Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Russia’s Burevestnik Missile Test Was Actually A De-Escalation Measure. Its real purpose is to get the US to reconsider its impending escalations against Russia by reminding it of the strategic costs that this could entail.

Trump slammed Russia’s test of its unlimited-range nuclear-powered Burevestnik missile by describing it as inappropriate and urging Putin to end the Ukrainian Conflict instead. The aforesaid test follows Putin’s warning that Trump’s potential transfer of longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine would provoke a “downright staggering” response from Russia. That in turn came right after a supposedly planned test of Russia’s nuclear triad coinciding with Trump canceling their Budapest Summit.

The sequence of events that Russia initiated amidst the breakdown of talks with the US, for which Zelensky claimed credit while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested that joint EU-Ukrainian pressure was responsible, is understandable if analyzed in context. To begin with, there hasn’t yet been any tangible progress on extending the New START upon its expiry in February, which risks further worsening Russian-US tensions since it’s the last remaining strategic arms control pact between them.

In connection with that, Trump remains committed to developing what he calls the “Golden Dome” missile defense system, which his advisors arguably believe would give the US a strategic edge over Russia by enabling it to intercept more second strikes in the scenario of a nuclear war. This imperative explains why Bush Jr. pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 shortly after 9/11 and all subsequent presidents retained his policy course of developing this infrastructure at home and abroad.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Putin is once again extending an olive branch to Zelensky and Trump in his latest goodwill gesture because he truly doesn’t want the conflict to drag on nor to expand Russia’s territorial claims as would likely then happen.

Putin announced that more than ten thousand Ukrainian troops were encircled in Kupyansk and Krasnoarmeisk (Pokrovsk), with his Ministry of Defense soon adding Dimitrov (Mirnograd) near the latter to the list. The Russian leader also proposed halting the fighting so that foreign journalists, including Ukrainian ones, can travel to the front to report on this. Putin suggested a mass surrender just like early 2022’s Azovstal standoff, but Zelensky seems uninterested, at least for now. Here’s what it all means:

1. Russia Continues To Gain Ground Despite Billions In Western Aid For Ukraine | The Economist recently published a piece lobbying for Europe to fund Ukraine over the next four years, which they claim will cost taxpayers at least $390 billion. Their article also reported that $100-110 billion was spent this year, “the highest sum yet”, for a total of $360 billion since 2022 (likely an underestimate). Quite clearly, Western aid hasn’t succeeded in pushing Russia back, only in decelerating its gains. Ukraine’s encirclement therefore shows that no amount of money will inflict a strategic defeat for Russia.

2. The Gravy Train Might End If Ukraine Acknowledges This Encirclement | Building upon the above, Zelensky and Commander-in-Chief Alexander Syrsky have denied these encirclements, most likely because they fear that the aforesaid gravy train might end or at least slow down if they order their forces to surrender. After all, the loss of thousands of troops in three encirclements over 3.5 years into the conflict is no small matter, which might make some Western officials reconsider funding Ukraine since the victory that they were promised is no longer in sight.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Each part of what’s arguably Trump’s new three-phase strategy against Russia has its drawbacks.

Trump’s latest escalation against Russia took the form of imposing severe sanctions against its top two energy companies, canceling his planned meeting with Putin, and now declaring that they won’t meet again unless it’s to finalize a deal over Ukraine.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) wrote about the implications of his flip-flop here, insinuating that they presage an intensified US proxy war of attrition on Russia. The present piece will briefly explore what form this could take and its likelihood of success. The WSJ posits that...

“...The drone revolution…means that neither side is likely to make major territorial strides soon”, but left unsaid is that this is also due to continued NATO support for Ukraine, including the bloc’s purchase of US weapons at full price for transfer to there per the new scheme from last summer. Maintaining this de facto balance of drone and conventional forces, which is due to NATO’s indispensable support for Ukraine, is therefore the US’ top priority if wants to atrophy Russia’s strength with time.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

It’s unrealistic to expect the US to maintain 500% tariffs on China and India for their purchase of Russian oil, which would also ruin its trade talks with them and derail the Ukrainian peace process.

Senator Lindsey Graham recently said that his bill to impose 500% tariffs on every country that imports Russian resources is “an economic bunker buster against China, India, and Russia”, yet for all his tough talk, the US is still reluctant to drop it.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump Administration is “quietly pressuring” the Senate to water down the legislation by “turn[ing] the word ‘shall’ into ‘may’ wherever it appears in the bill’s text, removing the mandatory nature of the prescribed reprimands”.

