Does ukraine have a path to victory?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Ukraine retains plausible paths to victory but faces serious constraints: ISW judges Russian battlefield gains limited (Russia gained just 0.77% of Ukrainian territory in 2025) and says a Russian victory is “not inevitable,” while also warning that some frontline sectors are “serious,” especially around Pokrovsk and Hulyaipole [1] [2]. Moscow’s stated strategy remains a war of attrition seeking to outlast Western support; Kremlin officials publicly reject major peace proposals and continue cognitive warfare to present victory as inevitable [3] [4].
1. Battlefield reality: attrition, local breakthroughs, and limits on maneuver
The fighting remains grinding and uneven: Russian forces managed a tactical breakthrough near Hulyaipole in mid‑November 2025 and pressure in the Pokrovsk‑Myrnohrad area is acute, but overall territory gains have been small — ISW records a 0.77% net Russian gain in 2025 — and the drone‑dominated battlefield has denied Moscow the freedom to conduct large mechanized maneuvers at scale [5] [1]. ISW explicitly assesses that while some sectors are “serious,” Russian claims of battlefield collapse are exaggerated [2].
2. Strategy and time: Putin’s war of attrition versus Western staying power
Putin’s articulated theory of victory is to grind Ukraine down and outlast Western political will, an approach Moscow’s leaders and proxies continue to press publicly [3] [6]. ISW and commentators note Moscow is preparing measures like partial mobilization and fiscal steps to sustain the fight, but Russia’s economic strains — including high inflation and falling energy revenues — complicate that strategy [3]. Victory for either side depends heavily on which side can sustain materiel, manpower and political support over time [3] [1].
3. Political and diplomatic levers: peace plans, negotiations, and cognitive warfare
Negotiations are active but contentious. Moscow has rejected key elements of the US‑Ukraine 28‑point proposal and Kremlin spokespeople have signalled unwillingness to compromise on core objectives, while the Kremlin also runs an intensified cognitive‑warfare campaign to make its gains seem decisive and to coerce concessions [4] [3] [7]. ISW judges that the West and Ukraine can leverage Russian battlefield and economic weaknesses to force concessions, meaning diplomacy remains a viable avenue that could amount to Ukrainian success if it preserves sovereignty and security guarantees [7].
4. Political resilience inside Ukraine and risks at home
Ukraine’s leadership argues it can hold elections with allied security backing and political legitimacy remains an asset: Zelensky has proposed a “Victory Plan” and remains popular in past elections, while Ukrainian commanders report holding key towns despite Russian claims of encirclement [8] [9]. At the same time, ISW and Ukrainian officials warn Moscow is attempting information and destabilization operations inside Ukraine, including planned “peaceful protests” and other covert efforts to undermine domestic cohesion [7].
5. External support: force multipliers and limits
Western arms, sanctions and industrial support are decisive variables. ISW repeatedly points to Western agency as central to outcomes: Ukraine and the West can exploit Russian economic and battlefield weaknesses to extract concessions [7] [2]. But Western unity and willingness to supply costly weapons and air‑defense systems over years is the critical uncertainty — Putin’s theory assumes Western fatigue, and Moscow’s public messaging tries to drive exactly that political fracture [3].
6. Open questions and what reporting does not say
Available sources do not mention detailed Ukrainian stockpiles, exact force ratios, or classified intelligence assessments needed to calculate a precise probability of Ukrainian military victory; they also do not offer a definitive timeline for how long Western support will persist (not found in current reporting). ISW material and mainstream reporting instead present a mixed picture: battlefield stalemate with local Russian gains, enduring Ukrainian resilience, and a high-stakes diplomatic track where outcomes are as political as they are military [2] [5] [7].
7. Bottom line: multiple viable paths, but no guaranteed end
Ukraine has multiple plausible paths to a favorable outcome — sustained Western military and economic support, successful defensive operations to blunt Russian advances, and diplomatic negotiations that lock in security guarantees — and ISW explicitly states a Russian victory is not inevitable [7] [2]. Conversely, Moscow’s strategy of attrition and aggressive cognitive warfare means the war could continue or worsen if Western support erodes or if Russian tactical successes in key sectors become strategic ones [3] [5]. The contest is therefore conditional: Ukraine can win, but only if political will, material support and battlefield performance remain aligned.