Ukraine's Counteroffensive Has Failed...

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on November 16, 2023.

Few subjects in modern military history command as much attention and fascination as Ukraine's Counteroffensive Has Failed.... Behind the headlines and popular portrayals lies a complex story of strategic evolution, operational excellence, and the human costs of maintaining an elite fighting force. This in-depth analysis draws on the available historical record to examine the key developments, operational milestones, organizational changes, and strategic implications that have shaped this subject into what it is today. From its earliest origins through its most significant engagements, the following sections explore the full scope of this compelling topic.

Key Takeaways

Ukraine's counteroffensive, launched with high hopes and substantial Western backing, has ground to a near halt, leaving Kyiv's forces barely closer to their strategic objectives.
To understand the current stalemate, it is essential to examine the broader context of the war in Ukraine and the previous offensives that have shaped the conflict.
In the grinding war in Ukraine, both sides have encountered significant challenges, leading to a military stalemate that has frustrated strategic goals and exhausted resources.
Western support has been pivotal in sustaining Ukraine's war effort, but the shifting balance of power on the battlefield suggests that the aid may not be enough to secure a decisive victory.
Valery Zaluzhny, Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU), has provided critical insights into the challenges faced by Ukraine's military during the counteroffensive.
The article is grounded strictly in the source video script and listed references.

The Failed Promise of Ukraine's Counteroffensive

Ukraine's counteroffensive, launched with high hopes and substantial Western backing, has ground to a near halt, leaving Kyiv's forces barely closer to their strategic objectives. The initial optimism stemmed from several factors. The Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) had received a significant influx of Western weapons, including advanced main battle tanks and artillery systems. Additionally, Russia's own failed 2023 offensive had reportedly depleted its forces, creating an opportunity for the AFU to exploit. Western governments and military analysts, including Michael Kofman of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), had suggested that these factors could allow Ukraine to make substantial gains, potentially even reaching Crimea. The counteroffensive began in June with twin drives: one in the south aimed at the vital transport hubs of Melitopol and Berdyansk, and another in the east targeting the recently conquered city of Bakhmut. Initial reports indicated slow but steady progress. However, as the months wore on, the reality on the ground diverged sharply from the optimistic projections. The AFU's advance stalled, and the promised breakthroughs failed to materialize. By November, the stark reality of the situation became undeniable. Valery Zaluzhny, the Commander in Chief of Ukraine's Armed Forces, penned an essay in The Economist acknowledging the grim truth. 'There will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough,' he wrote, a stark contrast to the earlier optimism. Zaluzhny had initially expected the southern forces to advance up to 30 kilometers a day once they breached Russian defensive lines. Instead, the AFU's deepest penetration towards Melitopol was a mere 17 kilometers, a pace comparable to the infamous Battle of the Somme during World War I. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) analyzed the AFU's advance towards the village of Robotyne, revealing that at the height of their push, Ukrainian forces were moving at a glacial pace of 90 meters per day. This rate of advance was not only slow by modern standards but also paled in comparison to Ukraine's own Kherson counteroffensive in the fall of 2022, which saw an average daily advance of 590 meters. The contrast between the expected and the actual outcomes underscores the challenges faced by the AFU. Russian defenses, bolstered by extensive minefields, trenches, and fortified positions, proved far more resilient than anticipated. The failure of the counteroffensive has led to a chorus of bleak assessments from various quarters. Headlines in major publications like The Telegraph, New York Times, and Washington Post have painted a grim picture. A former adviser to President Zelensky described the counteroffensive as a 'disaster,' while Zaluzhny himself declared the war to be at a 'stalemate.' These assessments reflect the growing frustration and concern among Ukraine's allies and the public. The initial optimism has given way to a sobering realization that the war may be settling into a prolonged, attritional struggle. As Russia steps up its industrial production and reinforces its defenses, the window for a decisive Ukrainian victory appears to be closing. The question now is not whether Ukraine can achieve a swift, decisive breakthrough but how it can adapt to a war of attrition that could drag on for years.

