Russia: Weekly Summary (December 22-28, 2025)

The last week of December felt like a slow, noisy creek of headlines about Russia — bits of hard combat reporting, some tech and weapons pushes, a dash of cyber mischief, and a handful of political and human stories that tug at the edges. I would describe them as pieces of a puzzle that mostly show the same picture from slightly different angles. To me, it feels like watching an old car cough and stall, but then someone keeps fiddling with the engine and new sparks fly. Not all of it fits neatly. Some parts are grim. Some parts are almost petty. But together they sketch the rails of a story that’s moving fast into the new year.

Fighting and hardware: small things changing big fights

If you like battlefield detail, the week was loaded. The standouts are a string of posts painting the front in Ukraine as a place where small tech — drones, thermal optics, mines — keeps rewriting the rules.

David Axe (/a/david_axe@trenchart.us) pops up a lot. He writes like someone watching a football game and shouting from the stands. His pieces read as day-by-day snapshots: river crossings failing, bridges eaten by drones, battalions burnt, cavalry charges stopped by tiny flying machines. Two images stuck with me. One — a river north of Pokrovsk that has claimed at least 27 Russian armored vehicles — makes a weird kind of sense when you picture it: armor trying to ford a cold, angry stream while eyes in the sky mark every move. The other — a Russian attempt that included a cavalry charge — sounds almost surreal in 2025, until you remember that sometimes armies mix odd bits when the plan falls apart. I’d say the message here is blunt: the battlefield is messy and the cheap tech is brutal in effect.

Axe also traces improvisation on the other side. There’s the new DIY bridgelayer, nicknamed the “turtle tank.” It’s a crude answer to a practical problem. Kind of like slapping plywood over a mud puddle to get the lawnmower across. It may work sometimes, but it looks jury-rigged and risky. Then there’s the Russian marines welding shipping containers onto tanks, which David Axe reports didn’t help — the result was a whole battalion burning. It reads, frankly, like desperation meets bad engineering.

Meanwhile, David Cenciotti gives the military-aviation angle. Russia’s Su-57 fighter flew with a new Izdeliye 177 engine. That’s the kind of detail that intrigues people who like nuts and bolts. New engines mean longer life for a platform and possibly new export hopes. To me, it feels like a vendor polishing up a demo to get customers — a firm handshake and a shiny brochure. But Cenciotti’s other note — an Il-38N ASW aircraft reportedly destroyed in a Ukrainian drone strike — is the flip side. It’s a tangible hit to Russian anti-submarine capacity in the Black Sea. Put those details together and you see two threads: trying to modernize while sustaining losses.

The week’s close-combat narratives also carry a tone of attrition and adaptation. Russian forces grabbed Huliaipole and pushed in parts of the south, according to David Axe. That’s raw territory-taking. But the counterpoint is Ukraine’s use of underwater drones against Russian submarines, and an Il-38N loss at Yeysk. These moves read like a chess match where each side trades pieces and evolves strategy.

Drones, mines, and microtech keep popping up

The spread of drone stories is one of the clearest patterns. Tiny drones change risk math. They’re cheap. They can find a gap and exploit it. Ukraine used thermal drones, for instance, to spoil Russian armored columns. There’s a video-game feel to some of these operations. But the real feeling is closer to fishing with dynamite: one good hit upends a whole formation.

One post that hits this point hard is David Axe on Ukrainian troops repelling a Russian attack near Myrnohrad. He describes how drones and artillery undercut offensive waves. Another report — the destruction of a rare Il-38N — feels like a targeted sabotage of enablers that has ripple effects, like unplugging the sound system at a concert.

I would describe these shifts as a slow tilt toward asymmetric edges. The big, expensive platforms still matter. But the small stuff moves the needle.

Cyber and shadow operations: water utilities, power grids, and ships

Russia’s fingerprints — or at least the fingerprints attributed to Russian-linked groups — show up outside the battlefield. Denmark accused Russia of two cyberattacks, including an attack on a water utility and DDoS campaigns ahead of elections, reported on Schneier on Security (/a/schneieronsecurity@schneier.com). This is the familiar playbook: dark fingers in infrastructure, timed to pressure domestic audiences and political cycles.

