Russia: Weekly Summary (December 15-21, 2025)

I’d say this week felt like watching one of those neighborhood scuffles where the kids keep bringing new toys. The toys here are drones — underwater and in the sky — and they're changing the fight in ways that look small at first, and then suddenly they’re the whole story. Read the original write‑ups if you want the gritty maps and dates. I’ll try to walk you through the moods and the patterns I noticed. I would describe them as a mix of mechanical ingenuity, blunt geopolitics, and a lot of puffed‑up rhetoric that doesn’t always match what the battlefield shows.

Drones under the waves — the little things that make big holes

Several posts this week circle back to one idea: unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) have gone from curiosity to real weapon. The clearest thread is in the cluster of pieces by David Axe, plus a clear take from Olga Lautman. They describe an attack on a Russian Kilo‑class submarine off Novorossiysk. At first it sounds like a film pitch — a remote sub loaded with explosives and sent like a fast mailboat. Then the satellite images and the chain‑line photos make it feel real. One post says the sub “can’t move under its own power.” Another says it’s probably damaged by a shock wave.

To me, it feels like someone taking a truck’s starter and smashing it with a hammer. You don’t need to blow the whole engine to make the truck useless. That’s the point being made in these write‑ups. The underwater drones are not trying to sink entire fleets in one shot. They try to strip operational capability. They make Russian naval assets parked and silent. One of David Axe’s posts traces the aftermath across several days. Three days later, the submarine still hadn’t moved. Same scene. Same silence. That repetition matters. It signals damage, or at least the fear of it.

Olga Lautman frames the strikes as part of a broader campaign to reduce Russia’s ability to launch missiles from the Black Sea. Her piece has that blunt point: if you dull the sea fleet, you cut Moscow’s reach. It’s simple, almost obvious when you read it, but the reporting makes you see how fragile the fleet has become.

There’s also a tech and industry angle. One short piece names Ukrainian firms like Ammo Ukraine and Brave1, which is a neat detail. I’d say that’s the small‑business side of war: scrappy teams building things that large navies didn’t take seriously until they got hit. It’s a little like a start‑up making a gadget that upends a big appliance. You don’t expect it, but it works.

If you want the blow‑by‑blow, David Axe has several posts back‑to‑back on this. The repetition of his updates — first the event, then photos, then the days after — actually helps. It reads like someone watching a bruise go purple. Read his threads if you want to follow the satellite images and the pulse of Russian media reactions.

Sky drones — striking aircraft and airfields

I’d say the air domain had its own mini‑revolution here. Long‑range Ukrainian drones are not just flitting over fields. They are reported to have hit Belbek air base in Crimea and taken out at least one MiG‑31 and multiple Su‑27 fighters. David Axe again is the main teller of that part of the story. The line in his pieces that struck me most: drones are “scraping” Russian air power off Crimea. That’s a vivid verb. Scraping isn’t dramatic. It’s workmanlike. It’s like sandpaper on a tabletop. The meaning is clear: gradual but effective attrition.

There’s a practical point to this. Air defense is expensive and layered. If drones start cracking runways, fuel stores, and a few expensive interceptors, you force Russia to move planes, fix them, or stop flying certain missions. That’s not always immediately obvious in headlines. But those who follow these reports see a steady erosion.

There’s also an odd, small human image that keeps returning. Imagine a delivery van with two flat tires. It might still move, but slowly, and it can’t make its route on time. That image popped into my head reading about Crimea. A crippled airbase is a delayed — or canceled — attack plan somewhere else.

Ground fighting — attrition, local gains, and the messy middle

The week wasn’t only about drones. There are sober battlefield updates from Tom Cooper and more focused tactical reporting from David Axe. Cooper’s entries on the southern front — places like Kostiantynivka, Pokrovsk, Novopavlivka — read like someone tracing a line of small sharp pushes and pulls. He notes Ukrainian supply problems and threats of encirclement. That’s the quieter, harder part of war. Logistics. Mud. Waiting.

Then there’s the sharper claim: Ukrainian forces are reportedly shredding a Russian division near Pokrovsk. David Axe provides casualty figures and operational detail about the 76th Guard Air Assault Division. The numbers are grisly and specific. Over 1,400 killed or wounded is a heavy hit. The image you get here is not of a single triumphant breakthrough, but a grinding dismantling of a formation called in as a reserve. The metaphor that kept recurring for me was of a factory line being taken apart bolt by bolt. You don’t hear a bang. You hear a lot of clinking and the steady removal of parts.

