By Ian Proud, Responsible Statecraft, 10/8/25

Support for mainstream political parties in Europe is crumbling against a rising tide of nationalism as voters increasingly want their governments to prioritize domestic issues.

This might not be enough to end the war in Ukraine, which will cost Europe $50 billion it can ill afford in 2026. But we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the uniparty in Europe.

On October 6, France lost a fourth prime minister in little over a year with the unexpected resignation of Sebastien Lecornu.

The country’s problem is not new. With national debt at 114% of GDP a succession of prime ministers have fallen at the altar of trying to impose deeply unpopular budgetary cuts. One way out, which at the moment seems unlikely, is for President Macron to resign before his term expires in 2027. But polls suggest that the National Rally of Marine le Pen would stand a good chance of winning should fresh presidential elections be held.

The National Rally has seen a stunning surge in popularity over the past year — garnering 31.5% of parliamentary votes in 2024 — by focussing on local economic concerns and tapping into dissatisfaction with traditional political parties.

And there’s the rub. This pro-war internationalism of the mainstream in Europe is crumbling in the face of rising nationalism, in which citizens want their governments to focus on domestic issues, not foreign adventurism. As it stands, France will need to double its yearly defense spending to €100 billion by 2030 if it is to stay on course to hit the 5% of GDP target. It simply doesn’t have the money and any government that tries to obtain it through taxes or cuts will fall.

We are seeing the same in Britain. Given burgeoning government debt, bond yields in the UK are now consistently the highest among G7 nations. Britain seems unlikely to face a debt crisis as some fear. But as in France, the nationalist Reform Party in Britain is turning the political tide. It is now surging ahead of the incumbent Labour Party in opinion polls, with 35% share of the vote, from the eight main parties.

Mid-term elections are seldom a reliable bell-weather of electoral success. And yet, when it came to office in July 2024, the Labour Party amassed a seemingly unassailable majority of 152 seats in Parliament. Just 15 months later, it now looks beatable.

There is an increasingly widespread view that Keir Starmer’s government is not performing well on the issues that matter, on the economy, the cost of living and immigration. Yet Labour continues to pump $6 billion each year into the war effort in Ukraine and has committed, gradually, to hit 5% of GDP in defense spending by 2035. The latter would increase government spending by $80 billion per year, money which manifestly the country cannot afford without increasing taxes or cutting services to ordinary people. This continued fiscal pressure will simply funnel more votes to the Reform Party, increasing the chance that it comes to power in 2029.

While Germany does not face as severe a debt crunch as either Britain or France, it is deindustrializing in the face of high energy prices accelerated by the war in Ukraine and decisions to cut off Russian energy supplies. There, the nationalist Alternative für Deutschland is also on the rise and some fear it could compete for victory at the next Federal election in 2029.

In Czechia, the populist Andrej Babis is trying to form a coalition having won parliamentary elections with 35% of the vote. Among other things, he has vowed to scrap the Czech ammunition initiative which has supplied Ukraine with 3.5 million artillery shells since 2022 and criticized the previous centrist government for giving “Czech mothers nothing and Ukrainians everything.” That country appears to be shifting gradually towards the position of Slovakia and Hungary that want to bring the war in Ukraine to an end.

All across Europe, the mainstream appears to be falling out of favor. Part of the reason for that is a sense that all the traditional parties form a so-called uniparty in which the needs of big business and internationalism come before the needs of ordinary people. Liberals deride this notion, yet the concept appears to be gaining traction with ordinary people who increasingly want their governments to tackle issues that matter to them and to their children.

It is precisely this wave of disenfranchisement that swept Donald Trump to power in 2016 and 2024.

This shifting political arithmetic in Europe will ultimately seal the fate of the war in Ukraine, although not necessarily in the short term.

With no signs that the major powers in Europe want to get behind a negotiated end to the war, Ukraine is already signalling that it will need an additional $49 billion in Western financial support in 2026 to balance the books. With, at best, a fraction of that coming from the United States under President Trump, that leaves Europe largely on the hook for a cost that European governments can ill afford, either economically or politically.

