In Ukraine winter has arrived, sleet and fog cover Donetsk’s battlefields, and in the ruins of Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad young Russian and Ukrainian soldiers continue to fight regardless of the weather. However, neither side is closer to winning a significant victory in the ground war.
In the air and on the sea, Ukraine continues to attack Russia’s oil network trying to reduce the country’s revenue. Likewise, Russian drones and missiles damage Ukraine’s cities and power grid. Russia hoping to bomb and brutalise Ukraine into submission.
And in board rooms in Moscow, Miami, and across Europe officials unsuccessfully try to negotiate a peace plan. The negotiations may not be achieving tangible results but are revealing uncomfortable insights about both sides.
The Witkoff tapes – What they tell us about the situation?
On 26 November, Bloomberg released audio tapes of America’s lead negotiator – US Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff coaching Russian negotiators about how to speak to the US President.[i] The audio tapes reinforce the idea that Witkoff is inexperienced and out of his depth, and provide useful insight into the political battles surrounding this war.
Why Witkoff is out of his depth – Russia’s intelligence machine
Russia inherited an intelligence-led approach to diplomacy from the Soviet Union, and a large intelligence infrastructure. A vast and powerful apparatus that is focussed on knowing and understanding the White House, and those that represent it. When Putin or Russian negotiators meet Witkoff have excellent human intelligence (HUMINT) about him. Analysts will have studied his whole life; every relationship, business deal and public statement.
The Russians use HUMINT to develop negotiating strategies including the best ways to influence people like Witkoff. Unfortunately, Witkoff appears to be easily influenced accepting Russian disinformation without question and appearing to see Russia’s negotiators as ‘friendly,’ so it is OK to share information with them to ‘make the deal.’ Unfortunately, for Witkoff (and Ukraine) diplomacy is not like cutting a real estate deal. Instead, for all the politeness diplomacy is a life and death competition and providing direct insight into Trump’s positions, activity and advice about how to negotiate is highly inappropriate.
The tapes raise interesting political questions
The tapes were released with a specific objective, revealing the weakness of Witkoff. Notably, the tapes were collected by an agency with the ability to hack into and listen to the negotiator’s phones. Releasing the conversations reveals the operation, and ensures that access to the targeted phones will stop. So, whoever hacked the phones has made a carefully considered decision, accepting that it will lose intelligence in exchange for damaging Witkoff.
Russia can hack phones but has nothing to gain from leaking the information about Witkoff. In fact, Witkoff as a useful Russian asset.
Therefore, the question is – Who leaked the conversation?
And, there are several possibilities, Ukraine and European nations have the capability to hack these calls, and a clear motivation to release the information. However, there is also a possibility that the leak has come from within the US intelligence community. We know that many US officials are frustrated and concerned about the Trump White House’s policy regarding Ukraine so may have leaked the information. A possibility that should be considered because it is another indicator weaknesses and division within the White House.
Insight into Russia’s position
The leaked transcripts also provide insight into Russia’s position, capturing discussions between the nation’s two lead negotiators Yuri Ushakov and Kiril Dimitriev. Commentator William Spaniel provides an excellent analysis of the discussion and says their conversation indicates that the initial 28-point proposal is Russia’s ‘best case’ scenario.[ii]
If Spaniel is correct, US and Ukrainian negotiators should be taking an aggressive approach to negotiations because the Kremlin needs to make a deal. My assessment is that Spaniel is correct, and that Russia knows it cannot currently capture more of Ukraine than parts of Donbas. Russia understands its own weakness so is doubling down on trying to project strength. For example, by claiming to have captured Pokrovsk and aggressively bombing Ukraine. Russian aims to convince the gullible that it is winning the war, and that if peace is not made will eventually take whatever it wants. But Russia’s support for the initial 28-point plan indicates this is not the case, that instead Russia is in trouble and is willing to accept much less than it original goals.
Rubio and Witkoff – A busy weekend!
