Russia
General winter, West-Russian war and nuclear risk
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said a war between Russia and the Alliance is “a real possibility.” In an interview with the Norwegian journalist Anne Lindmo, Stoltenberg told, “I fear that the war in Ukraine will get out of control, and spread into a major war between NATO and Russia,” adding that “such a scenario could be avoided but that the threat was there”. Russia apparently wants to take advantage of imminent winter conditions. At the same time, it becomes clear that on the eve of marking its first year, the war will go on ‘as long as the West endure.’
“We will see whether spring arrives after the end of winter,” a Presidential Security and Foreign Policy Board Member, Prof. Nurşin Güney told Harici, adding that ‘promises not to enlarge NATO were broken. Following the colorful revolutions and similar processes, we see this messy war. The West made mistakes at the start of the Ukraine War. Russia made mistakes in breaching its commitment to protecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity under the Budapest Memorandum.’
So, do these mistakes evolve into a conflict that could lead to nuclear war? How will Europe’s long winter pass? How should the NATO chief’s “concerns” be interpreted?
“Too early to end the war”
To summarize the front-line situation, the Russian army withdrew from certain parts of Donetsk and Kherson. Kerch Bridge was targeted. Russia moved up a gear after the sinking of Moscow, the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, and the battleships in Sevastopol were attacked.
Moreover, with the help of its ever-increasing Western-origin weaponry, Ukraine started to attack the inner regions of Russia. In the first week of December, three Russian military air bases hundreds of kilometers away from the Russian-Ukrainian border were hit by Ukraine. Relatedly, US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price was forced to say, “We have not provided Ukraine with weapons to use inside of Russia. We’ve been very clear that these are defensive supplies. The President has made it clear before. We are not enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders; we are not encouraging Ukraine to strike beyond its borders.” Since October, Russia, on the other hand, has started particularly targeting Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.
With the coming of the dead of winter, attacks targeting civilian infrastructure may have new consequences on the front. “Russia is trying to subvert Ukraine’s determination and capacity to fight by targeting its vital infrastructures,” Prof. Dr. Nurşin Güney commented on the Russian tactical shift.
The West’s limit to fulfilling Ukraine’s winter demands
Viewing the West in two separate clusters, Europe and the USA, Prof. Dr. Nurşin Güney made the following observation based on a recent visit to the USA:
“There is no major disturbance in the USA, and the system works out. The US doesn’t feel like there is a war in Ukraine. Russia is not dependent on the Western market. It can make up for its losses here and has the financial and natural resources necessary to be self-sufficient. More harm will befall the European Union (EU). The general population will be affected. In Europe, there are protests occasionally. There is no indication that the US will change its anti-Russian policy. The United States aims to limit Russia economically and militarily.”
Highlighting how the shale gas revolution helped the USA attain energy self-sufficiency, Güney emphasizes that the exact opposite scenario is seen for the EU. According to Güney, claiming that this war has been going on thanks to the support of the West, “the resilience of Europe and Ukraine” will be crucial to the war’s outcome. Güney stressed that Moscow has not yet utilized its total capacity in this war while stating that he disagrees with the remarks that depict Russia as a “total loser.”
Speaking at the humanitarian aid conference in Paris, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmihal requested the Patriot and other modern air defense systems be provided to his country to increase their capacity to resist and to protect their energy infrastructure. The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, has asked Europe for six things to help the country get through the winter. On the list are requests to fix energy infrastructure, gas turbines, pistons, and help pay for 2 billion cubic meters of gas. The 6th item is coordinating the “Paris mechanism” in response to what Zelensky called “Russian energy terrorism.” Prime Minister Shmihal requested an urgent budget of $1 billion for infrastructure repairs.
How far can Russia withdraw?
The dialogue mechanisms between Brussels and Moscow became wholly broken as a result of the Ukraine War. The sabotage of the Northern Current hit a fatal blow to the economic relations that developed on the foundation of energy. The main concern now is whether this tension will expand into a Russia-West War or whether Russia will resort to tactical nuclear weapons as part of its defense doctrine.
In fact, within a “special military operation,” Russia had not attacked the civilian infrastructure until recently. However, since the four regions were formally recognized as Russian territory, tensions started to escalate in a different way. According to the Kremlin’s most recent statement, “The Ukrainian side needs to take into account these realities that have developed over all this time. And these realities say that new subjects (the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia) have appeared in Russia, and they appeared as a result of the referendum that took place there. Without taking into account these new realities, any kind of progress is impossible” In response to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s withdrawal proposal of the Russian troops from Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Peskov said, “This is out of the question.”
Since Moscow now regards the four Ukrainian regions as Russian territory, its counteroffensive responses to attacks targeting these regions are changing. Given the crossing of these new red lines by the Ukrainian forces, the strikes reaching into Russia, and “no way of being defeated for Russia as a great power” coalesced, the question of whether tactical nuclear weapons will be used began to be asked more frequently.