That will weigh ever heavily on the shoulders of the mainstream across the continent who try to justify the cost of an unwinnable war to increasingly sceptical voters. France will not likely be in a position to double its financial contributions to Ukraine at a time it is trying to force through €44 billion in spending cuts. Britain is unlikely to increase its funding having already been forced to backtrack on attempts to cut welfare benefits over the past year. Where will the money come from?

The European Commission has so far been unable to extend a $140 billion credit facility to Ukraine backed by frozen Russian assets in Belgium that would allow that country in theory to continue fighting through 2027. Belgium, which houses Euroclear where the monies are held, has long opposed this move and the French, already in strife politically, are also sceptical.

Nevertheless, if Macron clings to power, and with Starmer and German Chancellor Frederich Merz relatively safe in their roles for at least another three years, it’s likely the major European powers will continue to back a continuance of war, despite its unaffordable cost, and will search for ways to make the finances work. This will have continued heartbreaking consequences for Ukraine itself.

But, it also seems obvious that the traditional parties in France, Germany and Britain will bear a painful political cost. Macron and Merz both recently decried the assault on European democracy, with the German chancellor claiming “our liberal way of life is under attack, from both outside and within.”

But that is not the point. Democracy functions specifically to evict governments who aren’t delivering what their voters want. What we are starting to witness in Europe today is a natural and inevitable shift from internationalism to nationalism. Europe is simply coming to the party a few years after the United States.

Reuters, 10/8/25

MOSCOW, Oct 8 (Reuters) – Russia will shoot down Tomahawk cruise missiles and bomb their launch sites if the United States decides to supply them to Ukraine and find a way to retaliate against Washington that hurts, a senior Russian lawmaker said on Wednesday.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday he would want to know what Ukraine planned to do with Tomahawks before agreeing to provide them because he did not want to escalate the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said, however, that he had “sort of made a decision” on the matter.

“Our response will be tough, ambiguous, measured, and asymmetrical. We will find ways to hurt those who cause us trouble,” Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Russian parliament’s defence committee, told the state RIA news agency.

Kartapolov, a former deputy defence minister, said he did not think Tomahawks would change anything on the battlefield even if they were supplied to Ukraine as he said they could only be given in small numbers – in tens rather than hundreds.

“We know these missiles very well, how they fly, how to shoot them down; we worked with them in Syria, so there is nothing new. The only problems will be for those who supply them and those who use them; that’s where the problems will be,” he said.

Kartapolov was also cited as saying that Moscow had so far seen no signs that Ukraine was preparing launch sites for Tomahawks, something he said Kyiv would not be able to hide if it got such missiles. If and when that happened, he said Russia would use drones and missiles to destroy any launchers.

Separately, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov urged Washington to assess the situation around the potential supply of Tomahawks “soberly”. He said any such decision would be a serious escalatory step that would bring about a “qualitative” change in the situation.

***

Russia Doesn’t Fear American Tomahawk Missiles in Ukraine. Here’s Why.

By Brandon J. Weichert, The National Interest, 10/8/25

It is almost a year to the day when then-candidate Donald Trump told rapt audiences around the country that he would get a resolution to the end of the Ukraine War “on Day One.” At other times throughout the contentious 2024 presidential election cycle, Trump would huff that the Ukraine War would have never happened had he been president in February 2022, when the Russians invaded Ukraine. 

And in just one year’s time, since being sworn in, Trump has gone from belittling Ukraine’s military position in the ongoing war with Russia—famously claiming to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that he “[didn’t] have the cards” to continuing the war—to claiming instead that Ukraine could reclaim all its lost territory. In fact, Trump made a series of bizarre pronouncements that represent a seemingly significant reversal in his longtime commitment to peace with Russia over the Ukraine War. 

Trump as an Agent of Chaos

In a series of diplomatic punches, Trump announced in short order that he was authorizing US targeting intelligence to be used to assist Ukraine in targeting sensitive Russian energy sites within Russia. After that, in the wake of what appeared to be a series of Russian incursions into NATO airspace, Trump decreed that European members of NATO should shoot down the next Russian warplane that dared to infringe upon their airspace.

