Russia: Weekly Summary (November 17-23, 2025)

A week in Russia-talk: the themes that kept popping up

I would describe this week's cluster of posts as a kind of patchwork quilt. Some of the squares are burned or patched; others are bright and new. To me, it feels like everyone is looking at the same map and zooming in on different things — energy, weapons, diplomacy, family stories, and old-time myths — and all of it makes for a noisy, stubborn picture.

I’d say the tone across the pieces is urgent and sometimes tired. There's that worn drumbeat about Russia’s war in Ukraine that refuses to shut up, and a rising chorus about how other powers and actors are adjusting to or exploiting that drumbeat. It’s not always tidy. There are overlaps, repeats, and a few jabs at the same targets from different angles. If you're the curious type — and you probably are if you're reading this — the links below will take you to the longer reads.

Energy and sanctions: numbers, workarounds, and refinery pain

Energy keeps showing up. It’s like salt in a stew this week: you notice it in every spoonful. Tom Cooper wrote several pieces that thread together a short story about Russian hydrocarbons and the damage being inflicted on refining capacity.

One post looks at October export revenues and shipments. Revenues fell a bit — about 4% — and G7+ tankers were reportedly moving 38% of crude exports. The EU paid a chunk of that, close to €938 million for fossil fuels, mainly natural gas. A curious detail: refined products that started as Russian crude but were processed in India and Turkey then flowed onward to places like Australia and the U.S., and imports actually rose in some markets despite sanctions. That strange loop — raw hides in one country, gets stitched into something new in another, then sold elsewhere — is a recurring theme. I would describe the whole setup as a clever dodge rather than a failure of sanctions. It’s not elegant. But it’s effective enough.

There is constant talk about a $30 per barrel price cap proposal that, if in place, could have cut Russian oil revenues sharply. Yet, evasion is getting better. To me, it feels like trying to keep water in a sieve: the cap idea looks good on paper, but the reality is messier. Prices have been steered north of $60 despite sanctions, and the system finds ways to keep the cash flowing.

Tom also zooms in on the physical damage back home. Attacks on refineries and infrastructure have been frequent. Power outages, reduced refining runs, and domestic gasoline price swings in Russia are touched on, with comparisons to places like Austria to highlight how twisted things are now. It’s almost like watching a car that keeps getting dented in the same fender — at first it’s a shock, then it becomes a chronic nuisance that changes how you drive.

If you want the spreadsheets and the sharper detail, go see Tom Cooper. There’s a practical value in those numbers — but there’s also a sneaky human story: people who fill their tanks, families heating their homes, and businesses trying to plan a winter in uncertain light.

The battlefield — towns, tactics, and attrition

Every other piece feels like it’s standing in the cold on the edge of the same battlefield. Multiple writers — notably David Axe — reported on operations in eastern and southern Ukraine. The names repeat: Kostiantynivka, Pokrovsk, Myrnohrad, Hulyaipole, Danylivka. They read like stops on a grim, slow-moving tour.

A thread I’d pull out: Ukraine is trying a lot of small, clever things to keep its forces alive. Flying F-16s from small strips at night, moving quickly, working under drone and missile threat — that’s from David Axe. They’ve lost jets but then stabilized losses. To me, it’s like learning to ride a bicycle in a rainstorm. You fall a few times, yet you get better and adjust the route.

Still, the ground pictures are rough. Several pieces describe Ukrainian units as outnumbered, exhausted, or forced into tactical retreats. The Pokrovsk–Myrnohrad pocket came up repeatedly. There’s talk of clever drone strikes and air hits. There’s also talk that a strategic withdrawal might be the only sane option to save troops. One piece almost reads like clinic notes: orderly retreats, shortages of trained infantry, battalions retooled and rerouted. It feels like triage.

Another theme is innovation in response to drones. Russia is trying to harden vehicles — ideas like the "dandelion tank" with branching metal florets to catch small FPV drones sound almost comic-book, but the reporting treats it as serious. David Axe takes that idea seriously, and it nails a broader point: the war is changing weapon design fast. Every failed drone attack or intercepted munition becomes a lesson and then a product.

A repeated point: small tactical victories are often temporary. Blowing up a few vehicles, downing some drones, or a successful strike in a town — those are wins. But the larger strategic picture can still be bleak if the manpower and supply math isn't on your side. That idea — small wins, shaky long-term prospects — comes up again and again.