Historical Context: The War in Ukraine and Previous Offensives

To understand the current stalemate, it is essential to examine the broader context of the war in Ukraine and the previous offensives that have shaped the conflict. The war, which began with Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, escalated significantly in February 2022 when Russian forces launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This invasion, aimed at toppling the government in Kyiv and establishing Russian control over the country, met with fierce resistance from the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) and civilian population. Despite initial Russian gains, the AFU, led by Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny, successfully defended Kyiv and other major cities, turning the tide of the war. The subsequent months saw a series of significant battles, each shaping the trajectory of the conflict. One of the most notable engagements was the Battle of Vuhledar, which took place in the eastern Donetsk region. This battle, which began in late 2022 and continued into early 2023, saw intense fighting as Russian forces attempted to capture the strategic town. Despite heavy losses, Russian forces failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough, highlighting the challenges they faced in overcoming Ukrainian defenses. Another pivotal battle was the protracted struggle for Bakhmut. This city, located in the Donetsk region, became a symbol of resistance for Ukraine. The battle, which lasted from August 2022 to May 2023, saw some of the most fierce and sustained fighting of the war. Russian forces, bolstered by Wagner Group mercenaries, launched repeated assaults on the city, but Ukrainian defenders held firm. The battle resulted in immense casualties on both sides, with estimates suggesting that tens of thousands of soldiers were killed or wounded. Despite ultimately falling to Russian forces, the defense of Bakhmut bought Ukraine valuable time to prepare for future offensives and to receive additional military aid from Western governments. The Battle of Avdiivka, another critical engagement, took place in the eastern Donetsk region. This battle, which began in October 2022, saw Ukrainian forces successfully defend the city against repeated Russian attacks. The Ukrainian victory in Avdiivka was significant, as it demonstrated the AFU's ability to hold ground against a numerically superior enemy. The battle also highlighted the importance of urban warfare tactics and the effective use of defensive positions. The success of Ukraine in Avdiivka was a morale booster for the AFU and a setback for Russian forces, who had hoped to make significant gains in the eastern region. In the lead-up to Ukraine's counteroffensive, Western analysts and military experts, including Morris M. and Michael Kofman of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), had high hopes for Ukraine's ability to push back Russian forces. The counteroffensive, launched in June 2023, aimed to liberate occupied territories in the south and east of Ukraine, including the strategic city of Melitopol. Initial reports from outlets such as The Telegraph and The Economist suggested that Ukrainian forces had made some progress, liberating several small towns and piercing Russian defenses in certain sectors. However, the overall gains were modest, and the counteroffensive failed to achieve its primary objectives. The slow pace of the offensive, coupled with heavy casualties, led to a reassessment of Ukraine's goals. Instead of aiming for the Sea of Azov and severing Russia's land bridge to Crimea, as initially envisioned, Ukrainian forces focused on more limited objectives, such as securing the town of Tokmak. Despite these adjustments, the counteroffensive has largely ground to a halt, with both sides entrenched in a stalemate. The failure of the counteroffensive has raised questions about the effectiveness of Ukraine's military strategy and the challenges it faces in overcoming Russian defenses.

