{"id":55579,"date":"2025-10-09T09:40:50","date_gmt":"2025-10-09T17:40:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=55579"},"modified":"2025-10-09T09:40:50","modified_gmt":"2025-10-09T17:40:50","slug":"the-russia-ukraine-war-continues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2025\/10\/09\/the-russia-ukraine-war-continues\/","title":{"rendered":"The Russia-Ukraine War Continues"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Bracing Views<\/a> with the author\u2019s permission.<\/i><\/p>\n

Since the last time (July 19th<\/sup><\/a>) I wrote about the Russia-Ukraine War, perhaps the biggest change has been to President Trump\u2019s rhetoric. After being frustrated in his efforts to end the war (and perhaps win a Nobel Peace Prize to boot), Trump effectively washed his hands of the conflict. A Truth Social post was especially surprising, as the BBC reported on 9\/24<\/a>:<\/p>\n

US President Donald Trump has said Kyiv can \u201cwin all of Ukraine back in its original form\u201d, marking a major shift in his position on the war with Russia.<\/em><\/p>\n

In a post on his Truth Social platform, he said Ukraine could get back \u201cthe original borders from where this war started\u201d with the support of Europe and NATO, due to pressures on Russia\u2019s economy\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to end the war, but has previously warned that process would likely involve Ukraine giving up some territory, an outcome Zelensky has consistently rejected.<\/em><\/p>\n

In his post, Trump added Ukraine could \u201cmaybe even go further than that\u201d, but did not specify what he was referring to.<\/em><\/p>\n

Exactly how Ukraine is going to win back all the land captured by Russia is unclear. Also less than clear is the role of the EU and NATO in this. Trump appears to have said it\u2019s up to the EU and NATO to support Ukraine (as if NATO is not commanded and controlled by America), with the U.S. more than willing to sell weapons to EU and NATO countries to support Ukraine\u2019s efforts.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s gambit is this: If Ukraine wins, he takes credit for continuing to supply weaponry and for his new vote of confidence. If Ukraine loses, Trump shifts the blame to the EU and possibly to Ukraine and Zelensky too.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a cynical policy \u2013 but these are cynical times.<\/p>\n

An undeniable truth is that the war grinds on with no end in sight. U.S. aid to Ukraine will soon reach $200 billion. Meanwhile, front lines have stagnated, counteroffensives have stalled, and Ukrainians themselves have grown increasingly weary of war.<\/p>\n

Observers in the West point to a weakening Russian economy and high battlefield losses as signs Russia itself may be nearing a tipping point that could lead to collapse and defeat. Both a heavily damaged Ukraine and a destabilized Russia might be the fruits of \u201cvictory,\u201d leading to chaos and possible nuclear escalation.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n\"\"<\/picture>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Again, no matter what Trump says, a total victory for Ukraine looks remote. Russia controls about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory, including the industrial Donbas and much of the south. Ukraine\u2019s economy is weakened (as is Russia\u2019s), its army is depleted, and its demographics are unfavorable to success (millions of Ukrainians have sought sanctuary abroad).<\/p>\n

The Media\u2019s Role in Perpetuating Illusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The mainstream media in the U.S. has been partisan since day one. The MSM framed the conflict as a morality play: a heroic democracy versus an evil autocrat.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the MSM overhyped U.S. weapons as \u201cdecisive\u201d and Ukrainian counteroffensives in 2023 as \u201cwar-winning.\u201d Media hype distorted expectations and contributed to public fatigue.<\/p>\n

Most strikingly, the press has consistently downplayed the risks of escalation with a nuclear power. Ukraine\u2019s use of long-range Western missiles to strike inside Russia carries serious dangers. That Putin will tolerate further provocations without escalating himself is a dangerous bet.<\/p>\n

The Case for Diplomacy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ukraine, no matter Trump\u2019s new faith, cannot win this war in the maximalist sense of regaining all occupied territories and forcing Russia\u2019s surrender. The longer the war continues, the more Ukraine will suffer \u2013 physically, economically, and politically.<\/p>\n