Intelligence, ships, and the undersea fear

There was a neat, unnerving echo about the Russian ocean research vessel Yantar. Two separate pieces mention it pointing lasers at a UK RAF P‑8 plane near Scottish waters. That’s dangerous. One thread framed the ship as a potential spy and sabotage platform for undersea cables and pipelines. It’s all the more vivid because undersea fiber is the internet’s backbone — imagine someone poking a hole in your phone call.

The UK flagged it as “deeply dangerous,” and the embassy pushed back. I’d say those skirmishes at sea have an old-school spy-movie smell to them: lights, lasers, stern denials. But this time the stakes are modern: communications and energy routes. David Cenciotti and the Old Salt Blog both cover the story with slightly different emphasis, and that divergence tells you something. The same incident can look like reckless provocation or routine surveillance depending on what lens you pick.

Diplomatic maneuvering and the big peace-musical chairs

The week had a long and loud melody focused on a proposed 28‑point peace plan from the White House that many saw as favoring Russia. A lot of posts — and a lot of heat — centered on whether the plan effectively asks Ukraine to give up territory while getting weak security guarantees in return.

Several writers were blunt. Zev Shalev called it rewarding dictatorship. Nick Cohen wondered what happens if Europe shrugs and Russia wins. Bob M. Schwartz urged decisive European action to stop what he sees as capitulation. Mike "Mish" Shedlock noted that Trump said the plan might be open for revision after blowback.

To me, it feels like the diplomatic game is now being played in a crowded bar where everyone is shouting over one another. There's the U.S. plan, there's Russia's appetite, there's Europe's reaction, and then there are side deals — like the suggestion that Russia might be tacitly traded favors in other theaters (Venezuela is name-checked in reporting about Washington’s negotiations). One writer even connects the FAA’s warning to avoid Venezuelan airspace with geopolitical bargaining over Ukraine and Maduro. It’s a spaghetti junction of deals-in-progress and maybe-quid-pro-quid.

A recurring worry across the posts: what if this becomes a carrot-and-stick deal where Ukraine is forced to give up core things for temporary silence? The language used in the posts is blunt: ceding Crimea, limiting Ukraine’s military, and accepting vague guarantees. Those phrases land heavy. They sound less like a peace and more like a pause.

Influence, religion, and domestic echoes abroad

Another cluster describes how Russia uses soft power and ideology as tools. Olga Lautman wrote about how Russia has cultivated networks of far-right allies and used the Russian Orthodox Church as a vector for influence. It's painted less like theology and more like a political arm with a collar.

Naked Capitalism and other commentators also questioned BRICS behavior or Russia's abstention on a UN resolution about Gaza. The take is skeptical: great powers mostly act in their own interest, and sometimes that interest looks like convenient silence or selective abstention. It’s a reminder that foreign policy is often messy, transactional, and not very romantic.

This week also featured a guest post from a U.S. veteran intelligence analyst worried about the U.S. looking a bit like Russia and Egypt in terms of authoritarian tendencies. That's a cross-check I appreciated. It’s not directly about Moscow's foreign policy, but it uses Russia as a cautionary mirror. The central idea: systems that consolidate power, squash dissent, and reward cronies can look shockingly similar across different capitals.

Hearts on both sides: families, fronts, and old ghosts

There’s a human strand that keeps creeping into the military and political noise. Tim Mak’s piece on how the war splits families — the story of Artur and his father Oleg — is stark and quiet in a week otherwise thick with numbers and tactics. It’s the kind of piece that sits uncomfortably in your pocket while you read the rest of the hard-news stuff. Families are ripped at the seams, loyalty is frayed, and personal histories complicate possible settlements. I would describe these personal stories as the part that keeps you honest. They’re reminders that geopolitics is really messy human stuff.

And then there’s a historical detour. A lighter, stranger entry explores Rasputin’s life. The Wise Wolf walks through the weirdness of late-imperial Russia — mystics, sex rites, palace intrigue — and the narrative feels oddly apt as a cultural aside. When you’re reading about modern Kremlin moves, a tale about a man who wormed his way into the hearts and halls of power centuries ago feels like a dusty mirror. It’s a tangent that circles back: politics often has these personal, almost mystical layers.

Military tech and production hiccups

A couple of technical themes repeat. One is the slow-motion failure of Russian air-defense production and delivery. Tom Cooper notes long delays in S‑400 deliveries to India and suggests Ukraine’s strikes might be part of why. Contracts signed years ago are still not fully delivered. If you think in practical terms, it’s like ordering a new heating system three years ago and getting told it’s still in the factory. People who needed that system have to find other ways to stay warm.

