Ukraine faces two nuclear powers

CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 2–8 February 2025

Five publications (The Washington Post, The National Interest, Foreign Affairs, The Minnesota Star Tribune, and The Economist) were selected to prepare this report on how Ukraine has been portrayed in the North American press during the past week. The sample was compiled based on their impact on public opinion as well as on their professional reputation, popularity among the readership, and topical relevance. These publications represent centrist viewpoints on the political spectrum.

This MMS report covers only the most-read and relevant articles about Ukraine, as ranked by the respective North American publications themselves in the past week. Its scope covers promoted articles on home pages and articles from special sections on Ukraine, with the hashtag #Ukraine, from the paper editions of the publications, and about Ukraine from opinion columns and editorials.

MMS summaries

Big Tech coddles dictators. Vladimir Kara-Murza, Yulia Navalnaya, and Ilya Yashin (Washington Post) argue that tech companies are following the laws of dictators, сompromising human rights and freedom of speech. Every such concession by tech giants is a tragedy: “In Russia, tens of millions lost access to uncensored information about Vladimir Putin’s bloody war against Ukraine, leaving them vulnerable to relentless state propaganda—all in full compliance with laws dictated by a regime that flagrantly violates international norms.” According to the authors, in order for tech giants not to play along with autocratic regimes, they must adhere to three key principles. First, they must prioritize human rights: “Dictators’ ‘laws’ are not always legitimate under international standards. Universal human rights, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, must not be violated.” Second, they should be focused on real-world outcomes: “In dictatorships, what’s written as law is not necessarily enforced fairly. Companies must consider the practical consequences of their actions on users and aim to protect them.” Third, they should establish mechanisms for dialogue with civil society. Otherwise, what is happening in Russia will continue: “Between July and November [2024], Apple agreed to a series of Kremlin demands by removing independent media apps from the Russian Apple Store. Russian users lost access to content from publications such as the Insider, the BBC and Echo, as well as podcasts by Meduza and Holod. Even U.S.-funded media such as Current Time and Radio Liberty were removed.” Kara-Murza, Navalnaya, and Yashin “believe technologies that protect freedom, rights, and users’ interests will ultimately bring greater benefits to their creators.”

Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure could inspire peace talks. David Kirichenko (National Interest) emphasizes that Ukraine’s strikes deep into Russia not only undermine Moscow’s plans but also expose the vulnerability of Russia’s energy infrastructure and send a clear message to the West. These efforts will play a crucial role in future peace talks, increasing pressure on Moscow and strengthening Kyiv’s strategic position: “As Zelensky stated, Ukraine’s drone and missile programs are ‘our arguments for a just peace.’” The strikes have significant economic and political consequences: “In a war of attrition, depleting an adversary’s resources—whether fuel, explosives, or even repair materials—is crucial. For Ukraine, long-range strikes provide a relatively low-cost means of inflicting damage while preserving manpower.” They also give the US administration a potential lever of pressure on Russia: “If Trump is serious about forcing Russia to negotiate, he will need greater leverage. While his administration has proposed using oil price reductions to pressure the Kremlin, supporting Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities on Russian refineries could be an even more effective strategy.” According to Kirichenko, “With continued Western backing, Kyiv’s military innovations can continue to shape the battlefield, pressure Russia’s economy, and ensure that any future negotiations occur on more favorable terms [for] Ukraine. The ability to strike deep inside Russian territory will help weaken Russia where it hurts most, by targeting its oil revenues and showing the Kremlin’s [vulnerability].”

Russia’s seizure of Ukrainian territory will be very costly. Andrew Kosenko and Peter Liberman (Foreign Affairs) point out that economic interest is at the heart of any conquest of territory. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, despite the Kremlin’s nationalist statements, is also driven by economic gain. However, the Russo-Ukrainian war is depleting Moscow’s resources more than gaining any economic benefits. In particular, the occupied territories have no potential for profit for Russia. Ukrainians are fleeing the occupied territories because of the systematic cruelty and violence of the Russians: “Data from the International Organization of Migration and our own calculations indicate that there are at most five million Ukrainians still living in the five [oblasts] under Russian occupation—a 56 percent decline from the 11.4 million who lived there before 2014.” Second, almost all infrastructure and industry in these areas were destroyed: “The city of Mariupol, previously home to more than 500,000 people, has been razed to rubble—over 90 percent of its buildings have been destroyed. In other cities, such as Bakhmut, where some 70,000 people used to live, or Vovchansk, home to another 17,000, everything has been destroyed; there are no intact structures left, and certainly no people.” If Russia manages to receive economic benefits from the occupied territories, this would embolden it and other countries to further military expansion: “The economic potential—or lack thereof—in Putin’s conquered territories might influence North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s assessments of the wealth that his country could absorb by conquering South Korea, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s appetite for seizing Taiwan and its technologically advanced semiconductor industry, or even the sort of thinking behind U.S. President Donald Trump’s speculation about seizing Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal.” According to Kosenko and Liberman, “The devastation of war, thousands of deaths, and flight of working-age residents since Putin’s 2014 invasion and 2022 escalation, and the recalcitrance of those who remain, will greatly limit Russia’s gains from conquest, without even considering the staggering cost in Russian lives of wresting these territories from Ukrainian control.”