Regarding Russia’s limits of “withdrawal” as a significant nuclear power, Prof. Güney commented, “Should loses one party at one point, it can use tactical nuclear weapons. It is not ‘not likely’ to use them. In an effort to avoid losing, these tactical nuclear powers are very possibly to resort. Ultimately realizing that everything was lost, Russia will likely turn to tactical nuclear power”.
Pointing out Russia’s “ability to challenge the status quo,” Güney added that the war has not yet ended, and NATO and Russia do not currently have any intentions to start a new war at this stage. However, as of early December, Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s warnings of a growing risk of a nuclear war threat have sparked discussions over this subject. At the Russian Human Rights Council meeting, Putin said, “If it does not use them first, then it will not be the second to use them either, because in the case of a nuclear strike on our territory, our capabilities will be significantly limited.” Following these words, an interesting analysis came from Israel.
Jerusalem Post analysis: Ukraine should not be given nuclear weapons
The article by national security analyst Ehud Eilam also served in the Israeli army for a while, is entitled “Countries shouldn’t give Ukraine any nuclear weapons.” Having published six books in security studies, Ehud Eliam explains why Ukraine should not be given tactical nuclear weapons by the US, the UK, or another NATO member. According to the Israeli security analyst, it might deter Russia from becoming more aggressive in Ukraine, let alone using nuclear weapons there, but this is extremely dangerous.
In the analysis examining extreme scenarios, it is stated that “Ukraine is quite a new state with a fragile democracy, NATO might not fully understand the Ukrainian decision-making process, and it is not clear how much Zelensky can control the military in regard to nuclear weapons.” Additionally, it is mentioned that the “frustration” in Ukraine might coerce NATO to join the fight by using nuclear weapons against Russia. According to military analyst Ehud Eilam, “The odds of a Russian attack on a NATO member would increase if NATO gives Ukraine nuclear weapons.”
In conclusion, the author warns that giving Ukraine tactical nuclear weapons without endangering NATO will foster a situation where these weapons can spread quickly. If such a step is taken, he writes, many NATO members like Poland might demand to have their own nuclear weapons due to “fear of Russia,” as well as the Arab Gulf States against Iran.
Turkey’s apparent balance policy
Turkey is trying to weather the storm at the helm of a “balance” ship. In a letter, EU High Representative Josep Borrell said, “Turkey’s policy of not joining the EU’s restrictive measures against Russia is a cause for great concern,” adding, “We expect all candidate countries, including Turkey, to comply with the agreed measures against Russia.”
Güney responds to the query of what Turkey’s limit of balance or there is really a limit is as follows:
“Turkey does not believe in sanctions, and so far, no results have been achieved with sanctions. How long have sanctions been imposed on Iran? They are now getting close to producing their own nuclear weapons. In addition, we face sanctions from our ally. Moreover, Israel and the EU also have very close ties. Israel also does not impose sanctions on Russia. Why does Israel not receive inquiries aimed at Turkey? Also, we are not an EU member. We are a candidate member. Such legal liability does not apply to us.”
Provided a step on “written security guarantees” that Russia initially raised, it is likely to sit at a negotiation table. However, it is next to impossible that Russia will send its troops on a Christmas leave, as Kyiv demands, given that Russia is at its strongest in the months of the “general winter,” its steadfast elder commander.
Russia
Europe ready for arms and missile control talks with Russia, FT says
Representatives of European nations are ready to renegotiate arms control and military conflict prevention agreements with Russia, according to a Financial Times report citing unnamed European officials.
The US is seeking to include European countries in discussions on a future security architecture.
In this context, Europeans look favourably upon returning to arms control mechanisms, including agreements limiting missile deployment and the restoration of arrangements operating during the Cold War era.
The newspaper cited the Open Skies Treaty, which allowed the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to monitor each other’s military installations, and accords restricting the deployment of specific missile types among potential examples.
Participating states of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) signed the Open Skies Treaty in March 1992.
Signatory states are obliged to permit observation flights by other party nations over their territories using photographic and video surveillance.
Russia withdrew from the treaty in 2021.
Russian authorities emphasized in statements at the time that Russia had done everything possible to preserve the agreement, “despite numerous violations of the Open Skies Treaty by the US, its allies, and dependent states.”
According to information obtained by the newspaper, US President Donald Trump’s administration is seeking Moscow’s consent to organize a multilateral meeting involving European representatives.
A source speaking to the Financial Times noted that the European security architecture is among the main agenda items at the United Arab Emirates (UAE) summit, though Trump will make the final decision regarding the nature of security guarantees the US will offer.
The first day of trilateral negotiations among Russia, the US, and Ukraine concluded on 10 November in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, with the meeting lasting more than four hours.