Last weekend, another key battle was fought. This time in Florida where US Secretary of State Marco Rubio worked hard to restore some discipline and integrity to American foreign policy.[iii] The discussion in Florida involved Rubio, Ukrainian representatives Ukraine, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner.
The aim of the discussion was to confirm a peace proposal that Witkoff and Kushner could take to Russia this week. After the confusion caused by the leak of Witkoff’s 28-point plan the previous week, Rubio’s work was a welcome return to sensible policy discussions and provided an opportunity for Ukraine to establish its ‘bottom lines.’
An important consideration is that the US cannot force Ukraine to concede. Throughout the war, Ukrainians have demonstrated they are not Russians, and do not want to be part of Russia through their incredible tenacity. The nation is not going to lay down its arms and dignity to appease America. Likewise, Europe is unlikely to stop supporting Ukraine regardless of the US position, and it is notable that most Americans support Ukraine’s struggle.
Essentially, the Trump administrations’ ‘ham fisted’ foreign policy has created a situation in which their ability to influence Ukraine is relatively limited. Rubio, is smart and experienced so will understand the situation. After a proposal was agreed Witkoff and lead Ukrainian negotiator Rustem Umerov briefed, Ukrainian President Zelensky and French President Macron before speaking to the Kremlin on Tuesday.
Putin rattles the sabre
On 1 December, Putin conducted a press conference from the Kremlin. The conference was carefully staged and timed to convey a set of clear messages to US negotiators and the world. The most notable aspects of the speech from my perspective were that Putin used the opportunity to reinforce his threatening posture, and keep Kremlin disinformation flowing. Putin warned that Russia is ready to fight a war with Europe, stating that “We are not going to fight Europe, I have said this a hundred times. But if Europe suddenly wants to fight and starts, we are ready right now.” A threat designed to project confidence and strength, leveraging off Europe’s historic fear of the Soviet Union.
Putin also delivered talking points supporting Russia’s narrative that its victory is a foregone conclusion. Listening to statements like “The positive dynamics persist in all directions. Moreover, our troops advance in each of these directions continues to pick up the pace, and quite noticeably” it would be reasonable to conclude that Russia is advancing quickly or close to a war ending victory. A situation that is clearly not the case.
Russian statements like this are part of a carefully contrived programme of disinformation designed to scare people into believing that Russian victory is inevitable, regardless of the facts. Russia’s HUMINT clearly understands how gullible some people in the Trump White House are, and Putin uses statements like these to reinforce the narrative. The aim is to convince Trump that Ukraine is losing and therefore not worth investing time and effort in supporting.
Witkoff and Kushner present the proposal…Russia’s answer
On 2 December, Witkoff and Kushner met with Russian officials at the Kremlin and presented the new proposal. A day of negotiation that does not appear to have produced any tangible results. The BBC reported that “Five hours of talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump’s senior negotiator appear to have failed to produce a breakthrough on securing a Ukraine peace deal.”[iv]
After Tuesday’s meeting both parties returned to their respective home locations to consider the proposal and respond. In Miami, after three days of discussion the Ukrainian and US officials there were no new breakthroughs, or changes in position. However, on Saturday 6 December, the Institute for the Study of War reported that “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.”[v] An indication that America’s position may be hardening.
Russia’s response was more ‘kinetic’ the Kremlin launching approx. 700 drones and missiles against Ukraine on last Saturday night.[vi] Russia’s response indicates that Putin is keen to demonstrate that he can continue the war, a statement designed to reinforce Russia’s position in negotiations – Russia makes the rules, Russian victory is inevitable, Russia’s terms must be met or fighting continues.
Meanwhile in London, Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy met with key European leaders in a demonstration of support for the defenders.[vii] Zelenskyy, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, France’s President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz, discussed the war and pledged their support.
But what about Pokrovsk?
The fight for Pokrovsk continues, and since the last post Russia has made a little progress but cannot yet claim to hold the city. The Russians are advancing from two directions; 51st Combined Arms Army (CAA) from the north, and 2nd CAA from the south. Russian forces control the Pokrovsk south of the Donetska Railway that bisects the town. The railway line creates a natural defensive barrier that Ukrainian soldiers are using to stop the Russian advance.
