Category: Full Text Articles – Audio Posts

F5 Labs researchers released a PoC tool to find servers vulnerable to the Apache Parquet vulnerability CVE-2025-30065.

A working proof-of-concept exploit for the critical Apache Parquet vulnerability CVE-2025-30065 has been released by F5 Labs, allowing the identification of vulnerable servers.

The tool, called “canary exploit,” is available on the security firm’s GitHub repository. 

Apache Parquet’s Java Library is a software library for reading and writing Parquet files in the Java programming language. Parquet is a columnar storage file format that is optimized for use with large-scale data processing frameworks, such as Apache Hadoop, Apache Spark, and Apache Drill.

In April 2025, experts disclosed a critical vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-30065 (CVSS score of 10.0), impacting Apache Parquet’s Java Library that could allow remote code execution

“Schema parsing in the parquet-avro module of Apache Parquet 1.15.0 and previous versions allows bad actors to execute arbitrary code” reads the advisory.

The vulnerability CVE-2025-30065 is a Deserialization of Untrusted Data issue. The flaw affects systems importing Parquet files, especially from untrusted sources, and can be exploited by attackers tampering with the files. Versions 1.15.0 and earlier are vulnerable, with the flaw traced back to version 1.8.0. This impacts big-data frameworks (e.g., Hadoop, Spark, Flink) and custom applications using Parquet. Users should verify their software stack for this issue.

“If an attacker tricks a vulnerable system into reading a specially crafted Parquet file, they could gain remote code execution (RCE) on that system​.” reads a report published by Endor Labs. “In practice, this might allow them to:

• Take control of the system: They could run any commands or software, effectively gaining control​.
• Steal or tamper with data: Sensitive information could be accessed, copied, or modified.
• Install malware: The attacker might deploy ransomware, cryptominers, or other malicious software.
• Disrupt services: They could shut down services or corrupt data, causing denial of service and business downtime.

“All confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected system are at risk (in CVSS terms, “High” impact on all three)​. Despite the frightening potential, it’s important to note that the vulnerability can only be exploited if a malicious Parquet file is imported.”

According to Endor Labs, as of April 2025, there are no known active exploits for this vulnerability. However, with the issue now public, threat actors may attempt to exploit it. The researchers urge users to address the issue immediately.

To protect your systems from CVE-2025-30065, upgrade Apache Parquet Java to version 1.15.1 or later. If that’s not possible, avoid or validate Parquet files from untrusted sources and implement input validation. Enable monitoring and logging to detect suspicious behavior, and stay informed on updates from Apache or cybersecurity authorities. Applying these actions will reduce risks and protect your systems.

F5 Labs found that while CVE-2025-30065 isn’t a full RCE, it can trigger harmful side effects like network requests from a vulnerable server. The experts still believe that real-world exploitation of the flaw is difficult.

“F5 Labs has created a tool that generates a parquet/avro file that will trigger object instantiation of a class that comes with Java (javax.swing.JEditorKit).¹ Instantiating javax.swing.JEditorKit with a single String argument has the side effect of treating the String as a URL and making an HTTP GET request.” reads the report published by F5 Labs. “By registering a canary URL and using that as the target URL, our tool allows for easy testing of the vulnerability, as well as assurance it has been fixed by applying patches and proper configuration.”

F5 Labs created the tool to help developers and security teams quickly assess if their systems are affected by critical flaws, reducing response time, especially in complex environments with hidden dependencies.

“Various exploitation scenarios for this CVE are possible, but all require that a malicious Parquet/Avro file be placed into an environment which will use the Apache Parquet Avro module to parse it. If you use Apache Parquet Java to parse Parquet files that include embedded Avro, then you should investigate patching.” concludes the report. “Nevertheless, this is somewhat of a high bar for attackers. While Parquet and Avro are used widely, this issue requires a specific set of circumstances that isn’t all that likely in general. Even then, this CVE only allows attackers to trigger the instantiation of a Java object which then must have a side effect that is useful for the attacker. As noted above, this also seems somewhat unlikely to us.”

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Apache Parquet)

Editor’s Note: This story contains discussions of child abuse that may be disturbing. Reader discretion is advised. If you suspect a child is being abused, find out how to report it in your state here. To connect with a counselor, you can call the National Child Abuse Hotline at 1-800-422-4253.

(NewsNation) — The FBI and the Department of Justice announced on Wednesday the arrest of 205 alleged child sex predators in “Operation Restore Justice.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel announced the success in cracking down on child sexual abuse.

Bondi warned parents to be watchful of the sites their children use online, where predators may pose as other children to lure in victims.

“(It goes) from instant message to instant nightmare,” she said.

The operation is described as a coordinated effort across 55 FBI field offices to identify, track and arrest suspected sexual predators.

In one week, authorities arrested 205 people in cases involving 115 victims.

Patel highlighted three cases, including a Minnesota state trooper who is accused of producing child sexual abuse material while in uniform, a person who is in the U.S. without authorization accused of transporting a victim across state lines and a previously convicted sex offender who was arrested for allegedly violating her supervised release.

Bondi and Patel did not take questions.

VATICAN CITY (NewsNation) — Cardinals secluded behind the walls of the Vatican sent up black smoke on Wednesday, signaling a pope had not yet been elected.

Wednesday marked the start of a conclave to elect the 267th pope.

A Vatican official called out “extra omnes,” and the door to the Sistine Chapel shut just before 11 a.m. CT. The Latin expression means “all out” and signals all those who aren’t eligible to vote for a new pope to leave the Sistine Chapel.

The order, delivered Wednesday by Archbishop Diego Ravelli, allows the beginning of voting to elect the next pontiff to follow Pope Francis.

A group of 133 cardinals from 70 countries are locked inside the Sistine Chapel, where they will vote in secret, a process designed to be contemplative and free from outside communication. Cellphones are surrendered, and airwaves around the Vatican are jammed to prevent any communication with the outside world until a new leader is chosen for the 1.4 billion-member Roman Catholic Church.

Two by two, the cardinals entered the Sistine Chapel chanting the meditative “Litany of the Saints” as Swiss Guards stood at attention. The hymn implores the saints to help the cardinals find a new leader of the 1.4 billion-strong Catholic Church. They bowed before the altar and took their places before taking an oath of secrecy and shutting the Sistine Chapel doors to start the conclave.

Though the cardinals aren’t required to vote on the first day, they typically do. If no pope is elected in the initial round, the Vatican said black smoke would rise from the Sistine Chapel chimney at around 7 p.m. local time.

