The military crisis in Ukraine has entered a decisive stage that exposes the collapse of the Ukrainian position both in the air and on the ground. The war has been marked by an imbalance between political narrative and battlefield reality. The Ukrainian leadership has relied on rhetoric of strength that has little relation to operational conditions on the front. That gap has now widened to the point where it is visible to allies and adversaries alike. The admission from Ukrainian officials that the interception rate of MIM-104 Patriot systems against Russian missiles has fallen to six percent has forced acknowledgement of the air war’s failure. Analysts such as Brian Baletic and the military observer group at the Black Mountain Substack have long argued that western-supplied missile systems are structurally unsuited to counter sustained Russian hypersonic and ballistic strikes, a view now vindicated by the collapse of Ukrainian air defences. This has direct operational consequences. Major cities, including Kyiv, face the possibility of evacuation as Russia maintains air superiority.
On the ground, the position of Ukrainian forces in Donbas has deteriorated at speed. Independent observers such as Jacques Baud, formerly of NATO intelligence, and Alexander Mercouris have warned over months that Ukrainian formations were overextended without secure supply lines. That warning is now fully realised around Pokrovsk. Russian forces have cut all major supply roads into the city. Video evidence corroborated by mapping projects shows destroyed Ukrainian supply convoys at the road junctions north and west of the city. The fall of Pokrovsk would remove a critical node in the Ukrainian defensive grid in eastern Ukraine. Military analysts such as Douglas Macgregor have described the Russian approach as a deliberate envelopment strategy aimed at creating cauldrons that immobilise large Ukrainian troop concentrations and degrade them over time. The encirclement at Pokrovsk mirrors earlier Russian operations at Mariupol and Bakhmut but on a larger scale.
The depletion of Ukrainian combat strength north-east of Pokrovsk has removed any realistic capacity to break the Russian encirclement. Zelensky and Sirsky diverted elite brigades into repeated counterattacks that failed. The Russian ring around Pokrovsk thickens daily. Satellite and drone imagery confirms Russian forces now control the Pokrovska mine to the south-west, which had been one of Ukraine’s last fortified positions in the sector. The number of Ukrainian troops trapped inside the pocket is uncertain, but it includes several brigades. Ukrainian options are limited to a high-casualty breakout through open ground under Russian drone surveillance or surrender. Analysts such as Scott Ritter, formerly of United Nations Special Commission, have compared the situation to the final stages of encirclement battles in the Second World War, where command delays compounded operational collapse.
This is not an isolated event as similar Russian encirclement manoeuvres have developed in Kupiansk and Siversk. Independent observers on the ground report between 500 and 700 Ukrainian troops encircled in Kupiansk, with several thousand more trapped east of the Oskol River. The autumn weather compounds the situation, making river crossings hazardous under Russian drone surveillance. In Siversk, Russian forces have entered the urban area and control supply routes. Analysts such as Andrei Martyanov and Larry Johnson have repeatedly warned that the Ukrainian operational map has been shaped by political refusal to withdraw, not by military logic. That refusal has produced a situation where Ukrainian forces are compressed into multiple shrinking pockets.
Russian operational strategy relies on methodical destruction of logistics rather than rapid armoured thrusts. Control of roads and sustained drone and artillery strikes have cut off Ukrainian resupply to the frontline. This was visible in Siversk where Russian forces controlled the northern and southern approaches long before entering the city itself. Military analysis from the Royal United Services Institute has noted that Russian integration of drones into artillery targeting has significantly increased strike efficiency, creating lethal zones around Ukrainian supply lines. Ukrainian forces cannot counter this with their dwindling stocks of air defence interceptors.
Evacuation orders from the Ukrainian authorities in Slavyansk signal their recognition that the front line is shifting westward. Slavyansk and Kramatorsk will become active battle zones once Pokrovsk falls. These towns anchor Ukraine’s defence in northern Donbas. Their loss would unravel the entire defensive position east of the Dnieper. Analysts such as Colonel Markus Reisner of the Austrian Armed Forces have noted that Ukrainian defensive depth in Donbas is shallow, making the fall of one node destabilising for the entire sector. The current Ukrainian strategy of static defence under air inferiority is militarily untenable.
