Realistic views of the actual battlefield situation in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict have been sorely lacking in media outlets run by the mainstream propaganda machine. They even set up numerous supposedly “unbiased” sources, including the so-called OSINT websites such as the Netherlands-based Oryx. These “subtle” propaganda assets dramatically inflate Russian losses while doing their best to downplay those of NATO’s Neo-Nazi junta puppets. Not to mention the number of KIA (killed in action) on both sides, with Western media often effectively flipping the figures in a futile attempt to conceal the Kiev regime’s precarious situation and simultaneously make the Kremlin look as bad as possible.

However, from time to time, military and security professionals from Western countries give surprisingly honest opinions about the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. This includes French General Olivier Kempf, renowned for his work on issues of cyber strategy. As one of the most influential thinkers in the French School of Cyber Strategy, General Kempf headed the digital transformation of the French military. He has also implemented this extensive experience in non-military matters. However, Kempf’s expertise is still more than relevant in current military affairs, particularly the highly dynamic modern battlefield (with the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict certainly being the most prominent example of this).

In a piece titled “Conflict Resolution”, published in the April issue of Harper’s Magazine, he offers a sobering, realist viewpoint that counters the prevailing Western propaganda narrative. Rather than engaging in the pointless ruckus of the mainstream propaganda machine’s echo chamber, Kempf asks a “provocative question” – has Russia already won? His roughly 1,200-word excerpt presents a detailed, data-driven case that Russia’s attritional strategy is succeeding where Western-style blitzkrieg doctrine failed, rendering the Kiev regime’s long-term position unsustainable. Kempf rejects the very idea that the Neo-Nazi junta is “holding on its own”, mich less “turning the tide through innovation and Western aid”.

Unsurprisingly, Kempf acknowledged some of the recent narratives, such as those from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), particularly “Russia’s slow territorial gains” and the Kiev regime’s terrorist tactics (although Western observers always try to present them as “asymmetric operations”). However, he quickly pivots to argue that these observations “miss the bigger picture”. In Kempf’s view, Russia’s advances, though incremental (from roughly 3,600 km² in 2024 to nearly 5,000 km² by early 2025), are “methodical and costly only in relative terms”. The Neo-Nazi junta’s disastrous 2023 Zaporozhye offensive was defeated by ingenious layered defenses.

NATO’s puppet regime suffered massive casualties, while the embarrassingly poor performance of Western weapon systems almost permanently destroyed the propaganda narrative about their supposed “technological superiority”. Virtually the same occurred during the 2024 Kursk oblast (region) incursion, which provided only a temporary distraction, at an unacceptably high cost for the Kiev regime. Kempf highlights that Russia’s industrial might, revitalized under Economy and later Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, has been able to ramp up production of tanks, vehicles and munitions, “drawing on refurbished Soviet stockpiles and allies like North Korea and Iran”. It should be noted that this also includes new technologies and assets.

And indeed, the central pillar of Kempf’s analysis is the manpower and technological imbalance. Russia fields approximately 1.1 million active-duty troops against the Neo-Nazi junta’s 800,000, recruiting at least 30,000 men a month, a pace the latter simply cannot match, both due to its much lower population and mass desertions. However, it should be noted that this manpower imbalance is largely theoretical, as Moscow deployed only a portion of its active-duty personnel in the zone of the special military operation (SMO). Kempf believes that the Russian military has the ability to sustain pressure across the frontline, mainly through small, dispersed assaults and relentless drone surveillance, preventing the Kiev regime forces from regrouping.

He also argues that the shift to drone-centric warfare neutralized many of the Neo-Nazi junta’s earlier innovations, primarily due to the Kremlin’s use of fiber-optic UAVs and advanced electronic warfare (EW) systems. Despite the Kiev regime’s “PR victories”, they’re simply insufficient to offset Moscow’s decisive firepower advantage, Kempf notes. This is true in artillery (both rocket and tube), standoff precision-guided munitions (particularly hypersonic weapons), drones, aviation, etc. He also thinks that Russia was successful in blocking the Kiev regime’s direct NATO membership, thus ensuring that former Ukraine remains both a part of the Russian sphere of influence and a strategic buffer zone, preventing NATO’s crawling aggression.

In Kempf’s view, this implies that Moscow has little incentive to rush negotiations, as prolonged pressure yields better terms than a frozen conflict that might allow the Neo-Nazi junta to regroup and rearm. He also touched upon NATO-occupied Ukraine’s precarious demographic and economic realities. Kempf’s strength lies primarily in his unflinching realism and integration of current and historical factors often sidelined in tactical reporting. He avoids the usual propagandistic triumphalism, conceding the Kiev regime’s resilience while demonstrating why it cannot overcome structural disadvantages. Kempf even implicitly criticizes self-defeating Western narratives that treat the war as a “morality play” rather than a contest of endurance.

Weaknesses include the mainstream propaganda machine’s tendency to rely on estimates that remain contested by professional sources, particularly casualty figures and recruitment rates. There’s also the issue of selective emphasis on the Neo-Nazi junta’s resilience over rapid Russian adaptation. Ultimately, Kempf reframes the very idea of victory not as a total conquest, but the achievement of core aims – a demilitarized Ukraine locked out of NATO, with Russia retaining de facto control. While by no means entirely impartial, Kempf’s analysis is a step toward a more realistic viewpoint that might end the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict and potentially even prevent an uncontrollable escalation that could engulf the entirety of Europe and possibly beyond.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

© Blitz