There’s also a quieter, angrier kind of reporting that pairs extremist domestic threats and alleged Russian sabotage. Davi Ottenheimer (/a/davi_ottenheimer@flyingpenguin.com) collects a pattern of incidents and argues they might fit a longer line of unsolved attacks. He calls out the FBI and points fingers at groups and networks. That thread has a conspiratorial bend at times, so I’d nudge readers to click through and judge the evidence. But it’s the sort of thing that makes public safety people rub their temples.

Then there’s the maritime drama. John Helmer, via Naked Capitalism (/a/naked_capitalism), discusses a tanker attack in the Mediterranean and how the lines get fuzzy — was it Ukraine, a proxy, or someone else? That story suggests a new kind of hybrid war at sea, where plausible deniability and messy reporting create fog. It’s like finding a smashed window and arguing about which passing car threw the rock.

Politics, postures, and the larger move of alliances

Beyond bullets, there’s a political churn. Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared the end of Pax Americana in a post discussed by Naked Capitalism (/a/naked_capitalism). The headline here is political direction: Germany wants to spend more on defense and asserts a new posture. The post’s tone is skeptical. It complains that this rearmament could harm social welfare and might increase tensions rather than reduce them.

I’d say the key point isn't whether Germany spends more. The question is how it spends and what mission it signs up for. The piece argues that rearmament without a clear political strategy is like giving a neighbor a chainsaw and not telling them what to cut. It could backfire.

On the other hand, there are threads showing NATO's immediate readiness. NATO scrambled jets when Russian bombers brushed near Britain on Christmas Day — reported by Olga Lautman (/a/olga_lautman@olgalautman.substack.com). That one has a theatrical feel: holiday tension, harried controllers, jets launched into winter light. It’s a reminder that diplomatic talk and political posturing have an audible, visible sound in the sky.

Domestic fractures in Russia: shortages and social stress

Not everything is combat. There are domestic pains inside Russia. Tom Cooper (/a/tom_cooper@xxtomcooperxx.substack.com) points to fuel shortages and a rise in domestic abuse cases. That’s a quieter story but a telling one. Logistics and stress show up in the home as much as on the front. The image here is ordinary: when a heating system fails, tempers flare. The same for a wartime economy. These domestic notes matter because they’re the pressure points a long war creates.

And the story of Russell Bentley (Dean Blundell /a/dean_blundell@deanblundell.substack.com) — an American who joined pro-Russian forces and met a brutal end — reminds us about the human wreckage and the seductive narratives that drag people in. His tale reads like a cautionary parable about ideology turning into something rough and ugly. There’s no neat moral, but the personal cost is raw.

Human rights, media, and narratives

Multiple posts nudge readers to think about stories that go beyond troop movements. Zev Shalev (/a/zev_shalev@narativ.org) discusses a censored CBS segment on torture in El Salvador and other items where accountability seems to be slipping. There’s an undercurrent here about media, trust, and whose stories get aired.

And then there’s the small cultural note in Tom Cooper about the song 'Shchedryk'. He uses it to show historical ties to Ukrainian independence and resilience. It’s almost a palate cleanser in the set of combat reports. A reminder that culture keeps breathing even amid explosions. It’s the sort of tangent that pulls you out of the fear and shows why people keep fighting to protect those things.

Arctic, energy routes, and a new ‘ice curtain’

Minna Ålander (/a/minna__lander@minnalander.substack.com) writes about the Arctic turning from cooperative maps and shared research into a contested space. Since Russia’s invasion, cooperation frayed and strategic rivalry took root. The Northern Sea Route’s potential reconfiguration with warming seas turns the Arctic into a prize. The piece reads like a weather and map lesson that morphs into security planning: sea lanes, submarines, ports, and geopolitical chess.

The Arctic is a different theater. It’s cold and slow, but a big change there affects trade long-term. Think of it as someone rearranging the neighborhood roads — cars take new paths, and that changes who stops at which store.