Rounding out Trump’s apparent change of heart, the 47th president intimated that he might send America’s vaunted Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine so that those weapons can be used to more effectively attack targets within Russia.

It is doubtful that Trump is truly interested in expanding the already expansive (and expensive) Ukraine War beyond what it has already been expanded to. In fact, some experts, even those who support increasing American military aid to Ukraine, have acknowledged to Reuters that the chances of Trump actually sending Tomahawks to Ukraine are slim. There are a variety of reasons for this, partly because, despite whatever Trump might say publicly, there is little appetite on his end to abandon his previous stance about bringing peace to Ukraine and resetting relations with Russia.

Trump Wants to Force Putin to the Table—but Probably Can’t

There is some evidence that even suggests all these rhetorical flourishes from Trump are being made out of understandable frustration over the glacial pace at which peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia have proceeded. Realizing that Zelenskyy is inflexible, and that, so long as Russia continues winning the war, Vladimir Putin is disinterested in real negotiations, Trump is seeking to acquire leverage. 

A man who fancies himself as the dealmaker-in-chief, who (ostensibly) wrote The Art of the Deal, and who made gobs of money in the cutthroat world of Manhattan real estate, Trump is keenly aware of the importance of leverage. Right now, he doesn’t have it—and he wants it. And Trump certainly doesn’t want to send more equipment and money to the black hole that is Ukraine. But he thinks that by threatening to do so, in a clear reversal of his previous stance, it will nudge Putin into a more conciliatory position.

But it will not. Putin, a strategist by professional and academic training, has a much better understanding of the conditions on the ground than do his Western rivals. Indeed, the more Trump blusters with no significant way to back it up, the less inclined the Kremlin will be to fear each subsequent threat. And the emptiest threat that Trump has made thus far as part of his quest for greater leverage over Russia is the insinuation that he would hand over America’s Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. 

Why Tomahawk Missiles Are Not Going to Ukraine

Any military analyst, either in Washington or Kyiv or Moscow, knows how ridiculous this statement is. 

For starters, Ukraine simply lacks the launch systems needed for these weapons. Tomahawks are primarily launched from warships and submarines belonging to the US Navy. They are also fired from US Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers—none of which Ukraine possesses, or could even easily integrate into their smorgasbord of modern NATO and repurposed Soviet-era equipment.

Could Ukraine adapt the Tomahawk for ground use? Probably, given enough time and effort; the Ukrainians have already jury-rigged other weapons for alternative roles. But adapting ground-based systems (like the existing Aegis Ashore in Poland) would likely require extensive modifications, training, and direct US personnel involvement. That would not only take far too long, and cost Ukraine in resources. There is also the danger that it would be viewed by Moscow as a serious escalation—which would in turn prompt a severe and direct response against NATO. Paradoxically, such a strike is ultimately what Zelenskyy, and many in Brussels, are hoping for, in order to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and force Trump to more fully commit US forces to Ukraine’s fight.

On the topic of escalation, the missiles rely on US-controlled targeting data and GPS—meaning Ukraine couldn’t use them without Pentagon approval. What is the Kremlin to make of that?

Then there’s the all-important matter of logistics. The United States has a very finite stockpile of Tomahawks, which have been prioritized for potential conflicts in the Middle East and Venezuela—both of which are expected to go kinetic in the near future. Depleting this limited supply for an open-ended and expansive commitment in Ukraine would weaken US readiness. 

Since production on these missiles ramps up slowly—with hundreds made per year, at best—there is simply no realistic way the Americans could ever make enough Tomahawk cruise missiles to both support their own national strategic needs as well as the never-ending demand from Ukraine.

Moscow has emphatically stated that they view the Tomahawks to Ukraine as a “red line,” warning that they would equate it to direct US involvement—potentially leading to significant upward movement on the “escalation ladder,” moving the world one rung closer to nuclear Armageddon. Of course, Russia has drawn other “red lines” before, and did little when they were crossed. But there is no good reason for Trump to push his luck.

