Weekly Overview Cables - Ukraine war updates, Zelensky's ominous warning and Russia pushes its advantage on the battlefield.
1) Trump ‘‘already talking to Putin” and Zelensky warns against excluding Ukraine from negotiations.
On Friday, January 31, Trump announced that someone from his administration was already engaged with the Russians in ‘‘very serious’’ talks and that ‘‘significant’’ action to end the war may be taken sometime very soon.
In response, the very next day Zelensky warned that it was ‘‘very dangerous’’ to negotiate with Putin directly while leaving aside Ukraine and excluding Kyiv from these talks.
Zelensky is indeed correct that this would be very dangerous, and there are at least three reasons for this:
1) Leaving Ukraine aside during negotiations will ultimately weaken the necessary buy-in from the Ukrainian public.
If Ukrainians were to see this eventual deal as imposed on them by two superpowers, then the entire deal would face the risk of collapse; this would be totally unproductive from even just a basic pragmatic point.
And this is because, even if Trump was truly successful in getting an amazing (all things considered) deal for Ukraine—if he negotiated in good faith and let’s say managed to secure Ukraine's freedom to choose to join NATO and the EU without Russian interference, managed to secure strong protections and future military aid for Ukraine, and even managed to guarantee the stability of the ceasefire by securing the right to move European/NATO troops into the DMZ line (and monitor the ceasefire) —then a lot of analysts would actually consider this a good deal (provided that the alternative is that Ukraine would not be given support by the West to continue fighting in full force, and be allowed to wage this war in a way that can help them to win back their occupied territories.)
But the Ukrainian public would simply not see this as a deal negotiated in good faith.
For the past three years, they've been fighting a superpower, losing territory, giving hundreds of thousands of casualties—for what?
For the ability to protect their independence and sovereignty above all else, for their dignity as a nation.
Why should they submit to a deal imposed on them by superpowers?
What is the point of all the fighting if, in the end, two people come into the room without your President and decide your country's future?
Secondly, there is a danger of a rift between Ukraine and the US.
The risk is that Putin would overpromise to Trump and pretend to negotiate in good faith.
Trump would then believe that he has a good deal on his hands, and when he gets pushback from Zelensky, the relations will inevitably sour.
You can bet that Trump and his tech-bro supporters on Twitter would pile on Zelensky, calling him a freeloader who wants to keep fighting until all Ukrainians are dead.
This would happen if Trump believed that he had a good deal that only Zelensky didn't consider as such.
The truth is, Trump's interests and those of Ukraine diverge significantly.
Trump wants this war to end; he wants to be the person who ends it.
Trump wants a Nobel peace prize.
Trump is not invested in Ukraine's sovereignty in the long term.
Of course, he doesn't want Ukraine to collapse under the renewed invasion by a stronger Russia - that would above all else, be bad for his own legacy.
So presumably, there will be someone in his circle guarding against that eventuality.
In all other respects, Trump (and all his self-imposed, unnecessary deadlines prove this) is concerned, at the end, only about ending the war.
So, to prevent the outcome where Ukraine is vilified as an unreasonably intransigent party, Ukraine should be involved in negotiations, so that they can knock down a terrible deal early on instead of waiting to hear back from him, and then reacting to his offer, and then having to face the pressure from both Trump and Putin.
The third danger is that this will undermine the legitimacy of Zelensky, undermine his power to influence things in his own country, and cause internal division.
It would bolster the arguments of appeasers within the country, cause internal debates, and all the while, Russia would now be advancing towards capturing more territory from the country (it is virtually guaranteed that Russia would not stop fighting until Ukraine agreed to the final terms - why would they?)
Now, Ukraine would not only have to defend itself, but would also have to navigate internal divisions and debates that would inevitably arise from this attack on the Ukrainian government's legitimacy from the imposition of this deal.
With all that said, Zelensky shouldn't be the only one warning him against this danger.
There is also a danger to Europe - Russia is invading a sovereign country on their continent, and Trump wants to impose a ceasefire deal unilaterally.
This affects their entire continental security.
It is therefore astonishing that the leaders of France, Germany, and the UK are thus far quite passive in appeasing Trump.
Perhaps their hope is that Trump will inevitably realize the futility of negotiating with Putin in earnest and revert back to conventional measures and diplomacy.
But the hope is unjustified; everything points to the reality that Trump wants this war to end quickly.