The cardinals will then retire for the night and resume voting Thursday morning. They can hold up to two ballots in the morning and two in the afternoon until one candidate receives the required two-thirds majority.

Cardinals urged to elect new pope who seeks unity

The cardinals began the centuries-old ritual to select a successor to Pope Francis, who died last month at the age of 88, by celebrating a morning Mass.

During the Mass, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, dean of the College of Cardinals, urged his peers to elect a pope who values unity and can set aside “every personal consideration,” The Associated Press reported. He said the world today needs a leader who can awaken consciences.

Challenges facing a new pope

The next pontiff will face several challenges, including continuing Francis’ progressive legacy or pivoting toward a path to unify a church that became more polarized during his pontificate.

One of the key topics raised Monday was the “strong concern” over divisions within the church, a Vatican spokesperson told Reuters. This may refer to contentious issues such as Pope Francis’ decision to permit blessings for same-sex couples and to initiate discussions about the role of women in the church.

The clergy sex abuse scandal has also hung over preconclave discussions.

How long can the conclave take?

Some cardinals have expressed it’s in their best interest for the process to move as swiftly as possible.

For the past century, finding a pope has taken between three and eight ballots. John Paul I, who reigned for 33 days in 1978, was elected on the third ballot. His successor, John Paul II, needed eight.

Francis’ conclave was notably quick, lasting around 24 hours; he was elected on the fifth in 2013.

Pope Benedict’s conclave in 2005 took two days. Since 1900, the longest conclave has lasted five days, providing some context for what onlookers might expect in the coming days.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The White House unveiled a barebones budget blueprint last week that would pump more of the federal budget into the Pentagon while taking a chainsaw to education, foreign aid, health care and public assistance programs.

While some analysts claim that the outline, also known as a “skinny budget,” represents a modest cut to Pentagon spending, that fails to take into account the White House’s call for $119 billion in defense spending to be included in a reconciliation bill currently being debated in Congress. With that added to the base budget proposal, which keeps the Pentagon budget at roughly the same $893 billion level as last year, total defense spending would increase by 13 percent to $1 trillion.

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a personal adviser to the president, claimed that he would cut costs at the Pentagon with his minions at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

Instead, experts say that, if approved, Donald Trump’s bloated Pentagon budget will almost certainly benefit Musk and his company SpaceX with huge new projects.

The first is a missile shield, dubbed the Golden Dome, which is reminiscent of the Reagan-era “Star Wars” missile-defense boondoggle. Trump’s budget plan also calls for an undisclosed flood of funding for “U.S. space dominance to strengthen U.S. national security.” 

“No matter how you slice it, the Pentagon budget is obscenely high at a time when the fundamentals of our diplomatic infrastructure are being decimated, the social safety net is being shredded, and medical and scientific research are under attack,” William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told The Intercept. “Add to this that the funds for the Pentagon have as much to do with pork barrel politics and techno-fantasies like the Golden Dome as they do with a sound defense strategy, and it becomes clear that current resources going to the Pentagon are not only excessive but are more likely to undermine than promote our security.”

“Current resources going to the Pentagon are not only excessive but are more likely to undermine than promote our security.”

Trump’s Golden Dome appears to be little more than a warmed-over version of the 1980s Strategic Defense Initiative, a fanciful project that hoped to shoot down Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, retitled with a name swiped from Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile defense. Its ultimate price tag is estimated in the hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars.

Musk’s SpaceX has emerged as a front-runner to win crucial parts of the Golden Dome project, which aims to build a network of satellites to detect and track missiles streaking toward the United States. SpaceX not only manufactures rockets that can launch military payloads into space, but also satellites that can provide surveillance and targeting technology. The firm is already the top Pentagon supplier of launch services and low-Earth-orbit communications systems. 

Unlike Israel’s Iron Dome, which defends that tiny country against short-range threats, America’s Golden Dome would need to cover a much larger area against a more challenging range of weapons, including ICBMs and hypersonic missiles. Even if blanketing the United States with these defenses were economically feasible, the technology isn’t.

“The Golden Dome is basically a fantasy,” said Gabe Murphy, a policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog advocating for an end to wasteful spending. Israel’s system needs to defend just 8,500 square miles, while the U.S. system needs to cover 3.8 million. “Physicists say that this technology to defend against ICBMs and hypersonic missiles doesn’t exist. Funneling tens, perhaps hundreds, of billions of dollars into technology with only a faint hope of success is extremely wasteful.”

SpaceX has proposed providing its Golden Dome technology to the Defense Department through a “subscription service,” according to reporting by Reuters. Pentagon officials and experts have expressed concerns about this unusual model for a critical defense program, which runs the risk of leading to cost overruns and a lack of oversight and control over the program.

“Building 600 to 1,200 satellites doesn’t mean you can actually defend the United States against ICBMs and hypersonic missiles.”

“With his subscription model plan, Musk is looking to both retain control of these systems and keep taxpayer dollars flowing his way,” said Murphy. “But just like a blue check mark doesn’t make you famous, building 600 to 1,200 satellites doesn’t mean you can actually defend the United States against ICBMs and hypersonic missiles.”

A group of 42 Democratic lawmakers has already called for a review by the Pentagon’s acting inspector general of Musk’s role in the bidding process for the missile defense shield.

“Mr. Musk, in addition to his role at SpaceX, is a Special Government Employee (SGE), Senior Advisor to President Trump, and a key official at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE),” the lawmakers wrote. “Mr. Musk’s formal or informal participation in any process to award a government contract raises serious conflict of interest concerns, including the possibility that SpaceX is a top contender for the Golden Dome contract because of Mr. Musk’s position in the government.” If the inspector general launches an inquiry and finds Musk provided an advantage to SpaceX in the bidding process, the lawmakers requested the findings be referred to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation.

SpaceX broke into major defense contracting through the courts. In 2014, the company sued the Air Force after it awarded a sole-source contract for rocket launches to a Boeing–Lockheed Martin joint venture called United Launch Alliance, arguing that opening the contract up to competition could save the government hundreds of millions of dollars per launch. SpaceX prevailed, and now has, according to many observers, a near-monopoly on the U.S. satellite launch market.

SpaceX’s chief operating officer Gwynne Shotwell said the company has about $22 billion in government contracts, mostly from NASA. But SpaceX’s deals with the Pentagon have ballooned — totaling almost $8 billion — as it has provided an increasing number of services to the Defense Department. 