Wars feed autocracy. Already, Ukraine has postponed elections, banned several opposition parties, and restricted media outlets. These measures may be understandable in wartime, but they belie the notion that Ukraine is a flourishing democracy.<\/p>\n

A negotiated settlement is not capitulation. It is recognition of limits. The alternative is indefinite conflict \u2013 one that may bleed Ukraine dry even as it edges the world closer to catastrophe.<\/p>\n

Dangerous Assumptions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some policymakers argue a prolonged war will weaken Russia to the point of collapse. But a weakened Russia is not necessarily a safer one. If the Russian state disintegrates, who controls its nuclear arsenal? What if chaos in Moscow produces a more radical, vengeful leader? What if a desperate Kremlin lashes out, or if fighting spills into a NATO country like Poland?<\/p>\n

Conversely, what if Ukraine, drained by endless war and reliant on foreign arms, slides toward authoritarianism? Wars have a way of transforming republics into garrison states. The longer the conflict lasts, the greater the risk that Ukraine\u2019s democracy will become a casualty of its own \u201cgreat patriotic war.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Limits of Analogy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Too often, the war is discussed through lazy historical analogies. Putin is Hitler; Zelensky is Churchill; negotiations are \u201canother Munich.\u201d Such framing flatters Western moral vanity but obscures strategic reality. This is not 1938. Putin is not on the verge of conquering Europe, and diplomats are not appeasing him by seeking peace.<\/p>\n

Putin may be ruthless, but he is not suicidal. He knows that attacking a NATO member would invite his own destruction. Nuclear deterrence remains real. To suggest otherwise is to indulge in a fever-dream of perpetual conflict, one that justifies limitless military spending and forecloses diplomacy.<\/p>\n

The American Connection<\/strong><\/p>\n

For most Americans, the Russia-Ukraine War remains distant and impersonal. We are not threatened by Russian artillery; the war is thousands of miles away. Yet we are paying for it \u2013 literally. Every artillery shell, every tank, every missile financed through our taxes contributes to death and destruction abroad. Some justify this as moral duty: helping Ukraine defend freedom. But morality also demands an accounting of consequences.<\/p>\n

How many Americans know that 69 percent of Ukrainians report being weary of the war, or that their own government has suspended elections? How many realize that each dollar spent on war is a dollar not spent on schools, infrastructure, or healthcare at home?<\/p>\n

We are told the U.S. can afford virtually limitless weapons for Ukraine, but when it comes to social programs, we always hear the same question: How are you going to pay for that?<\/em> Apparently, there\u2019s always money for war, never for peaceful pursuits.<\/p>\n

A Broader Reckoning<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Russia-Ukraine War has become a mirror reflecting America\u2019s own pathologies: our addiction to militarism, our aversion to diplomacy, our willingness to spend without scrutiny when the cause is war, and our moral complacency about the human cost of conflict.<\/p>\n

We have turned foreign policy into a morality play, where compromise is dismissed as cowardice and negotiation is treated as akin to sin. Yet history teaches the opposite: the greatest statesmen are not those who glorify war but those who end it.<\/p>\n

The Russia-Ukraine War continues, and so does the silence around the most basic of questions: What is America\u2019s endgame?<\/em> If the answer is \u201cas long as it takes,\u201d we should ask: takes for what? For Ukraine\u2019s victory \u2013 or for its ruin? For democracy\u2019s defense \u2013 or for another endless war?<\/p>\n

It is time to demand accountability, restraint, and above all, diplomacy. Supporting Ukraine should not mean subsidizing endless cycles of death and destruction. How many more must die before this war is finally ended?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author\u2019s permission. Since the last time (July 19th) I wrote about the Russia-Ukraine War, perhaps the biggest change has been to President Trump\u2019s rhetoric. After being frustrated in his efforts to end the war (and perhaps win a Nobel Peace Prize to boot), Trump effectively washed his hands of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":290,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[758],"class_list":["post-55579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"0","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":"The Endgame Remains Unpredictable \u2013 Dangerously So"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55579","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/290"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55579"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55579\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55585,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55579\/revisions\/55585"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55579"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=55579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}