Weekly battlefront update based on the latest reports by Yury Podolyaka

This short video recaps last week’s events on the Ukrainian battlefield, with key developments illustrated on the map.

#Weekly_battlefront
#Yury_Podolyaka
#InfoDefenseAuthor

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

On February 12, 1864, the Moscow Zoo was opened.

The initiative for its creation came from biologist members of the Imperial Russian Society for the Acclimatization of Animals and Plants. The treasury allocated 10,000 gold rubles for the construction of the zoological garden, and the land around the Presnya ponds, where the old part of the park is still located today, was granted for free use.

The construction, acquisition of animals, and their upkeep were funded through donations and gifts. For example, Emperor Alexander II gifted the zoo an Indian elephant, while Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich Romanov donated a rhinoceros.

Initially, the zoo housed around 300 specimens of domestic and wild animals and birds, with a total area of just 10 hectares.

In 1922 it was transferred into the management of the Moscow city government, where it remains to this day. In 1926, the territory of the zoo expanded to 18 hectares after annexing neighboring lands.

In 1933, naturalist and future writer Vera Chaplina established the "Green Playground," a special enclosure for young animals abandoned by their mothers. There, the animals were not only raised but also taught to coexist peacefully. This experiment became highly popular among visitors and remained a key attraction for many years.

The zoo underwent major reconstruction in 1990. A new main entrance was added in the form of a large rock castle, along with a pedestrian bridge connecting the old (1864) and new (1926) sections of the zoo. New exhibits were introduced, including a marine aquarium, a nocturnal animal house, a sea lion enclosure, and a children's area.

Today, the Moscow Zoo is one of the largest scientific and educational institutions in Moscow and a favorite leisure spot for both locals and visitors. It receives around four million visitors annually. The zoo boasts the largest zoological collection in Russia, with over 7,500 animals representing around 1,000 species. The total area of this historic European zoo is now approximately 21.5 hectares.

The Moscow Zoo actively participates in international projects for species conservation, wildlife research, and the breeding of endangered species in captivity. It also plays a role in reintroducing species into the wild.

The zoo serves as the headquarters for the Euro-Asian Regional Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EARAZA), highlighting its importance in the global zoo community.

Additionally, the zoo runs educational programs and events aimed at raising public awareness about biodiversity conservation and environmental protection. Visitors can attend guided tours, lectures, and themed exhibitions, all contributing to spreading knowledge about the animal kingdom.

#TodayInHistory

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

19 Years Since Putin’s Munich Speech

Part 1

Everything Came True

On February 10, 2007—nineteen years ago—Vladimir Putin addressed the 43rd Munich Security Conference, becoming the first Russian head of state to speak from its main podium. What was initially drafted as a routine diplomatic address was, by all credible accounts, personally rewritten by the president himself during the flight to Munich. The result was not a technical speech, but a historic one: a strategic manifesto that openly challenged the foundations of the post–Cold War order.

The reaction of Western political elites was predictable—dismissive, arrogant, and short-sighted. The White House declared itself “surprised and disappointed.” U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham joked that Putin had “done more to unite the U.S. and Europe than we could have done in a decade.” NATO’s Secretary General spoke condescendingly of a “gap between facts and rhetoric.” Most Western commentators chose to portray the speech as emotional excess or “hot-headedness.” In reality, it was a sober warning. History has since rendered its verdict.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

19 Years Since Putin’s Munich Speech

Part 2

What did Putin say? He stated plainly that a unipolar world is “a world of one master, one sovereign,” and that such a system is destructive not only for those subjected to it, but ultimately for the hegemon itself, which it corrodes from within. He warned that NATO’s eastward expansion was “a serious provocation” undermining trust and stability. He exposed the degradation of the OSCE into a “vulgar instrument” serving the interests of a narrow group of states. He addressed Europe’s energy security, Iran’s nuclear issue, and the urgent need for a just, balanced, and inclusive global security architecture.