Assessing the Military Stalemate: Strategies and Setbacks

In the grinding war in Ukraine, both sides have encountered significant challenges, leading to a military stalemate that has frustrated strategic goals and exhausted resources. The Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU), despite receiving substantial Western aid, have struggled to overcome Russian defenses, while the Russian Armed Forces have faced their own set of obstacles in achieving decisive victories. One of the most critical advantages held by Russia is its superior electronic warfare (EW) capabilities. Prior to the full-scale invasion, Russia invested heavily in modernizing its EW forces, developing cutting-edge equipment that has proven devastatingly effective on the battlefield. Ukraine, reliant on Soviet-era platforms at the war's outset, has struggled to keep pace. Although Western nations have provided Kyiv with advanced technologies, Russian EW capabilities continue to jam Ukrainian communications, making large-scale coordination between troops and artillery nearly impossible. This disadvantage is particularly acute when attempting to breach the extensive defensive works that Russia has constructed, described by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) as the most extensive in Europe since World War II. These defensive works, particularly the vast minefields, have posed a formidable obstacle. Russian minefields can stretch up to 500 meters wide and extend back 20 kilometers, creating a lethal barrier that has decimated Ukrainian units. In early June, the 47th Assault Brigade and 33rd Mechanized Brigade were caught in such a minefield, resulting in the loss of 25 tanks and fighting vehicles, including German Leopard II tanks. General Valery Zaluzhny, Commander-in-Chief of the AFU, acknowledged the severity of the challenge in an interview with The Economist, stating that even Western-supplied mine-clearing equipment has proven insufficient against the scale of Russian minefields. Beyond minefields, Ukraine faces additional challenges, such as the lack of air superiority. Russian attack helicopters have exploited this gap, leaving Ukrainian troops vulnerable to aerial assaults. Moreover, the battlefield is now a "transparent" environment, with modern sensors covering every inch, making it difficult for Ukrainian forces to concentrate without being detected and targeted. As Zaluzhny put it, "The simple fact is that we see everything the enemy is doing and they see everything we are doing." Criticism of Ukrainian strategies has also emerged from various analysts. John Helin of the Black Bird Group argued that the AFU's decision to launch a broad counteroffensive in multiple directions, including the strategically questionable push for Bakhmut, was a misstep. Many Ukrainian analysts have questioned the allocation of thousands of troops to retake a city with limited strategic value. Meanwhile, Western officials have noted tactical shifts in the counteroffensive, with the AFU moving from aggressive advances to more cautious, attrition-based strategies. This shift has reduced casualties and equipment losses but has also precluded significant breakthroughs. Analyst Michael Kofman suggested that a more aggressive approach might have resulted in similar gains but at a much higher cost, citing Russia's failed offensive at Vuhledar as an example. Despite losing over 130 tanks and armored vehicles, Russia failed to capture Vuhledar, which remains under Ukrainian control. For Russia, the counteroffensive has not translated into a clear victory. While the AFU's advances have been limited, Russia has also faced substantial setbacks. The extensive use of conscripts and Wagner Group mercenaries has led to high casualties, and morale issues persist within Russian ranks. Furthermore, Western sanctions and the global isolation of Russia have strained its economy and military-industrial complex, complicating efforts to sustain a prolonged conflict. As the stalemate continues, both sides are reassessing their strategies, seeking ways to gain an edge in a war that has become a grueling test of endurance and adaptability.

Western Support and the Shifting Balance of Power

Western support has been pivotal in sustaining Ukraine's war effort, but the shifting balance of power on the battlefield suggests that the aid may not be enough to secure a decisive victory. Since the onset of Russia's 2023 offensive, Western governments have funneled billions of dollars in military assistance to Kyiv, providing everything from artillery shells to advanced missile systems. This support has allowed the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) to maintain their defensive lines and launch counteroffensives, such as the recent push in the south. However, the effectiveness of this aid has been tempered by Russia's ability to adapt and counter Western supplies. In the early stages of the war, Ukraine's lack of long-range artillery posed a significant disadvantage. Russia's superior firepower allowed it to pummel Ukrainian positions with impunity. The delivery of Western artillery systems, including M777 howitzers and M270 multiple launch rocket systems, helped to redress this imbalance. By mid-2022, Ukraine had gained an artillery advantage, enabling it to disrupt Russian supply lines and support its own offensives. The Battle of Vuhledar, for instance, saw Ukrainian forces leverage this firepower to inflict heavy casualties on Russian troops. However, this advantage has proven to be fleeting. Russia's acquisition of up to one million artillery rounds from North Korea threatens to shift the balance once again, potentially giving Moscow the upper hand in future engagements. Long-range missile systems have also played a crucial role in the conflict. The provision of High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and M270s has allowed Ukraine to strike deep behind Russian lines, targeting ammunition depots, command centers, and bridges. These strikes have disrupted Russian logistics and forced Moscow to redeploy forces to protect its rear areas. However, Russia has responded by improving its air defenses and employing electronic warfare (EW) to jam Ukrainian drones and disrupt communications. This has led to a stalemate, with neither side able to gain a decisive advantage. The impact of Western aid on the balance of power is perhaps best illustrated by the ongoing Battle of Avdiivka. Since early October, Russian forces have launched waves of attacks against the city, suffering titanic losses in the process. Analysts estimate that Moscow may have lost more equipment outside Avdiivka than Ukraine lost in its entire counteroffensive. While Avdiivka's strategic value is limited, its fall would represent a significant symbolic victory for Russia. However, the high cost of such a victory underscores the stalemated nature of the conflict. As Ukrainian reserves officer and intel analyst Morris M. noted, both sides are at a crossroads, with swift changes needed to break the deadlock. The technological parity described by Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhny further complicates the picture. Both sides possess advanced surveillance capabilities, remote mine-laying systems, and cheap but effective drones and loitering munitions. This parity has led to a war of attrition, with neither side able to gain a decisive advantage. The provision of advanced Western systems, such as ATACMS and Patriot missile systems, has given Ukraine some edge, but Russia's advantages in sectors like electronic warfare mean that the balance of power remains delicately poised. In this context, the role of Western governments is increasingly complex. While military aid has been crucial in sustaining Ukraine's war effort, it has not been enough to secure a decisive victory. As the conflict enters its third year, the focus must shift towards finding a political solution that acknowledges the shifting balance of power on the battlefield. This will require Western governments to engage in diplomatic efforts alongside their military support, working to broker a peace that reflects the realities of the war in Ukraine.