According to Politico, the parties plan to address territorial matters, including borders and lines of contact, on 11 November during the second day of negotiations.
Sources speaking to the publication stated that resolving the territorial issue and the future security mechanisms of Ukraine and Europe are interconnected and must be discussed in parallel.
“It is obvious that the current system does not work. We need to create something new that will work effectively today,” one source said.
According to Politico and the Financial Times, American negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner plan to invite Europeans to join the negotiations after the trilateral meeting concludes.
“We need Europe at the negotiating table,” a source told Politico.
The Financial Times source likewise stressed that European participation is essential to reach an agreement aimed at ending the conflict.
European capitals fear that Moscow and Washington could agree on security guarantees for Ukraine and the continent’s new security architecture without the involvement of European Union (EU) and NATO allies.
Furthermore, the issue of EU participation in talks resolving the conflict in Ukraine has caused differences of opinion between Moscow and European capitals.
Russia previously stated that the EU currently has no place at the negotiating table due to its stance on the conflict.
Russia
US raises NATO-style guarantees for Kyiv ahead of Abu Dhabi talks
US President Donald Trump’s administration has asked the Russian side whether Moscow objects to granting Ukraine security guarantees akin to NATO’s Article 5 on collective defence, and to having such guarantees provided directly by the alliance itself.
According to a Financial Times report citing a US official, the final decision on the nature of the US security guarantees will be made by US President Donald Trump.
The US official said the White House is seeking Russia’s consent for multilateral negotiations that would also include European representatives.
“At this stage, we firmly believe Europe must be part of the negotiations to end the war,” the official said on the matter.
According to the report, prior to the trilateral talks, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner will hold consultations with representatives from Ukraine, the European Union, NATO, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy.
Rustem Umerov, representing the Ukrainian delegation, also confirmed that Kyiv will hold separate coordination meetings with European partners in Abu Dhabi to align positions and subsequent steps.
The newspaper reported that while European diplomats are sceptical about the prospects of a breakthrough in the Abu Dhabi talks, they consider participation in the diplomatic process essential to support Ukraine and prevent broader European security issues from being addressed without their involvement.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated in late October that talks held in Oslo between Ukraine, EU countries, and US representatives discussed granting Kyiv security guarantees similar to the provisions of NATO’s Article 5 collective defence clause.
In February, Zelenskyy described credible guarantees for Kyiv as the “only real basis” for peace.
The issue of security guarantees will form one of the agenda items at the trilateral negotiations between Russia, the US, and Ukraine, scheduled for 10-11 November in Abu Dhabi.
These contacts mark the first trilateral meeting in roughly nine months, following the previous round held in Geneva in February.
Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky will head the Russian delegation at the talks, while the US side will be represented by the president’s special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
Rustem Umerov will lead the Ukrainian delegation.
Moscow insists that the future security guarantees slated for discussion at the meetings must also cover Russia.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that guarantees can only be mutual.
At the beginning of the year, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko stated that security guarantees for Russia are an essential component in reaching a peace agreement on Ukraine.
“We accept that a peaceful settlement in Ukraine must take Ukraine’s security interests into account, but the key issue is, of course, Russia’s security interests,” Grushko said.
Russia
Putin proposes Arctic energy cooperation to US to ease gas sanctions
Following a diesel arrangement with the US and the prospect of expanding Russian fertiliser shipments, Moscow is offering Washington joint cooperation in the Arctic.
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow is considering the possibility of working together with US partners in the Arctic region.
Speaking at the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) summit, Putin described the regional situation:
“We are actively working in the Arctic, which I mentioned, with many countries around the world, and we are interested in joint work. Until very recently, our European partners and our Chinese partners were working alongside us at our fields. Now we are considering the possibility of joint work with American partners.”
So, which fields could a partnership between the two countries in the Arctic encompass, and what could Moscow offer Washington in exchange for lifting sanctions on Russian gas? Liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects stand at the heart of the matter.
European companies pulled out of Russian gas projects such as Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 2 due to sanctions imposed on Russia after 2022.
According to Igor Yushkov, an expert at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation and the National Energy Security Fund (NESF) who spoke to the Vzglyad newspaper, cooperation with Chinese companies moved to a new dimension following the departure of the Europeans.
Two Chinese shareholders, CNPC and CNOOC, are involved in the Arctic LNG 2 project. Initially, both companies froze their participation out of concern over US sanctions targeting the venture.
Mikhail Vakilyan, an expert at the Institute for the Development of Fuel and Energy Complex Technologies, told Vzglyad that Beijing did not alter its policy, but rather that Chinese firms CNPC and CNOOC simply did not want to risk their access to the US dollar.
Yet, a year and a half later, the picture shifted entirely. In the second half of 2025, China began purchasing gas from the sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 facility and dedicated a standalone terminal to the project.