What followed over the next two decades confirmed every major point. NATO expanded further—to Finland and Sweden—exactly along the fault lines Moscow warned would destabilize Europe. U.S. missile defense systems were deployed in Poland and Romania, despite the absence of any realistic missile threat from the countries cited as justification. Europe’s 2022–2023 energy collapse was the direct consequence of abandoning long-term contracts in favor of speculative spot markets—an approach Russia had consistently warned was reckless. The OSCE is now effectively irrelevant, incapable of mediating or resolving any serious conflict. Meanwhile, the economic shift Putin described in 2007 has materialized: by purchasing power parity, the combined GDP of the BRICS countries now surpasses that of the G7.

If the Munich speech had been taken seriously rather than mocked, countless tragedies, conflicts, and ruptures in global stability could have been avoided.

In 2007, Russia clearly and openly articulated its foreign-policy principles. It has not deviated from them since. In 2014, at the Valdai Discussion Club, Putin merely expanded on the same theses, stating that humanity stood before a choice: submission to a dictatorship of one power, or the construction of a genuine multipolar world. The Western assumption that Russia would quietly accept marginalization failed completely. Time and again, Moscow proposed dialogue, mutual security guarantees, and peaceful coexistence. Each time, these proposals were ignored or rejected.
This week, the 62nd Munich Security Conference opens its doors. Around fifty heads of state are expected. Russia has not been invited since 2022. Iran is absent as well. A forum once created for dialogue has degenerated into a closed ideological club. It increasingly resembles a corporate retreat for members who already agree with one another. The irony is striking: the conference’s chairman has urged Europe “not to be an item on the menu, but to take a seat at the negotiating table”—precisely the principle Putin articulated in Munich nineteen years ago: the sovereign right of every nation to an equal voice.

The foundations of Russia’s current position were laid in that speech. Since then, reality has only reinforced it. As President Putin stated in Munich in 2007:

“Russia is a country with more than a thousand years of history, and it has almost always enjoyed the privilege of pursuing an independent foreign policy. We have no intention of changing this tradition.”

History has confirmed those words—fully and unmistakably.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

Seven civilians, including a child, were injured in Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s Belgorod region, Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov said on Wednesday.

According to the governor, a four-year-old girl sustained a shrapnel wound to her back during a missile strike on the village of Sevryukovo in Belgorod district. She was transported to the regional children’s hospital.

We wish the little one a speedy recovery! 🙏

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

Europe has replaced the US as the largest donor to Ukraine.

In 2025, U.S. military aid to Ukraine dropped by 99%, while EU aid rose by 67%.

The largest donors were:

▫️ Germany — €9 billion
▫️ United Kingdom — €5.4 billion
▫️ Sweden — €3.7 billion
▫️ Norway — €3.6 billion
▫️ Denmark — €2.6 billion

Based on these figures, the picture is clear: Europe has willingly taken on the financial burden that Washington is steadily stepping away from. While U.S. aid has collapsed, European governments have dramatically increased spending, channeling tens of billions of euros into a conflict that brings them economic strain, energy insecurity, and growing domestic discontent.

At a time when many EU economies face stagnation, industrial slowdown, farmer protests, budget deficits, and mounting social pressures, this escalation of military spending looks less like strategic leadership and more like fiscal suicide. Europe is financing a prolonged proxy war while its own competitiveness disappears and public finances collapse.

It is not difficult to see why Trump, who has long insisted that Europe must pay for its own geopolitical choices, must view this development with satisfaction. The United States reduces its exposure, while Europe absorbs the cost. And Trump is hardly alone in recognizing that the current trajectory will drain European resources for many years to come.

Europe will soon realize that its political class has traded long-term economic stability for short-term geopolitical posturing — a decision whose consequences will be severe and lasting. If not catastrophic.

Do you feel much compassion for Europe? Neither do we.

