Peace deal dead, new war drums beating for Ukraine

There is growing evidence that not only have the Ukraine peace talks stalled, but NATO has won over Washington to not only continue the war but to expand it.

While Russian President Vladimir Putin has flown off to meet with his two buddies, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un, in China on an unprecedented four-day jaunt, NATO, with full US backing, is stepping up its effort to hand the Russian army a major defeat and, following that, introducing NATO troops to “stabilize” Ukraine.

What is the evidence? First and very noticeable is the US decision to ship 3,350 missiles to Ukraine, ostensibly to be paid for (someday?) by the Europeans (which ones are not defined). These are known as Extended Range Attack Munitions (ERAM), a type of air-launched cruise missile.

The Aviationist reports that “Ukrainian Air Force’s F-16s, Mirage 2000s and its fleet of Russian-origin MiG-29s, Su-25s and Su-27s would be able to operate it. This new weapon would be an addition to the AASM Hammer and GBU-39 SDB already employed by Ukrainian fighters.”

According to open source intelligence, ERAMs have a range of 250 miles (402 kilometers). However, that is the range once launched by an aircraft. Washington says it opposes Ukrainian missile attacks on Russian territory, and while it is restricting the use of long-range HIMARS, it is not restricting the use of ERAM.

ERAM reportedly carried a 500-pound (227-kilogram) warhead, far larger than any Ukrainian UAV and more than double any of the different HIMARS missiles (M31 Utility Warhead, ATACMS warhead). It may be that ERAMs can be fielded with cluster munitions, although much about the ERAM is uncertain.

Ukraine has also introduced a new cruise missile called Flamingo (FP-5). Developed by a Ukrainian company called Fire Point, the missile has a range of 3,000 kilometers and carries a massive one-ton warhead.

The Ukrainians say that the Flamingo is an entirely home-grown missile, but it is nearly identical to the FP-5 produced by the Milanion Group. Milanion is based at Tawazun Industrial Park, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

Milanion Group previously partnered with Ukraine Armor for making robotic vehicles. According to published information, Ukraine can produce around 20 Flamingos per month. The US allegedly has no control over the use of Flamingo.

None of these weapons, alone, can stop the Russian army, as NATO analysts nowadays understand. Thus, the current strategy employed by Ukraine against Russia’s critical infrastructure, aimed at raising the cost of the war and demoralizing the Russian public, is not enough to stop the advance of Russian forces.

In the past, NATO planners helped plan (using simulation models) and execute special offensives (including advanced real-time intelligence) to try and deter Russia. The most notable have been attacks in Crimea aimed at the port of Sevastopol and Russian military installations (especially air defenses), and other major offensives in Zaporizhzhya, Kherson, and Donetsk regions.

They were also involved in earlier successful campaigns such as the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region and the Battle of Kyiv. More recently, Ukrainian incursions into Russia’s Kursk Oblast in August 2025 represent a significant escalation and were successful for some months in holding Russian territory.

The Russians managed to roll back everything from 2023, but at significant cost. In addition, in Kursk, the Russians relied heavily on North Korean troops who took heavy casualties, so much so that Kim Jong Un sought to turn defeat into a sort of moral victory, holding highly emotional funeral ceremonies in Pyongyang.

NATO views Russia’s use of North Korean troops as an admission that Russia faces manpower shortages and instability in the Russian army, and that Russia is taking heavy casualties in the Ukraine war.

NATO may be reading Putin’s statements that he has no intention of attacking Europe now or in the future as an admission that he cannot attack Europe with an army that is too small and one that the Ukraine war has broken. Part of the pushback can be found in the Saratoga Foundation report, “A Systems View of Russia’s Early Failure in Ukraine.”

Now, Russian sources are reporting two developments that indicate that a new offensive will soon materialize, heavily supported by NATO, and aimed at Crimea. Those sources say that the US and its NATO partners have significantly increased overhead intelligence gathering, preparing for the coming attack.

Here is one Russian report on a Telegram channel called Archangel of Special Forces (АРХАНГЕЛ СПЕЦНАЗА):

Since August 23, there has been an increase in reconnaissance flights in the immediate vicinity of our borders, including by aircraft that have not been observed in the region for a long time.

A US Air Force RQ-4B, which has not been in the Black Sea since July, conducted a night patrol southwest of Sevastopol.

A US Navy P-8A conducted reconnaissance in the direction of the Crimean Bridge, Sochi and the Novorossiysk naval base for three days in a row.

On August 25, the Artemis CL-650 aircraft, which has modern equipment, similar in some respects to the R-8A, worked in tandem with the R-8A. Their paired use is one of the ways to obtain the most accurate information about our air defense positions.

And a French E-3F AWACS aircraft flew in the Crimean direction – a rare guest, the appearance of which can be considered a sure sign of impending strikes.

​In addition, Newsweek reports that a British Royal Air Force RC-135W Rivet Joint, an electronic intelligence-gathering aircraft, flew a two-hour sortie off the coast of Romania … about 150 miles west of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet garrison of Sevastopol, according to GPS signals captured on Flightradar24.

According to Status-6 (Military & Conflict News) a Russian Sukhoi fighter jet intercepted a US Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft/ASW plane over the Black Sea on August 28. The Russians see US-led heavy surveillance operations as preparing for a major operation against Crimea.

Russian mil bloggers say that Ukraine has been “preparing for this attack over the past few weeks. Landing craft have been ready for a long time, USVs were stationed in the waiting area at the mouth of the Danube. Even special forces of the GUR [Military Intelligence] arrived in the Odesa region as part of this preparation.”

Meanwhile, on August 28, the Russians sank the Simferopol, a Ukrainian reconnaissance vessel, near the mouth of the Danube River, using a sea drone.

All of this involves the US and NATO together, and despite high-level US statements that Ukraine should cede Crimea to Russia in any peace deal, it appears that the US and NATO are preparing for a major Crimea attack.

In plain terms, the Russians are reading these developments as a possible renewed attempt by the US and NATO to shift the “correlation of forces” in the Ukraine war with the intent of forcing major concessions from the Russians, not from the Ukrainians.

We will have to wait to see how a new offensive on Crimea will unfold (if it does) and if the Russians can counter a major attack there. But it does clearly signal that peace talks, at least for now, are dead and that NATO wants to “win” its war against Russia. It seems Washington has decided not only to go along with its European allies but to participate in a major way.

The British and French, and probably the Germans too, want to back up a victory such as Crimea might offer with deploying NATO troops into Ukraine to bail out Ukraine’s army, which otherwise might collapse.

There are indications that Germany is moving toward conscripting soldiers for their armed forces, stepping up the delivery of arms to Ukraine and building up an efficient delivery infrastructure that could support NATO armed forces fighting in Ukraine. It is not surprising that Germany’s main foreign customer for weapons is Ukraine.

There are many uncertainties, not the least of which is that Washington may again change direction.

Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared in his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.