Whoever wins the US election, the beginning of a new administration should be an opportunity for a serious reassessment of US policy towards the war in Ukraine. For it is abundantly clear that the current course is unsustainable and, if persistently maintained, will sooner or later likely lead either to the collapse of Ukraine or to NATO's direct involvement in a war with Russia. Indeed, some US commentators such as Robert Kagan now tacitly admit this, even if he was not prepared to tell Americans that they must go to war to prevent a Ukrainian defeat or a compromise peace.

The news from the Ukrainian front is grim. The Ukrainian armed forces are significantly outnumbered and outnumbered by artillery and ammunition. There are increasing signs of exhaustion, demoralization, desertion and refusal to serve on the part of both elites and ordinary people. Russian success rests on the fact that Russia simply has far greater resources than Ukraine, both in terms of industry and labor. It was able to recruit hundreds of thousands of new troops by paying them very high wages, up to six times the average wages in the regions from which they were recruited.

Ukrainians and Western hawks claim that more Western weapons would make a crucial difference; and indeed, if some of these had been deployed in 2022, when Russian forces were outnumbered and in serious disarray, they might have led to much greater success for Ukraine. However, the Russian advantage is now so great that Western supplies can hardly make a difference.

Western industry cannot produce nearly as many artillery shells as Ukraine needs; The US cannot provide Israel with sufficient air defense systems And Ukraine And retain enough for a possible war with China. And most importantly, NATO cannot produce more soldiers for Ukraine. The German government has already said it is freezing military aid and will cut aid to Ukraine by almost half next year and by more than 90 percent by 2027.

Faced with this reality, Western advocates of unconditional support for a complete victory for Ukraine are becoming increasingly desperate. Earlier this year we were told by people like retired General Ben Hodges that the (real) success of Ukrainian missiles and drones in driving the Russian Black Sea Fleet from its bases in Crimea meant that they could also drive the Russian army from Crimea and somehow win it back for Ukraine (after telling us in June 2023 that Ukraine could “liberate Crimea by the end of the summer”). Then we were told that the (real but very limited) Ukrainian invasion of Russia's Kursk region marked a turning point in the war. Now we are being told that allowing Ukraine to fire US satellite-guided missiles at Russia can change the tide of war.

It is true that the Ukrainian armed forces are showing enormous determination, forcing the Russians to advance very slowly, inflicting heavy casualties in the process. This, combined with the war-weariness of much of the Russian population and Russia's economic problems, could allow Ukraine to reach a peace settlement that would limit Russian territorial gains and, to the exclusion of NATO membership, allow Ukraine to seek membership in of the European Union at some point in the future. This would be very painful for the Ukrainians, but historically it would still be a great triumph and far better than what they would likely get if the war continued. However, headlines like “Ukraine must turn the tide before it can negotiate” are meaningless if they mean not only a stubborn, combative retreat, but also the pushback of the Russians.

Tragically, the Ukrainian government and Western institutions have so often condemned the idea of ​​a compromise peace and insisted on a complete victory for Ukraine that it is now very difficult for them to change course. They've also made the argument so often now that Putin would attack NATO if allowed to keep southeast Ukraine that they may have even believed that nonsense themselves.

A more valid argument, made for example by Ivan Krastev in the Financial Timesis that Putin currently has no incentive to pursue peace given the advance of the Russian army; and that his offer of a ceasefire in return for Ukraine's withdrawal from the cities of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson (which were claimed by Russia but not occupied) is completely unacceptable.