Their report was lent credence by Graham himself proposing an exemption for countries that aid Ukraine, thus averting an unprecedented US-EU trade war in the event that his bill passes into law. Trump’s remark to Politico in mid-June about how “sanctions cost us a lot of money” suggests that he’s not interested in going this route, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio later telling them that sanctions could derail the Ukrainian peace process, though he also didn’t rule them out in the future.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The West already turned Ukraine, Armenia, and Moldova into anti-Russian states while stirring trouble in its ties with Azerbaijan and eagerly eyeing Central Asian leader Kazakhstan so the loss of Belarus would practically complete Russia’s strategic encirclement.

The Guardian published a piece about the aims of the West’s incipient US-led rapprochement with Lukashenko, which amounts to an attempt to tempt him into rebalancing Belarus’ ties with Russia through closer cooperation with the West.

It was assessed here over the summer that he’s unlikely to split with Putin, especially not after the West tried to coup him half a decade ago and Russia since gave Belarus tactical nukes, which Lukashenko confirmed in early August’s interview with Time Magazine.

Nevertheless, while his intentions shouldn’t be doubted after he proved his loyalty to Russia throughout the course of the special operation and the associated pressure that the West placed upon Belarus, this doesn’t mean that the West still won’t try to mislead him into drifting closer towards its camp. To be sure, the “EU Defense Line” that’s being built along the bloc’s border with Belarus (and Russia) resembles a “new Berlin Wall” as his Foreign Minister described it, which could impede cooperation.

At the same time, however, the US could leverage the sway that it wields over Poland to offer Belarus security guarantees against the future aggression that Lukashenko fears from it.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

His arrogant and aggressive behavior towards Russia, India, and China is responsible for this.

The global systemic transition to multipolarity is nowadays proceeding along a different trajectory than before due to recent shifts in the international system. Up until this point, Trump 2.0 sought resource and military partnerships with Russia and India respectively that could decelerate China’s superpower rise, which would then make it the junior partner in any “G2”/“Chimerica” deal. His Eurasian balancing act has failed, however, due to his arrogant and aggressive approach towards all three countries.

Ties with Russia took a hit after the Anchorage Summit following increasingly concerning reports about US plans to support NATO troops in Ukraine, thus spooking Putin into abandoning his country’s own Eurasian balancing act by pivoting to China. This took the form of the legally binding deal that was just clinched for constructing the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline. The US’ envisaged resource-centric partnership with Russia, which aimed to entice concessions on Ukraine, is now much less likely.

As for India, ties worsened during its springtime clashes with Pakistan, which saw Trump favor Pakistan and even lie about India agreeing to an alleged US-mediated ceasefire. The US then hypocritically imposed punitive tariffs on India over its continued trade with Russia despite eschewing such for China and others. All the while, Trump viciously insulted India too. Concluding that he’s hellbent on derailing its rise as a Great Power, India swiftly patched up its problems with China and distanced itself from the US.

With Russia pivoting to China via Power of Siberia 2 amidst the Sino-Indo rapprochement, the resource and military means for decelerating China’s superpower rise through partnerships with them were neutralized, thus leading to any “G2”/“Chimerica” deal now being in China’s favor instead.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The “race of logistics” between Russia and NATO, which is presently unfolding in the context of their proxy war in Ukraine, will continue even after the conflict ends.

Britain, France, Germany, and Poland are usually the first countries to come to mind among those who discuss NATO’s "containment of Russia," but the Netherlands and Belgium are quickly becoming important too.

Rotterdam Port’s chief executive told the Financial Times in mid-summer that space will be reserved for ships carrying military supplies at NATO’s request and that one or more ships “would be docked at the quay for several weeks, four or five times a year.” This will also be coordinated with Antwerp Port. Rotterdam and Antwerp are Europe’s two largest ports so this isn’t an insignificant move.

Moreover, the Netherlands is a founding member of the “military Schengen” that was agreed to with Germany and Poland in early 2024 for facilitating the movement of troops and equipment. Therefore, these moves are very clearly meant to facilitate the movement of US troops and equipment to Russia’s borders in the event of a crisis, thus leading to the Netherlands and Belgium playing crucial roles in "containing" it.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The Czech elections are important because they represent the spread of the “Orban model” further across Central Europe, which provides the domestic basis for gradually reviving the Visegrad Group

Populist-nationalist politician Andrej Babis is poised to return to the premiership after his party’s victory in the latest elections. They lack a majority but are expected to build a coalition with some of the smaller parties that share their worldview.

