Russia: Weekly Summary (January 19-25, 2026)

This week’s blog pile about Russia felt like one of those neighborhood rumor boards you find pinned at the grocery store — only noisier, and with missiles. I would describe the set of posts as a sprawl: some pieces pick at cracks in armor, some follow footprints in the snow, some ask how much of what we see is theater, and some worry about the slow drip of capability running out. To me, it feels like a mixtape where half the songs are dissonant, but all of them keep repeating a few same notes.

On the northern edges: Alaska, Greenland, and the Arctic theater

There was a clear thread about the far north and how it’s becoming a stage for low-key, high-meaning moves. Natalia Antonova writes about what she calls “Russian mischief in Alaska.” The tone is local and sharp. She points to harassment of native communities and unregistered flights. It’s the kind of thing that, if it happened to your town, you’d be annoyed and nervous. I’d say the piece reads like someone knocking on your door to say, “Hey, don’t ignore this.”

A day later, Zev Shalev riffs on Trump’s old Greenland stunt — yes, that strange chapter in U.S. politics where a purchase-of-an-island was floated like a punchline but then stuck in people’s heads. Shalev frames it as an Arctic chessboard. He argues that moves like that, and the broader posture toward NATO, play into Russia’s hands. To me, it felt like watching a neighbor loudly bargain for a fence you both share, and the guy on the other side smirks because he knows the fence is leaning toward him.

There’s a historical flavor in both pieces. Natalia Antonova surfaces old questions about who “owns” Alaska in the public imagination. It’s not just legal ownership; it’s narratives and grudges. Zev Shalev reads Trump’s Greenland episode as strategic theater — actions that don’t change borders but change perceptions. If you’re curious about the small, persistent ways power gets exercised, these two posts point that out without using bombastic language. They feel like someone saying, quietly, ‘‘This matters. Keep an eye on the ice.’’

I’d describe the Arctic discourse this week as low-intensity but high-signal. It’s not a parade of tanks. It’s a lot of probes, flights, words, and the occasional petty harassment. Like a dog sniffing the fence—testing rather than biting. Still, testing becomes trouble if you ignore it. Both posts remind you that the Arctic isn’t a cold, empty place. It’s a living border.

On the battlefield: strikes, drones, and the problem of accuracy

If the Arctic chatter was like a long, quiet breeze, the Ukraine posts were gusts and thumps. This week brought several tight, tactical reports that together sketch a picture: lots of probing, many small attacks, and a big question about whether raw kit and grand names actually add up to real effect.

Start with a strange missile story. David Axe reports on the Jan. 8 Oreshnik strike against the Lviv aircraft repair plant. The headline — “Russia Fired Its Scariest Missile At Ukraine’s MiG-29 Plant. It Probably Missed.” — says it bluntly. The missile sounds impressive on paper. But the reporting makes the point that impressive war toys aren’t always precise. The Oreshnik seems expensive and clumsy. It looks built for area damage rather than picking off a single repair bay. It’s like bringing a sledgehammer to a jewelry repair shop; you’ll break the building, but not the problem you wanted to fix.

Then there’s a neat, low-tech victory described by David Axe about a planned Russian mechanized assault on Lyman. Ukrainian drone teams found camouflaged vehicles drawing tracks in the snow and took out 14 armored vehicles before the attack even started. The image is vivid: tracks in the snow giving away a secret. It read like a spy novel detail — the enemy betrays itself with footprints, and a cheap, clever drone serially picks off heavy metal. I’d say it feels like modern warfare at its most improvised: expensive armor undone by a cheap camera on wings. The lesson being repeated here is old but golden — reconnaissance matters, and silence (or secrecy) is hard to buy when your vehicles sing to the sky.

Two more of David Axe’s posts pushed that same drumbeat. One warns that Russian troops are probing everywhere for a way into Kostiantynivka. The language there is alert, even cautious. Probing doesn’t look like a headline-grabbing smash. It looks like people slipping forward, poking at fences, listening. The same week, another piece described how radio chatter gave away hidden tanks. Ukrainian drone units used intercepted communications to find armored vehicles sheltered underground. Again, it’s not a cinematic tank duel. It’s a battlefield of whispers and little betrayals.

The theater here is small and persistent. Imagine a chess game where one player keeps lifting pieces and peeking under the board. Each tiny discovery warns you that the opponent’s plan is fragile. These reports are full of that fragility.

But there’s a darker, more costly strand. Tom Cooper lays out a coordinated strike on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. He catalogues missiles and drones, the types used, the damage, and the humanitarian fallout. The tone is clinical but grim. The reach of the strike was broad, and the consequences for civilians are heavy. This is where the theater becomes a hammer, because hitting electricity and heating is a blunt way to pressure a population. Read Tom Cooper if you want the blow-by-blow; it’s the kind of post that makes you think logistics and civilians are front-line too.