Valery Zaluzhny's Perspective: Ukraine's Military Challenges

Valery Zaluzhny, Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU), has provided critical insights into the challenges faced by Ukraine's military during the counteroffensive. Zaluzhny's perspective underscores the complex interplay of factors that have hindered Ukraine's advances and shaped the current stalemate. One of the most pressing issues is the disparity in long-range missile capabilities. Russia has been aggressively stockpiling missiles, preparing to resume its campaign against Ukrainian infrastructure during the winter. This strategic move aims to exploit Ukraine's vulnerabilities, particularly in energy infrastructure. However, Ukraine has not been entirely defenseless. Companies like Tesla have provided significant support, offering steep discounts on Powerwall batteries to help Kyiv maintain essential services under constant bombardment. Additionally, recent meetings with U.S. tech leaders suggest that Ukraine's cyber capabilities may soon receive a substantial boost. These developments, while beneficial, may not be enough to alter the fundamental dynamics of the conflict. The question remains whether an influx of shells and missiles will allow Russia to break the stalemate more effectively than Ukraine's counteroffensive has. Most analysts agree that a protracted war favors the Kremlin, which possesses greater financial resources and manpower. This advantage is contingent on Western governments continuing to supply the AFU with arms and funding. Without sustained support, Ukraine's military could face insurmountable challenges. Zaluzhny's assessments align with broader analytical consensus, highlighting the need for strategic adjustments and continued international backing. The AFU's current focus is on sustaining defensive positions and preparing for future operations. Recent successes, such as damaging Russian naval capabilities in the Black Sea and establishing a bridgehead near Kherson, demonstrate Ukraine's tactical prowess. However, these achievements are distinct from the main counteroffensive efforts. The future of Ukraine's military operations is likely to involve a slowdown in major offensives, with a shift in focus to key areas like Avdiivka and Kupiansk. Melinda Haring of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Centre, after touring the front lines, reported that Ukrainian forces are utterly exhausted. After more than 600 days of continuous fighting, troops have had minimal opportunities for rest and replenishment. This exhaustion underscores the urgent need for respite and reinforcement. Moreover, there are indications that Kyiv may be strategically pausing to assess the potential impact of U.S. Congress decisions on military aid. Some observers have suggested that the end of the counteroffensive could present an opportune moment for peace negotiations. However, there is no evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin is inclined to engage in meaningful talks. Zaluzhny's insights, coupled with on-the-ground reports, paint a sobering picture of Ukraine's military challenges. The path forward requires not only sustained international support but also strategic adaptability and resilience in the face of Russia's relentless pressure.