The Ukrainian leadership has chosen narrative preservation over tactical withdrawal. That decision may deliver a decisive Russian battlefield victory. This mirrors earlier patterns at Mariupol and Bakhmut, where Ukrainian forces were ordered to hold positions until surrounded and destroyed. Zelensky’s refusal to retreat stems from political calculations tied to Western perception and aid flows. Analysts such as Ivan Katchanovski of University of Ottawa have described this as a political strategy divorced from operational reality. Such decisions deepen the crisis and guarantee higher losses.
The Russian position has been strengthened by the collapse of Ukrainian air defence. Independent technical analysts including Brian Berletic and Alexander Mercouris have described the mismatch between Russian missile technology and western defensive systems. Patriot batteries have failed to intercept most Russian strikes. Russian forces maintain air and drone superiority over the entire theatre, which enables sustained operational pressure without high casualty rates. Ukrainian claims of effective air defence are no longer credible even to Western media. Acknowledgement of the six percent interception rate has ended the pretence of effective air cover.
The strategic crisis extends beyond Ukraine. The United States has signalled willingness to escalate by discussing the potential transfer of BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. This reflects a political rather than military calculus. Tomahawk deployment would require United States operational involvement due to system complexity. Analysts such as Brian Baletic and the Black Mountain Substack group have outlined the engineering obstacles to launching Tomahawks from Ukrainian territory, including the absence of mobile launch platforms since the Cold War-era systems were dismantled. Re-establishing such capability would take years, not months. The Ukrainian leadership treats Tomahawk delivery as a political lifeline, not a realistic battlefield solution.
The Russian response would be immediate escalation. Russian officials have stated openly that Tomahawk deployment in Ukraine would revert bilateral relations to a Cold War freeze. Analysts including Dmitri Trenin, formerly of Carnegie Moscow Center, have noted that such a move would harden Russia’s strategic posture and end any remaining diplomatic flexibility. Russian military superiority on the ground would remain unchanged, and the missile threat would be absorbed into existing strategic planning.
United States strategic policy has repeated a pattern of duplicity that has alienated adversaries without achieving leverage. The Trump administration sought to negotiate truces with China and Iran while simultaneously imposing new restrictions. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce has documented that tariff relief during the spring truce coincided with tightened export controls and new fees targeting Chinese-built ships. Analysts such as Wang Dong of Peking University have described this as a demonstration of American strategic arrogance. Beijing responded by escalating tariff and export control measures, confirming that the trade war will be sustained.
The Chinese retaliation targets critical sectors of American industry. By restricting rare earth exports and opening antitrust investigations into Qualcomm, Beijing has attacked the foundations of American high-tech production. Analysts at the Mercator Institute for China Studies have underlined that American corporate exposure in China exceeds Chinese exposure in the United States. American firms such as Apple and Tesla depend on Chinese manufacturing networks. Escalation jeopardises this position and accelerates decoupling trends already under way.
Iran has responded in a similar pattern. Following the re-imposition of snapback sanctions, Tehran announced full suspension of cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency. Analysts such as Seyed Mohammad Marandi of University of Tehran have described this as a predictable consequence of Washington’s duplicity. Washington negotiated a ceasefire but followed it with renewed pressure. Tehran drew the conclusion that negotiation with the United States is structurally unreliable.
The Russian position mirrors this calculation. Moscow accepted exploratory talks but observed continued U.S. involvement in Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian energy facilities. Analysts including Gilbert Doctorow have pointed out that this has hardened the Kremlin’s view of Washington as a bad faith actor. Russian operational success on the battlefield further reduces any incentive to negotiate. Russian leadership views the conflict as an existential matter, not a bargaining chip. Bluffing over weapons delivery will not alter that calculus.
(Alex Krainer and Glen Diessen)
Washington has overestimated its leverage against major powers while underestimating their ability to coordinate. It maintains leverage over dependent states such as Israel but faces symmetrical or superior leverage from China, Russia and Iran. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin hold secure domestic strategic positions that allow escalation without political fragmentation. Trump’s poker diplomacy has not softened adversaries but hardened them further. This dynamic is visible in the Sino-American trade war, the Iranian nuclear confrontation and the Ukrainian battlefield.
