
Will Ukraine or Russia win the war?
After Ukraine's attack on Russian air bases, some pundits are writing that Ukraine is winning the war. At least one American newspaper headlined the surprise attack as Russia's 'Pearl Harbor,' evidently forgetting the ultimate result.
In any case, the actual ground war in Ukraine is increasingly favoring the Russians, who are slowly tightening the noose on Kyiv's forces.
The latest drone attack is Ukraine's emerging strategy to raise the cost of the war to the Russians, hoping either that they will get a better deal from Moscow, or more likely, persuade their American and European sponsors to actually join the fighting.
The new strategy first took shape in the invasion of Kursk in August 2024, a venture that cost Ukraine approximately 75,000 troops killed or wounded. At the same time, Ukraine began launching heavy drone strikes inside Russian territory as well as on the battlefield.
These attacks, at least those on the battlefield, forced the Russians to change tactics and revert to smaller unit operations that were more survivable, and it certainly slowed down the pace of operations for Russia's army.
Conversely, the Russian strategy is to grind down Ukraine's army and, wherever possible, trap them in cauldrons, cutting off their resupply and rotation lines of support. The Russian strategy appears to be unaffected, at least so far, by Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, or by wasteful operations in places such as Kursk, which actually support Russia's military objective.
As matters now stand, on the backside of the now-failed Kursk operation, Russia has expanded its operations in Sumy, a Ukrainian province adjacent to Kursk. Sumy offers long-range potential for a land assault on Kyiv, should Russia be able to consolidate its operations in Kursk and further weaken Ukraine's army defenses. In this photo provided by the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights Press Service, bodies of the killed residents lie on the ground following a Russian missile attack that killed at least civilia civilians in Sumy, Ukraine, Sunday, April 13, 2025.
Some Russian mil-bloggers are expressing the view that even if Russia and Ukraine sign some form of 'peace agreement,' guerrilla attacks on Russian territory and on their forces in Ukraine likely will continue for the foreseeable future.
One can see in these ruminations the belief that NATO will continue to cause Russia trouble for many years to come, assuming Russia does not take more radical steps to quash them.
Examples of how Ukraine is executing its strategy are clear. The attack on Russian air bases is just a part of the process: railroads have been hit, railroad bridges destroyed, and the Kerch Strait bridge was hit by a large explosion on June 3.
The Ukrainians also destroyed power stations supporting Kherson and Zaphorize, showing that Russian control is not all that effective. Latest Kerch Bridge Attack
Ukraine is also carrying out a record number of assassinations. including Zaur Gurtsiev, 34, a decorated former major, who was blown up in Stavropol in southern Russia.
The Ukrainians are exploiting a major Russian weakness, a lack of adequate preparation to protect important assets, including key people, and poor intelligence.
Ukraine's advantage is that it is supported by US and European intelligence and technical capabilities, which act as a facilitator and force multiplier for Ukrainian non-conventional operations.
In addition, Ukraine has its own drone manufacturing and electronics and software development experts. Before the Russian invasion, Ukrainian software engineers were working for leading companies outside the country. Israeli companies contracted or hired Ukrainian software developers to augment Israel's own formidable capability in this sector.
There also are limitations to the Ukrainian strategy. First, while the strategy, especially the use of drones coupled to some battlefield tactics, has given fits to the Russian army, the best that can be said is that it has slowed them down but not stopped them.
Meanwhile, the Russians are able to keep heavy pressure on the Ukrainians, making use of long-range missiles, drones, and increasingly FAB bombs (conventional bombs with guidance kits, called UMPK kits, extending their range).
Ukraine also has gotten some glide bombs from the US (such as the GBU-39), but the payload is much smaller than those used by the Russians, and the Ukrainians are running out of aircraft that can launch them. GBU-39 is a glide bomb in the 250-pound category, while Russia's glide bomb can carry between 555 pounds. and 3 tons of explosives over 37 miles. FAB-1500 with UMPK glide kit
Certainly, the Ukrainians are aware of the vulnerability of their armed forces, especially as they are stretched out over a long line of contact, now expanded with Russian operations in Sumy.
Reports say the Russian cauldron battlefield strategy is squeezing off logistical support for Ukrainian units, and their ability to rotate soldiers, meaning that morale is suffering and even well-organized defenses can't be held for very long.