Trump Probably Won’t Follow Through on the Tomahawk Threat

In any case, Trump’s history of behavior in these situations shows a pattern of bold statements for leverage without any significant follow-through. This is why his political opponents in the Democratic Party have nicknamed him “TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out); the idea goes that when the cards are down, Trump’s actions rarely live up to his boasts.

While that moniker is mostly unfair, the fact remains that, whether in the trade war against China—which Trump is scrambling to get out of at all costs—or his previous threats in the first term against North Korea, Trump has no real desire for war. Putin understands this reality. Trump would be better served simply saying nothing and scaling back US support for Ukraine—so that he can focus on securing the Western Hemisphere and completing the Golden Dome national missile defense shield.

By Andrew Napolitano, Consortium News, 10/9/25

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, was the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel and hosts the podcast Judging Freedom. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit here. 

During the past six weeks, President Donald Trump has ordered U.S. troops to attack and destroy four speed boats in the Caribbean Sea, 1,500 miles from the United States. The president revealed that the attacks were conducted without warning, were intended not to stop but to kill all persons on the boats, and succeeded in their missions.

Trump has claimed that his victims are “narco-terrorists” who were planning to deliver illegal drugs to willing American buyers. He apparently believes that because these folks are presumably foreigners, they have no rights that he must honor and he may freely kill them. As far as we know, none of these nameless, faceless persons was charged or convicted of any federal crime. We don’t know if any were Americans. But we do know that all were just extrajudicially executed.

Can the president legally do this? In a word: NO. Here is the backstory.

Limiting Federal Powers

The U.S. Constitution was ratified to establish federal powers and to limit them.
Congress is established to write the laws and to declare war. The president is established to enforce the laws that Congress has written and to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Restraints are imposed on both. Congress may only enact legislation in the 16 discrete areas of governance articulated in the Constitution — and it may only legislate subject to all persons’ natural rights identified and articulated in the Bill of Rights.

The president may only enforce the laws that Congress has written — he cannot craft his own. And he may employ the military only in defense of a real imminent military-style attack or to fight wars that Congress has declared.

The Constitution prohibits the president from fighting undeclared wars, and federal law prohibits him from employing the military for law enforcement purposes.

The Fifth Amendment — in tandem with the 14th, which restrains the states — assures that no person’s life, liberty or property may be taken without due process of law. Because the drafters of the amendment used the word “person” instead of “citizen,” the courts have ruled consistently that this due process requirement is applicable to all human beings.

Basically, wherever the government goes, it is subject to constitutional restraints.

Tribunal Trial

Traditionally, due process means a trial. In the case of a civilian, it means a jury trial, with the full panoply of attendant protections required by the Constitution.
In the case of enemy combatants, it means a fair neutral tribunal.

The tribunal requirement came about in an odd and terrifying way. In 1942, four Nazi troops arrived via submarine at Amagansett Beach, New York, and exchanged their uniforms for civilian garb. At nearly the same time, four other Nazi troops arrived via submarine at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, and also donned civilian clothing. All eight set about their assigned task of destroying American munitions factories and infrastructure. After one of them went to the F.B.I., all eight were arrested.

At trial, all eight were convicted of attempted sabotage behind enemy lines — a war crime. The Supreme Court quickly returned to Washington from its summer vacation and unanimously upheld the convictions. By the time the court issued its formal opinion, six of the eight had been executed. The two Americans were sentenced to life in prison. Their sentences were commuted five years later by President Harry Truman.

On July 1, 1942, a special military commission conducts the trial of eight Nazi saboteurs in a courtroom at the Department of Justice building in Washington. (U.S. Army Signal Corps/U.S. Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)

The linchpin to all this was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to appoint counsel and have a trial. The Supreme Court made it clear that even unlawful enemy combatants — those out of uniform and not on a recognized battlefield — are entitled to due process; and, but for the trial afforded to the Nazi saboteurs, it would not have permitted their executions.