Violence and the lawless edge

Some posts are shock pieces. The story of the Texan fighter Russell Bentley and the reporting on torture allegations highlight the savagery on the margins. These articles aren’t dry. They’re visceral, and they remind readers that the distant conflict has a human price.

Then there’s the allegation of Russian sabotage hitting U.S. infrastructure. Davi Ottenheimer (/a/davi_ottenheimer@flyingpenguin.com) ties a set of power blackouts and calls for investigation. It’s the kind of thread that nudges readers to think about vulnerability at home. It’s easier to imagine a broken pipeline than a cyberattack on a water utility, but both are close to everyday life once you think about them. I’d say these posts try to make that leap for you.

Who’s right about risk and who’s overstating it?

A theme across multiple posts is disagreement about cause and consequence. Naked Capitalism (/a/naked_capitalism) criticizes Merz and worries about rearmament leading to more conflict. Others, like those reporting NATO jet scrambles or Russian bomber incursions, treat the threat as present and immediate. Some writers emphasize tactical battlefield developments; others show strategic shifts.

What this means is obvious and also messy. If a lot of people see the same snapshot of a car crash, they’ll differ on whether it was caused by speed, weather, or the driver’s mistake. That’s what these posts show. They’re pointing at the crash and arguing about the cause.

Bits that feel like signals more than full stories

A few posts read like flashes that should make you sit up and check a watch. The alleged drone attack on the Qendil oil tanker in the Mediterranean (Naked Capitalism /a/naked_capitalism) and the Danish attributions of cyberattacks both feel like part of an expanding toolkit of statecraft. These incidents are where kinetic action, covert operations, and political messaging meet.

There’s an interesting back-and-forth about attribution. Sometimes governments point fingers quickly. Sometimes the picture stays fuzzy. The lesson here feels like: don’t be satisfied with one headline. Follow the detail to see how the story firms up or dissipates.

The tone of the week: grit with a side of showmanship

The reporting has a texture. Some pieces are tactical and granular, like an arms-room worker showing you the tools. Others are editorial and skeptical, waving flags about political consequences. A few are veering into human tragedy. The variety means readers will find what they’re looking for: technical readers get engine news and drone tactics; policy watchers get Merz and NATO; human-rights readers get stories on abuse.

I’d describe the overall mood as worn but alert. Like a small town after a storm, where people are sweeping up, checking the roof, wondering where the money will come from to repair things, and also keeping eyes on the horizon because another system cloud might be rolling in.

Where to look next (if you want to dig in)

If you like deep combat reads, click through David Axe’s timeline pieces. They’re granular and often have photographic or satellite tidbits. Aviation nuts should visit David Cenciotti for engine and aircraft loss details. For political economy and commentary, Naked Capitalism’s piece on Germany and Helmer’s take on the tanker incident are worth scanning. For cyber and infrastructure concerns, Schneier’s roundup is the sensible place to start, and Davi Ottenheimer’s pieces push harder on the investigative angle.

And the cultural thread — that note about "Shchedryk" — is an odd, human counterpoint. It’s the kind of small, human detail that makes a story linger.

If you’re skimming, here’s what tends to repeat across posts: drones matter, rivers and bridges matter, logistics and improvisation matter, and so does public messaging. There’s also a steady hum of hybrid and gray-zone operations — cyber, maritime incidents, and deniable attacks — that keep the conflict from being purely conventional.

One last thought that kept returning: adaptation is the week’s quiet headline. Both sides are improvising. Tanks get containers bolted on and sometimes burn. Armies weld together field solutions. Tiny drones pick off big targets. Political leaders shift posture and budgets. That’s how wars — and politics — run. Like a farmer adapting to a run of bad weather, people try a new fence, a new gate, a new crop. Sometimes it works; sometimes it burns.

If you want the full scenes, the close shots, and the occasional grim human detail, follow the authors. They each have an angle and sources. The short take is just the start — and the longer reads are waiting, if you want them. The week didn’t tidy anything up. It mostly showed the ways the story keeps growing more complicated, and that’s not a comforting thing to watch, but it’s worth following.