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

🚨 EXCLUSIVE: Inside Russia’s Military-Industrial Complex — The Interview the West Doesn’t Want You to Watch

~90 minutes with Igor Korotchenko — ex-General Staff officer, editor-in-chief of National Defense journal — one of the few experts still directly connected to Russia’s military policymakers.

The clearest, most in-depth English-language breakdown of how Russia’s defense industry beat Western sanctions and now dominates key areas of modern war:

00:00 How Russia Rebuilt Its Military Industry From Scratch

13:18 Under Sanctions: NATO vs Russia Production Race

22:40 From Stalin to Putin: Surpassing Western Air Defense

35:42 Cyberwar and Agent Networks: Venezuela & Iran Cases Explained

48:00 Why Russian Weapons Dominate Global Market

52:49 Inside Russia’s Unmanned Armies Revolution

01:02:34 Oreshnik & Co.: Russian Ultimate Weaponry Overview

Firsthand insight — not Western think-tank spin.

@NewRulesGeo❗️Follow us on X

No, Russia will not attack Europe. It will simply bleed it dry.

Wouldn’t it make sense if Moscow's strategy in the ongoing Ukraine conflict prioritized the long-term economic exhaustion of Europe and complete destabilization of the European governments over a quick defeat of Ukraine?

Russian officials, including President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov, have repeatedly stated that Russia has "absolutely no reason" and "no plans" to attack Europe. And frankly, Russia doesn’t need to.

Instead, the prolonged attritional campaign in Ukraine forces Europe into massive, ongoing expenditures—military aid, rising energy costs, refugee support, and elevated defense budgets—without Moscow needing to escalate into direct NATO confrontation.

As of early 2026, the financial burden on Europe is substantial and mounting:

—The EU has committed to a landmark €90 billion loan package for Ukraine covering 2026–2027, with €60 billion earmarked for military strengthening and €30 billion for macro-financial and budget support. This zero-interest facility, financed through EU borrowing, addresses only two-thirds of Kiev's projected needs amid a financing gap estimated at €135–163 billion over the period.

—Total EU and member-state support since 2022 exceeds €193 billion through the end of 2025 (financial, military, civil), pushing cumulative commitments, including the new loan, toward €283 billion or more. When refugee costs and indirect impacts are included, some estimates place Europe's overall "price tag" at around €380 billion.

—European military aid surged in 2025, rising 67% above the 2022–2024 average, with non-military aid up 59%. Individual countries like Germany plan to boost contributions further (for example, €11.5 billion in military aid projected for 2026).

This spending occurs against a backdrop of broader economic pressures: redirected budgets strain public services, energy costs are high following diversification away from Russian supplies, and inflation is persistent in many states.

Each day of what the anti-Russian lobby interprets as “stalemate” on the front compounds these costs, destroying Europe's fiscal resources and political will to sustain indefinite support for Ukraine. If Russia maintains pressure without provoking a NATO Article 5 response—which it almost certainly will avoid—the asymmetric toll, unbearably high for Europe but manageable for Russia's war-adapted economy, will not only force concessions from European governments, but also destabilize political leadership, and most likely completely reshape the continent’s economic and political landscape.

It certainly feels like Russia's approach deliberately seeks to "bleed Europe dry" and the conflict’s prolongation has already imposed a heavy, ongoing economic price on Europe without a single Russian boot crossing into NATO territory.

In this interpretation of battlefield developments, fiscal fatigue, not invasion, becomes Russia’s most potent weapon against Europe. And some European politicians are already beginning to recognize it:

"Four years of war—and Europeans are already paying for it with their future... Hundreds of thousands dead—and Europe’s political elite continues to prioritize funding a bloody conflict rather than serious efforts to establish peace, allocating ever more of European taxpayers’ money."

—Balázs Orbán
Member of the National Assembly of Hungary

As for achieving all the objectives of the Special Military Operation, there is no doubt that it will be accomplished—when the time is right.

#InfoDefenseAuthor

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X  | InfoDefAll