December 7, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Kremlin welcomes Trump’s new National Security Strategy

Institute for the Study of War

The Kremlin positively reacted to the recently released US National Security Strategy (NSS). Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on December 7 that the new US NSS is “largely consistent with [Russia’s] vision” and could be a “modest guarantee” that Russia and the United States will be able to continue working toward securing a peace settlement in Ukraine.[1] Peskov stated that the Kremlin considers the NSS’s call for cooperation with Russia and refraining from listing Russia as a “direct threat” to the United States as a “positive step.”[2] Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev stated that the updated NSS is a signal that the United States is ready to discuss issues related to the “security architecture,” likely referring to European security architecture and the role NATO plays in it.[3] Medvedev stated that the NSS “unexpectedly” aligns with Russia’s ideas about the need to share security and respect the sovereignty of states. Medvedev stated that the “window of opportunity for dialogue” is now “ajar.”

Russian forces are conducting a battlefield air interdiction (BAI) campaign against Ukrainian ground lines of communications (GLOCs) in northern Kharkiv Oblast, likely to disrupt Ukrainian logistics to eventually facilitate battlefield gains. The Kharkiv Oblast Infrastructure Restoration and Development Service reported on December 7 that Russian forces struck a bridge near Staryi Saltiv (east of Kharkiv City and roughly 16 kilometers from the frontline), forcing Ukrainian authorities to close the T-2111 Chuhuiv-Velykyi Burluk road near Pechenihy (southeast of Kharkiv City and roughly 40 kilometers from the front line) and the T-2104 Kharkiv City-Vovchansk-Chuhunivka highway near Staryi Saltiv.[4] Pechenizkyi Hromada Head Oleksandr Husarov reported on December 7 that Russian forces also conducted a missile strike against the Pechenihy Reservoir Dam, forcing Ukrainian authorities to suspend traffic across the dam.[5] Geolocated footage published on December 7 shows damage to the dam after the Russian strike.[6] Russian strikes on the bridge and dam likely aim to degrade Ukrainian GLOCs supplying the Vovchansk, Velykyi Burluk, and Kupyansk directions. Ukrainian forces were reportedly prepared for this scenario, such that the effectiveness of these Russian strikes on Ukrainian logistics may be limited. The Ukrainian 16th Army Corps reported on December 7 that Russian forces have long been systematically targeting the Pechenihy Reservoir Dam with missiles, Shahed-type drones, guided glide bombs, Molniya drones, and first-person view (FPV) drones but have only started to destroy the area in recent days.[7] The 16th Army Corps noted that Ukrainian forces have long been aware of the potential risks to the dam and developed contingency plans and backup routes in the event of significant damage to the dam. Russia’s BAI campaigns involve strikes against targets in the near rear and operational rear, such as roads, railways, and bridges that support Ukrainian GLOCs.[8] Russia’s BAI campaigns aim to facilitate subsequent Russian offensive operations in the weeks and months that follow by degrading Ukraine’s ability to sustain frontline defenses. Russian strikes targeting the operational rear of the Kharkiv, Velykyi Burluk, and Kupyansk directions may aim to replicate these effects in these sectors of the front as part of preparation for intensified offensive operations. Russian forces have notably been unable to replicate the successes their months-long BAI campaign brought about in the Pokrovsk direction in other sectors of the front, however, possibly because Russia can only dedicate the necessary assets to generate these effects at scale in a single operational area at a time.[9]

Russian forces also intensified strikes against bridges near the Zaporizhia-Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border. Geolocated footage published on December 6 shows Russian drone strikes against a mined bridge across the Haichur River in central Andriivka (southwest of Oleksandrivka and north of Hulyaipole).[10] ISW continues to assess that Russia’s ability to cross the Haichur River will likely be the determining factor in its ability to make operationally significant advances further westward.[11] Russian forces may have destroyed the bridge in Andriivka in order to disrupt supplies to and isolate Ukrainian forces on the river’s east bank and facilitate Russian advances in the area south of the river near Oleksandrivka. The bridge strike suggests that Russian forces are confident that they will be able to cross the river at another point or will be able to rebuild the Andriivka crossing in the future.

Key Takeaways

  1. The Kremlin positively reacted to the recently released US National Security Strategy (NSS).
  2. Russian forces are conducting a battlefield air interdiction (BAI) campaign against Ukrainian ground lines of communications (GLOCs) in northern Kharkiv Oblast, likely to disrupt Ukrainian logistics to eventually facilitate battlefield gains.
  3. Balloons from Belarusian airspace continue incursions into NATO airspace in Lithuania.
  4. Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area. Russian forces recently advanced near Hulyaipole.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.