Ukraine faces two nuclear powers. Andreas Umland and William Alberque (National Interest) argue that Ukraine is at war against two nuclear powers, one of which has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the other has not. Since 2014, Moscow has systematically undermined the logic and the letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by unleashing a war against Ukraine and repeatedly threatening to use nuclear weapons. The participation of North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT in 2003, in the Russo-Ukrainian war only increases the problem. According to the authors, “Its dutiful observance of the NPT is now putting Ukraine at a disadvantage vis-à-vis two nuclear-weapon possessor states: Russia as an official nuclear-weapon state, and North Korea as a de facto nuclear-weapon state outside the NPT.” Ukraine is being aggressed by nuclear-armed states with two different legal statuses and has no legal remedies under the NPT to address this terrible situation. According to Umland and Alberque, “To preserve the non-proliferation regime, all signatory states to the NPT should be unequivocal in their support for Ukraine. They should provide military [and] non-military help to enable Kyiv to achieve a convincing victory on the battlefield, leading to a liberation of all Ukrainian territories currently illegally occupied by Russia. Upholding the logic of nuclear non-proliferation demands a just peace that does not allow Russia to harvest any fruits from its aggression, upholds respect for international law, including its central principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and compensates Ukraine for its losses.”

Ukraine fights on as US strategy raises tough questions. John Athanasios Mazis (Minnesota Star Tribune) reflects on the key developments of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, highlighting both unexpected and predictable outcomes. The resilience of the Ukrainian people and their military success against Russian forces came as a surprise, particularly given the scale of Russia’s offensive. Western military aid has been instrumental, but as the author emphasizes, “at the end of the day it is the Ukrainian people who have stood their ground.” Conversely, the poor performance of the Russian military—characterized by ill-trained troops, weak leadership, and widespread war crimes—has contradicted all expectations. Despite these setbacks, Russia maintains control over a significant portion of Ukrainian territory and shows no willingness to relinquish it—an outcome the author sees as inevitable, given the West’s reluctance to commit sufficient weapons in a timely manner, to say nothing of troops. Additionally, while sanctions have impacted Russia’s economy, the embargos have been undermined by numerous countries and corporations, including those of NATO member states, reducing their overall effectiveness. Mazis also examines shifting geopolitical dynamics, particularly the waning public and political support for Ukraine in the West, noting that “eighty years after the U.S. became a world power, its foreign policy is still subject to abrupt changes every four or eight years.” This inconsistency, the author argues, is forcing vulnerable nations to reconsider their reliance on U.S. support. The author also considers whether the U.S. deliberately used Ukraine as a tool to weaken Russia: “Is the U.S. a reliable ally? Should countries under threat come to terms with whoever is against them rather than rely on U.S. pledges of support that might not last past a particular administration?” Mazis concludes.

Ukraine’s electronic warfare outpaces Russia in high-tech battlefield arms race. The analysis by the Economist highlights the evolving electromagnetic warfare between Ukraine and Russia, emphasizing that the ability to control the electromagnetic spectrum has become crucial on the battlefield. The authors describe how in July, Ukrainian forces suffered heavy losses when Russian drones shifted to lower frequencies, rendering Ukraine’s electronic warfare (EW) systems temporarily ineffective. Citing Ukrainian EW specialist Serhii Beskrestnov, it became a “Russian safari,” with drones cutting off supply routes and destroying military vehicles. However, Ukraine quickly adapted by developing new EW systems that are capable of countering these frequency shifts. The authors observe that Ukraine has ramped up domestic production of EW devices, and both sides are experimenting with new technologies such as AI-guided drones, last-mile automation, and fiber-optic drones that are immune to EW interference. A Ukrainian EW manufacturer interviewed by the Economist criticizes Western electronic warfare systems as outdated, stating that they lag behind the battlefield-tested solutions developed in Ukraine.