Furthermore, it opened a second terminal this year serving exclusively Russian LNG.
China even resumed module deliveries needed to complete the third train of Arctic LNG 2, despite having halted shipments previously.
Moscow seeks markets and turbines, offering technology for Alaska
Despite all these developments, Russia’s expectations from the US in the Arctic remain clear. Mikhail Vakilyan summarised this requirement:
“Russia needs two things: first, markets; and second, hardware. Lifting sanctions on Arctic LNG 2 and its gas carriers will bring back buyers in Japan, India, and South East Asia, eliminating the discount currently enjoyed by China as the sole customer. As for hardware, the turbines driving the liquefaction compressors at Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 2 are manufactured by the US company Baker Hughes. Maintenance, spare parts, and modernization for these machines are blocked by US export bans.”
Igor Yushkov viewed the process through the lens of a political and economic trade-off:
“The exact same scheme seen in the diesel agreement is operating here. In exchange for easing anti-Russian sanctions and putting pressure on Ukraine, we are offering the US mutually beneficial projects and broader economic cooperation. We are showing that this cooperation can be versatile across various fields such as diesel, fertilisers, LNG, and similar sectors.”
The tangible offer Russia could present to the US in the LNG sector in exchange for sanctions relief is technological support for an LNG plant to be built in Alaska, referring to the $25 billion Polar LNG project.
Yushkov explained the card held by Russian energy company Novatek:
“Novatek possesses a technological solution applied at Arctic LNG 2 that would also suit the LNG project in Alaska. These are reinforced concrete gravity-based structures carrying liquefaction equipment; essentially floating LNG factories. Novatek has already built two such platforms alongside their equipment and established an offshore super-structure construction centre in Belokamenka. The issue is that both this centre and the Arctic LNG 2 plant itself fell under US sanctions. Therefore, in exchange for lifting sanctions at least on the super-structure construction centre, we could build such a facility for Alaska.”
According to the expert, Russia could cast the reinforced concrete platform at this centre in Belokamenka, install the LNG plant atop it, and tow it to Alaska once completed.
Because building from scratch in the Arctic itself is both costly and creates constraints regarding time and equipment transport, this method offers a much simpler solution.
Nevertheless, Yushkov warned that the plan is not finalised:
“Owing to numerous sanctions-related issues and questions surrounding the project’s economics, it is not certain this scenario will materialize; however, the Americans are still interested in our technologies for Alaska, and Russia is stating it can capitalize on this and deliver it.”
Conversely, Yushkov recalled that Russia remains the primary rival to the US, particularly in the gas sector, and that the US administration has systematically squeezed Russian gas out of the European market in recent years.
According to the expert, helping US LNG capture the market share lost by Russia is hardly a brilliant idea.
Europe’s 2027 ban, China price talks, and rare earth metals
Arctic LNG 2 is not the only Russian project that could benefit from potential cooperation with the US; a new opening could also emerge for Yamal LNG, which is unaffected by US sanctions.
The crux here is not sanctions, but the European Union’s upcoming ban on all Russian LNG shipments starting from 1 January 2027.
Vakilyan explained the approaching risk and a potential solution using figures:
“In the first half of the year, Europe took nearly the entire output of the plant, amounting to 9.89 million tonnes. In two months, these volumes will need a new route and a new buyer; a US trading company appears very well suited for this role.”
Another winner in the equation could be Gazprom, which is conducting negotiations with China for the Power of Baikal pipeline, formerly known as Power of Siberia 2.
Vakilyan said: “Cooperation with the US is Russia’s trump card in price negotiations. China has long negotiated with Gazprom assuming Russian gas has nowhere else to go; an American company in the Arctic would disrupt that calculation.”
Viewed from a wider perspective, Russia and the US share two additional points of contact: oil projects and rare earth metals.
The Vostok Oil project, which awaits the lifting of sanctions on Rosneft, is the first among them.
Vakilyan listed the other areas:
“It is impossible to make headway on the Pobeda shelf, which could not be developed since 2014, without the Americans; that site requires subsea production complexes and drilling services in icy seas, where US companies are strongest. Another issue not apparent at first glance is rare metals. The Trump administration is seeking them across the globe, and Tomtor, one of the largest rare earth metal deposits, lies in the Arctic region of Yakutia.”
-
Diplomacy1 week agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Russia2 weeks agoUS and Russia weigh energy deals and corporate return in peace talks
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS warns Gulf allies of possible Iran strikes after midterms
-
Opinion2 weeks agoGaza exposes the myth of the “most moral army in the world”
-
Europe5 days agoEU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises
-
America2 weeks agoBolsonaro reportedly leaves Brazil on jet linked to scandal-hit firm
-
Asia1 week agoChina expands Africa arms sales, displacing France and Western rivals
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSteinmeier seeks to de-escalate German-Chinese tensions on visit