NASA is slated for a budget cut under Trump’s plan, but SpaceX is still likely to win big. Trump’s budget blueprint takes aim at the old guard of the military–industrial complex, including the rivals SpaceX displaced to gain its foothold at the Pentagon. Trump is calling for NASA to end funding for the Space Launch System, a massive Boeing and Northrop Grumman rocket, and Lockheed Martin’s Orion astronaut capsule, which was to be employed to take the U.S. back to the moon.

SpaceX recently won an $843 million contract to “de-orbit” the International Space Station when it is retired in 2030. Musk urged Trump to speed up its demise and focus on his own pet project, posting on his own website, X.com: “Let’s go to Mars.” 

To that end, Trump’s cancellation of key parts of NASA’s lunar program allows for a Mars-focused agenda. His budget blueprint also calls for $1 billion in new spending to specifically focus on a mission to the red planet.

Colonizing Mars has long been one of Musk’s leading obsessions. Cutting the United States out of the equation and violating international law appears to be part of his plan. The terms of service agreement for SpaceX’s Starlink internet service offers up a Wild West vision for that planet:

“For Services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship or other spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities. Accordingly, Disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement.”

SpaceX is already taking aim at Mars with its heavy-lift Starship rocket, and Musk is publicly calling for “direct, rather than representative, democracy” on the planet. “The Martians will decide how they are ruled,” he wrote on X late last year. But the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, under which the United Nations declared a set of principles for space, unequivocally states that outer space is “the province of all mankind” and subject to international law.

“This is an unelected billionaire who is taking a sledgehammer to essential programs for diplomacy and basic support for Americans in need.”

Trump’s indulgence of Musk’s Martian fantasies with U.S. tax dollars, Musk’s billions in contracts with NASA and the Pentagon, and the additional billions his company stands to reap from Trump’s fantastical Golden Dome project all raise profound pay-to-play issues.

These new contracts and budget priorities are “all coming to a man who spent close to $290 million getting Trump and other Republicans elected. This is an unelected billionaire who is taking a sledgehammer to essential programs for diplomacy and basic support for Americans in need,” Hartung told The Intercept. “The conflict of interest is jaw-dropping, and his power — and how he is wielding it — is obscene.”

The post Elon Musk Set to Win Big With Trump’s Trillion-Dollar Pentagon Budget appeared first on The Intercept.

CISA, FBI, EPA, and DoE warn of cyberattacks on the U.S. Energy sector carried out by unsophisticated cyber actors targeting ICS/SCADA systems.

The US cybersecurity agency CISA, the FBI, EPA, and the DoE issued a joint alert to warn of cyberattacks targeting US-based organizations in the oil and natural gas sector.

Unsophisticated threat actors are targeting ICS/SCADA systems in U.S. energy and transport sectors, exploiting poor cyber hygiene to cause major disruptions.

The researchers observed that attackers are using “basic and elementary intrusion techniques.”

“CISA is increasingly aware of unsophisticated cyber actor(s) targeting ICS/SCADA systems within U.S. critical Infrastructure sectors (Oil and Natural Gas), specifically in Energy and Transportation Systems.” reads the alert. “Although these activities often include basic and elementary intrusion techniques, the presence of poor cyber hygiene and exposed assets can escalate these threats, leading to significant consequences such as defacement, configuration changes, operational disruptions and, in severe cases, physical damage. “

The US agencies urges Critical Infrastructure Asset Owners and Operators to review the fact sheet “Primary Mitigations to Reduce Cyber Threats to Operational Technology” to reduce the risk of potential intrusions.

Critical infrastructure operators should: remove OT from public internet; change default passwords; secure remote access with VPN and MFA; segment IT/OT networks; and ensure manual OT operation capability. These steps help counter simple yet scalable OT cyber threats and reduce risks of disruptions, damage, and system compromise due to poor cyber hygiene and exposure.

US CISA warns that misconfigurations may be introduced during standard operations, by the system integrator, by a managed service provider, or as part of the default product configuration by the system manufacturer. Government experts recommend working with the relevant groups to address these issues to prevent the accidental introduction of vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, U.S. Energy sector)

Ramzan Kadyrov asking the Kremlin to resign him (or signaling desire to step down)—if true—is likely driven by a combination of personal vulnerability, strategic calculation, and pressure from Moscow. Here’s a breakdown of the main drivers behind such a move:

 1. Severe Health Issues

• Persistent rumors since 2023 suggest Kadyrov suffers from a serious illness—likely kidney or liver-related.
• He’s been seen with visible swelling, limping, and periods of public disappearance.
• Medical treatment in Moscow or abroad (possibly UAE) was reportedly sought in 2023–2024.
• If his health is deteriorating, he may want to pre-emptively control the succession and exit on his terms, rather than collapse in office.

 2. Pre-emptive Political Move

• Kadyrov may be testing Kremlin response: offering resignation to signal fatigue or loyalty, but staying if asked to.
• This has been a tactic used by other loyalists (like Russian governors) to extract more guarantees, immunity, or budgetary concessions.
• By resigning “voluntarily,” he avoids a humiliating ouster and ensures his family’s continued role in Chechnya.

 3. Moscow’s Growing Discomfort

• After Prigozhin’s mutiny and death, the Kremlin has grown wary of powerful paramilitary actors like Kadyrov.
• Kadyrov’s personal army (Kadyrovtsy), propaganda operations, and de facto sovereignty in Chechnya have become harder to justify, especially as:
  • His troops underperform in Ukraine,
  • He publicly criticizes Russian generals,
  • He pushes his son Adam into national spotlight.
• The Kremlin may be nudging him to transition power or reduce his influence under a controlled narrative.

 4. Succession Planning (Enter Adam Kadyrov?)

• Kadyrov is aggressively promoting his teenage son Adam—decorated, praised in Kremlin circles, and rumored to be groomed for succession.
• This move would be unconstitutional without Kremlin approval, so asking to resign might be a bargaining chip: “Let me go, but keep my clan in charge.”
• He likely wants to transform his personal rule into a dynastic system, like a local monarchy under Russian protection.

 5. Loss of Strategic Usefulness

• Kadyrov’s role as a loud supporter of the Ukraine war no longer adds unique value to Moscow.
• His fighters are less effective, and the propaganda optics of “loyal Muslim warriors” have diminished impact, especially with Wagner out of the picture.
• If he’s becoming a liability (due to international scrutiny or internal power games), Moscow may allow or even encourage his exit.