This jurisprudence was essentially followed in three Supreme Court cases involving foreign persons whom the George W. Bush administration had arrested and characterized as enemy combatants detained at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In wartime, U.S. troops can lawfully kill enemy troops that are engaged in violence against them. But, pursuant to these Supreme Court cases, the United Nations Charter — a treaty that the U.S. wrote — as well the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — another treaty that the U.S. wrote — if combatants are not engaged in violence, they may not be harmed, but only arrested.

All this presumes that Congress has in fact declared war on the country or group from which the combatants come. That hasn’t happened since Dec. 8, 1941.

Now, back to Trump ordering the military to kill foreigners in the Caribbean.
International law provides for stopping ships engaged in violence in international waters. It also provides for stopping and searching ships — with probable cause for the search — in U.S. territorial waters.

But no law permits, and the prevailing judicial jurisprudence deriving from the Constitution and federal statutes absolutely prohibits, the summary murders of folks not engaged in violence — on the high seas or anywhere else.

The U.S. attorney general has reluctantly revealed the existence of a legal memorandum purporting to justify Trump’s orders and the military’s killings — but she insisted the memorandum is classified. That is a non sequitur.

A legal memorandum can only be based on public laws enacted by Congress and interpreted by the courts. There are no secret laws, and there can be no classified rationale for killing the legally innocent.

If the memorandum purports to permit the president to declare non-violent enemy combatants on a whim and kill them, it is in defiance of 80 years of consistent jurisprudence, and its drafters and executors have engaged in serious criminality.

Where will these extrajudicial killings go next — to Chicago?

Published by permission of the author.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

TASS, 10/16/25

MOSCOW, October 16. /TASS/. Russia delivered a massive strike by precision weapons, including Kinzhal hypersonic missiles on gas energy sites of Ukraine’s military-industrial complex in response to Kiev’s attacks on Russian civilian facilities, Russia’s Defense Ministry reported on Thursday.

“In response to Ukraine’s terrorist attacks on civilian facilities on Russian territory, the Russian Armed Forces delivered a massive overnight strike by ground-based, airborne and seaborne long-range precision weapons, including Kinzhal air-launched hypersonic ballistic missiles and attack unmanned aerial vehicles on gas infrastructure sites of Ukrainian military-industrial enterprises. The goal of the strike was achieved. All the designated targets were hit,” the ministry said in a statement.

Kiev loses 1,670 troops along engagement line in past day – latest figures

The Ukrainian army lost roughly 1,670 troops in battles with Russian forces in all the frontline areas over the past 24 hours, according to the latest data on the special military operation in Ukraine released by Russia’s Defense Ministry.

The latest figures show that the Ukrainian army lost roughly 235 troops and an armored combat vehicle in the responsibility area of Russia’s Battlegroup North, over 230 troops and three armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup West and about 215 troops and two armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup South.

During the last 24-hour period, the Ukrainian army also lost over 540 troops and an armored personnel carrier in the responsibility area of Russia’s Battlegroup Center, roughly 375 troops and eight armored combat vehicles in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup East and about 75 troops and three jamming stations in the responsibility area of the Battlegroup Dnepr, the latest figures show.

Russia’s Battlegroup North inflicts 235 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup North inflicted roughly 235 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed an enemy armored combat vehicle in its areas of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

“Battlegroup North units improved their tactical position and inflicted losses on formations of a mechanized brigade, an air assault brigade, an assault regiment of the Ukrainian army and a territorial defense brigade in areas near the settlements of Varachino, Kondratovka, Pavlovka and Sadki in the Sumy Region,” the ministry said.

In the Kharkov direction, Battlegroup North units inflicted losses on formations of a mechanized brigade and a motorized infantry brigade of the Ukrainian army in areas near the settlements of Vilcha and Volchansk in the Kharkov Region, the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost an estimated 235 personnel, an armored combat vehicle, 17 motor vehicles and three 155mm self-propelled artillery guns in those frontline areas over the past 24 hours, it specified.

In addition, Russian forces destroyed an electronic warfare station and four materiel depots of the Ukrainian army, it said.

