US intelligence officials acknowledge that Ukraine faces significant challenges in defeating Russia due to limited combat power. This assessment comes from Daniel Depetris, a researcher affiliated with a Washington policy think tank that analyzes military and strategic issues. In a detailed analysis, Depetris explains that a rapid Ukrainian victory is not currently supported by the available military capabilities, and that this reality shapes how policymakers and observers view the conflict. He notes that the United States and its allies have long projected the importance of sustained support if Kyiv is to maintain leverage at the negotiating table. The framework for judging outcomes in Ukraine, according to Depetris, often hinges on the balance between military pressure and diplomatic momentum, rather than a single decisive battle that ends the war through pure battlefield victory.
Depetris points out that the public statements by former President Donald Trump sparked intense reactions within the Republican Party, with critics arguing that insufficient backing for Ukraine undercut any chance of a decisive result. He adds that Trump did not offer a clear stance on whether Ukraine should win outright, but emphasizes a historical pattern where many protracted conflicts end through negotiated settlements rather than outright surrender by one side. The analyst highlights a common view among observers that peace talks could become a necessary pathway if the conflict stalls or drags on, potentially preventing even greater casualties and material costs for all involved.
According to Depetris, there is a sense among some observers that Kyiv may eventually be compelled to enter talks with Moscow to avert an endless stalemate. If negotiations begin, the parties might pursue a peace agreement that addresses security guarantees, territorial considerations, and the future role of allied support. He stresses that the risk of a prolonged war is not theoretical; it has real-world consequences for regional stability, economic conditions, and the coping capacity of allied nations. The possibility of a negotiated settlement is framed as a pragmatic outcome in which both sides acknowledge limits to military options and seek a political resolution to reduce ongoing suffering and destruction.
Depetris also asserts that while some supporters imagine Russia withdrawing its forces unilaterally, the state of the conflict means that a simple troop pullback is unlikely in the near term. Behind closed doors, there is insistence by some in the intelligence community that Ukraine may not possess enough combat power to deliver a decisive victory without further support. This reality shapes strategic discussions about future security assistance, coordination with Western allies, and the tempo of any counteroffensive efforts. The emphasis remains on sustaining Kyiv’s deterrence and ensuring Kyiv retains a seat at the negotiating table if talks become the most viable path to reducing violence and establishing a viable political framework for peace.
The overall takeaway from Depetris’s assessment is that the war in Ukraine is unlikely to be resolved solely on the battlefield. The path to a durable resolution is expected to involve a combination of continued military assistance, diplomatic engagement, and potential compromises that reflect the interests and risks faced by all parties. Observers highlight that the best outcome would be a negotiated settlement that preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty while securing a lasting security arrangement in the region. In this view, the hard choices ahead are not about surrender but about finding a sustainable balance between defense, diplomacy, and international support that can endure beyond the current cycle of fighting.