There are disagreements in tone across pieces. Cooper’s view can feel cautious. He points to supply strains and tactical hazards. Axe is more decisive: he names units, drones, losses. Those two tones together tell you something. One is the long view; the other is the pulse‑from‑the‑trench. Read both if you like contrast. The truth probably sits somewhere in the middle.

Small probes, big effects — the hybrid nature of the current fight

Across the posts there’s a recurring pattern. Small, precise tools. Drones. Legal measures. Targeted sanctions. Media narratives. The war looks less like two armies in a field and more like a whole toolbox of pressure points. It’s mosaic warfare. That’s the phrase that kept nudging me.

Take the example of Russian truck convoys that get spotted by Ukrainian drones. One of David Axe’s notes describes 16 vehicles rolling toward Dobropillya and being seen from above. None reached the target. To me, that’s like a group of kids trying to sneak past a neighborhood watch. One neighbor sees them and suddenly it’s over. Attention and cheap sensors can stop a lot.

It’s the same at sea and in the air. Small strikes make big headaches. The image of a fleet that can’t launch missiles because a few subs are out of action is almost absurd in its simplicity. But that’s what the reports say. The collective effect of small hits is to degrade whole mission sets. That’s a familiar pattern to anyone who’s fixed a leaky roof — one small hole, if you ignore it, ruins the whole upstairs.

Sanctions, assets, and the politics of finance

The battlefield news sits beside a competing set of stories about money and law. Craig Kennedy has a detailed piece on sanctions aiming to cut Russian oil revenues — big numbers, like 1.6 to 2.8 million barrels per day by 2026. The claim is stark: hit the buyers and shippers, and you force Russia to reduce production or sell at steep discounts. That’s a hammer to the wallet.

But the political discussion around immobilizing Russian assets in the EU is less straightforward. Naked Capitalism and Nick Cohen both argue the EU’s move to freeze seized Russian assets is not just about helping Ukraine. They point to power politics, reputational risks, and internal EU debates. One striking critique is that the policy might backfire, hurting the EU’s financial standing more than Russia’s. That’s a serious claim. It reads like someone warning you not to throw away your umbrella because you’re worried about a drip — maybe the umbrella keeps you dry longer than you think.

There’s a subtle tension here. On one hand, sanctions and asset freezes are a way to choke war finance. On the other, they reveal the EU’s own fragility and choices. You get a sense that European capitals are scared of being dragged into wider economic consequences, or of losing leverage. The reporting suggests motives are mixed. I’d say it feels like watching neighbors argue over who’ll take the trash out while a storm is coming.

The political theatre — mediation, posturing, and blunt refusals

Politics keeps stepping into the middle. A debate captured by Tim Mak shows two different takes on whether the U.S. (under a Trump administration) could be a viable mediator. Tim’s interlocutor is more skeptical. The two are honest about the problem: U.S. politics, European energy dependence, and the trust deficit all make mediation tricky. The debate reads less like a solution and more like a map of constraints.

Then you have an immediate response from Moscow. Tim Mak also reports that Putin rejected Trump’s peace process, saying Russia would only end hostilities if Ukraine surrendered certain territory. That’s blunt. It’s the kind of answer that makes mediation look like a very long conversation at a bad family dinner where no‑one budges.

There’s a human detail that matters here. Negotiations are not just about lines on a map. They’re also about reputations and leverage. When one side publicly refuses offers, it shifts the bargaining. The posts suggest Putin is not in a hurry to make concessions. That stands in tension with the Russian military troubles described elsewhere. Strategy and politics are sometimes mismatched. That gap is worth watching.

Russia’s reach — Africa, influence operations, and competence

One neat, smaller thread comes from Political Economist. He takes a skeptical view of claims about Russia’s influence in Africa, focusing on South Africa. The post argues that Russian recruitment of South Africans as mercenaries looks amateurish. The image is of a poorly run agency trying to hire neighborhood help with a bad ad. That’s punchy, and it matters because it pokes holes in the myth of a seamless Russian global influence machine.

I’d say this is a reminder that grand narratives often mask messy realities. Russia projects a certain image. On the ground, operations can be clumsy. That doesn’t mean they’re harmless. It just means you should be cautious when reading glossy takes about omnipotence.