One thing the week’s battlefield pieces agree on: tactics are changing, but cost and supply don't lie. Another David Axe post notes that Russia has replaced every armored vehicle it lost in Ukraine — but only by pulling from long-term storage. That sounds good until you read the fine print: those reserves are finite, and current loss rates outstrip production. It’s like digging used tires out of a barn to keep driving; it works for a while, but eventually you’re out of spares.

Put these posts together and you see a pattern. There’s pulse-quickening tech — drones, clever reconnaissance, intercepted chatter — that gives Ukraine asymmetric advantages. There’s also expensive kit, like advanced missiles, that are blunt and sometimes unreliable for surgical tasks. And then there’s logistics: armored fleets kept afloat by old reserves that won’t last forever. It’s a layered picture: tactical inventiveness plus structural strain.

On narratives, politics, and the tilt of alliances

This week’s political reading leaned hard into questions about who benefits when institutions wobble. Olga Lautman wrote a provocative piece: “If Someone Wanted to Destroy America, What Would They Do Differently?” She argues that Donald Trump’s presidency had effects that lined up with Russian strategic interests: undermining NATO, eroding norms, and normalizing authoritarian leanings. The piece reads like a list of how reputations are slowly worn down. It doesn't accuse with wild claims; instead, it maps a pattern of decisions and outcomes.

I’d say the argument hits a nerve because it treats soft power as real currency. You don’t just win wars with guns, the post says; you win by making others doubt their friendships and by confusing the scoreboard. The curious bit is the insistence that some American actions — whether accidental or deliberate — wind up helping a strategic rival without any overt treaty in place. It’s like watching someone leave the front door unlocked and then pretending surprise when the cat walks out.

Meanwhile, Hrvoje Morić summarized Nikola Mikovic’s take that the world remains under Western dominance, pushing back against loud claims of a smooth move to multipolarity. Mikovic sees the U.S. and its allies still calling most of the shots. He warns of a possible large war in Europe but believes that influence will tilt toward a mix of West and China in Central Asia, with technocracy rising.

These two pieces — Lautman’s political critique and the Mikovic summary — don’t line up neatly. One is tracking an erosion of norms and a political tilt that benefits Russia; the other insists the West is still the heavyweight. To me, it feels like watching two weather apps that use different models. One says cloudy with a chance of storm; the other says mostly sunny but bring a jacket. Both can be right at once. The week’s argument is that the global stage is contested both by narrative and by capability, and both matter.

There’s a recurring point here: politics is not just law and treaties. It’s habits, prestige, and the slow wearing away of trust. These posts made me think that Russia’s gains are sometimes less about new power and more about exploiting old cracks.

Technology, satellites, and cars that won’t start

Not everything was trench maps and geopolitics. There were two tech-leaning posts that felt oddly connected: Russia delaying its own “Starlink” satellite constellation, and Porsche cars in Russia refusing to start because of immobilizer issues.

Robert Zimmerman mixed a few things in his post. He criticizes big American space projects like SLS and Orion, takes shots at pandemic policies, and mentions that Russia delayed satellite launches. The thread about Russia’s delayed constellation is brief but interesting. Space constellations matter for communications in conflict zones. A delay there is a tactical thing — a hole in connectivity when you don’t want one.

Then there’s the small, domestic tech story from Denis Laskov about Porsches bricking in Russia last month. Car owners found their luxury vehicles refusing to start, and the culprit seemed to be the internal immobilizer system called VTS. There’s a deliciously messy combination of theories in that post: sanctions, network hiccups, and possible targeted cyberattacks. What’s classic is how fast the hacker community responded: within days, workarounds showed up, and older models were vulnerable. Newer models (2020–2026) seemed to dodge the problem — for now.

These two posts talk about different things — one about satellites, one about cars — but both point at a single idea: modern systems are fragile in strange ways. A satellite delay is a strategic vulnerability; a dodgy immobilizer is a personal, everyday vulnerability. Both can be exploited if someone wants to be mean or opportunistic. It’s like buying a nice house and discovering the front lock is a cheap one. You can get in with a butter knife.

The Porsche story also reminded me of how quickly informal tech communities can repair or patch things. It’s a small hopeful note: people get clever when systems break. But it’s also a warning. If a luxury car’s immobilizer is cracked in days, imagine how fast determined groups can work on more consequential systems.

Recurring themes and the week’s common beats

Reading across the set, several themes kept popping up. I’ll keep this simple and plain, like a checklist you’d leave on a fridge door.