Ukraine has been forced into the centre of these structural failures. The collapse of Ukrainian defences is the consequence of political overreliance on Western support combined with systematic underestimation of Russian capacity. Analysts like Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter predicted this outcome once Russian industrial mobilisation surpassed Western resupply capacity. That mobilisation is now complete and visible. Russian output of drones, artillery shells and missiles exceeds the combined Ukrainian and Western supply streams. Ukrainian brigades face chronic ammunition shortages, while Russian forces maintain uninterrupted pressure.
Western systems have not reversed the balance. The failure of Patriot interceptors mirrors earlier failures of M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks in the field. Russian drones and artillery have destroyed high-value Western equipment at scale. Analysts like Alex Vershinin of Royal United Services Institute have explained that these systems were designed for limited expeditionary wars under Western air dominance. They are not suited for attritional high-intensity combat against a peer adversary. Ukraine has no pathway to adapt them to this reality.
Russian strategy does not rely on spectacular breakthroughs. It relies on sustained logistical strangulation and controlled encirclements. Casualty ratios favour Russian forces because their operational method minimises exposure while maximising Ukrainian losses. Independent estimates by Jacques Baud and Scott Ritter indicate Ukrainian losses far exceed replacement capacity. Mobilisation fatigue is visible across Ukrainian society, and unit cohesion is eroding as losses accumulate without strategic gains.
Western political support continues rhetorically but material constraints are visible. European defence industries cannot match Russian production rates, and political divisions in the United States limit sustainable support. Analysts like George Beebe of Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft have argued that Washington faces a binary strategic choice between direct intervention or acceptance of Russian victory terms. Tomahawk delivery would constitute escalation but not reversal of battlefield conditions. Russian dominance would remain.
Russia will not negotiate on terms favourable to the United States. Its battlefield position is strong, its strategic alliances with China and Iran are consolidated, and its economy remains functional under sanctions. Chinese retaliation against American economic measures demonstrates Beijing’s willingness to sustain confrontation. Iranian disengagement shows Tehran’s readiness to harden its stance. These developments reduce the effectiveness of U.S. diplomatic pressure across multiple theatres simultaneously.
Ukrainian defeat is now moving from projection to structural reality. Russian forces are advancing towards the Dnieper, and Ukrainian positions in Donbas are collapsing under operational pressure. Air defence has failed, supply lines have broken, and Western weaponry has not changed the outcome. Political messaging from Kyiv has become disconnected from battlefield developments. Analysts such as Larry Johnson and Douglas Macgregor assess that the Ukrainian army may collapse entirely before the next campaign season if the current attrition continues.
The U.S. strategy of diplomatic bluff and incremental escalation has failed to deliver concessions from China, Iran or Russia. Each of these actors now escalates in direct response. This dynamic erodes American credibility and accelerates the formation of a hardened geopolitical bloc that rejects U.S. coercion. Multipolar alignment is no longer theoretical; it is operational and coordinated in response to Washington’s miscalculations.
European states remain strategically subordinate to Washington and cannot alter the trajectory of the war. Their own economic exposure to Chinese retaliation and energy insecurity limits their ability to sustain long-term conflict with Russia. Analysts at Bruegel and Institut Montaigne have warned of long-term industrial decline under sustained energy and trade disruptions. European political rhetoric has not produced industrial capacity to match Russian escalation.
The strategic trajectory is unambiguous. Ukraine is losing the war on every front that matters militarily. Russian forces are achieving their objectives through steady operational encirclement and air dominance. Western escalation options do not change the balance but increase strategic risks. Diplomatic bluff has produced hardened adversaries, not concessions. The war’s outcome will be shaped by Russian operational realities on the ground, not by political narratives in Western capitals.
The United States faces a critical decision between direct escalation or recalibration of strategy. Escalation through Tomahawk deployment would not reverse battlefield realities but would increase the probability of uncontrolled confrontation. Recalibration would acknowledge the limits of American leverage and the failure of bluff diplomacy. Neither path will recover the credibility already eroded, but continuation of the current posture guarantees further loss of strategic position.
Authored By:
Popular Information is powered by readers who believe that truth still matters. When just a few more people step up to support this work, it means more lies exposed, more corruption uncovered, and more accountability where it’s long overdue. If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference.
Subscribe to Global GeoPolitics
Launched a year ago
The
world is shaped by narratives, those who control them shape perception.
But here, we cut through the noise.
Welcome to Global GeoPolitics, where I provide independent geopolitical
analysis, exposing hidden agendas and global power structures. Join m