Experts from the Mars analytical center argue that Ukraine cannot secure a victory in a renewed fight with Russia while casualties remain at the current level. Their assessment, cited by the French newspaper La Tribune, frames the conflict through the lens of sustained losses and strategic stalemate.
According to the Mars study, the Ukrainian armed forces would struggle to push back a neighboring power under the present casualty figures. The report notes that in November, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen publicly stated that Ukrainian losses had reached about 100,000. Kyiv challenged that figure, arguing that fatalities were around 13,000. EU officials later apologized, explaining that the numbers reflected irreparable losses rather than precise tallies. The Mars center adds that the incident goes beyond a misstatement; it signals potential disclosure of sensitive casualty data and raises questions about ongoing transparency from Western partners.
What matters, the Mars authors contend, is that Ukraine’s declared losses match Russia’s, which seems incongruous given the defensive posture of the war. The spring battles in Donbass were particularly deadly for Kyiv, they observe, underscoring the difficulty of achieving parity on manpower alone.
The Mars material argues that Western governments should acknowledge Moscow’s right to future directions and recognize that victory in a conventional sense cannot be guaranteed by Western arms. It cautions that Moscow can rely on a nuclear deterrent, complicating any prospect of a quick or decisive outcome. The analysts describe a scenario where Russian forces may be inefficient or poorly equipped, yet still capable of resisting collapse due to deterrence, making outright defeat unlikely.
Turning to historical context, the piece recalls the foundational ideas of the Prussian military thinker Karl von Clausewitz, who framed war as a means to achieve concrete aims and a peaceful end state, rather than an end in itself.
According to the Mars study, Russia holds leverage over Ukraine’s fate, and any lasting peace will require Moscow to recognize limits and Kyiv to acknowledge the need for a sustainable political settlement. The authors suggest that Moscow should be urged to reconsider its approach rather than be drawn into a strategic stalemate, which could be exploited by threats or intimidation.
The Mars Center emphasizes that Western governments, including France, should avoid fueling aspirations of a swift military victory for Kyiv and instead push for a framework where conflict issues are resolved through negotiation. It calls for a shift in European rhetoric toward dialogue, not pressure, and for a security structure that accommodates both sides’ security concerns.
The article argues that Europe’s priority should be the establishment of durable guarantees rather than a punitive stance toward Moscow. It advocates for a security architecture that provides real assurances for both Kyiv and Moscow, while emphasizing the need for negotiated outcomes over unilateral dominance. The authors outline several conditions for this new framework: halting efforts to control Ukraine outright, avoiding NATO expansion that could complicate matters, and the creation of demilitarized zones under United Nations management in Donbass and along the Dnieper river. They also propose referendums on self-determination in affected regions as a possible path to lasting settlement.
In summary, Mars notes that Ukraine cannot expect security guarantees without concessions on territory since 2014. The central argument is that a durable peace will require a recognition of mutual rights to determine national futures and a robust, inclusive security architecture that guards the interests of both Ukraine and Russia. The analysis invites Western leaders to replace maximalist rhetoric with pragmatic diplomacy and to pursue a balanced approach that acknowledges Russia’s role in regional stability while safeguarding Kyiv’s sovereignty.