• Probing and testing: From Alaska flights to Russian recon toward Kostiantynivka, there’s a lot of slow, searching testing going on. It’s not always dramatic, but it builds knowledge.
• Asymmetric tools matter: Drones, intercepts, and small teams keep showing up as force multipliers. Cheap sensors, clever operators — they’re turning the balance in ways the old rulebooks didn’t fully account for.
• Theater versus capability: Big weapon names and headline missiles often clash with the messy reality of accuracy, cost, and logistics. High-profile weapons can be more bark than bite for certain tasks.
• Logistics versus image: A fleet sustained by mothballed stocks looks fine until those stocks run dry. Replacements from storage buy time but not forever.
• Civilian pain as strategy: Hitting power grids is a blunt but effective pressure tactic. The human cost shows up fast, and it complicates military aims.
• Fragility of systems: From satellites to cars, modern tech is powerful yet vulnerable. Delays and hacks have ripple effects.

I’d say these are not new ideas exactly. What’s interesting is how many people, in different corners, are noticing the same patterns in their own register. Some write like detectives, others like local columnists, and some like analysts with spreadsheets. They all point to the same basic friction: what looks solid often hides weak seams.

Where writers agree, and where they don’t

Agreement was easy to find on small things: drones are important; logistics are a worry for Russia; energy hits hurt civilians. David Axe is steady on tactics. He keeps showing practical vignettes of what’s happening in the field. Tom Cooper steps back and catalogs the damage on infrastructure, making the human stakes clear. Denis Laskov gives the cyber angle that makes you nod — tech matters outside the battlefield.

Disagreement shows up more in the big-picture pieces. Olga Lautman takes a political view that some American actions have helped Russian aims. She’s interpretive and pointed. On the other hand, Hrvoje Morić relays a view that Western dominance still holds, pushing back on loud claims of a multipolar shift. Both can be true in a way: power is messy, and influence looks different at different scales. One might say the two are talking about different distances. Olga is looking at soft power and trust up close; Hrvoje/Nikola Mikovic look at hard structures and long odds.

There’s also a kind of stylistic disagreement. Some posts are tight, focused reports — they read like files or briefings. Others are polemical or speculative. If you want pure battlefield detail, go to David Axe and Tom Cooper. If you want takes on politics and narrative, go to Olga Lautman and Hrvoje Morić.

Little tangents, small repeats, and a cultural wink

You’ll see me repeat a thought here: small things add up. Sounds obvious, but it’s worth that little echo. Think of it like cooking. A bad broth isn’t ruined by one peppercorn; it’s the slow leak of flavor. Probing flights, intercepted radio, a delayed satellite, and an immobilizer exploit — each is a tiny thing. Together they make a taste.

One week’s reading reminded me of a line my aunt used when the potatoes were overcooked: "Well, we’re still eating it." The analogy is crude but useful. Nations keep fighting, adapting, and patching. They make do. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, sometimes they just limp along.

Another small cultural image: the neighborhood party where half the guests keep checking the back door. That’s the Arctic scene. Everybody’s polite, most of the time. But people keep looking out. Why? Because you don’t want to be surprised when the music goes off.

Where to go next if you want the details

If you like map-level, tactical slices of war — the who-shot-what and how-it-failed — David Axe is the place to go. He’s the one pulling at the threads that reveal how small teams and drones are changing things. For the infrastructure consequences and the human side of strikes, Tom Cooper spells out the operational effects in a way that’s grim but precise.

For politics and narrative, Olga Lautman pushes you to think about how domestic politics and rhetoric hydrate foreign strategies. If you want a skeptical read on the size of that shift, Hrvoje Morić offers the counterweight.

If you’re interested in the oddball, everyday vulnerabilities that reveal larger issues — cars that won’t start, satellite delays — check out Denis Laskov and Robert Zimmerman. They don’t all fit neatly into the military frame, but they matter. They show how systems fail in ways you might not notice until they do.

The week’s posts don’t hand you a single tidy thesis. They hand you little evidence piles. Like pebbles on a windowsill, each is small, but together they weight the sill and make you worry about the glass. I’d say the common mood is watchful, a bit weary, and curious. People are tracking footsteps, testing locks, and counting spare tires.

If you want the blow-by-blow, the deeper charts, or the cross-checks, the writers linked here are where those details live. They’re the ones who did the reading, the listening, the counting. They give you the maps and the footprints. If you’re a reader who likes a single tidy answer, you may be left wanting. But if you like the way small clues pile up into something plausible, there’s a lot to keep you reading.

A last little note — and then I’ll let it sit like a kettle on low heat: these posts, taken together, feel like watching a long game of cat and mouse. The players keep poking. The players keep patching. The interesting part is that the pokes are getting smarter and cheaper, and the patches are getting old. Keep an eye on who’s counting spare parts and who’s counting stories. They both matter.