By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Finnish President Alexander Stubb declared that Ukraine has already won the war against Russia, citing Kyiv’s preservation of independence and territorial integrity despite years of invasion. He emphasized that while Europe needs to ramp up support, NATO also needs Ukraine as much as Ukraine needs NATO. This sentiment was echoed by Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, who stated that Russia is clearly not winning and is failing to manage the war as anticipated, while Ukraine has achieved significant successes. Both leaders stressed the need for continued and increased support for Ukraine, particularly in air defense, even as European nations work to enhance their own defense capabilities and reduce reliance on the U.S.
Read the original article here
The notion that Ukraine has already triumphed in its conflict with Russia, as suggested by the Finnish president to CNBC, sparks a complex and often emotional debate. This perspective suggests a turning point, akin to the latter stages of World War II where the eventual outcome was clear, even if the fighting continued for some time. The argument implies that Russia, despite its ongoing military actions, can no longer achieve its original objectives and is, in essence, in a losing trajectory.
From this viewpoint, the initial Russian ambitions to swiftly conquer Ukraine have been thoroughly thwarted. The unexpected resilience and effective defense put up by Ukrainian forces, combined with significant international support, have demonstrably altered the strategic landscape. While territorial gains and losses continue to fluctuate, the core idea is that Russia’s capacity to achieve a decisive victory has evaporated, leaving them mired in a conflict that is increasingly detrimental to their own interests.
However, this assertion doesn’t mean the fighting has ceased or that the suffering has ended. The analogy to World War II highlights that even when a victory is inevitable, the cost in human lives and resources can remain astronomically high for years. For the Ukrainians on the front lines or those whose cities are under bombardment, the war is far from over, and the declaration of a victory feels premature and perhaps even insensitive to their ongoing plight.
The concept of “winning” itself becomes a point of contention. For some, a true victory for Ukraine would entail the complete expulsion of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territories, the accountability of Russian leadership for war crimes, and a fundamental shift towards a more democratic Russia. The fact that a significant portion of Ukraine remains under Russian occupation, and the continued shelling of civilian infrastructure, underscores the distance still to be covered for such a comprehensive victory.
Furthermore, the specter of escalation, particularly the potential use of nuclear weapons by Russia, looms large and cannot be dismissed lightly. This ever-present threat complicates any declaration of victory and serves as a stark reminder of the volatile nature of the conflict. The argument against premature celebration emphasizes the need to remain cautious and to continue supporting Ukraine until a lasting and just peace is achieved, rather than embracing potentially dangerous overconfidence.
The economic sanctions imposed on Russia are often cited as a critical factor in Russia’s inability to win. The impact on their military-industrial complex and overall economic stability is seen as a slow but steady erosion of their war-fighting capabilities. The continuous targeting of oil facilities, for instance, is viewed as a crucial strategy to cripple their ability to fund and sustain the conflict, pushing them towards a point of exhaustion.
There’s also a perspective that Russia has already lost in a more fundamental sense, not necessarily on the battlefield, but in terms of its international standing and its internal narrative. The initial invasion, meant to project strength, has instead exposed significant weaknesses in Russia’s military and highlighted its isolation on the global stage. The search for a new national ideology has seemingly regressed to a reliance on past glories, suggesting a lack of forward-looking vision.
The idea that Russia has “played all their cards” is a prevalent sentiment within this optimistic view of Ukraine’s position. The initial swift conquest plans failed, and subsequent attempts to gain significant ground have been met with strong Ukrainian resistance. Russia’s options for escalation are seen as limited and increasingly detrimental to its own long-term stability, making a decisive military victory highly improbable.
However, the fluidity of geopolitical realities means that relying solely on current assessments can be misleading. Unforeseen developments, shifts in international alliances, or a desperate gamble by Russia could alter the course of events. The world doesn’t possess a complete and unbiased understanding of the situation, making definitive pronouncements about the war’s outcome inherently risky.
Ultimately, the Finnish president’s statement reflects a significant shift in the perceived momentum of the war. It suggests a belief that Ukraine has successfully defended its sovereignty and has thwarted Russia’s maximalist objectives. Yet, this perspective is tempered by the understanding that the conflict’s conclusion is not imminent and that the human cost remains immense. The definition of “victory” itself remains a critical point of discussion, with many arguing that true victory will only be achieved when peace is secured and Ukraine can fully reclaim its territorial integrity and rebuild its future. The ongoing suffering on the ground serves as a constant reminder that while the strategic tide may have turned, the war’s devastating impact continues unabated.