By John Q. Hosedrinker 
With the war in Ukraine approaching its fourth year and a potential Trump presidency looming, the conflict’s endgame is highly uncertain. Latvia, a significant military aid provider to Ukraine, emphasizes the importance of a Ukrainian-defined victory and continued support from allies. While NATO membership for Ukraine is considered non-negotiable, the specifics of security guarantees during and after a potential ceasefire remain under discussion. Latvia stresses the need for a strong Ukrainian position in negotiations, supported by continued Western aid and a unified stance against further Russian aggression.
Read the original article here
Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine seems increasingly unsustainable, a point underscored by the observation that their pursuit of this war is delusional. The belief that they can endure this prolonged conflict indefinitely appears to be a miscalculation, given the escalating costs and diminishing returns.
The sheer length of the war, nearing three years, has taken a significant toll. Significant losses of both personnel and equipment are straining Russia’s resources. While official pronouncements from both sides often paint a picture of imminent victory, the reality on the ground suggests a stalemate, punctuated by incremental, often costly, advances for Russia.
The narrative that Russia is rapidly winning is demonstrably false, given the extensive losses they’ve sustained. The scale of these losses, potentially reaching hundreds of thousands of soldiers and a substantial portion of their military equipment, suggests a significantly weakened military capacity. This is not simply a matter of replacing lost materials; it also represents the erosion of experienced personnel and military expertise.
This depleted state is further complicated by the fact that Russia’s access to crucial resources and support might be dwindling. The reliance on alternative supply routes, like those from North Korea or Iran, may not be sufficient to offset their significant losses. This issue becomes even more critical when considering that the production capacity of these alternative suppliers may not fully compensate for Russia’s massive consumption of military hardware.
Furthermore, financial constraints are emerging as a major obstacle to Russia’s continued war effort. The substantial portion of their GDP allocated to military spending—a figure exceeding 30 percent—highlights the enormous economic strain. This expenditure is not only unsustainable in the long run but also diverts resources from other critical areas of the Russian economy.
The prevailing notion that Russia’s military outperforms Europe is not supported by evidence. Claims of exceeding Europe’s combined production capacity appear exaggerated and are contradicted by the ongoing shortages of various crucial military supplies. While there is undoubtedly ongoing production and acquisition of new weapons, it is questionable whether this can fully compensate for the scale of losses.
Moreover, the narrative that Russia can easily absorb human losses is deeply concerning. Dismissing the immense cost in human lives ignores the fundamental impact on Russian society. The scale of deaths, approaching half a million, has far-reaching social and economic implications that are difficult to ignore. The potential for significant social unrest and political instability is undeniable, particularly when considered in conjunction with the economic woes.
In essence, Russia’s continued pursuit of the war in Ukraine appears to be based on a flawed premise: the belief that they can withstand the immense pressure and depleting resources without facing serious consequences. Their heavy reliance on a potentially unreliable ally and their evident economic challenges paint a picture of mounting desperation. The situation suggests that Russia’s current strategy is unsustainable, jeopardizing not only the success of their military campaign but the stability of the regime itself.