Myrnohrad, is roughly 10 km east of Pokrovsk and the tactical relationship between the towns is not often mentioned. Any defence is built around mutually supporting fortified positions, in this case Myrnohrad and the Pokrovsk. Securing Pokrovsk includes capturing Myrnohrad because if it is not captured, or compromised, Ukrainian soldiers there can support the defence of Pokrovsk. Russia is still some way from achieving either objective, holding approx. three quarters of Pokrovsk’s urban area and little of Myrnohrad.
 |
The fighting in Pokrovsk is difficult and the battle is complex, but the following factors should be considered when assessing Russian claims of victory:
- Supply lines. Ukraine still has two small roads available to bring personnel and supplies into Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad, or to evacuate casualties. The towns are not surrounded yet.
- Russia’s inability to cross open country. Blocking the supply routes into Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad requires Russian forces to cross large areas of open ground to the north and west of the towns. Historically, open country is where drone based ‘kill webs’ are most effective and Russia has shown limited ability to cross these areas.
Advancing through both urban areas is difficult, and it looks like Ukraine’s drones are making envelopment impossible. Therefore, it seems likely that the battle for Pokrovsk will continue for some time yet.
Conclusion
In November 2024, I wrote “The reality is that President Trump cannot force either party to stop fighting, or change their conditions for a ceasefire.”[viii] An observation that remains extant since neither side is willing to ceasefire on the current, or likely terms. A situation the US cannot change easily because since last November, America’s inconsistent foreign policy has progressively reduced diplomatic leverage.
Essentially, Ukraine and Europe now know they cannot rely on the US, so both parties are increasing their military capabilities thereby reducing US influence. Trump’s administration is caught in a dilemma because mid-term elections are fast approaching and Trump’s promise to end the war, and US foreign policy will influence the outcome. Notably, most American voters support Ukraine so I think ‘walking away’ from Ukraine would be punished by the American electorate.
And although Trump’s actions are impossible to predict, my assessment is that Russia’s disinformation campaign is wearing thin and the personal political risk is too great for the president to withdraw US support. So, I expect a more aggressive US approach to peace negotiations in the next few weeks.
[i] https://www.bloomberg.com/
[iii] https://www.bbc.com/news/
[iv] https://www.bbc.com/news/
[v] https://understandingwar.org/
[vi] https://news.sky.com/story/
[vii] https://www.theguardian.com/
[viii] https://benmorganmil.substack.
Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer, a former Officer in NZDF and TDBs Military Blogger – his work is on substack
The Russian Federation is losing the war.
Even if they didn’t have Western weapons and backing, the Ukrainian people would still defeat the Russian imperialists..
With Western weapons and backing, it will be quicker.
Without Western weapons and support it took the Syrian people 14 years. Despite being set upon by all sides.
Because of its importance in understanding the Syrian revolution, I have cut and pasted, in full, Ruth Riegler’s essay on the anniversry of the liberation of Syria
…..One Year After Assad’s Fall, Syrians Are Still Teaching the World About Freedom
One year since Syrians finally overthrew the Assad dictatorship, the world is still catching up with what actually happened. The victory of Syrians’ revolution was not only the end of a hereditary tyrant, but the exposure of the lies favored by Western talking heads that Syrians were somehow mysteriously incapable of democracy, that dictatorship guarantees “stability,” and that global powers can praise freedom while denying it in practice. Against every prediction and prejudice, Syrians didn’t just remove a despot—they shattered the logic of authoritarians from Moscow to Washington, Tel Aviv to Tehran. The Syrian revolution wasn’t just a local event. It was and remains the front line of a global struggle.
For over a decade, the revolution was spoken of in the past tense—as if defeat were inevitable. In Western and other media, “Syria” became shorthand for chaos, blaming Syrians for the crimes committed against them while erasing the foreign powers that kept Assad alive. A popular uprising for dignity was recast as proof that Arabs were unfit for democracy, the old colonial trope repackaged in the language of the War on Terror. The figure of the “strongman” was revived as a supposedly necessary overseer.
