2.12.2025

Against the backdrop of the US administration’s initiatives to reach a peace agreement with the aggressor country Russia, Washington is hinting that Ukraine is threatened with military defeat, that the front may collapse, and therefore it is worth being more accommodating. In fact, there are no objective grounds for drawing such conclusions. Under what conditions can the situation on the battlefield really change significantly in favor of Ukraine? If unforeseen negative events occur in the Russian Federation, if Western aid to Ukraine increases significantly and our country solves the problem of staffing the army.

When planning assistance to Ukraine, the European Commission set a target date for the end of the war – the end of 2026. Is this really possible? A lot depends on the head of the White House, Donald Trump, who has leverage over both Ukraine and Russia. Unfortunately, he uses them extremely rarely and inconsistently with regard to the aggressor country. In addition, it is obvious that the Kremlin dictator Vladimir Putin has no intention of signing a peace agreement without achieving his minimum goal. However, there is indeed a possibility that the war will end in 2026.

This opinion was expressed in an exclusive interview with OBOZ.UA by Israeli military observer David Sharp .

– US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, while handing over a peace plan to Ukraine, warned of the “imminent threat of defeat.” A popular argument of the Trump administration is that Russia has the upper hand in the war. In your opinion, is there really a threat of defeat for Ukraine?

– First, you need to understand that there is a different level of awareness among those who rely on open sources, among those who have a wider array of information – I mean awareness of both Ukraine’s capabilities and Russia’s capabilities. Regarding what the representative of the US administration said, it is also important to understand the context. Perhaps it was a certain emotional statement in order to be more convincing in the eyes of the interlocutors. There are different techniques used in negotiations.

But what exactly does he mean by defeat? What specific forecasts are they based on? I don’t know. But we can say this: there are things that are available to anyone who relies on open sources, there are certain trends of the last two years, since the fall of 2023, when the Ukrainian offensive ended unsuccessfully. Since then, there has been a long, creeping offensive of the Russian army. Somewhere slowly, Russia is capturing territories, but in parallel, the resources of both sides are being depleted . This is an important point.

If Ukrainian resources are depleted faster than Russian ones, that is, when in this balance of bilateral depletion the situation for Ukraine is deteriorating faster, then in this case those who assess proceed from the fact that for two years there has already been a worrying trend, and further there will be either something the same or somewhat worse – this is in the optimistic scenario. And in the pessimistic one, it may turn out that it will be much worse.

Obviously, if something doesn’t change seriously – and theoretically, something could change seriously in Russia, but for now we see that at least for the next ten months there are resources to continue the war in the same spirit – then something in Ukraine must change for the better.

There are two factors here . The first is Western aid. If it remains at its current level, there is no reason for optimism, and if it decreases, there are reasons for pessimism. The second factor is that the Ukrainians themselves can take certain measures that will lead to an improvement in the situation. These measures primarily concern mobilization, manning, etc., that is, it already depends on the Ukrainian leadership.

By the way, in everything related to American aid, a lot depends on Trump. If the negative trend for Ukrainians continues in the long term, then there are risks that the situation will worsen, and this is precisely what the assessments of those who predict defeat may be based on. They say, the front will collapse, etc. But I have no reason, no tools to speak in such a way.

– In the same way, can’t we speak in terms of complete defeat regarding the aggressor country, Russia?

– When such assessments are made, no matter who is being talked about, one cannot wish for the truth. At this time and in the coming months, there are no prerequisites for Russia’s defeat on the battlefield. In order for Russia to be defeated, some internal, completely unpredictable and stunning events must occur that will lead to the collapse of the Russian army – from within, for political reasons, some change of power. At one time, there was a hint of this when Prigozhin’s coup took place, which, however, ended in nothing. But nothing of the kind is foreseen, although everything happens in life. So, we are talking about defeat on the battlefield.

The current capabilities of the Ukrainian army are not such that they would defeat Russia on the battlefield. On the contrary, the main task is to maintain a more or less stable defense, and this is not always possible.

– Western analysts have drawn attention to the fact that Russia is steadily increasing the production of missiles, in particular long-range ones . Ukraine has its own missile program, there are joint programs with the Europeans, but this is clearly not enough to achieve parity. How critical is this for both our country and Europe?

– I wouldn’t use the term “parity” here. It’s not about how many missiles you have and how many the enemy has. First, you need to have the quantity and quality of missiles with certain tactical and technical characteristics that satisfy certain minimum tasks that you set.

Currently, we can state that Ukraine does not have either the quantity or the quality of long-range missiles, whether cruise or ballistic – I mean a range of many hundreds of kilometers, a thousand or more – that would allow it to inflict critical damage on Russia, and not just painful “shots.”

An important factor of mutual intimidation. When you have many effective and high-quality means of long-range destruction, for example, ballistic cruise missiles, the enemy understands what price he will have to pay for hitting the fuse, and, perhaps, for the enemy the price will be unbearable. And here this factor of mutual intimidation could play a very serious role if Ukraine had missiles in the right quantities and the right quality.

As for Europe, it is not at war. What do these missiles mean to it? If there is a war, there will be different circumstances. In terms of threat – yes, Russian missiles, drones pose a threat to Europe, but Europe has, if we speak in general, the NATO bloc has so many means against Russia, and effective ones that Russia never dreamed of. We should not underestimate the capabilities of the NATO bloc.

As for the number of Russian missiles, it is certainly quite significant, although the figures that have been announced in recent days – 2,500 ballistic and cruise missiles per year that Russia allegedly produces – personally raise some doubts for me on an intuitive level. I have no evidence for this, but I think that the real numbers are somewhat lower.

– The European Commission is planning military assistance to Ukraine for next year, and these decisions assume that the end of the war is the end of 2026. In your opinion, how realistic is this?

– If we don’t know any inside information, then these considerations are quite idle. The war has been going on for almost 4 years, it’s a fait accompli. And the assumption that it could last, say, another two years, wouldn’t be very bold. On the other hand, today the political process regarding possible negotiations has sharply intensified.

Yes, there are, to put it mildly, serious problems with peace plans and negotiations, but this creates an atmosphere of relative closeness. But in reality, to conclude an agreement to end the war, the consent of both sides is required, so that each side, in its own way, for its own reasons, comes to the conclusion that it is better to end on a certain scenario than to continue. And this is very difficult, because Putin, as I understand it, needs the implementation of minimum tasks. Of course, the Ukrainians do not intend to give in as much as reality allows.

However, the United States, unfortunately, has significant tools. One of them is pressure on Ukraine. But if desired, there is also a tool of influence on Russia. So far, it has been used very rarely and not entirely consistently. So a lot depends on the Americans here. But anything can happen, and theoretically the war can last quite a long time. On the other hand, there is a little more than a year left until the end of 2026. As I assess it intuitively, there is indeed a possibility that the war may end by then.

https://war.obozrevatel.com/ukr/front-zavalitsya-ukraina-zaznae-porazki-chomu-ne-varto-panikuvati-poyasniv-izrailskij-ekspert-sharp.htm