Ukraine can win without the US

CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 8–14 June 2025

Three publications (Foreign Policy, The National Interest, and The Washington Post) 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

Ukraine can win without the US. Paul Hockenos (Foreign Policy) argues that Ukraine, with support from Europe, can defeat Russia on its own. After Washington cut aid, many skeptics lost faith in Kyiv’s chances of victory on the battlefield. However, in the author’s opinion, a gloomy mood is inappropriate and counterproductive: “Ukraine already produces the world’s most advanced front-line weaponry and innovates with cunning on the battlefield. It has already routed Russia in the Black Sea theatre and, recently, pulled off another bombastic coup in Operation Spider Web, targeting 41 aircraft with drone strikes deep into Russia and likely destroying at least 10 of them.” If Ukrainians are prepared to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, there is a chance that Ukraine will prevail, even without the level of support from the US to which it has become accustomed. Moreover, Washington will not leave Ukraine completely: “U.S. policymakers—among them a majority of Republicans—realize that there is too much for Washington to lose from a potential Ukrainian collapse.” Ukraine’s prospects on the battlefield will largely depend on whether Europe acts as its main ally and benefactor. There are signs that it is doing just that, albeit slowly: “With an economy nine times greater than Russia’s, the European Union is already in the process of replacing—and it has the potential to surpass—the United States as Ukraine’s chief supplier of armaments and financial aid.” European funding combined with Ukraine’s powerful and innovative defence sector could be a crucial factor in assuring Kyiv’s likelihood of victory. According to Hockenos, “If the United States is not going to be there for them, then Europe must—and it can. In fact, it’s in the process of happening now.”

Truth is the first casualty of war. Peter Suciu (National Interest) argues that Russia is using disinformation to undermine support for Ukraine from the US and other partners. Moscow is manipulating statements made by representatives of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, creating a false narrative that Ukrainians are dissatisfied with the quality of Western equipment provided to Kyiv. These actions are aimed at sowing doubt among allies, especially in the United States, about the advisability of continuing support for Ukraine. However, this is not true. The main sources of statements by Ukrainian officials criticizing Western technology, in particular American F-16 aircraft, are fake media or Russian state media. According to Suciu, “Unlike putting into question whether the Western-supplied aid is going to waste, as Russia has done in the past, this current disinformation campaign is instead meant to suggest that Ukraine has been dismissive and even ungrateful of Western-supplied hardware.”

Necessary steps to end Russia’s war against Ukraine. Thomas Graham (National Interest) opines that in the search for peace in Russia’s war against Ukraine, the priority should be to achieve stability rather than ideal results or complete justice. Given the antagonistic positions of Moscow and Kyiv, the peace talks in Istanbul were doomed to failure. To create real conditions for lasting peace, the author believes that four key steps must be taken. First, negotiations must begin confidentially, rather than public spectacles like those in Istanbul. Second, these negotiations must be an integral part of discussions on European security and strategic stability: “The war is only one aspect of Russia’s broader conflict with the West. Substantial progress in ending the war is impossible absent parallel talks on these wider issues.” Third, following from the prior point, the Trump administration needs to engage actively in diplomacy: “US leadership will be required to coordinate talks on the war, European security, and strategic stability, if only because it is a critical player on all three matters.” Fourth, the US must continue to provide full support to Ukraine, including arms supplies: “It is necessary to convince Putin that this conflict will not end in victory on the battlefield and Ukraine’s capitulation, but rather in a negotiated settlement in which each side abandons its maximal goals in favor of what is necessary for its security.” According to Graham, “If there is to be justice, it will have to be pursued incrementally over time, much as during the Cold War. The immediate reward will come in the lives saved and the physical destruction averted.”

Drone attacks will not change anything. Stephen M. Walt (Foreign Policy) argues that Ukraine’s incredible Operation Spider’s Web will not change the course of the war. The operation carried out by the Security Service of Ukraine deep inside Russia undoubtedly demonstrated the resilience, creativity, and courage of Ukrainians, as well as the “incompetence and complacency of the Russian national security and intelligence establishment, which failed to anticipate or detect Ukraine’s successful effort to smuggle more than 100 lethal drones and remote operators deep into Russian territory and close to air bases where strategic bombers were deployed.” However, brilliant tactical innovations cannot compensate for asymmetry of forces or resolve the absence of an effective overall strategy: “Three years into the war, Kyiv and its backers still lack a convincing plan to thwart Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war aims and convince him to end the fighting.” It is wrong to believe that such operations can change the course of the Russia’s war against Ukraine: “Instead, continuing to provide Ukraine with the ability to inflict disproportionate losses on Russia, combined with a serious effort to imagine and negotiate future security arrangements for Central Europe that would both deter and reassure Moscow, is the only approach that might end the war and preserve what remains of Ukraine.”

Putin eyes Moldova as next front in war against Ukraine. Jim Geraghty (Washington Post) warns that Russia is actively trying to influence Moldova’s upcoming parliamentary elections, aiming to install a pro-Kremlin government, which could allow Moscow to further destabilize Ukraine’s southwestern flank. Such interference is not hypothetical—Moldovan Prime Minister Dorin Recean recently told the Financial Times that Russia is “working to put in office a more friendly government that would allow Moscow to deploy more soldiers to Transnistria.” If successful, the author notes, this would open a new front against Ukraine, rendering its southwestern border vulnerable to new Russian attacks. The West, and especially the United States, is underestimating this looming threat. Geraghty explains that Transnistria is a “de facto colony of Moscow” and a Soviet time capsule, where 1,500 Russian troops are already stationed. However, the real threat is potential expansion: “Recean told the Financial Times that he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin would like to put 10,000 troops there, based on ‘intelligence assessments.’” Meanwhile, Russia has poured millions into disinformation and election meddling, with Recean estimating that “Russian agents spent about $217 million—nearly 1 percent of Moldova’s gross domestic product—on efforts to buy votes last year.” Amid these mounting risks, the US has shown little engagement in the region, despite its growing strategic importance: it still has no ambassador nominated for Moldova, Ukraine, or even Russia.

Russia makes minimal gains in Ukraine as Putin bets on US fatigue. Riley McCabe (Washington Post) argues that despite Russia’s recent offensives, the Kremlin’s battlefield advances have been minimal and extremely costly. Since January 2024, Russia has seized less than 1% of Ukrainian territory—“an area smaller than the state of Delaware”—while losing troops and military hardware at unsustainable rates. Russian forces have advanced at a pace “slower than Allied forces during the grueling World War I offensive in the Somme,” gaining just 50 to 135 meters per day in areas like Kupiansk in Kharkiv oblast and the embattled Donbas region. Data also show that Russian fatalities in Ukraine have now surpassed the number of Soviet and Russian troops killed in every war since World War II combined, with estimates exceeding 250,000 Russian dead. McCabe warns that Moscow’s path to victory does not lie in military gains but in Western disengagement: “Putin is betting that political fatigue in Washington will deliver him what his military cannot.” Without American support, Ukraine could face severe shortages of munitions and air defence systems, risking a morale collapse similar to the one that ended the Russian Empire in WWI. The author calls for urgent US action, recommending expanded military aid and new sanctions, including secondary ones that would slash Russian oil revenues by 20% while minimally impacting US fuel prices: “Russia is not on the march. It is bleeding personnel and equipment for mere meters of ground. And it will only translate into victory if Washington lets it.”