That narrative was popular in Washington. In 2016, the Obama administration proposed military coordination with Russia—not to protect civilians, but to jointly target certain jihadi groups in exchange for Moscow limiting attacks on U.S.-backed rebels. In effect, Washington granted Russia legitimacy in Syria—realpolitik at its coldest. Meanwhile, the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran relieved pressure on Tehran just as it deepened its support for Assad. Combined with Obama’s casual 2014 dismissal of Syrian freedom as a “fantasy,” these decisions showed what really mattered to Western powers: strategic deals, not the protection of human life.
It’s still largely unacknowledged in most Western media that Assad and Putin didn’t simply exploit terrorism, but engineered it. Assad released jihadists in 2011 while murdering peaceful protesters, reshaping the revolution into the caricature he required. Russia joined the script, bombing pro-democracy forces while leaving ISIS to expand, knowing that the more extreme the threat appeared, the more Assad could pose as indispensable. This was the arsonist-as-fireman doctrine copy-pasted by fellow authoritarians: create the inferno, then demand gratitude for claiming to extinguish it. Israel’s perfected the method in Palestine; Khamenei exported it regionally until Syrians gave him a reality check; Putin globalised it through alliances with the far-right in Europe and the United States.
Meanwhile, Syrians—including Syrian-Palestinians—also endured a barrage from Western voices styling themselves as defenders of Palestine. Many cynically exploited the Palestinian cause to justify cheering for Assad’s genocide, accusing Syrians of being CIA or Mossad operatives. This revealed not insight but astonishing ignorance of both Syria and Palestine, and a cynicism indistinguishable from that of the Western spin-doctors they claimed to oppose. Freedom became a pick-and-choose menu depending on who the oppressor was.
But freedom isn’t a buffet. Syrians, Palestinians, Ukrainians, Ahwazis, Kashmiris, Uyghurs, and all peoples resisting tyranny are part of the same universal struggle. Selective solidarity isn’t solidarity at all—it’s just another form of politics. If you only care about freedom when it suits your faction, then you don’t care about freedom at all.
Europe, more than anyone, should grasp this. The same Putin who slaughtered Syrians is the Putin threatening Europe: the same imperial logic, contempt for life, and reliance on manufactured chaos. Syrians recognised the same propaganda playbook in Ukraine—Syrians seeking freedom were smeared as terrorists, Ukrainians defending their homeland are smeared as Nazis. It is the identical arsonist-as-fireman strategy: Russia committing aggression, then posing as civilisation’s shield. Syrian support for Ukraine—and Ukrainian solidarity with Syria—were immediate, formed not by diplomacy but by lived experience of the same imperial project and the same disinformation machine.
Yet for years Europe treated Syrians mainly as refugees or security risks instead of recognising that the first serious resistance to Putin’s expansionism came in Syria—and that Syrians paid the highest price for exposing him. They did so without NATO, without EU protection, and without any real support from comfortable capitals. It is Europe that must learn from Syria, not Syria from Europe.
One year on, Syria—like every other country—is a work in progress with a daunting road ahead. Assad did everything he could to destroy the nation he claimed to protect, and decades of corruption and theft hollowed out public life. The only modern infrastructure the Assads built was a surveillance and torture machine. Those days are gone, and after sacrificing so much, Syrians will not allow them to return. Yet even amid immense rebuilding, their achievement is historic: a people who refused despair, overturned every lazy assumption about them, and proved that ordinary human beings—“doctors, farmers, and pharmacists,” in Obama’s phrase—can defeat dictatorships, militias, foreign empires and global cynicism. Syria was where Putin’s imperial project showed its full violence; where Western ‘foreign policy realism’ replaced principle with excuse; where Iran exported sectarianism with impunity; and where the world claimed Arabs were not ready for freedom. Syrians overturned all of that— by themselves, armed only with unshakeable faith and resolve.