Russia’s Battlegroup West inflicts over 230 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup West inflicted more than 230 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed three enemy armored combat vehicles in its area of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

“Battlegroup West units gained better lines and positions and inflicted losses on manpower and equipment of two mechanized brigades, an assault brigade of the Ukrainian army and a territorial defense brigade in areas near the settlements Kupyansk, Kurilovka, Petrovka and Sadovoye in the Kharkov Region, Drobyshevo, Krasny Liman and Novosyolovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic,” the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost more than 230 personnel, three armored combat vehicles, including a US-made HMMWV armored vehicle and a British-made Snatch armored vehicle, 24 motor vehicles and three artillery guns, among them two NATO weapons in that frontline area over the past 24 hours, it specified.

In addition, Russian forces destroyed a Grad multiple rocket launcher, 10 electronic warfare stations and nine ammunition depots of the Ukrainian army, it said.

Russia’s Battlegroup South inflicts 215 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup South inflicted roughly 215 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed two enemy armored combat vehicles in its area of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

“Battlegroup South units improved their forward positions and inflicted losses on formations of four mechanized brigades, an air assault brigade of the Ukrainian army, a marine infantry brigade and a territorial defense brigade in areas near the settlements of Artyoma, Berestok, Dronovka, Zvanovka, Ivanopolye, Konstantinovka, Pleshcheyevka, Seversk and Stepanovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic,” the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost an estimated 215 personnel, two armored combat vehicles, including a US-made MaxxPro armored vehicle and 10 motor vehicles in that frontline area over the past 24 hours, it specified.

In addition, Russian forces destroyed an ammunition depot and two materiel depots of the Ukrainian army, it said.

Russia’s Battlegroup Center inflicts over 540 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup Center inflicted more than 540 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed an enemy armored personnel carrier in its area of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

“Battlegroup Center units gained better lines and positions and inflicted losses on manpower and equipment of a heavy mechanized brigade, five mechanized brigades, an airmobile brigade, a jaeger brigade, an assault brigade, two air assault brigades, two assault regiments of the Ukrainian army and a territorial defense brigade in areas near the settlements of Dimitrov, Kotlino, Krasnoarmeysk, Novoaleksandrovka, Rodinskoye and Udachnoye in the Donetsk People’s Republic,” the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost more than 540 personnel, an armored personnel carrier, three motor vehicles and a field artillery gun in that frontline area over the past 24 hours, it specified.

Russia’s Battlegroup East inflicts 375 casualties on Ukrainian army in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup East inflicted roughly 375 casualties on Ukrainian troops and destroyed eight enemy armored combat vehicles in its area of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

“Battlegroup East units kept advancing deep into the enemy’s defenses and inflicted losses on formations of a mechanized brigade, two assault regiments of the Ukrainian army and two territorial defense brigades in areas near the settlements of Alekseyevka and Privolye in the Dnepropetrovsk Region, Krasnogorskoye, Poltavka and Chervonoye in the Zaporozhye Region,” the ministry said.

The Ukrainian army lost an estimated 375 personnel, eight armored combat vehicles, 15 motor vehicles, seven artillery guns, including a US-made 155mm Paladin self-propelled artillery system, a Croatian-made RAK-SA-12 multiple rocket launcher and an electronic warfare station in that frontline area over the past 24 hours, it specified.

Russia’s Battlegroup Dnepr destroys 75 Ukrainian troops in past day

Russia’s Battlegroup Dnepr destroyed roughly 75 Ukrainian troops and three enemy jamming stations in its area of responsibility over the past day, the ministry reported.

“Battlegroup Dnepr units inflicted losses on manpower and equipment of a mechanized brigade, three coastal defense brigades of the Ukrainian army and three territorial defense brigades in areas near the settlements of Belogorye and Novoandreyevka in the Zaporozhye Region, Dneprovskoye, Olgovka and Shlyakhovoye in the Kherson Region,” the ministry said.

“As many as 75 Ukrainian army personnel, seven motor vehicles, three electronic warfare stations and two ammunition depots were destroyed,” the ministry said.