Implications and Consequences: The Path Forward

The failure of Ukraine's counteroffensive has left Kyiv with few appealing options, as Moscow's preconditions for negotiations remain non-starters. Russia demands recognition of its illegal annexation of four Ukrainian oblasts—a claim it cannot even fully substantiate with control on the ground. Additionally, Russia insists on Ukraine's demilitarization, a condition that Kyiv would never accept. Each setback for the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) seems to embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin, convincing him that victory is within reach. From his perspective, there is little incentive to engage in meaningful negotiations when he believes he can achieve his original goal of conquering the entire country. With negotiations off the table and a pause in Ukrainian operations likely, the immediate future points towards a renewed Russian offensive. The critical question is whether Moscow's forces are capable of sustaining such an effort. The situation around Avdiivka illustrates Russia's determination to seize the initiative. Surrounded by Russian forces on three sides, the town has witnessed a massive buildup of 40,000 Russian troops despite recent heavy losses. Experts agree that Russia is committed to its assault on Avdiivka, at least through the spring of 2024. Simultaneously, the 1st Tank Army and the 6th and 20th Combined Arms Armies are pushing towards Kupiansk, while forces outside Bakhmut attempt to regain lost positions. These offensives highlight the challenges both sides face in overcoming entrenched defenses, a dynamic where defense holds a significant advantage. As noted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), this reality is not surprising given the nature of modern warfare. While localized successes, such as the potential fall of Avdiivka, would be significant for Putin, they are unlikely to translate into a generalized offensive capable of making large gains. The consensus among military analysts, including Professor Michael Clarke, is that Russia lacks the manpower for a sustained, large-scale offensive. Clarke suggests that Russia will not be capable of launching a successful offensive until the spring of 2025. This assessment is echoed by the New York Times, which reports that both sides will struggle to generate forces for offensive operations due to the intensity of the fighting. Even hardcore Russian supporters, like former officer Igor Girkin, acknowledge these limitations. Girkin, known for his nationalist views and criticism of Putin's war effort, predicts that Russian forces will be even less capable of offensive operations by spring 2024. He attributes this to Putin's reluctance to order a full mobilization and the Kremlin's focus on high-cost, low-reward operations like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Despite some analysts predicting a larger-scale Russian offensive, the general agreement is that the war has reached a stalemate. While Russia may capture Avdiivka and Ukraine may establish positions across the Dnipro, neither side is poised for a massive breakthrough. This stalemate has profound implications for Ukraine, Russia, and the international community. For Ukraine, the failure of the counteroffensive means a prolonged conflict with uncertain outcomes. For Russia, it signifies a costly war of attrition that strains its resources and morals. For Western governments, it underscores the need for continued support to Ukraine, both militarily and economically, to prevent further Russian aggression. The path forward is fraught with challenges, but the international community must remain steadfast in its support for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. The lessons from this conflict will shape future geopolitical dynamics, emphasizing the importance of resilience, strategic foresight, and unwavering commitment to democratic values.

A Long-Term Plan: Industrial and Economic Power

All of which neatly takes us onto our final chapter. The part where we try to figure out how this stalemate might be broken. (TITLE): Bright Spots In his Economist essay, General Zaluzhny claims his initial strategy was to cause so many casualties among Russian forces that the Kremlin would be forced to back off. Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work out (quote): “That (plan) was my mistake. Russia has lost at least 150,000 dead. In any other country such casualties would have stopped the war.” But not in Russia, where life is cheap.” Now, we can debate Zaluzhny’s figures - statistical analysis by independent Russian outlets Meduza and Mediazona in July put the number of dead closer to 47,000. But his overall point is sound. Moscow has lost more men in 19-months of fighting in Ukraine than the USSR did during the entire ten-year Soviet-Afghan War. Any hope of mass casualties leading to a revolution is just wishful thinking. This fact also means Kyiv can’t continue to rely on an attrition strategy. While they’ve suffered significantly fewer casualties than the Russians, Ukraine has a population slightly under a third of Russia’s. In a grueling, long-lasting slugfest, the Kremlin has a clear advantage. So, what’s the AFU to do? According to Zaluzhny: lean into new technologies. Hard. In his essay, the general highlights not only areas where Ukraine needs to play catchup - like EW - but also ways of using tech to bring the fight to Moscow. This includes heavy investment in drones. So many drones, that they can be sent out in massive waves that overwhelm Russia’s air defenses. This will be a hard task. Moscow is pumping insane amounts into mass-producing cheap drones. You can see the effects of this in the headline of a recent Reuters piece speaking to Ukrainian operators: “Some Ukraine drone pilots fear early advantage over Russia now lost.” Nonetheless, there are signs Kyiv is serious about upping its drone game. State-owned arms manufacturer Ukroboronprom recently announced it has begun mass-producing long-range kamikaze drones capable of striking Moscow. Mine clearance tech is something else Zaluzhny wants to promote. And he’s got some wild plans. Just listen to the stuff he’s asking for: “We need radar-like sensors that use invisible pulses of light to detect mines (...) We can use jet engines from decommissioned aircraft, water cannons or cluster munitions to breach mine barriers without digging into the ground. New types of tunnel excavators, such as a robot which uses plasma torches to bore tunnels, can also help.” On the other hand, there are many who think relying on advanced tech may be a distraction from Kyiv’s real needs. Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges recently told the Washington Post that the key is long-range strike capacity. In other words, giving Ukraine more cruise missiles that can hit sensitive sites like airfields, logistics hubs, and command posts. Right now, the AFU is armed with Storm Shadow, SCALP, and ATACMS long-range missiles. With these, they’ve destroyed scores of Russian aircraft, and blown-up ships in dock. Crucially, though, the number they have is limited.

