

WhatsApp (calls) 

Telegram (calls)

Over 100,000 other resources, including educational websites, news platforms, and communication services, are also down. Meanwhile, Dmitriev continues to publicly lecture Europe about "censorship," ignoring the fact that Russians can't even use half the services he himself accesses via a foreign VPN.  

The contrast between his statements and Russian reality is so stark that it's sparking a furious reaction on social media. Users are noting that the man representing a state that built one of the world's largest digital blocking systems is now trying to lecture the West on freedom of speech."

US Department of Defense lied about disabling Starlink terminals used by Russia

From Tom's Hardware / Yahoo!News:

"Russia allegedly still using Starlink-guided drones in Ukraine, report claims — Starlink Mini strapped to grounded drone points to ongoing issue, despite U.S. DoD claims threat was blunted

Mark Tyson, December 6, 2025

 

Ukraine’s Defence Express news has highlighted the continuing issue of Russian drones with access to Starlink satellite internet guidance. Despite assurances from U.S. Pentagon officials from over a year ago, drones from the Russian aggressors are still flying into Ukrainian airspace to strike their targets – with Starlink hardware clearly strapped to them, claims the source (machine translation). 

The new report, on what seems to be an ongoing issue, has been sparked by one of the first sightings of a crashed/disabled ‘Molniya’ (Lightning) strike drone. This is shown in pictures originally shared by Serhiy ‘Flash’ Beskrestnov, a Ukrainian electronic warfare and communications expert, who is active on Telegram social media.

In the images, a Starlink Mini is clearly perched atop the grounded drone. ‘Flash’ doesn’t insist this drone actually came from Russia, but the overall design and internal components (like the battery) suggest it was very likely a Russian device.

Perhaps even more serious than this latest spotting is the Ukraine Defense Express assertion that Starlink usage by Russian drones hasn’t been totally stopped since it was first documented in 2024.

Later that same year, the US Defense Department’s assistant secretary for space policy, John Plumb, told Bloomberg that the Russian military’s unauthorized use of SpaceX’s Starlink internet had been blunted. An IMI report says that Plumb wasn’t specific about the measures put in place to deny Russian access, but that it was a “good solution” for Starlink and Ukraine.

Russian Shahed-136 drones have previously been seen kitted out with Starlink gear. The Ukraine Defense Express says that Russia’s recently unveiled RD-8 mother drone is Starlink controllable, too. Evidence of this wasn’t reproduced within the source story.

If the Ukraine Defense Express is correct, though, it is unsettling to know that the incessant Russian drone onslaught hitting Ukraine’s military, civilians, and key infrastructure could be weakened with just a little more political will."

***

In reality, Russian use of Starlink was discontinued only about a week ago, after a plea by Ukrainian government to Elon Musk, and it immediately changed the situation on the battlefield. As the BBC reports, "Evidence is mounting that Elon Musk's decision to deny Russian forces access to his Starlink satellite-based internet service has blunted Moscow's advance, caused confusion among Russian soldiers and handed an advantage to Ukraine's defenders."

Drone that hit Chernobyl nuclear power plant confirmed as Russian

Continuation of a recent story - from the Telegraph / Yahoo!News:

"Chernobyl unable to prevent radiation leak after Russian strike

Iona Cleave, December 7, 2025

 

 

A kamikaze Shahed-style drone struck the shelter’s roof in February, causing severe damage - Tetiana Dzhafarova/AFP

Chernobyl’s protective shell can no longer block radiation from leaking out following a Russian drone strike earlier this year, the UN’s nuclear watchdog said.

The massive shield covering the site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster has lost its “primary safety functions, including the confinement capability”, inspectors have discovered.

In February, Ukraine accused Russia of targeting the power plant, which is about 130km north of Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital.

Footage showed a kamikaze Shahed-style drone crashing into the shelter’s roof, causing severe damage and sparking a fire.

The Kremlin denied the claim at the time. Ukraine, which is still in control of the site, reported that radiation levels did not increase.

However, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who examined the site this week, said repairs were “essential” to “prevent further degradation” of the nuclear shelter.

Radioactive dust could now leak from the site, inspectors said. While there is no heightened radioactive activity now, they fear the plant is increasingly vulnerable.

Chernobyl’s 25,000-ton steel shell, known as the New Safe Confinement (NSC), covers the remains of reactor four, which suffered an explosive meltdown in 1986, leading to the disaster.

The shell was installed in 2016 following a huge construction project to stop the release of residual radioactivity from the reactor into the atmosphere.