Russian troops destroy US-made Patriot missile launcher in Ukraine operation over past day

Russian troops destroyed an engagement control station, a launcher and a radar of the US-made Patriot anti-aircraft missile system over the past day, the ministry reported.

“Operational/tactical aircraft, attack unmanned aerial vehicles, missile troops and artillery of the Russian groups of forces destroyed an AN/MPQ-65 radar, an engagement control station and a launcher of the US-made Patriot surface-to-air missile system and struck energy sites of Ukrainian military-industrial enterprises, and also temporary deployment areas of Ukrainian armed formations and foreign mercenaries in 146 locations,” the ministry said.

Russian air defenses destroy 278 Ukrainian UAVs, six smart bombs over past day

Russian air defense forces destroyed 278 Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and six smart bombs over the past 24 hours, the ministry reported.

“Air defense capabilities shot down six guided aerial bombs, a rocket of the US-made HIMARS multiple launch rocket system and 278 fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles,” the ministry said.

Russian Black Sea Fleet destroys six Ukrainian naval drones in Black Sea

Russia’s Black Sea Fleet destroyed six Ukrainian naval drones in the Black Sea, the ministry reported.

“The Black Sea Fleet forces destroyed six Ukrainian unmanned boats in the Black Sea waters,” the ministry said.

Overall, the Russian Armed Forces have destroyed 667 Ukrainian warplanes, 283 helicopters, 90,559 unmanned aerial vehicles, 633 surface-to-air missile systems, 25,533 tanks and other armored combat vehicles, 1,602 multiple rocket launchers, 30,505 field artillery guns and mortars and 44,089 special military motor vehicles since the start of the special military operation, the ministry reported.

By Ted Snider, The American Conservative, 10/3/25

Before they were a government, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and many of the people who have surrounded him, including his chief of staff and closest adviser, Andriy Yermak, wrote and produced TV shows and movies. Writing scripts may be what they do best.

Recently, they have teamed up with the White House to coproduce a script designed to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table. It is an attempt to alter the war by altering the narrative. The narrative is not based on intelligence but, like their previous shows, seems to be a fiction that is only loosely based on reality.

Act One, Motive: Drones Over Poland, Planes Over Estonia

On September 10, at least 19 Russian drones violated Polish airspace. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that “a line has been crossed” and that the “situation brings us the closest we have been to open conflict since World War Two.” 

Nine days later, three Russian jets violated Estonian airspace. Estonian foreign minister Margus Tsahkna called the violation “unprecedentedly brazen.”

In both cases, multiple NATO countries took part in the response, including Poland, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Sweden, and Finland. Interestingly, neither NATO response included the United States. Poland and Estonia requested consultations under NATO Article 4, which calls for meetings and discussions on next steps when a member country is threatened. 

Zelensky called the incursions “a systematic Russian campaign directed against Europe, against NATO, against the West” and said “it requires a systemic response. Strong action must be taken—both collectively and individually by each nation.” He warned that Putin will “not… finish his war in Ukraine. He will open up some other direction” by attacking another European country. Zelensky told the UN General Assembly that “Ukraine is only the first. And now, Russian drones are already flying across Europe.” President Donald Trump said that NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft if they violate their airspace.

The only challenge to the airspace incursion narrative came from reality. Though Russian drones crossed into Poland, no targets were hit. Polish prime minister Donald Tusk says that none of the drones were armed with warheads. “There is currently no evidence,” Tusk says, “that any of these drones posed a direct threat. So far, none have been identified as combat drones capable of detonating or causing harm.” And Poland says that “Belarus, whose territory the drones were launched from, also sent warning that off-course drones were headed for its airspace.” General Wiesław Kukuła, Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, says that “The Belarusians warned us that drones were heading towards us through their airspace.” He added that the advance warning was “helpful for us.”

Poland was not being attacked by unarmed drones. Russia may have been sending a warning to Europe not to send troops to Ukraine as part of a peace settlement, or the drones could have been sent off course by defensive Ukrainian GPS interference. Despite the public narrative, the private intelligence estimate is that the odds are “50–50” that the drone incursion was intentional. Intelligence about the drones’ flight pattern suggests “they had simply been knocked off course by Ukrainian jamming.” And, though it is not unanimous, a senior Western intelligence official told CNN that “they were ‘leaning’ towards an assessment that the incident was unintentional.”