An additional problem for Ukraine is securing adequate supplies from Europe and the United States, as well as trained operators for the imported weapons. Europe has slowed down the transfer of weapons, as European planners worry that they have little left for national self-defense.
It is unclear whether the US will keep up the pace, since there is growing concern in Washington that the US will not remain competitive in the Pacific – facing China's rising military capabilities – if it continues to strip its stockpiles of critical weapons and munitions. Should the US reduce deliveries of weapons, a distinct possibility for operational reasons, Ukraine's army cannot remain in the field for very long.
Ukraine's main problem is internal and political.
The current leadership can't acknowledge the surrender of any territory to Russia. It could agree to a ceasefire in place, but the Russians are not ready to grant that. It would leave the Russians with control of some of the territories they have annexed, but not all that they claim, and the possibility that the war might resume again in future.
More to the point, the Ukrainians don't want to give up on a relationship with NATO and Europe. Thus, even though uninvited, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says he will attend an upcoming major NATO meeting in the Hague.
While the US says that Ukrainian membership in NATO is off the table, Kiev is not accepting the US position. Zelensky is currently in Vilnius where he will be attending the Bucharest Nine and Nordic summit, aimed at unifying regional support for Ukraine.
(The Bucharest Nine, established in 2015, includes Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.) Volodymyr Zelensky in Vilnius | D. Umbraso / LRT nuotr.
We know less about Russia's internal situation. The Russians, so far, have failed to come to grips with Ukraine's unconventional war strategy, nor have they reacted so far either in improving their own security measures or in answering the Ukrainian attacks.
How this impacts the current leadership, the Kremlin first of all, Russia's security services, and the Russian army, is simply unknown. Having said that, it is unlikely the Russians will dramatically change their approach to the conduct of the war, or at least so far, there is no evidence of any change.
It looks like Ukraine's new strategy will not have more than a marginal effect on the war itself.
Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Hopes for a Xi-Trump summit are naively misplaced
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping's surprise phone call—marking the first direct communication between the leaders in months—may signal a temporary thaw in an otherwise frosty and structurally adversarial relationship. While America's restoration of Chinese student visas and China's resumption of blocked critical mineral trade suggest detente, this contact, like others in the history of US-China summits, could quickly prove to be more performative than substantive. The danger lies not in dialogue but in the illusion that the leader-to-leader call, which Beijing insisted Trump requested, will meaningfully alter the deep geopolitical, ideological and economic divergences that define Sino-American relations today. News reports said Xi told Trump to roll back tariffs and other trade measures that are roiling the global economy while warning him about intensifying the dispute over Taiwan. Trump claimed on social media that the call delivered a 'positive conclusion', including on China's restrictions on critical mineral exports, and that lower-level discussions on trade would follow. He said, 'We're in very good shape with China and the trade deal.' Both leaders invited each other to visit their countries. However, reports noted that there was nothing in either side's official statements to indicate the critical mineral issue had been resolved. And China has reasonable cause to remain on guard despite Trump's post-call positivity. Let us count the many impediments to real and lasting reconciliation: The most acute danger stems from Trump's lack of strategic coherence. Unlike the Kissinger-Nixon doctrine of detente, which was structured, calculated and guided by a realpolitik vision of global balance, Trump's approach is reactive and transactional and thus prone to Chinese manipulation. Concessions, including the reopening of student exchanges on the US side and lifting critcal mineral restrictions on China's—appear to be issued in exchange for vague 'reciprocity' rather than any long-term strategic realignment. For Beijing, such inconsistency is easily exploitable. Xi understands that Trump is prone to tactical surprises and policy reversals, allowing China to notch one-by-one concessions while offering minimal structural reforms or broad policy changes in return. This understanding of Trump's tactics and views may also embolden China to keep testing US resolve and commitment in the Taiwan Strait, East Sea and South China Seas, knowing that by doing so it strengthens its negotiating leverage in wresting future US concessions. Much has been made of US-endorsed 'de-risking' from China without actually 'decoupling.' The resumption of trade in critical minerals—crucial to US defense and clean energy sectors—signals a potential pause in America's techno-economic containment of China, which if lasting, would contradict the bipartisan consensus in Washington that China poses a 'systemic challenge.' This could also send mixed messages to allies such as Japan, South Korea and key ASEAN economies, many of which are now being pressured to restrict technology transfers to China, particularly in regard to AI and quantum computing. If Trump reverses this posture, potentially