The article doesn't pass the smell test for one simple reason: If the situation is so bad for Russia, why is Europe and Ukraine insisting on an immediate ceasefire with no preconditions (when it insisted on 91 borders until 2025)?
I think these sorts of articles are actively harmful to Ukraine because they suggest that basically nothing needs to be done or changed in the way EU helps Ukraine, and that Russia will basically lose as time goes on.
1. The situation being bad for Russia does not imply it is good for Ukraine. This late in the match, they're both pretty beat up.
2. Most of the ceasefire talk is posturing to convince Trump that it's the other side stalling progress toward peace. It's not a great indicator of how much fight is left in Ukraine. As an autocracy, Russia will look strong until the day it falters. As a democracy we'll know the messy details all the way through.
The article doesn't pass the smell test for one simple reason: If the situation is so bad for Russia, why is Europe and Ukraine insisting on an immediate ceasefire with no preconditions (when it insisted on 91 borders until 2025)?
I think these sorts of articles are actively harmful to Ukraine because they suggest that basically nothing needs to be done or changed in the way EU helps Ukraine, and that Russia will basically lose as time goes on.
1. The situation being bad for Russia does not imply it is good for Ukraine. This late in the match, they're both pretty beat up. 2. Most of the ceasefire talk is posturing to convince Trump that it's the other side stalling progress toward peace. It's not a great indicator of how much fight is left in Ukraine. As an autocracy, Russia will look strong until the day it falters. As a democracy we'll know the messy details all the way through.
https://archive.is/t8e4e