For what seems like years now, I have been writing that this war is escalating, internationalising and becoming considerably more dangerous. This week, several developments that might normally have dominated the news individually happened almost simultaneously.
European leaders travelled to Kyiv for a deliberately restrained 35th Ukrainian Independence Day, Britain and France made significant new commitments on long-range weapons, while former Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov warned that Ukraine could be only months away from losing the war unless fundamental changes are made.
And then the director of the CIA quietly flew to Moscow.
Taken together, this looks like a critical moment in the war, and inevitably speculation is rife, so rather than add to it, let’s look at what we actually know.
Ukraine’s Independence Day was understandably more subdued than celebratory. More than four years after Vladimir Putin expected his full-scale invasion to destroy it, Ukraine remains an independent state.
The flag still flies.
Ukraine was not demilitarised, Kyiv did not fall, its government was not removed and Ukrainian national identity was not extinguished, but, arguably stronger than before 2022.
But survival cannot become the definition of victory indefinitely.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham and French President Emmanuel Macron were among European leaders in Kyiv as more than 30 countries participated in the latest Coalition of the Willing meeting.
There was, however, one striking absence.
Donald Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner reportedly postponed their long-awaited visit to Kyiv because of intensified Russian missile and drone attacks. The trip was described as “slightly delayed, not cancelled,” except neither has yet visited Ukraine in these roles despite being central to Washington’s attempts to negotiate an end to the war. They have, however, travelled to Moscow for talks with Vladimir Putin, with Witkoff making repeated trips to Russia in recent months.
While European leaders stood in Kyiv amid the Russian missile threat that has become part of everyday life here, two of Washington’s principal negotiators on Ukraine once again did not make it to Ukraine itself.
More substantially, Britain announced that MBDA could release classified information concerning British components of the French SCALP cruise missile, enabling France and Ukraine to move towards assembly inside Ukraine. Britain also indicated willingness to share Storm Shadow production technology, while Macron called for accelerated interceptor deliveries.
These are significant announcements, but they demonstrate something I have repeatedly argued: Western assistance remains largely reactive. Russia escalates, Ukraine suffers, and eventually another restriction is removed or capability promised.
Meanwhile, Putin keeps moving.
Ukraine believes Russia could mobilise another 300,000 troops following September’s parliamentary elections, potentially followed by further mobilisation in 2027, while Russia is suffering extraordinary casualties as its traditional recruitment pools become increasingly difficult to replenish, which leads directly into something I have been investigating.
I recently returned to a prisoner-of-war facility in western Ukraine, a little over a year after my previous visit, where the changing face of Russia’s army is increasingly difficult to ignore.
Among the prisoners are men recruited from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere, while according to Andriy Biletsky, commander of Ukraine’s 3rd Army Corps, approximately one in three Russian military prisoners now being captured is a foreign national.
My upcoming investigation looks at who these men are, how they were recruited, why they fought for Russia and why so many remain in Ukrainian captivity.
Russia is not simply replacing Russian casualties with Russians anymore, it’s increasingly shopping globally for manpower.
North Korean ammunition became North Korean ballistic missiles, followed by North Korean soldiers. Waiting for Russia simply to exhaust itself is therefore becoming an increasingly dangerous strategy.
Then came perhaps the week’s most extraordinary development.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe flew to Moscow.
The unannounced visit saw Ratcliffe meet Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. Putin did not meet him personally but was briefed afterwards. Trump described the trip as “semi-routine.”
There is very little routine about a CIA director quietly flying into Moscow during the largest European war since 1945.
Reports suggest Ratcliffe carried a warning against Russia attacking NATO territory and reaffirmed America’s Article 5 commitment, although neither Washington nor Moscow has publicly disclosed the full discussions.
We therefore need to distinguish between what we know and what we suspect.
We know intelligence channels remain open and Washington is concerned enough about Russian intentions for its CIA director to travel personally to Moscow. What we don’t know is everything Ratcliffe carried into that room.
The timing matters because Ukraine is simultaneously having its own argument over whether it is winning with Fedorov warning Ukraine is slowly losing the war and has only months to implement drastic changes, yet, on the other side of the frontline, Russia’s senior economist Andrei Klepach reached almost the opposite conclusion.
“We will not win the competition in this war of attrition,” he warned, arguing Russia was falling behind technologically and economically.
Shortly after those remarks became public, he was fired.
So who exactly is losing?
The uncomfortable answer may be both countries are losing different parts of this war.
Russia is suffering extraordinary casualties, economic distortion and growing dependence on China, North Korea and foreign manpower. Ukraine faces manpower shortages, defence-financing pressures, shortages of ballistic-missile interceptors and continued pressure across an enormous frontline.
But something is most certainly moving, and have we finally reached a critical point?
Because attrition alone is not a strategy.
Victory, has to be the strategy.
Leave a Comment