Conor here: Reality is collapsing the Western narrative:
An additional Russian advance made in western Kostyantynivka with the city 90% captured and no remaining stable Ukrainian positions.
The remaining 10% is grey or unconsolidated.
Ukrainian zone of control moved west towards Osykove. pic.twitter.com/DRYo1l8R4M
— KalibratedMaps (@Kalibrated_Maps) July 4, 2026
Konstantinovka is the largest city taken by Russia since Mariupol in 2022.
Despite all the distractions the story remains the same, which leads to one question: where will the attacks to “weaken and divide” Russia come from once Ukraine is defeated? There are plenty of options. Will the Azovs stay behind and fight a guerilla campaign, or will they bring their ‘expertise’ to neighboring countries in the Baltics and elsewhere in Europe? Or to put it another way, when do the false flags start in earnest:
Yesterday’s headlines around the world based on Onet reporting suggested Russia is preparing to attack Poland to test NATO’s Article 5. I’m trying to work out what, if anything, was actually new.
The key point in the reporting is not that Russia could carry out a limited… pic.twitter.com/ywPG3LFDlU
— Stuart Dowell (@StuartDowell_) July 4, 2026
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website.
Putting it all together, Ukraine’s new three-pronged infowar campaign about the battlefield sees it downplaying Russia’s on-the-ground gains as expanding the “gray zone”, potentially plotting more terrorist attacks and symbolic incursions as distractions, and outright lying about its own successes.
Putin visited a forward command post on Friday for a briefing with top military officials about the latest developments in the special operation. The most widely reported takeaway was the confirmation that Konstantinovka, which is a crucial part of the Northern Donbass fortress agglomeration, was captured from Ukraine. By contrast, much less attention was paid to Ukraine’s new three-pronged infowar campaign about the battlefield that Russia just exposed, which this piece will review and then analyze.
Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov began by talking about how “the Kiev regime is seeking to convince its Western sponsors that it has seized the initiative from us and made significant advances on the battlefield. To this end, it is conducting an information campaign, in which it demonstrates the supposed successes of Ukrainian Armed Forces formations, while concealing the territories liberated by Russian troops under the neutral formulation that ‘they have moved into the gray zone.’”
This was later followed by two related warnings from Putin. As for the first, he said that, “Now, regarding the enemy’s supposed successes on the battlefield, we must, firstly, bear in mind that, to bolster their legends and lies, their false claims, the enemy may undertake certain sabotage and terrorist actions, launching sorties, albeit with small forces, but with great propaganda fanfare, in order to confirm their claims about supposed achievements. We must be prepared for these possible sorties.”
He then segued into the second by talking about how “the bravura statements by the leaders of the Kiev regime about successes we know to be nonexistent are, in principle, to our advantage, since they are actors, and they truly know nothing else, and have never been taught anything else. Yet, with their actions and statements, they undoubtedly disorganize both themselves and their sponsors. I repeat: this is to our advantage.”
Putting it all together, Ukraine’s new three-pronged infowar campaign about the battlefield sees it downplaying Russia’s on-the-ground gains as expanding the “gray zone”, potentially plotting more terrorist attacks and symbolic incursions as distractions, and outright lying about its own successes. The first was already evident among those who closely study the maps produced by pro-Kiev accounts, while the second’s terrorist dimension is already in progress with Ukraine’s spree of strikes against Russia.
The incursion aspect could take the form of another Kursk-like cross-border campaign against Russia and/or Belarus, the latter of which was recently in Ukraine’s crosshairs, while outright lies about Ukraine’s own on-the-ground successes are already commonplace but could become more frequent. The larger context within which this new infowar campaign is being waged concerns Zelensky’s explicitly declared 40-day influence operation against Russia aimed at forcing it to freeze the conflict.
Seeing as how Gerasimov also claimed that recent strikes by Russia degraded Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities, the only real threat posed by Ukraine’s new infowar campaign is terrorist strikes against border areas and another Kursk-like incursion. It’s impossible to preemptively thwart either with perfection, so it’s possible that these threats might materialize in the coming future, but observers should remember that they’re more showmanship than strategy and that Ukraine isn’t really winning.
It is difficult to get a complete, objective view of the situation, but it looks as if the Ukrainian attacks against Russian refineries had some effect, at least regionally (esp. Crimea).
On the other hand:
“Will the Azovs stay behind and fight a guerilla campaign, or will they bring their ‘expertise’ to neighboring countries in the Baltics and elsewhere in Europe?”
From their track record, I presume their curriculum after an Ukrainian defeat will be as follows:
1) Many will move to Western countries and form the battalions of a reinvigorated Ukrainian maffia. This is already a part of their activity in Ukraine, and it is a less dangerous and more lucrative occupation than keeping the flame of Ukrainian nationalism alive as guerrilleros.
2) Others will join mercenary outfits operating in Africa or Latin America. Ukrainians are already particularly active in the Sahel and Sudan.
3) On the other hand, I do not expect any (or very very few) of them being integrated in Western intelligence service. SBU “refugees”, with their connections and experience, will be more appreciated than Azov / Aidar / Sich / … goons. And the few who will be recruited will instead be employed to repress NATO citizens and their grassroots organizations, as the Western population gets increasingly restless because of the economic consequences of the Ukraine war with attendant sanctions against Russia, and the injustifiable support for the genocidal Israel.
4) I doubt any will want to stay behind. They have made too many enemies amongst the Ukrainian population itself.
5) Those ready to be involved in attacks on Russia from NATO countries will also be the most fervent banderists. This also means they will not hesitate to turn their weapons against Europeans, accused of being traitors, not having supported Ukraine enough and not doing enough again to overthrow the Russian occupation / protectorate — i.e. Dolchstosslegende.
All in all: a pretty dire perspective for NATO — which means that this is exactly the path that those brilliant European and North American elites will follow.