 Conclusion

If Kadyrov is seriously offering to step down, it’s less about a sudden change of heart and more about a calculated attempt to secure his legacy, protect his family, and avoid being forced out. Whether the Kremlin accepts it or plays along will depend on their succession plan and trust in his inner circle.

The chances of Ramzan Kadyrov resigning in the near future remain low, but not impossible. Several factors point to why he’s still firmly in place—and what could eventually change that:

 Why Kadyrov Is Likely to Stay (for now)

1. Loyalty to Putin
   Kadyrov is one of Vladimir Putin’s most loyal regional leaders. His personal allegiance is political capital, and in exchange, he enjoys a wide degree of autonomy in Chechnya.
2. Security Control
   He maintains a powerful personal militia (the “Kadyrovtsy”) and serves as a key enforcer of Kremlin interests in the North Caucasus. Replacing him risks destabilizing a region that has seen two brutal wars since the 1990s.
3. Information War Role
   Kadyrov is a prominent figure in the propaganda space—used for projecting Russian strength, Muslim loyalty to Moscow, and “volunteer” troop contributions to Ukraine.
4. No Clear Successor
   Neither Moscow nor Grozny has prepared a credible, loyal replacement with similar control over local clans and security.

What Could Trigger His Resignation

1. Health Issues
   There have been recurring rumors, including in 2023 and 2024, about serious health problems. If credible, health concerns could force a step-down or semi-retirement.
2. Power Reshuffle in Moscow
   If Putin weakens or is replaced, Kadyrov may lose his patron and become politically vulnerable.
3. Overreach or Rebellion
   If Kadyrov’s actions (e.g. attacks on other regional elites, military freelancing) are seen as a threat to the centralized power vertical, the Kremlin may engineer a quiet exit.
4. Increased International Pressure
   Mounting sanctions or international legal actions against him or his family could push Moscow to distance itself—especially if maintaining him becomes diplomatically costly.

 Possible Exit Scenarios

• “Voluntary Resignation” for health or religious reasons.
• Promotion to a ceremonial federal role to remove him while saving face.
• Internal Chechen succession, possibly with one of his sons or loyalists replacing him under Kremlin guidance.

Bottom Line:
Unless something forces Putin’s hand, Kadyrov is likely to remain in power as long as he stays loyal and useful. But his position is not immortal—health, succession politics, or shifts in Moscow could all alter the equation.

Would you like a short timeline of his major political moves or influence in Ukraine war to complement

Timeline: Kadyrov’s Rise and Strategic Moves

2004–2007: Consolidation of Power

• 2004: After the assassination of his father, Akhmad Kadyrov, Ramzan assumes de facto leadership in Chechnya.
• 2007: Officially appointed President of the Chechen Republic with Putin’s blessing. Begins building a personal security structure (Kadyrovtsy).

2007–2014: Total Control and Cult of Personality

• Crushes insurgent groups in Chechnya using brutal methods.
• Centralizes power, establishes de facto immunity from federal oversight.
• Promotes a cult of personality, combining Chechen traditionalism and Islamic conservatism with loyalty to Moscow.

2014–2016: Rising National Influence

• Supports Russia’s annexation of Crimea and anti-Ukraine campaigns.
• Begins portraying himself as a pan-Russian Muslim leader loyal to Putin.

2018–2020: Regional Clashes and Defiance

• Engages in conflicts with Russian federal officials (e.g., FSB, governors).
• Defies national pandemic rules, showcasing his quasi-sovereignty.
• Rumors of Kremlin concern over his growing autonomy emerge.

---

 2022–2024: Ukraine War and Militarized Influence

2022: Invasion of Ukraine

• Sends Chechen units (Kadyrovtsy) to fight in Ukraine, mostly for propaganda value.
• Publicly criticizes Russian generals, including Defense Minister Shoigu and General Lapin.
• Seen by some as attempting to position himself as a parallel military commander.

2023: Loyalty Theater

• Intensifies pro-Kremlin messaging; offers to send more troops.
• Claims to personally coordinate combat operations—though many videos are staged far from front lines.
• Health rumors begin circulating (swollen appearance, hospital trips).

2024: Health and Political Maneuvering

• Promotes his teenage son Adam Kadyrov by awarding him medals, raising succession speculation.
• Rumors intensify about a controlled transition or ceremonial federal role.
• Wagner mutiny and death of Prigozhin shift the elite balance—Kadyrov reaffirms loyalty but remains cautious.

 Current Dynamics (2025)

• Still in power, but delegating more visible roles to family.
• Maintains heavy propaganda use of “Kadyrovtsy” in Ukraine and Chechnya.
• Putin still protects him, but Moscow’s inner circle is reportedly monitoring him more closely than before.

Ramzan Kadyrov has cultivated a small but powerful circle of allies in the Kremlin, who have protected, empowered, and benefited from his loyalty—but that support is not unconditional and may be weakening. Here are his key allies, current status, and what role they play:

 1. Vladimir Putin – Patron-in-Chief

• Kadyrov’s most important and direct ally is Putin himself, who personally empowered him after the death of Akhmad Kadyrov (Ramzan’s father) in 2004.
• Putin sees Kadyrov as someone who:
  • Keeps Chechnya under control without direct Russian intervention.
  • Shows extreme personal loyalty to him.
  • Acts as a useful enforcer and propaganda weapon in both domestic and foreign contexts.
• However, Putin’s personal favor may be fading due to:
  • Kadyrov’s growing unpredictability.
  • His dynastic ambitions.
  • His weakening military and political utility.

 Bottom line: Putin still protects Kadyrov, but the alliance is transactional and could end if loyalty wavers or costs rise.

 2. Sergei Kiriyenko – Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration

• Kiriyenko oversees domestic political management, including nationalities policy and Chechnya.
• He has reportedly maintained quiet cooperation with Kadyrov, especially in managing the image of stability in the North Caucasus.
• He helped shield Kadyrov from some criticism after human rights scandals, but not publicly.

 Bottom line: Kiriyenko values Kadyrov as a tool for control, but may distance himself if the regime sees him as a liability.

 3. Nikolai Patrushev – ex-Secretary of the Security Council

• A key figure in Russian security and intelligence policy, Patrushev helped shape the “managed autonomy” model in Chechnya.
• He reportedly supported Kadyrov’s rise through FSB structures and sees him as a bulwark against Islamist insurgency.
• But Patrushev is also wary of excessive local autonomy, especially post-Prigozhin.