Recurring themes and where the writers agree — and disagree

There are a few patterns that pop up across these pieces.

• Drones matter. Again and again, both underwater and aerial unmanned systems show up as game changers. The writers agree on this, even if they disagree on the scale of the impact.

• Russia’s operational posture looks degraded. Multiple posts say the fleet can’t operate like before, airbases are damaged, and divisions are being hit hard. The signal is consistent across the tactical pieces.

• Economic measures are now a frontline. Sanctions, asset freezes, and oil restrictions are presented as powerful levers. But the political use of those levers is messy. The opinions diverge: some see them as essential; others see them as performative or self‑harmful for Europe.

• Politics complicates everything. Debates about mediation, about Trump’s role, about the EU’s motives — they show that military reality and political choice do not always align.

Where the writers split is mostly about emphasis and tone. Tom Cooper tends to take a steadier, cautionary tone about the frontlines and logistics. David Axe is punchier and quicker to name kills and losses. Craig Kennedy digs into macroeconomic modeling. Naked Capitalism and Nick Cohen push the political and ethical debate about Europe’s response. Those differences give you a mix of map scales: tactical, operational, strategic, and political.

A few small tangents — things that felt like aside but matter

• The repeated mention of chains and heavy lines securing the damaged submarine felt oddly domestic. I pictured an old boat tied to the pier with thick rope after a storm. It’s a small image. But it made the whole drama feel less cinematic and more like a backyard repair job.

• The debate about the EU freezing assets kept bringing to mind small market rules. If you change the rules in the middle of the game, people get nervous. Banks and investors notice. That’s why some authors warn about reputational costs. It’s not a comfortable argument to make if you want to punish Moscow, but it’s worth hearing.

• The recruitment stories from South Africa were almost a side show. But they matter because they expose how narratives of power and influence are marketed. If you expect a sleek intelligence arm recruiting with a glossy brochure, then seeing a messy, improvised effort is surprising.

What to read first if you want detail

If you want the tactical, battlefield play, skim David Axe. He threads quick, specific accounts on drones, aircraft, and units. If you want a measured overview of the southern front and logistics, Tom Cooper lays out places and supply questions. For sanctions and macro effects, Craig Kennedy gives the numbers that make you sit up. For the political debate, read Tim Mak and the pieces about EU asset policy by Naked Capitalism and Nick Cohen. And if you want a sharp, personal note on how Russia’s image plays abroad, the Political Economist piece is compact and pointed.

There’s more nuance in the originals. I’m only hinting at the scenes and the vibes. If you like maps and cold detail, those posts will give you the coordinates and time stamps.

The mood — brittle, inventive, and politically noisy

The mood that stitched these posts together is a kind of brittle inventiveness. Ukraine’s small firms and military engineers keep coming up. They build fast devices that force big shifts. That’s both exciting and worrying. Exciting, because innovation can change math on a battlefield. Worrying, because a new tool changes politics faster than institutions can adjust.

There’s also a feeling of noise. Big political gestures happen. They echo. Some of them are theater. Some of them matter. The EU’s asset moves and the Trump/Putin exchanges read like a soap with geopolitics as a backdrop. But amid the noise, the drones keep working. They keep chipping away.

Be warned: the reporting this week leans toward snapshots. There are bold claims and cautionary notes. The best advice is to read more than one take. Compare the satellite photos with the casualty estimates. Note the timelines. That’s where the fuller picture appears.

If you want to go follow the thread, the authors linked above take you there. They each bring a different lens. You’ll see the same events from a few angles. Sometimes the angles contradict. Sometimes they reinforce each other. That’s normal. It’s the part of reading blogs that’s useful — and fun, in the way a good mystery is fun.

Anyway, the short version is this: drones — under water and in the air — are making Russians adjust. Ground fighting remains costly and messy. Sanctions and asset politics are pressing on Moscow’s income streams, but Europe trips over its own politics a bit. And the political conversations — about mediation, about influence — keep getting louder even as the battlefield changes in quiet, mechanical ways.

If you want a deeper drill, go click the links. The pieces are short enough to scan, and they have the pictures. That’s where the proof lives, or at least the evidence that makes the story stick. The blog authors do what they do: maps, numbers, photos, takes. Read a few. Compare them. Then you’ll have your own sense of whether this week was a turning point, a steady grind, or just another noisy set of episodes in a long war.