As for public official and media claims that Russian military jets entered Estonian airspace, that, too, is only loosely based on reality. They did not fly over Estonia. On a flight from Karelia, in the northwest of Russia, to Kaliningrad, the jets deviated by five miles or less from their internationally recognized route over the Baltic Sea along the middle of the Gulf of Finland. They passed near, not mainland Estonia, but Vaindloo, an uninhabited island that belongs to Estonia and that sits 16 miles off its coast. The known factual account is, at least, as close to the account Russian gave the Security Council as it is to the Western narrative.

On September 13, a Russian Geran drone entered Romanian airspace. The Romanian Ministry of National Defense called the incursion “a new challenge to regional security.” Two F-16 fighter jets were scrambled, but the drone exited Romanian airspace. The defense ministry says the drone “did not fly over populated areas or pose imminent danger.” It is not unheard of for Russian drones to pass through Romanian airspace on route to Ukraine. That this drone orbited for about 50 minutes, though, suggests that this incursion could be consistent with a possible pattern of Russia warning European countries not to send troops to Ukraine.”

The narrative of aggressive Russian actions taken against European nations seems to be a reckless attempt to draw Europe, the U.S., and NATO more fully into the war. 

Act Two, Opportunity: A Window to Win the War

After being briefed by U.S. officials, including Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz, about current battlefield conditions and a planned Ukrainian counteroffensive that will require U.S. intelligence support, Trump posted that “Ukraine… is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.” All that is required is the “support of Europe and, in particular, NATO.”

But, here too, there are problems. First, there have been reports that the Trump administration is telling Moscow something different than Trump is posting on Truth Social. The second is that, though Zelensky says that Trump now “clearly understands the situation and is well-informed about all aspects of this war,” it is not clear that he does.

Though Trump is being told that Russia is failing to make significant territorial gains, his briefings miss that Russia is making gains faster than at any point in the war and that the thinly stretched Ukrainian army is becoming porous and vulnerable along the lengthy frontline. A Ukrainian offensive would require the Ukrainian armed forces to outnumber the Russian forces. But the balance is going in the other direction: Ukraine is running out of troops while the Russian armed forces are growing substantially. And while Ukraine is being depleted of weapons, Russia is now producing more arms and ammunition than it needs.

Ukraine is not going to win back all of its territory while on the back foot. Rather, it will continue to slowly lose more. And it is likely not capable of going on the offensive, because it lacks the necessary manpower and weaponry. Though Trump posts about a window to win, the truth is Russia’s advantage will likely grow as the war drags on.

Worse, though, is that the media gave all the attention to Trump’s statement that “Ukraine would be able to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that!” It ought to have given more attention than it did to the lines that followed. While promising to “continue to supply weapons to NATO” to give to Ukraine, he referred to NATO as “they.” He said NATO can do “what they want with them.” That sounds like the U.S. will continue selling weapons to Europe for Ukraine but that the U.S. is getting out, an impression made stronger by Trump’s “wish[ing] both countries well” before signing off with “Good luck to them all!” The news was that Trump thinks Ukraine can win. That’s a change in belief, and one that he may not really even hold. But it may not represent a change in policy. The U.S. will still limit its role to selling weapons while it continues to step back.

Act Three, Means: The Tomahawk Missiles

In an interview with Axios, Zelensky said he had asked Trump for a new weapons system. He said that just having this specific weapon would force Putin to come to the negotiating table even if Ukraine didn’t use it. Heightening the drama of the narrative, Zelensky said he would only reveal what weapons system it was once they were off camera.

That system, it turns out, are Tomahawk missiles that have a range of 1,500 miles. If Ukraine gets the long-range missiles, Zelensky says, then targets in Moscow, including the Kremlin, are very much on the table. This week reports surfaced that Trump is considering providing the cruise missiles to Ukraine.