 Bottom line: Patrushev is an ally in security circles, but will abandon Kadyrov if his forces challenge federal control.

 4. Viktor Zolotov – Head of the National Guard (Rosgvardia)

• Kadyrov’s forces (Kadyrovtsy) are nominally under Rosgvardia since 2016.
• Zolotov is personally close to Kadyrov, calling him a “brother in arms.”
• Their cooperation intensified during the Ukraine war and during anti-opposition crackdowns.

 Bottom line: A strong tactical ally—but Zolotov is loyal to Putin first. If ordered, he’d pull support from Kadyrov.

 5. Yury Chaika (former Prosecutor General) and Igor Sechin (Rosneft CEO)

• Chaika defended Kadyrov during corruption scandals.
• Sechin, a powerful oil oligarch, had financial and logistical ties in the North Caucasus through Rosneft.
• These links helped Kadyrov build his parallel economic empire.

 Bottom line: Oligarchic and legal allies, but largely quiet and opportunistic.

 Declining Influence:

• After Prigozhin’s mutiny, the Kremlin is clearly reassessing powerful non-state actors, and Kadyrov is under review.
• His support network is still functional—but fragile and conditional.

Post-Kadyrov Chechnya: Scenarios and Political Shifts

1. Power Vacuum and Elite Competition
Kadyrov has ruled Chechnya with near-total control for over 15 years, centralizing power through a personalist regime. His resignation could trigger a power vacuum, with several competing factions:

• Kadyrov’s inner circle: His sons and trusted lieutenants (like Adam Delimkhanov) may try to preserve the “Kadyrovite” system.
• Moscow-appointed technocrats or siloviki: The Kremlin may impose a loyal outsider or FSB-linked figure to reassert federal control.
• Islamist elements or traditional clans: Suppressed for years under Kadyrov’s rule, they may seek to reassert influence.

2. Rise of Moscow’s Direct Control
Putin has long tolerated Kadyrov’s autonomy in exchange for loyalty and security. A post-Kadyrov Chechnya could see re-centralization, with Moscow reducing Chechnya’s exceptionalism (e.g., special subsidies, paramilitary independence).

• This may trigger local resistance or discontent.
• The FSB or Ministry of Internal Affairs could play a stronger role in day-to-day governance.

3. Security Risks and Insurgency Resurgence
Without Kadyrov’s brutal suppression tactics, underground Islamist networks or separatist factions may re-emerge. Even limited political instability could embolden these groups, especially in the southern highlands or diaspora communities abroad.

4. Elite Fragmentation and Clan Conflicts
Kadyrov has heavily relied on patronage and clan-based politics, rewarding his allies while marginalizing rivals. A sudden exit could unleash inter-clan rivalries, destabilizing the region politically and socially.

5. Economic and Human Rights Consequences
Kadyrov’s regime has depended on massive federal subsidies. A shift in leadership might:

• Lead to redistribution of economic favors, causing unrest.
• Open space for renewed human rights advocacy or legal reckoning — although this depends heavily on the nature of his successor.

If Ramzan Kadyrov remains in power, the trajectory of Chechnya and its relationship with Moscow will likely follow a continuation of authoritarian consolidation, deeper integration into Kremlin power structures, and a tightening grip on dissent. However, this continuity also carries risks. Here’s an analytical breakdown:

Scenario: Kadyrov Stays in Power — Stability or Stagnation?

1. Continued Personalist Rule and Militarization
Kadyrov would likely deepen his personal rule, relying on:

• Kadyrovtsy paramilitary forces, which remain loyal to him personally rather than to federal institutions.
• Further personality cult-building, especially around his sons, to prepare the ground for dynastic succession.

This could solidify stability in the short term but increase institutional fragility, making Chechnya vulnerable to crisis if Kadyrov’s health deteriorates or Kremlin support shifts.

2. Dynastic Succession Planning Intensifies
Kadyrov may accelerate efforts to groom one of his sons — especially Adam Kadyrov — as heir. This would include:

• Prominent public appearances.
• Political appointments.
• Symbolic roles in religious, youth, or military structures.

Such moves could trigger elite discomfort in Grozny and quiet skepticism in Moscow, particularly among those wary of hereditary rule in a federal republic.

3. Reinforced Alliance with the Kremlin — But on Shaky Grounds
Kadyrov’s loyalty to Vladimir Putin remains the cornerstone of his survival. If Putin continues to need Chechen loyalty for security or symbolic reasons (e.g., in Ukraine), Kadyrov stays safe. But:

• His increased unpredictability, including odd public behavior and rumors of ill health, makes some in Moscow uneasy.
• The FSB and segments of the military elite have long resented his autonomy and fear his long-term ambitions.

4. Suppression of Opposition and Civic Space
Chechnya under continued Kadyrov rule would see:

• Absolute repression of dissent, including forced disappearances, torture, and exile of critics.
• Intensified Islamization of governance — such as moral policing and use of religion for political ends.
• A clampdown on minority voices, such as women’s rights activists, LGBTQ+ individuals, and even traditional clan elders who resist his dominance.

5. Implications for the North Caucasus and Russia

• Kadyrov’s strength could be seen as a green light for similar personalized fiefdoms in the region.
• His role in Ukraine, including sending Chechen units, makes him a high-profile figure — both for the Kremlin and international sanctions regimes.
• If he stays but deteriorates physically or mentally, a prolonged leadership crisis could unfold quietly behind the scenes, destabilizing the entire Chechen power structure.

Several scenarios could potentially worsen relations between Vladimir Putin and Ramzan Kadyrov, leading to political tensions or even a collapse in their alliance. While their relationship has largely been one of mutual benefit, Kadyrov’s autonomy and unpredictability present potential risks for Putin, especially as internal and external pressures grow. Here’s a breakdown of possible factors:

Factors That Could Worsen Relations Between Putin and Kadyrov

1. Kadyrov’s Growing Autonomy and Challenges to Kremlin Authority
Kadyrov’s increasing independence, particularly if he starts to openly challenge federal authority or bypass Kremlin directives, could provoke a rift. Specific triggers could include:

• Refusal to follow federal orders or implementing policies at odds with Moscow’s objectives.
• Publicly disputing decisions made by Putin or the central government, especially on issues related to Chechen governance or Russia’s role in conflicts like Ukraine.
• Direct power struggles: If Kadyrov takes more direct control of federal institutions in Chechnya or even beyond, it might be seen as a challenge to Putin’s grip on power in Russia.

2. Personal Ambitions and Dynastic Plans
Kadyrov’s succession plans could be another source of friction. While Putin may allow Kadyrov to create a dynastic system within Chechnya, a blatant move toward dynastic rule could be perceived as too much of a threat to federal unity:

• The grooming of his son for leadership in Chechnya might be seen as a move to establish a hereditary fiefdom, which could undermine Putin’s concept of centralized power.
• If Kadyrov’s sons become more influential and push for more independence or public power, Putin may see it as a challenge to his authority.

3. Kadyrov’s Disrespect for Putin’s Image or Critici
Despite Kadyrov’s loyalty to Putin, his public behavior and statements could cross a line. For example:

• Criticizing Putin’s decisions, especially on matters like foreign policy (e.g., the war in Ukraine or relations with the West) could trigger a backlash from the Kremlin.
• Making independent foreign policy moves (such as aligning more with countries or groups opposed to Russia’s interests) could provoke Putin, who values the unity of his foreign policy direction.
• Disrespecting Putin publicly, whether by subtle hints or outright accusations, could quickly deteriorate their relationship.

4. Failure in the Ukraine War or Military Setbacks Involving Chechen Forces
Kadyrov has been a vocal supporter of Russia’s military actions in Ukraine, but if Chechen forces are involved in significant failures or military setbacks, it could result in:

• Loss of credibility for Kadyrov, undermining his standing with Putin.
• Embarrassment for the Kremlin if Kadyrov’s forces are publicly blamed for failures or human rights abuses, especially in front of Russia’s domestic audience or the international community.
• Increased pressure on Putin from nationalist factions and the Russian military establishment to distance himself from Kadyrov and Chechnya’s heavy-handed tactics.

5. Financial or Economic Strain Due to Chechen Autonomy
Kadyrov’s policies and independence come with a cost. If Chechnya’s economic needs or self-sufficiency efforts start to put a strain on Russia’s finances or if Chechen business interests align with outside powers (such as China or Iran), it could cause friction with Moscow:

• Diversion of federal funds to Chechnya could raise suspicions in the Kremlin about Kadyrov’s loyalty and long-term intentions.
• A greater Chechen economic footprint that competes with federal interests, such as through oil, gas, or infrastructure deals, could create conflict.

6. Kadyrov’s Increased Popularity and Potential Influence Beyond Chechnya
If Kadyrov gains a following outside Chechnya, especially from more nationalist circles or militant groups, it could pose a threat to Putin. Should Kadyrov develop significant political capital, this could make him seem like a competitor to Putin’s leadership.

• His militarized image and role in Russia’s national security apparatus could put him in direct competition with other powerful figures within Russia’s power structure, such as Siloviki (security services) or military leaders.
• A military or paramilitary presence outside Chechnya could prompt suspicion in Moscow about his long-term ambitions.

7. Increasing Social Unrest or Chechen Opposition to Kadyrov
While Kadyrov has maintained tight control over Chechnya, any signs of domestic unrest, especially from Chechen elites or the broader population, could weaken his position:

• Elite challenges within Chechnya, particularly from competing clans or factions within the Kadyrov family, could destabilize Kadyrov’s rule.
• Popular discontent, whether due to economic hardships, repression, or military losses, could lead to pressure on Kadyrov to change his approach, which could lead to a falling out with Moscow if Putin backs different factions in Chechnya.

Potential Consequences of Worsened Relations

• Kadyrov’s Diminished Influence: A break with the Kremlin could lead to Kadyrov losing his privileged position, potentially even leading to his removal from power if Putin sees him as a liability.
• Chechen Instability: Any conflict between Kadyrov and Putin could destabilize Chechnya, particularly if it leads to a power vacuum or internal political conflict.

Impact on Russia’s Reputation: A collapse in relations could further isolate Russia in the eyes of the international community, especially given Chechnya’s volatile history and Kadyrov’s controversial actions.

U.S. troops in the Middle East have come under attack close to 400 times, at a minimum, since the outbreak of the Israel–Hamas war, according to figures provided to The Intercept by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Central Command.

The strikes, predominantly by Iranian-backed militias and the Houthi government in Yemen, include a mix of one-way attack drones, rockets, mortars, and ballistic missiles fired at fixed bases and U.S. warships across the region. These groups ramped up attacks on U.S. targets in October 2023, in response to the U.S.-supported Israeli war on Gaza.

The casualty revelations come as President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire with the Houthis, claiming they had “capitulated” to the United States. “The Houthis have announced — to us, at least — that they don’t want to fight anymore,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday. “We will stop the bombings,” he continued, noting that U.S. attacks would end “immediately.”

Mohammed Ali al-Houthi, a member of the Houthi Supreme Political Council, said the Houthis had not immediately agreed to the U.S.-proposed ceasefire. The Houthis would “evaluate” the U.S. proposal “on the ground first,” he posted on Tuesday.

When asked for clarification regarding Trump’s claims, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump’s remarks were “clear.”

Houthi strikes on U.S. forces, which began during the Biden administration, continued during Trump’s second term, despite threats that continued attacks would be met with overwhelming force. “To all Houthi terrorists, YOUR TIME IS UP, AND YOUR ATTACKS MUST STOP, STARTING TODAY. IF THEY DON’T, HELL WILL RAIN DOWN UPON YOU LIKE NOTHING YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE!” Trump ranted on TruthSocial on March 15. Trump then decreed that the Houthis would be “completely annihilated.” In what Trump described as “large-scale strikes in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen,” the U.S. targeted civilian infrastructure and, according to local reports, killed scores of innocent people.

The attacks on Yemen have continued with Israel and the United Kingdom joining in the bombardment. More than a month after Trump’s bellicose boasts, however, the Houthis have continued to strike at U.S. military personnel, just as they and militant groups across the Middle East have done hundreds of times since the beginning of the Gaza war.

U.S. Navy vessels in the region have been the most frequent target, coming under attack 174 times since October 2023, Central Command told The Intercept. There have also been “about 200” attacks on U.S. bases in the region since the Gaza war began, according to Pentagon spokesperson Patricia Kreuzberger. This amounts to roughly one attack every 1.5 days, on average. This includes more than 100 attacks on U.S. outposts in Syria and a lesser number in Iraq and Jordan. A January 2024 drone attack on Tower 22, a facility in the latter country, killed three U.S. troops. 

The Pentagon recently bragged that it had attacked more than 1,000 Houthi targets since March 15, as part of Operation Rough Rider, while denigrating the Houthis’ ability to strike back at the U.S. military. 

Just last week, a $60 million U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter was lost at sea when it fell overboard from the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier. The Truman reportedly made a sharp turn to evade a Houthi attack, which caused the jet to plunge overboard. One sailor was injured in the chaos.

“After a month of Trump’s empty threats to annihilate us, I am responding to you, not from the afterlife, but from this worldly life, specifically from Al-Sab’een Square in the capital, Sana’a,” Nasruddin Amer, a Houthi spokesman, told The Intercept by direct message, calling Trump a laughingstock ahead of the announced ceasefire. 

Amer said that Houthi attacks had actually destroyed two F/A-18s. CENTCOM pushed back on this. “Houthis continue to communicate lies and disinformation,” an unnamed “defense official” told The Intercept. “Their messaging depends on lies.”

Amid the rising death toll in Yemen, some lawmakers have been pressing for an end to U.S. attacks. “We cannot bomb our way to peace. As someone who’s seen the human cost of war and displacement. I know we need a foreign policy rooted in human rights,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar on Tuesday as feminist leaders gathered on Capitol Hill to unveil the Feminist Peace Playbook, a foreign policy strategy that runs counter to Trump’s antagonistic approach.

Although he wasted little time in launching his own bombing campaign in Yemen this year, as a presidential candidate, Trump was critical of Biden administration attacks on the Houthis. “It’s crazy. You can solve problems over the telephone. Instead, they start dropping bombs. I see, recently, they’re dropping bombs all over Yemen. You don’t have to do that. You can talk in such a way where they respect you and they listen to you,” Trump said in a May 2024 interview with podcaster Tim Pool.

America’s enemies, specifically Iranian-backed militias, have been striking U.S. bases, intermittently, since the late 2010s. Regular tit-for-tat attacks began in January 2020 when Iran’s top general, Qassim Suleimani, was killed near the Baghdad airport in a U.S. drone strike authorized by Trump. Trump said the U.S. was “totally prepared” for Iran to retaliate — which it did by firing 22 ballistic missiles at two American bases in Iraq. “All is well!” Trump proclaimed in the wake of the attack, as the U.S. claimed no U.S. troops were killed or wounded. Weeks later, the Pentagon admitted that there were actually 109 U.S. casualties.

Recently, U.S. Central Command, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the White House have orchestrated a casualty cover-up, refusing to disclose the number of U.S. troops killed or wounded in Houthi attacks. 

Under the Biden administration, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and CENTCOM provided detailed data on attacks on military bases across the Middle East — including to this reporter. CENTCOM provided the total number of attacks, breakdowns by country, and the total number injured. The Pentagon offered even more granular data, providing individual synopses of more than 150 attacks, including information on deaths and injuries not only to U.S. troops but even civilian contractors working on U.S. bases.

The post U.S. Troops Are Being Attacked Every Other Day in the Middle East appeared first on The Intercept.

The Trump administration has made known that it views China as the top national security priority. Beijing is, as US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described it, the “sole pacing threat,” receiving first call on resources and attention from the US Department of Defense. Some members of the administration’s national security team have built their reputations on a “singular focus on China,” at the same time arguing that Europe must fend for itself in a new era of great power competition.

But this “China first” approach to US foreign policy did not start with the Trump administration. At least since the Obama administration, those arguing that China poses the greatest threat to the United States have held sway in Washington. They’re wrong. Here’s why.

Any threat assessment must begin with sizing up challenges to the United States’ vital interests. In other words, US policymakers should look first at those threats that directly endanger the country’s national existence, population, territory, economic prosperity, and political institutions. Across the board, Russia comes in first in this calculus. 

With 5,580 nuclear warheads to China’s roughly 600, Russia is vastly superior as a nuclear power. Self-sufficient in energy and agriculture, Russia has opened new markets abroad and actually grown its economy despite severe international sanctions in the past few years. For the past decade, Russia has launched disinformation campaigns designed to influence US presidential and congressional elections, posing a direct threat to US institutions. Unlike China, which hasn’t fought a war since its border clashes with Vietnam in 1979, Russia’s military has extensive recent combat experience in Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine. While China has rattled its saber, Russia has returned major theater war to the European continent on the largest scale since 1945, with hundreds of thousands killed and injured and whole cities destroyed outright.

And Europe matters to the United States. The combined gross domestic product (GDP) for the European Union (EU) and non-EU NATO allies Norway and the United Kingdom in 2024 was $22.5 trillion to China’s $18.5 trillion. The US-EU economic partnership is the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world, accounting for more than 40 percent of global GDP. US-Europe goods trade totaled an estimated $1.2 trillion in 2023, 25 percent more than US goods trade with China. US foreign direct investment in Europe is almost four times greater than in Asia-Pacific countries. According to the US Chamber of Commerce, “no two other regions in the world are as deeply integrated as the US and Europe.” The loss or disruption of these trade relations would have an immediate and drastic impact on the US and global economies.  

Europe includes thirty of the United States’ treaty allies, supporting Washington in international organizations such as the United Nations and on the battlefield, where thousands of European soldiers were killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States is much stronger militarily, economically, and diplomatically with these allies than without them—and abandoning historic allies in Europe would surely discomfit US treaty allies in the Pacific. Despite criticism by US conservatives, the United States’ NATO allies spent $485 billion on defense in 2024—more than four times what Russia spent and collectively exceeding 2 percent of their GDP. Those figures are sure to grow. To be sure, there are readiness and capability gaps that need to be addressed. Coordinating defense policies and standards across dozens of polities is a challenge that confronts the United States in the Pacific as well. Even so, Europe also invests heavily in US defense industries, with sales of the F-35 fighter, Patriot air defense system, M1-series main battle tanks, and other defense articles booming. 

With continued US support and leadership, Europe can stand against the Russian threat, providing the bulk of the manpower, funding, and combat platforms needed to deter and prevent a wider war in Europe. But that strength depends on a firm transatlantic link, and above all, on US extended nuclear deterrence. Should the US disengage, a wider war in Europe is not only possible but likely, directly threatening US national security, as well as the global economy and the stability of the international system.