So, European leaders, as major backers of Ukraine, both in terms of financial support and military gear, must also object to not being in the room when Putin is apparently negotiating on how to end the war.
They have too much at stake here: it will be, once again, their continent at risk of a Russian attack if Russia was to be allowed to come to an agreement where they only have to wait two years before rearming and getting stronger.
Europe is invested in ensuring that any deal to end the war in Ukraine will not incentivize further attacks, that there would be significant measures in place that would serve as a deterrent against Russia regrouping and returning with even more menace.
So, yes, Zelensky is correct, but other European leaders must also step up and stop appeasing Trump and giving him free rein on an issue of existential matters for the continent.
2) Russian forces are close to capturing Pokrovsk in the Donetsk region.
This city serves as a crucial logistical hub, and its capture would significantly disrupt Ukrainian supply lines and potentially facilitate further Russian advances into central Ukraine.
Pokrovsk's significance stems from its role as a major road and rail junction, essential for transporting supplies to various front-line areas.
The city's infrastructure supports the movement of troops, equipment, and resources, making it a vital asset for Ukrainian military operations in the east.
Additionally, the nearby coking coal mine is integral to Ukraine's steel industry, underscoring the city's economic importance.
Encirclement strategy after failed frontal assaults.
Rather than launching direct frontal assaults, Russian troops are attempting to encircle Pokrovsk by advancing from multiple directions.
Recent reports indicate that Russian units have seized the village of Novovasylivka, located approximately 11 kilometers southwest of Pokrovsk, bringing them closer to encircling the city.
Russian forces are focusing on severing critical supply lines to weaken Ukrainian defenses.
By targeting highways leading to central cities like Dnipro, they aim to cut off essential supplies and reinforcements to Ukrainian troops stationed in and around Pokrovsk.
Russia is looking for a breakthrough moment and among other things, the capture of Pokrovsk is a means to those ends.
Approximately half of the Russian assaults along the extensive front line have concentrated on Pokrovsk, underscoring the city's strategic value.
These persistent attacks aim to break through Ukrainian defenses and establish control over the area.
Ukrainian defenders are striving to fortify positions and protect critical infrastructure amidst escalating hostilities but without additional Western help they seem to be outmatched..
3) Russia launches a massive barrage of missile strikes on Ukraine.
On the night of January 31 - February 1, the Russian forces executed a comprehensive aerial assault on Ukraine, employing a diverse array of missile systems and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from multiple launch sites.
The Ukrainian Air Force reported the following:
Ballistic Missiles: Seven Iskander-M/KN-23 missiles launched from Voronezh Oblast and occupied Crimea.
Cruise Missiles: Seven Iskander-K missiles from occupied Crimea and Donetsk Oblast; eight Kh-22 missiles from Tu-22M3 aircraft; eight Kh-101/55 missiles from Tu-95MS strategic bombers; ten Kh-59/69 missiles from tactical aircraft over Voronezh Oblast.
Anti-Radiation Missiles: Two Kh-31P missiles from the Black Sea.
UAVs: A total of 123 Shahed and decoy drones launched from Bryansk, Kursk, and Oryol oblasts; Millerovo in Rostov Oblast; Primorsko-Akhtarsk in Krasnodar Krai; and occupied Cape Chauda in Crimea.
Ukrainian defensive measures resulted in the downing of 56 Shahed and decoy drones.
Additionally, 61 drones were reported as "lost," likely due to Ukrainian electronic warfare interference.
Ukrainian countermeasures also prevented a significant number of Russian missiles from reaching their intended targets.
However, Russian ballistic missiles exhibited a higher success rate, underscoring the limited availability of Ukrainian air defense systems capable of intercepting such threats - when combining S-300s and Western supplied NASAMS, Patriots and IRIS-Ts, Ukraine has around 20-25 batteries (depending on how many are lost as of February, 2025) in its possession.
But these are mostly reserved to cover either frontline troops or strategic locations/city centers in Kyiv and most important infrastructure.
Ukraine will simply not have enough interceptors and interceptor missiles to confront all of these waves - a lot of missiles will go through.
Consequently, these attacks inflicted considerable damage: a Kh-22 missile struck a residential building in Poltava; a ballistic missiles hit the historical center of Odessa (far from the frontlines), damaging a UNESCO-protected building; and drones caused damage to residential areas, warehouses, and private property in Kharkiv and Kyiv.
Notably, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that Russian forces struck an area near the accommodations of Norwegian diplomats in Odessa City.