This is a major development since Czechia has been under liberal-globalist control since Babis lost re-election in 2021, and although former high-level NATO official Petr Pavel is still president, the prime minister has more power. Here’s why his return is so important:

1. Czechia Might Soon Move To The Right On Socio-Cultural Issues

The coalition that he’s expected to build with smaller like-minded parties could push him closer to the right on socio-cultural issues due to their more hardline views. One of Reuters’ media platforms is very concerned about this scenario and warned that “Czech vote puts same-sex marriage, LGBTQ+ rights in the balance”. According to their assessment, he might seek to draft his own version of Hungary’s anti-LGBT propaganda bill and/or enshrine two genders in the constitution like neighboring Slovakia just did.

2. It’ll Also Likely Implement A More Pragmatic Policy Towards Ukraine

The era of Czechia providing maximum political-military support for Ukraine might soon be over if Babis’ post-election comments are anything to go by. He declared that it’s not ready to join the EU and strongly suggested cutting off military-technical aid too. The latter could see Czechia disband the Western initiative that it leads for scouring the world for ammo for Ukraine or transferring control of it to NATO, either of which could lead to supply disruptions that weaken the front, according to the New York Times.

3. The “Orban Model” Could Therefore Prove Its Applicability In the Region

If Babis behaves as expected on the domestic and foreign policy fronts, then this would prove the applicability of the so-called “Orban model” in Central Europe. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s return to office in October 2023 saw him promptly following in his Hungarian counterpart’s footsteps, but some observers questioned whether this was really the start of a trend. All doubts would be dispelled if Babis did the same, which would confirm the relevance of this model to the region.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

It’s highly suspicious that Zelensky just claimed without any evidence that they were launched by Russian tankers and subsequently demanded that Europe close the straits to its shipping in response.

Unknown drones recently flew in close proximity to Danish and Norwegian airports, prompting speculation among some that they were Russia’s delayed hybrid retaliation against NATO for backing Ukraine’s drone flights in proximity to Russia’s own airports over the past few years. No evidence has emerged in support of that hypothesis, but Zelensky still dishonestly passed off such claims as fact during his speech at the latest Warsaw Security Forum.

According to him, “there is growing evidence that Russia may have used tankers in the Baltic Sea to launch drones – the drones that caused major disruption in Northern Europe. If tankers used by Russia are serving as drone platforms, then such tankers should not be free to operate in the Baltic. This is de facto Russia’s military activity against European countries, so Europe has the right to close straits and sea routes to protect itself.”

His proposal for NATO to close the Danish Staits to Russian shipping on this pretext, which would amount to an illegal blockade that could thus legitimize offensive action by Russia in self-defense, was predictable given Ukraine’s and some of its patrons’ interest in escalating the bloc’s tensions with Russia. In fact, it might even be the case that this was the false flag that Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service twice warned could soon be staged by the UK and Ukraine, albeit ultimately taking a different form.

They assessed that those two might orchestrate potentially forthcoming provocations in the Baltic that would then be blamed on Russia in order to justify cracking down on its sanctioned energy trade that the West dramatically describes as being conducted by a “shadow fleet” transiting through that sea. While no US ship was targeted with Ukrainian-transferred Soviet/Russian torpedoes nor were such mines fished out of the Baltic, Scandinavia’s Russian drone scare still arguably fulfills the same role.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Even worse, it would be all because of Zelensky’s lust for money and power, not any legitimate reason.

Trump’s flip-flop on Ukraine was explained here as being partially due to him responding to the whispers of warmongers like Zelensky, who boasted afterwards that...

💬 “Gradually, (Trump) realized that Putin was simply sharing some information that was far from the truth on the battlefield. Now he trusts me much more because the information that my intelligence has, that we share with our partners.”

This is leading to Trump being manipulated by Zelensky into a disaster of epic proportions if he doesn’t soon wise up.

The American leader likely took at face value his Ukrainian counterpart’s claim of reconquering 360 square kilometers in recent weeks even though the latter’s own top general earlier assessed the amount to be less than half of that at only 160 square kilometers. This might have convinced him that his new policy of selling new arms to NATO at full price for subsequent transfer to Ukraine is paying off. Zelensky was probably also responsible for Trump writing in his post that the Russian economy is in deep trouble.

These false beliefs, which are based on lies laundered by Zelensky as “intelligence”, arguably emboldened Trump to declare his support for NATO shooting down Russian jets on the pretext of them violating the bloc’s airspace after the latest dubious claim to that effect from Estonia. He also threatened “a very strong round of powerful tariffs” against Russia in his UN speech, presumably against China and India who he described as “the primary funders of the ongoing war”, so long as the EU follows suit.

This evolving policy towards the Ukrainian Conflict – which includes military (more arms sales to NATO and supporting the bloc shooting down Russian jets) and economic (primary and secondary sanctions) components – is also largely driven by Zelensky’s other lie that Trump fell for.