If the world wants to understand not only the disasters authoritarianism inflicts, but the victories ordinary people can win against it, against unimaginable odds —from Gaza to Ukraine to Europe—it should begin with Syria: where international lies were exposed, and where revolutionary people defeated tyranny.
By Ruth Riegler
December 8, 2025
Pat, I usually avoid reading your articles however I made an exception because you mentioned Syria which now has an ex-Al Qaeda dictatorship not elected as President Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa aka… Abu Mohammad al-Julani. The US, Israel and its gulf allies, in the region along with NATO countries mainly Turkey trained and funded the alphabet soup Jihadi groups noted in the Timber Sycamore report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore.
The Syrian war wasn’t a civil war that begun in 2011 it was targeted for regime change by international actors and funny enough little ole New Zealand had contributed its 2 cents by funding the “White Helmets” a made-up civil defense group that not registered with the international body for civil defense and was only working alongside the Al Qaeda alphabet soup jihad groups committing atrocities against Syrian civilians.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-training-support-white-helmets-syria
To copy and paste paragraphs by Ruth Riegler who is an apologist for US wars abroad is not only laughable but puts into questions your integrity when discussing topics of this magnitude. And I notice in Ruth Riegler rant she mentions the Uyghurs Jihad in Syria which is of importance as they are designated terrorist organisation by China committing crimes in Syria against the Syrian peoples.
https://newlinesinstitute.org/nonstate-actors/uighur-jihadists-in-syria/
Remember Russia was invited to Syria by the elected govt of Basha Al Assad to help with the well organised Al Qaeda militants funded by the US and its allies to topple him for regime change. Also, Russia has long standing relationships with Syria and also have a warm port military base that been there for over 60 years.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/7708
Ruth Reigler wasn’t on the ground reporting in Syrian during the beginning of the war in 2011 but more independent journalist like Vanessa Beeley who gets called a conspiracist by MSM networks like the BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, etc. however she lived amongst the Syrian since 2011 right up until Al Qaeda arrived in Damascus late 2024 and take her word and experience more than a Warhawk Washington grifter journalist from the US any day all day.
100%
The reeducation of Pat and others – is it possible?
Possibly?
If anyones interested , here’s what prominent Ukrainians are saying
““Every subsequent deal for Ukraine will only be worse – because we are losing,” Volodymyr Zelensky’s former spokesperson, Iuliia Mendel, wrote in an X post on 22 November. She went on to criticise the Europeans: “My country is bleeding out. Many who reflexively oppose every peace proposal believe they are defending Ukraine. With all respect, that is the clearest proof they have no idea what is actually happening on the front lines and inside the country right now.”
In another post six days later, Mendel criticised the hawkish foreign policy “experts” (the quotation marks are hers) who are vocal in expressing outrage about peace proposals such as Trump’s 28-point plan: “I don’t see a single constructive proposal from them – except, of course, the default one: just keep the war going forever.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2025/12/europe-is-losing-ukraine
Irish/British young Journalists living and reporting from Ukraine for the last 2 years.
Estonia prepares for war https://youtu.be/DMRQW18COv4?si=VBjwucftcoTYzxrC
Farmers of Ukraine kherson https://youtu.be/jlTnKYTxWOY?si=HF51v6zqRNwdI4id
Latest update hour long interview : https://youtu.be/lP_Dt2YfTIQ?si=6iEfht_fDGFw7ocA
One of his first doc’s Hunted in Kherson:https://youtu.be/InGah1DF2Cc?si=1RWVZNEwi5B_0rYD
google Caolan Robertson, He has little credibility. He’s probably ok for the credulous.
Caolan Robertson doesn’t seem to be an honest person –
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/technology/alt-right-youtube-algorithm.html
“Feeding Hate With Video: A Former Alt-Right YouTuber Explains His Methods
Focus on conflict. Feed the algorithm. Make sure whatever you produce reinforces a narrative. Don’t worry if it is true.”