at a Trump-Xi in-person summit, it would necessarily undercut the anti-China coalition the US has been trying to build since 2017 and signal a climbdown of epic proportions. An in-person summit with Xi would give both leaders global optics, something they arguably both need as their hardline stances cause political tremors at home and restlessness abroad. Yet symbolism without substance carries its own risks. The 2019 Mar-a-Lago summit and the 2018 G20 truce in Argentina were celebrated photo ops that ultimately yielded few strategic gains. Indeed, they were followed by tariff escalations, cyber accusations and deepened distrust. Xi, ever conscious of China's 'national rejuvenation' drive, may use a summit with Trump to signal that China is not isolated—even amid Western efforts to contain it – and that he brought the US to heel through his tough negotiating posture. Should he succeed in presenting Trump as a president willing to do business without political preconditions, it will bolster China's power on the world stage. This symbolism would serve Xi well amid research that shows China is straining under the weight of assisting various countries when its own economy remains fragile. There will be a temptation to portray a Trump-Xi summit as a return to the two sides' previous 'managed rivalry' model. Yet this notion is predicated on mutual trust, which no longer exists. A brief thaw may offer breathing space for both, but there is no sign yet of lasting strategic stability. During the previous Cold War, the US and Soviet Union were able to negotiate arms control and crisis management protocols. No such guardrails exist between the US and China today. The resumption of critical mineral trade and educational exchanges, while welcome, won't be enough to reverse mutual mistrust, especially when military encounters in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea could easily still spiral out of control. Increasingly politicized charges against Chinese nationals in the US are fueling that mistrust. Those include new accusations that China is involved in 'agro-terrorism' that aims to wipe out US barley, wheat and corn yields by up to 50%. A PhD researcher of Chinese origin at the University of Michigan has been arrested in this connection. A potential Trump-Xi summit – despite stage-managed positive vibes and smiles for the cameras, could be yet another empty ritual—a theatrical handshake over unresolved and deep contradictions. To be sure, both leaders have reasons to engage. Trump seeks headlines as his popularity slips ahead of 2026 midterm elections; Xi seeks legitimacy for his tough negotiating posture that risks millions of Chinese factory jobs. But neither is offering a strategic roadmap that can reassure domestic or global audiences. Without a shared understanding of what strategic competition entails, and without mechanisms for escalation control, the optics of detente will only mask a rivalry that still threatens to spiral deeper and deeper into conflict.


Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Ukraine's attacks on Russia risk major retaliation
Subscribe now with a one-month trial for only $1, then enjoy the first year at an exclusive rate of just $99. Kiev's high-risk strikes bring war to new precipice James Davis analyzes the sharp escalation in the Ukraine war marked by Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian strategic air bases and infrastructure, moves that have put mounting hardline pressure on Vladimir Putin to abandon peace talks and shift toward 'total war.' Poland's vote heralds a Trump-aligned turn in Central Europe Diego Faßnacht analyzes the election of nationalist candidate Karol Nawrocki as Poland's new president. He argues his victory could foreshadow a rightward realignment in Central Europe that is skeptical of Brussels and increasingly in sync with US Republicans. Trump doubles down on failing China sanctions Scott Foster argues that escalating US export controls on advanced technology are backfiring, accelerating China's tech self-sufficiency and innovation, as well as its scale-building efforts in AI, semiconductors, and aerospace, eroding American market dominance.


South China Morning Post
17 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
US reveals pick for Nato's next supreme allied commander
President Donald Trump 's administration announced on Thursday its nomination for the next top US general in Europe and said the US military officer would also assume the traditional role of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Saceur). Trump's decision to nominate US Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich to both roles, which was first reported by Reuters, will relieve European Nato allies and even some of Trump's fellow Republicans amid concerns about a retrenchment in American military leadership of Nato Grynkewich must be confirmed by the US Senate. The position of Saceur, which oversees all Nato operations in Europe, has been filled by a US general since its creation after World War II. US Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower became the alliance's first Saceur in 1951. Still, since taking office in January, Trump's administration has pressured Nato allies to ramp up their defence spending, saying Europe should be primarily responsible for defence on the European continent. Speaking at Nato headquarters earlier on Thursday, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said he was confident that members of the Nato alliance would agree to a major boost in defence spending. Photo: AP Trump has also said he wants Nato allies to boost investment in defence to 5 per cent of gross domestic product, up from the current target of 2 per cent.