Meanwhile, the battlefield is waking up to new counter-drone steps. The “dandelion tank” is an example of low-tech-meets-high-imagination. Extendable rods, nets, a hedge-like structure to stop FPV drones — it reads like a backyard project that got scaled up for war. But that’s how things go: necessity breeds cleverness. Small, nimble tech and tactics — drones, small airstrips, rapid-turnaround sorties — keep cropping up across posts.

Propaganda, bribery, and the messy mirror of politics

There’s also a political scandal thread. One piece considered a UK figure who accepted Kremlin-aligned payoffs to push certain narratives. Nathan Gill’s sentencing for bribery to promote pro-Kremlin lines is the kind of story that shows how influence can be bought and sold. Nick Cohen spins that into a larger critique of populist actors who cozy up to foreign money and messages. These aren’t minor episodes; they're fuses that can light larger political bonfires.

Meanwhile, discussions about Trump’s foreign-policy past and his Mayflower address — which some reports framed as nodding toward Russian strategic aims — provide context for why some observers take certain U.S. maneuvers this week so nervously. Olga Lautman revisits those older ties and suggests looking at them as part of a longer story, not just headlines.

Who agrees, who doesn’t, and where the noise is loudest

There are clear points of agreement and hot spots of argument. Most writers agree: the war’s costs are high, Russia is trying hard to keep economic and military lines open, and the diplomatic proposals floating this week should be read carefully. Beyond that, the tone splits.

• Agreement: sanctions impose real pain, but the system finds leaks. Energy revenue is down but not dead. The battles are costly and brutal. Families suffer.
• Disagreement: how to react to the U.S. peace pitch. Some say it’s appeasement; others see room for negotiation or pragmatic deals. The political calculus in Washington and capitals in Europe is contested.
• Loudest debate: the idea that the U.S. could trade off support for Ukraine in exchange for gains elsewhere (like Venezuela). That reads like realpolitik to some and betrayal to others.

In short, everyone sounds worried, but they disagree on which worry matters most.

Little curiosities and small details that stuck with me

A few items that didn’t need long treatment but kept coming back to haunt the headlines:

• The refined-product loop through India and Turkey. That felt like a secret sauce for sanction dodging. Strange and practical. See Tom Cooper for the numbers.
• The Yantar’s lasers. It’s dramatic and alarming. If you like spy-thrillers, that’s your nugget. David Cenciotti and Old Salt Blog both have takes.
• Families split by flags. You read it and you can’t unsee it. Tim Mak’s piece is small and heavy.
• The S‑400 delays to India, which read like a supply-chain soap opera, and the dandelion tank idea — both show how military business-as-usual is being strained.

A lot of these little details are like pebbles in a shoe. Each one is small but annoying, and together they make any long march uncomfortable.

If you want to go deeper

There are a handful of must-clicks if you want numbers and nuts-and-bolts: Tom Cooper for energy and technical notes; David Axe for tactical dispatches from the front; Olga Lautman for hybrid-warfare and influence discussions.

If you’re into geopolitics and consequence, read the pieces about the 28‑point peace plan and its fallout — Zev Shalev, Nick Cohen, and Mike "Mish" Shedlock each give slightly different spins. And if you like history with your geopolitics (a little mad monk with palace intrigue now and then), check out The Wise Wolf on Rasputin.

Also, there’s useful context on how religion and far-right networks get woven into statecraft. That thread sits at the crossroads of culture and policy, and it’s worth a close read — Olga Lautman teases that out.

Final notes — small talk you overhear in the background

There’s a bit of a mood I can’t shake. It’s like being in a small town where folks are always talking about the weather and the farm yield, but under the sentence about rain you feel the worry about money, about the boy who left, about the roof that needs fixing. The posts this week sound like that town square.

Russia is still exporting oil, still launching strategies, still fielding weapons and still causing ripples far beyond its borders. People keep arguing about the right lever to pull. Some want to tighten sanctions, others want to negotiate, and some want Europe to stop being polite and start acting. The result is a cluttered, vivid debate.

Read the full pieces if you want to follow the threads. There’s a lot more there — charts, citations, and the kind of on-the-ground detail that makes these big themes feel real. If you want the maps, the unit names, the ledger lines — go straight to the authors’ posts. They’ve done the digging and the counting. Me? I’ll keep listening to the square and watching how those squares are stitched together.