The pros and cons for Putin of a big push at Ukraine's Sumy front
This follows the Wall Street Journal's report alleging that Russia has assembled 50,000 troops in preparation for that. A Russian security source denied such plans in comments to TASS, however, and instead described the aforesaid claims as part of a GUR disinfo campaign to fearmonger about Russia.
TASS's source, while also claiming that Ukraine also does indeed have quite a few border fortifications there unlike what the WSJ wrote, also put forth the hypothesis that GUR wants to discredit the Defense Ministry in general and Commander-in-Chief Alexander Syrsky in particular.
Whatever the truth may be, what's known for sure is that the Sumy region falls within the 'buffer zone' that Putin spoke about carving out in late May, the strategy of which was analyzed here at the time.
The larger context concerns the realization that 'The Russian-Ukrainian Talks Are At An Impasse That Only The US Or Brute Force Can Break.' Absent any serious efforts by Trump to coerce Zelensky into the concessions that Putin demands for peace, Russia might thus continue resorting to brute force to ensure its security interests, especially given the window of opportunity that reportedly just opened up. This is connected to Politico's recent report about the Pentagon halting some promised munitions to Ukraine.
According to Politico's sources, this includes 'missiles for Patriot air defense systems, precision artillery rounds, Hellfire and other missiles that Ukraine launches from its F-16 fighters and drones.'
The decision was reportedly made in early June, so shortly before Israel launched its sneak attack against Iran on day 61 of Trump's 60-day deadline for agreeing to a new nuclear deal. The timing consequently suggests that this aid that was promised to Ukraine during the Biden era might have instead been redirected to Israel.
This makes sense seeing as how Trump knew about Bibi's plans ahead of time and likely would have ordered the Pentagon to prepare for the possibility of a large-scale conflict erupting in the aftermath. The US stockpiles were already running low even before the 12-day war that followed, in which the US directly participated by bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities – so it was inevitable in hindsight that the United States' prioritization of Israel's security needs would come at Ukraine's expense.
All of this sets the stage for that large-scale offensive that Ukraine claims Russia is gearing up for while Russia denies it and the US is closely monitoring just in case. On the one hand, Russia could try to take advantage of the reduction in US military aid to Ukraine to push its buffer zone deeper into Sumy Region. On the other hand, it might not be the walk in the park that the WSJ claimed, and Trump could overreact to any major Russian gains by 'escalating to de-escalate' at the risk of ruining the fragile peace process.
From Trump's viewpoint, the optics of Russia gaining lots of ground right at the moment when the US curtailed crucial military aid to Ukraine could lend false credence to conspiracy theories about collusion between him and Putin, while his legacy would be tarnished if the US then 'lost Ukraine' as a result. These perceptions raise the chance that he'd overreact to that scenario. Therefore, Putin, to avoid jeopardizing talks with Trump, might disapprove of carrying through with such military plans if he even had those plans to begin with.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Standard
4 hours ago
- The Standard
Trump celebrates tax bill victory at Iowa fairground rally
U.S. President Donald Trump looks on before boarding Air Force One as he departs for Iowa, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., July 3, 2025. (REUTERS/Nathan Howard)
RTHK
6 hours ago
- RTHK
Trump hints at staging UFC fight in White House
Trump hints at staging UFC fight in White House Donald Trump and UFC president Dana White watch a UFC 316 fight at Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey, in early June. File photo: Reuters The Octagon likely is coming to the White House next year. President Donald Trump plans to have the UFC hold a fight card at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2026 as part of the United States' 250th birthday celebration. The Republican president, who is close with UFC president Dana White, made the announcement on Thursday during an appearance at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines. Trump said, "Does anybody watch UFC? The great Dana White? We're going to have a UFC fight. We're going to have a UFC fight – think of this – on the grounds of the White House. We have a lot of land there. "We're going to build a little – we're not, Dana is going to do it. Dana is great, one of a kind – going to be UFC fight, championship fight, full fight, like 20,000 to 25,000 people, and we're going to do that as part of '250' also." Trump has attended numerous UFC events, including UFC 314 at Miami in April, when he sat with White. On the last night of the 2024 Republican national convention, White made the introduction when the once and future president accepted his party's nomination. Trump said on Thursday, "Every one of our national parks, battlefields and historic sites are going to have special events in honor of 'America250.' " (Reuters)
AllAfrica
7 hours ago
- AllAfrica
While not dead, US dominance is changing – and not for the better
Just six months after Donald Trump's return to the presidency in the United States, it feels like there has been a sharp break with America's post-war diplomatic legacy. The Trump administration has been steadily making announcements that upset the established order, including reviving a proposal to purchase Greenland without ruling out military action. American officials have publicly spread pro-Russian narratives and have escalated protectionism by introducing tariffs, often announced unilaterally and suddenly, which fluctuate according to the president's moods. What do these developments tell us about the American ability to structure the international order in light of the fact that the US has been the dominant player in the global system in recent decades? As a researcher at France's ENAP specializing in international relations theory, I believe that it marks a significant step in the emergence of counter-hegemonic powers and, by extension, that it signals a weakening of American power. Many see Trump administration's recent choices as a sign of the 'beginning of the end' of American hegemony. But there is nothing new about this discourse. The idea of a US decline has been circulating regularly in academic and strategic circles since the Cold War. As early as the 1980s, British