Zelensky's Leadership and the Future of the War

As Ukraine's counteroffensive stalls, President Volodymyr Zelensky faces immense pressure to navigate his country through an increasingly complex and challenging war. Zelensky's leadership has been pivotal in maintaining Ukrainian morale and securing international support. However, the evolving dynamics on the ground demand a strategic reassessment. One critical area is Ukraine's use of long-range missiles, a capability that could significantly disrupt Russian supply lines. Analysts like Jack Watling of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) advocate for targeted strikes on Russian logistics, particularly in Crimea. Such strikes could exacerbate the challenges Russian forces face, especially as winter approaches. Climactic injuries, such as frostbite and hypothermia, could further degrade Russian combat effectiveness, a vulnerability that Ukraine must exploit. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine's Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, has highlighted Russia's reluctance to fully mobilize its population due to fears of political backlash. This hesitation presents an opportunity for Ukraine to bolster its own forces. By cracking down on draft evasion, expanding eligibility for military service, and making enlistment more appealing, Ukraine could potentially outmaneuver Russia in terms of manpower. The stark contrast in motivations is evident: for Russians, the war is often a distant reality, while for Ukrainians, it is a fight for survival. Despite these strategic considerations, the ultimate outcome of the war may hinge on decisions made far from the Ukrainian battlefield. Western governments, particularly in Europe and the United States, play a crucial role in sustaining Ukraine's resistance. However, there are growing signs of war fatigue among Western populations and politicians. Some advocates argue for cutting deals with Russia to end the conflict, a move that would embolden not only Vladimir Putin but also other autocratic leaders worldwide. This sentiment risks confirming Putin's long-held belief in Western weakness and indecisiveness. To prevent Ukraine's counteroffensive failure from translating into a broader defeat, Western democracies must commit to a long-term strategy. This involves leveraging the full industrial and economic power of the United States and Europe to supply Ukraine with the weapons and support it needs. Delivering these resources on time and in sufficient quantities is essential for sustaining Ukraine's defense. If the West stands united, the combined economic and military might of democratic nations can overwhelm Russia's capabilities. The choice to end this war lies with Western leaders, who must demonstrate the courage to support Ukraine through this critical juncture. Morris M., a defense analyst, aptly noted that the war's outcome will significantly influence global geopolitics. A resolute stand by the West could deter future aggression, while capitulation would embolden authoritarian regimes. As Ukraine faces an uncertain future, Zelensky's leadership and Western resolve will determine the trajectory of the conflict and the broader implications for international security.

Frequently Asked Questions

What percentage of Russians support the war in Ukraine?

See the full article for details on What percentage of Russians support.

What are the root causes of the war between Russia and Ukraine?

See the full article for details on What are the root causes.

Why is Russia in war with Ukraine?

See the full article for details on Why is Russia in war.

How many people died in Russia-Ukraine war 2026?

See the full article for details on How many people died in.

Has corruption in Ukraine improved?

See the full article for details on Has corruption in Ukraine improved?.

Related Coverage

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →