Putin’s Vile Chess

The article describes Russia’s latest escalation as a campaign against Ukrainian civilians and the systems that support ordinary life. Putin is said to be ordering saturation bombing attacks before winter. The stated aim is to create a humanitarian disaster and push people out of their cities.

The targets extend far beyond military positions. Russia is attacking power, water, transport, hospitals, schools, universities, bridges, data centers, internet systems, and cell networks. The article also describes massive killings and repeated drone attacks. These strikes seek to make daily life impossible and weaken Ukraine’s ability to coordinate and resist.

The campaign has not produced the intended collapse. Kyiv’s internet is decentralized, Ukrainians repair damaged systems, and people use shelters while schools and Parliament operate underground. Germany responded with another €1 billion in military assistance, including long-range weapons, drones, and satellite capabilities.

A war of attrition is a prolonged struggle in which each side tries to exhaust the other’s soldiers, money, equipment, and political will. Progress is measured less by a decisive breakthrough than by whether one side can keep replacing losses and sustaining pressure. It is slow, expensive, and destructive.

That differs from a rapid invasion designed to capture a country quickly. The article says Putin opened in 2022 with a “blitzkrieg gambit,” expecting Kyiv to fall soon. Instead, Russian forces overextended their pieces, lost the initiative, and failed to conquer Ukraine. The war then shifted into attrition.

The article presents the result as disastrous for Russia. It attributes 1.5 million sacrificed men, $770 million in daily spending, and $680 billion spent since 2022 to the war. In return, Russia has achieved only minuscule territorial gains, while Ukraine continues resisting.

The article portrays Russia’s war since 2022 as extraordinarily costly in people and money. It says Russia has sacrificed 1.5 million men. It also says the war costs $770 million every day and that Russia has squandered $680 billion since the invasion began.

Those figures are presented alongside a strikingly small territorial return. The article describes Russia’s gains as minuscule. Its explanation is that Putin misread the situation, expected Kyiv to fall quickly, overextended Russian forces, and then became trapped in a war of attrition. Ukrainian resilience and Western cohesion disrupted the original plan.

The figures show the scale of the imbalance described by the article: immense human and financial expenditure for limited territorial progress. Russia is still attacking infrastructure and civilians, while Ukraine continues fighting. The article also says Ukrainian strikes damaged 51% of Russia’s oil-refining capacity, reducing the cash flow available for war.

Attacking essential infrastructure harms civilians immediately and can also weaken a country’s ability to fight. Power failures disrupt heating, communications, hospitals, businesses, and homes. Damage to water and transport makes survival harder. Strikes on data networks and cell systems can interfere with coordination, while attacks on schools and hospitals deepen fear and displacement.

The article says Russia wants people to run away from their cities. It describes long bank and grocery lines, slower access to necessities, and greater difficulty obtaining baby formula and diapers. It also reports attacks on bridges, data centers, internet systems, hospitals, kindergartens, schools, and universities.

Ukraine has adapted rather than collapsed. Its internet is decentralized, damaged systems are repaired and replaced, and schools operate in subways. Parliament meets underground. Concerts, fashion shows, and baby showers continue. These measures preserve daily life, protect morale, and help Ukraine maintain resistance during continuing attacks.

The article identifies Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, and Europe as the main players on the diplomatic chessboard. Putin can order attacks, threaten escalation, use Russia’s war machine, and seek political or economic deals. His attempted sale of a Russian oil company to Trump’s friends is presented as disguised bribery.

Trump can shape US policy toward Russia and Ukraine. The article says Congress has given him new sanctions tools, and it urges him to use them, exclude Putin from the G20, and reject peace arrangements with Moscow. Zelensky uses public appeals, intelligence warnings, and diplomacy to mobilize support and protect Ukraine.

Europe can provide weapons, money, technology, and political backing. Germany announced €1 billion in military aid, including long-range weapons, drones, and satellite capabilities. Friedrich Merz also traveled to Kyiv during bombing. These choices can strengthen Ukraine and increase pressure on Russia.

Ukraine’s response combines practical adaptation with determination. The article says Kyiv has learned to repair and replace damaged systems since the war began. This matters because repeated attacks cannot easily produce a lasting breakdown when services are decentralized and communities know how to restore them.

The clearest example is the capital’s internet system. Russian strikes on data centers create dramatic television images, but the network is too decentralized to shut down easily. Ukrainians also keep power operating, use shelters, and hold classes in subways. Parliament meets underground because of bombing attacks.

Life remains difficult, not normal. Banks and grocery stores have long lines, and buying formula and diapers takes longer. Still, concerts, fashion shows, and baby showers continue. The article presents this resilience as a reason Russia’s coercive strategy has failed so far, even as Ukrainians prepare for worse attacks.

International humanitarian law prohibits deliberately attacking civilians because people who are not taking part in fighting must be protected from intentional harm. The rule also limits attacks on civilian objects and requires parties to distinguish military targets from civilian life. These protections preserve a basic boundary between combat and deliberate terror.

The article describes Russia as intentionally killing innocents and attacking civilian infrastructure. It calls for Russia to be removed from the UN, Putin to be disinvited from the G20, and Congress’s “sledgehammer sanctions” to be used. Germany’s military assistance shows another response: strengthening the attacked country’s ability to defend itself.

Other countries can also document alleged war crimes, support investigations, restrict money and technology, and pursue accountability through international or national courts. These measures can raise the cost of attacks, isolate leaders, and reduce their ability to continue aggression. The article links further Russian war crimes with stronger pushback.