Could that really happen? Despite severe losses, the Russian military is quickly reconstituting itself, and by some measures it is now larger than before its February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to frame the conflict as a war with NATO and the West, not just Ukraine. Russian sabotage and cyberattacks in Europe have risen sharply since 2022. For years, national security experts downplayed the likelihood of large-scale Russian aggression in Europe, even after Moscow invaded Georgia in 2008 and annexed Crimea and launched its war in the Donbas in 2014. They were proven wrong with a vengeance. Where Putin sees weakness, he has shown repeatedly that he will act.

In prioritizing US national security needs, it’s also important not to exaggerate or overstate the threat from China. Despite the protestations from US admirals that China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy has more ships, the US Navy is far stronger. It has twice the surface tonnage as China’s navy, a huge advantage in vertical missile launchers, and many more destroyers, cruisers, and frigates (as opposed to the smaller coastal patrol ships which constitute much of the Chinese fleet). US Navy nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear attack submarines far outnumber China’s, while US naval technology is more advanced. This US naval advantage is even greater when factoring in the allied navies of Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the Philippines. US airpower is similarly dominant, with many more fourth- and fifth-generation combat aircraft and vastly superior C4ISR—what is often called the “nervous system” of a military that includes command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. This superiority is, again, augmented by allies. Within range of its land-based missile systems, China is a dangerous opponent. In blue water, the United States and its allies are far more capable.

Moreover, China is disadvantaged by a lack of strong allies in its neighborhood and by a dependence on maritime trade for its economic survival—trade that would be swiftly interdicted in time of war. Indeed, 80 percent of China’s oil imports pass through the Strait of Malacca, which is far beyond the reach of the Chinese navy. What’s more, China is ringed by states with significant militaries backed up by US air and maritime power. With a stagnant economy and serious internal problems, China can ill afford a major regional conflict it is almost certain to lose.

To be sure, China does pose important challenges to the United States and its allies and partners today. None of these issues should be ignored. Moreover, as a major and growing power, China’s ability and willingness to threaten the United States could increase in the future. Beijing will seek to impose its influence on its neighbors where it can through political, economic, and even military threats. But a major war would only put the survival of the Chinese Communist Party at grave risk. 

The United States is a global power—still the only economic and military superpower in the world. It is both unnecessary and imprudent to place all its strategic eggs in one basket. An overemphasis on the Asia-Pacific, leaving Europe to go it alone, risks a failure of deterrence with unacceptable consequences. Both Europe and the Asia-Pacific are important. Both deserve real attention and commitment in Washington.

---

Richard D. Hooker, Jr., is a senior fellow with the Transatlantic Security Initiative within the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and a senior associate with the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is a former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia.

The post Is China or Russia the bigger threat to the United States? There’s a clear answer. appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Samaan quoted in CNN on Russia-Iranian relations appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Almost two months ago, Ukraine agreed to a United States proposal for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Russia still refuses to do likewise. Instead, Putin continues to engage in stalling tactics while escalating the war.

Since US-led peace talks began in February, Russia has carried out some of the deadliest attacks of the entire invasion targeting Ukrainian civilians. These have included a ballistic missile strike on a playground in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s hometown, Kryvyi Rih, that killed 18 people including 9 children. On Palm Sunday, Russia launched targeted strike on Sumy city center as civilians made their way to church, leaving 35 dead.

Some of these attacks have made international headlines. Many more have not. Every single day, the population in front line Ukrainian cities like Kharkiv in the east and Kherson in the south face relentless Russian bombardment. At night, millions of Ukrainians are forced to seek shelter as Russia launches wave after wave of missiles and drones at targets across the country.

As Russia intensifies its air offensive against Ukraine’s civilian population, the death toll is rising. According to UN officials, the number of Ukrainian casualties has spiked recently. During the first 24 days of April, 848 civilians were killed or wounded, representing a 46 percent increase on the same period one year ago.

Meanwhile, Russia is also escalating its offensive operations on the battlefield as Putin’s commanders seek to wear down Ukrainian resistance and achieve a breakthrough. This is leading to mounting Russian losses. The UK Ministry of Defense reports that in the first four months of 2025, Russia suffered approximately 160,000 casualties. If the current rate of attrition persists, this will become the costliest year of the war for Putin’s invading army.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Despite extensive evidence of Russia’s intention to escalate the invasion, the United States continues to pursue a vision of peace through compromise. Since talks began, the Trump administration has offered the Kremlin a range of concessions while pressuring Ukraine to back down on key issues such as the country’s NATO ambitions. A recent US peace proposal indicated that President Trump may even be prepared to officially recognize Russia’s 2014 seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.

The tone of American diplomacy has shifted noticeably since Trump returned to the White House, with US officials now seeking to avoid any direct condemnation of Russia. In line with this new strategy, the United States has sided with Moscow on a number of occasions to vote against UN resolutions critical of the Kremlin. The US has also stepped back from international efforts to hold Russia accountable for alleged war crimes committed in Ukraine, defunding one flagship program and exiting another.

The Trump administration’s conciliatory approach toward Russia does not appear to be working. Far from offering concessions of his own, Putin has responded to the new US administration’s peace initiative by doubling down on his maximalist war aims. The Kremlin dictator insists on international recognition for Russia’s claims to Ukrainian territory, and demands that any peace deal must leave Ukraine disarmed and internationally isolated.

The current lack of progress toward peace should come as no surprise. After all, the experience of the past two decades has demonstrated that there is nothing more likely to provoke Putin than weakness. When the West chose not to punish Russia for the 2008 invasion of Georgia, this paved the way for the 2014 invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. The underwhelming Western response to Putin’s initial assault on Ukrainian sovereignty then set the stage for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Russian’s sense of impunity is now a crucial factor fueling the largest European invasion since World War II. While Putin is always ready to engage in diplomatic maneuvers, his evasive actions in recent months confirm that he has no real interest in a compromise peace. Instead, he is more confident than ever that he can outlast the West in Ukraine and achieve his objectives.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a watershed event in world history that will define the future of international security for decades to come. If Western leaders allow Russia to continue bombing civilians and destroying the foundations of international law without consequence, a ruthless new world order will emerge and will be defined by the principle that might makes right. Putin and his authoritarian colleagues in China, Iran, and North Korea will dominate the global stage and will rewrite the rules to suit their expansionist agendas. No country will be secure.

Today, Ukrainians are paying the price for the West’s reluctance to confront Russia. If Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, many other countries will also count the cost of this failure.

Alyona Nevmerzhytska is CEO of hromadske.ua.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The post Putin is escalating the war in Ukraine. He will not stop until he is stopped. appeared first on Atlantic Council.