Russia is again testing NATO's borders: Serhiy Zgurets’ column

Russia attacked Ukraine's energy infrastructure on December 25

On Christmas Day, Russian forces launched another strike on Ukraine's critical infrastructure. On December 25, they carried out a combined attack using ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs, targeting the energy sector. Russia is persisting in its effort to create a nationwide blackout. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy commented on the attack, stating that Putin intentionally chose Christmas for this strike because what could be more inhuman. Following the missile and drone attack, emergency power outages were reported in several regions of Ukraine. In Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Ivano-Frankivsk, some residents were left without heating. By evening, the situation had improved somewhat as energy engineers worked to restore the networks.

Russian forces used 184 weapons in this attack. In a previous, larger assault on December 13, over 300 missiles and drones were deployed. The Ukrainian Air Force Command reported that 59 cruise and guided missiles were destroyed this time, achieving an interception rate of 89%. Additionally, all 106 Shahed drones were downed. However, ballistic and anti-aircraft missiles — including two North Korean KN-23 missiles and 10 S-300 or S-400 missiles — were not intercepted.

NATO fails to respond to missile violations of its airspace

One of the cruise missiles used in Russia’s attack on Ukraine crossed from Moldovan airspace into Romania, traveling 140 kilometers over the two countries. Ukrainian Air Force officials informed their Romanian counterparts about the missile’s route. While Moldova confirmed the airspace violation, Romania did not. Romania claimed its NATO-integrated surveillance system failed to detect the missile crossing its border, a puzzling response. Meanwhile, Poland took a similar approach. Fighter jets were scrambled, and air defense systems were put on high alert. Nevertheless, the entry of Russian cruise missiles into NATO airspace has become a recurring issue. Such incidents suggest deliberate planning by Russia, as their missiles follow carefully charted routes. By repeatedly violating NATO airspace, Russia is testing the Alliance's boundaries and exposing weaknesses in its military responses. This is part of Russia’s broader hybrid warfare strategy, aimed at pressuring Europe and its political leaders. The lack of a strong, swift reaction from NATO countries only adds to the problem. A more decisive response is crucial in these situations, yet it remains absent.

Russia fell short of its strategic goals in 2024

Military expert and director of the New Geopolitics Research Network, Mykhailo Samus, emphasized the importance of looking back at forecasts made in 2023 when assessing 2024's results. Back in December 2023, most experts and analysts stressed that Ukraine should focus on defensive operations to set the stage for offensive actions in 2024. According to Samus, relying solely on defense is impossible, as it rules out any chance of conducting counter-offensive moves.

Now, the future of this war depends on the actions of newly elected U.S. President Donald Trump. Specifically, how his administration plans to implement its vision for ending the war. However, as Samus pointed out, the Russian-Ukrainian war won’t truly end as long as either Russia or Ukraine exists. This is a deep-rooted, conceptual conflict that’s been simmering for centuries. Stopping it now is simply not an option. The only realistic outcome is freezing the war, a point Donald Trump’s team seems to favor.

Still, Samus noted, in 2024, one thing is clear: Russia failed to achieve its offensive goals, which they had pursued since October 2023. Their primary aim — occupying the entire Luhansk and Donetsk regions, advancing in Kharkiv, and launching offensives in Sumy — did not succeed. Ukrainian operations in the Kursk region significantly impacted Russia’s ability to act in Kharkiv, Chernihiv, and Sumy. Russia’s focus on Vovchansk, meant to pressure Kupyansk and push towards the Slovyansk-Kramatorsk area, was disrupted.

Samus also criticized the Trump administration’s apparent lack of understanding regarding the nature of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Statements made by Trump and his representatives during the campaign suggest they see this as just another conflict. They often equate Ukrainians and Russians, talking about reconciliation and freezing the war. But, as Samus stressed, there’s no equivalence between an aggressor and its victim. This is a civilizational war, and the aggressor must be punished. Forceful consequences are the only way to end this war, and Trump’s team needs to grasp this reality.

The key is pressuring Russia to end the war

The main question now is how Donald Trump plans to convince Putin to stop the war. On Ukraine’s side, Samus emphasized the need for effective engagement with Keith Kellogg, the President-elect’s special representative for Ukraine. While Kellogg has a solid understanding of Russia, his grasp of Ukraine might be limited. Ukraine’s military and political leaders must work to highlight the differences between the two nations and stress why it’s critical to push Russia to end its aggression — not force Ukraine into concessions. While the latter might seem like an easier route for Trump’s administration, Ukraine cannot afford to sacrifice its national interests to appease the aggressor.