scholar Susan Strange challenged this 'declinist' view, insisting that the true strength of the US lay not just in its economic or military power but in its central role within major international institutions and strategic alliances. It was this structuring role — rather than material superiority alone — that guaranteed its dominant position on the world stage. After the end of the Cold War, the question of decline was largely set aside: French Minister Hubert Védrine declared the US a 'hyperpower' for the way it concentrated all the means of global domination. Since the mid-2000s, the debate on the decline of American hegemony has returned with a vengeance, fueled by the rise of countries such as China, Russia, India, Brazil, Iran and South Africa. However, since then no consensus has emerged within the academic community about the nature of the international system (unipolar, bipolar, or even multipolar). American hegemony has been weakened in certain regions of the world. Political science professors Douglas Lemke of Pennsylvania State University and Suzanne Werner of Emory University have shown this in their work on regional systems. However, no candidate for counter-hegemony (not China, India, Japan or even the European Union) has so far managed to match the US on one key point: its ability to forge strong and lasting alliances and occupy a central position in major international organizations. This role of conductor, which goes beyond the simple accumulation of material power, echoes Strange's reflections on 'structural power.' This aligns closely with research by Daniel Nexon, professor at Georgetown University, and Thomas Wright, director of the US-Europe Center at the Brookings Institution. They distinguish between two main types of hegemony: Classical or imperial hegemony is based on coercion, threats and unbalanced bilateral relations. A country with this type of hegemony imposes its preferences without submitting to shared rules. Liberal hegemony is based on shared and binding institutions, to which even the dominant power agrees to submit in exchange for more stable and legitimate co-operation. From this perspective, the US-led international order since 1945 clearly falls under the second model. During the Cold War, its hegemony was exercised mainly in the western world. But after the fall of the Soviet bloc, this influence spread globally. The US came to embody a form of institutional hegemony, supported by networks of alliances like NATO and the G7 and multilateral institutions that include the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. This made American domination more acceptable, less brutal, and above all more difficult to compete with. Even though the American position was weakened in certain areas, it remained central because it guaranteed stability and predictability that its rivals — including China and Russia, who favored a more coercive approach — could not offer. It was precisely this liberal/constitutional model of hegemony that slowed the emergence of real global counterpowers. Through its numerous statements and decisions, the Trump administration is breaking with the liberal hegemony that has structured the international order for decades. In its place, a more authoritarian, unilateral stance is emerging, close to what researchers call classic hegemony. This change is clear enough that some analysts consider certain developments worrisome. Olivier Schmitt, professor and specialist of alliances at the Royal Danish Defence College, raised the possibility a few months ago of a 'Warsawization' of NATO, a scenario in which Washington would transform the organization into a kind of counterpart to the Warsaw Pact, with a rigid and asymmetrical structure based on fear rather than co-operation. This return to a form of coercive hegemony is problematic because it's based on a very short-term view of international relations. Unlike China or Russia, which both apply a form of authoritarian hegemony but with a certain strategic consistency and predictability, the Trump administration acts as if international relations were a non-iterative game, in the sense of game theory — in other words, a game in which refusing to co-operate is the most winning strategy. It adopts a strategy where each move is played without concern for future retaliation or the long-term impact on its reputation. However, other countries and partners remember and adjust their behaviour based on precedents. By acting in this way, the US projects the image of an opportunistic and unstable entity whose commitments no longer have lasting value. This change in posture erodes trust and undermines the stabilizing role that the US had once successfully embodied. Europe and some of its partners are embarking on what looks like a new 'Western schism,' positioning themselves as a liberal counter-model to Trump's America. But the outcome of this dynamic will largely depend on the ability of Europeans to be agents of change rather than mere spectators. Nevertheless, the conditions are now in place for the emergence of genuine counter-hegemonies. This dynamic will continue even if the Democrats return to power in 2029: the Trumpist interlude will have provided America's allies with proof that an alliance with the US is only reliable when the White House is Democratic, and that it immediately becomes precarious as soon as a Republican occupies it. Conditions are now in place for the emergence of genuine counter-hegemonies. This dynamic will continue even if the Democrats return to power in 2029: the Trumpist interlude will have provided America's allies with proof that an alliance with the US is only reliable when the White House is Democratic … This uncertainty will fuel mistrust and push for the consolidation of counter-hegemonic strategies. Even a partial restoration of the liberal order will probably not be enough to stem the fragmentation of the international system that is already underway. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Trump administration is only just beginning its term: unless there is a reversal in the midterm elections in November 2026, it will still have considerable margin for maneuver until January 2029. In other words, the current trajectory is likely to continue. In this sense, Trump's second term does not simply mark a shift, but a lasting break. The slogan 'Make America Great Again' now seems even more misguided: instead of restoring American power, this policy is accelerating its decline. Laurent Borzillo is a visiting researcher at the CCEAE of the University of Montreal and an associate researcher at CESICE of the University of Grenoble, École nationale d'administration publique (ENAP) . This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