“The mission confirmed that the NSC had lost its primary safety functions, including the confinement capability, but also found that there was no permanent damage to its load-bearing structures or monitoring systems,” the IAEA said in a statement on Friday.

The structure covers both the reactor and the unstable “sarcophagus” that Soviet authorities hastily built after the disaster. It is one of the largest movable land-based structures ever made, costing £1.25bn and weighing twice as much as the Eiffel Tower.

Rafael Grossi, the IAEA director general, said that “limited temporary repairs” have been carried out, but “timely and comprehensive restoration remains essential to prevent further degradation and ensure long-term nuclear safety”.

The repairs are expected to take place in 2026 and a “full restoration” will be carried out once the war ends, the IAEA added..."

ISW: Russia increases its partnership with India

From the Institute for the Study of War:

"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 6, 2025

...A February 2025 Russian drone strike on the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) rendered the protective structure of the NPP unable to fulfill its primary safety functions. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi stated on December 5 that an IAEA inspection team confirmed during the week of November 28 to December 5 that the February 14, 2025 Russian drone strike on the Chornobyl NPP severely damaged the New Safe Confinement (NSC) structure enclosing the remains of the plant’s reactor No.4 such that the NSC can no longer fulfill its primary safety functions, including its confinement capabilities.[19] Grossi added that the plant requires comprehensive repairs to “ensure long term nuclear safety.” The Kremlin has periodically conducted information operations aimed at portraying Ukraine as endangering the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia NPP (ZNPP), but continued Russian strikes and shelling against Ukrainian NPPs, as well as Russia’s consistent mismanagement of the ZNPP, highlight that Russia remains the actual danger to Ukrainian NPPs.[20]

The Kremlin appears to be increasingly leaning on India to alleviate domestic labor shortages and is setting conditions for India to support drone production for Russia’s war effort. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov announced on December 5 that Russia may accept an “unlimited number” of migrant workers from India under the new bilateral labor mobility agreement signed on December 5 in New Delhi.[21] Manturov stated that Russian manufacturing industries have a labor shortage of 800,000 workers, and that Russian trade, construction, and service industries have a labor shortage of 1.5 million workers. Manturov stated that it will likely take Russia well over a year to set the conditions necessary to accept, employ, and process many Indian migrants. Kherson Oblast occupation head Vladimir Saldo stated on December 6 that regional occupation authorities discussed possible business cooperation with Indian partners at a recent international investment forum.[22] Saldo stated that occupation authorities are ready to attract Indian migrant workers to strengthen the region’s agricultural industry and to work with Indian partners to integrate occupied Kherson Oblast into international trade corridors.

Head of the Russian state-owned defense conglomerate Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, stated on December 5 that Russia is in discussions with India to localize production of Russian drones, such as Lancet loitering munitions, in India.[23] Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an interview on December 4 to English-language news magazine India Today, wherein he highlighted that Russia is not just selling military equipment to India but also sharing technology for shipbuilding and missile and aircraft manufacturing.[24] Putin stated that India uses Russian Su-57 fighter aircraft and produces Russian T-90 tanks and Russian-Indian BrahMos cruise missiles in India. Putin and Chemezov’s statements suggest that the Kremlin is considering expanding joint weapon production in India to drones that Russia would very likely use on the battlefield in Ukraine, possibly in exchange for Russian technological innovations and lessons learned in Ukraine. A Kremlin-affiliated milblogger notably reported on December 5 that a delegation of the Smolensk Oblast First Person View (FPV) Drone Piloting Center arrived in India to complete objectives within the framework of the Russian-Indian strategic partnership.[25] The milblogger added that the center has already started training the first international FPV drone piloting group in Russia in cooperation with Smolensk Oblast Medical University and arrived in Goa, India to discuss training for Indian drone operations with the Indian Sport Ministry.[26]

India’s increased partnerships with Russia come against the backdrop of Russia’s growing reliance on North Korea and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to support the war in Ukraine. Russia is reportedly localizing Garpiya drone production in the PRC, and PRC-origin drone components have been critical in Russia’s efforts to adapt its drones to gain battlefield advantages.[27] North Korea has reportedly started mass production of short range FPV drones and medium range strike drones in North Korea, possibly to provide to Russia in the future, and has provided Russia with soldiers, artillery shells, and missiles.[28] Russia is also reportedly relying on North Korea for migrant workers, including to work at Russia’s Alabuga Special Economic Zone (ASEZ) in the Republic of Tatarstan to produce Shahed-type drones.[29] North Korea, in turn, is also receiving direct combat experience operating drones in exchange for its materiel, manpower, and labor support.[30]

Key Takeaways

1. Russian forces launched 704 total missiles and drones against Ukraine overnight on December 5 to 6, heavily targeting railway and energy infrastructure across the country.
2. The US and Ukrainian negotiating delegations agreed that any progress toward peace talks to end the war in Ukraine is dependent on Russia’s readiness to demonstrate a good faith commitment to long term peace.
3. Ukrainian forces continue to hold positions within Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad while Russian forces are complicating Ukrainian logistics in the area.
4. A February 2025 Russian drone strike on the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) rendered the protective structure of the NPP unable to fulfill its primary safety functions.
5. The Kremlin appears to be increasingly leaning on India to alleviate domestic labor shortages and is setting conditions for India to support drone production for Russia’s war effort.
6. India’s increased partnerships with Russia come against the backdrop of Russia’s growing reliance on North Korea and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to support the war in Ukraine..."

McFaul: Trump must try not to convince Putin but to reduce his capabilities

From the Time:

"Trump Needs a New Ukraine Strategy

by Michael McFaul, Dec 7, 2025
 
...President Trump’s decision to engage directly with Putin is the right move. You cannot negotiate the end of a war by talking to only one side. But throughout 2025, Trump and Witkoff have been trying in vain to change Putin’s mind. The recently published 28-point plan was full of gifts for the Russian leader. This strategy of appeasement has not worked. In fact, it has the opposite effect. Putin has pocketed concessions offered earlier in the year and then asked for more. His most audacious ask has been to get the Trump Administration to pressure President Volodymyr Zelensky to give up the parts of Donbas in eastern Ukraine that Ukrainian soldiers still control.
 
If ending the war is still the goal, there are better strategies that the Trump Administration can pursue. 
 
First, instead of trying to change Putin’s mind, the Trump Administration should focus on changing his capabilities. As long as Russia can keep taking territory in Ukraine—however incremental and irrespective of the massive numbers of Russians that must die to do so—Putin will keep fighting. He will only stop and earnestly negotiate when he no longer has the means to continue the war. A stalemate on the frontline is a necessary condition for serious peace talks. That can only be achieved if President Trump provides more and better weapons to Ukraine and imposes and enforces more and better sanctions against Russia. 
 
On the military front, the Trump Administration must supply the Ukrainian air force with new stocks of AIM-9L and AIM-9M missiles for its F-16 fighter jets, which are now in very short supply, and deliver the first shipment of AIM-120 missiles much sooner. Ukraine also needs more NASAMS air defense systems and more long-range strike capabilities such as Tomahawk missiles to hit military targets deeper inside of Russia. New materiel would not only help on the battlefield but signal a U.S. commitment to Ukraine. 
 
On the sanctions front, the Trump Administration could start with the entire shadow fleet that is being used to export Russian oil by sea. They could then sanction all Russian banks and hand over Russian assets frozen in U.S. accounts, which would make a similar decision by the Europeans easier. They could also sanction—or threaten to sanction—Western firms that allow their technologies to reach Russian military firms via third countries. And they could threaten secondary sanctions against China to reduce Beijing’s purchase of Russian energy exports. 
 
Second, the Trump Administration must untangle negotiations about ending the war from talks about a Western security guarantee for Ukraine. This second discussion must occur without the Russians at the table. It was a significant mistake to give Putin a say in this conversation. The founders of NATO did not ask Joseph Stalin for permission to create the alliance in 1949. No one called Nikita Khrushchev to see if he was okay with bringing West Germany into NATO in 1955. The same principle must apply today. Putin does not get a say. 
 
Third, the Trump Administration must also delink the issue of improving U.S.-Russia relations from ending the war in Ukraine. These are different issues. In particular, future U.S.-Russian business deals should not be on the agenda for peace talks. Most of the participants—two Americans and one Russian—in the last round of talks in Moscow this week were businesspeople. That makes no sense. It also creates the perception that President Trump is selling out the Ukrainians so American firms can profit in Russia. 

Fourth, and finally, Secretary of State Marco Rubio must take the lead in negotiations with both the Russians and Ukrainians. It’s called “shuttle diplomacy” for a reason. Having one person taking the lead in talking to Putin and someone else talking to the Ukrainians is unwise.

Whether President Trump and his team are genuinely committed to ending the war on terms that would create permissive conditions for a prosperous, secure, and independent Ukraine is not always clear. But the embrace of a Plan B—since Plan A has not worked—would signal a credible commitment. More of the same will signal the opposite."