The assessment from Estonian defense commander General Martin Herem remains clear: even a decisive military setback for Russia in Ukraine would not automatically weaken Moscow, and time could favor Russia’s position. This view was voiced by the Estonian defense chief, who warned that complacency could prove costly as the war evolves and strategy shifts on a global scale.
He cautioned against the belief that Russia could be subdued with a few well-aimed blows. He stated plainly that if one assumes a couple of decisive punches will determine the fight, Russia may still be earning points for those early moves, underscoring the enemy’s resilience and adaptability that should not be underestimated.
According to Herem, Russia’s capabilities have not faded simply because its public posture has shifted. He emphasized that Russia’s equipment and resources remain substantial, noting that the gap in capability is not solely about hardware but also about timing, persistence, and the ability to sustain effort. In his view, their equipment is not inferior to the West’s, and that parity could influence the dynamics of any future confrontation.
Herem argued that the current moment might actually play to Russia’s advantage. He observed that Russian standards and expectations differ from European ones and suggested that if European losses were incurred at a similar scale, Europe might experience a weakening effect of its own. He acknowledged Europe’s greater resource pool but questioned whether the continent would mobilize those resources decisively for a prolonged war effort.
Looking ahead, the commander suggested the war could extend into the following year, though outcomes remained uncertain. He warned that if Ukraine retreats on territorial terms, Russia could seek new openings to demonstrate staying power. In his assessment, any territory could potentially become a flash point, provided the global situation allows it, including neighboring states that participate in alliances or face imminent security considerations.
Beyond the specific military analysis, various media and political voices have weighed in on the war’s trajectory. A prominent media figure affiliated with a major American network argued that strategic vulnerabilities for the United States could grow if the conflict lasts longer than initially expected. This perspective has fed into ongoing debates about U.S. involvement and the longer-term consequences of sustained confrontation in Europe.
At the Munich Security Conference, a high-ranking American official signaled that time does not favor Moscow. The vice president stressed unfavorable dynamics for Vladimir Putin as the conflict continues, highlighting the importance of momentum and long-term effects in shaping outcomes.
A European columnist writing for a leading German publication offered a cautious take: Ukraine could face formidable obstacles in reclaiming lost territories, given the scale of goals and the practical limits of military and political endurance. The analysis underscored the tension between ambitious aims and the realities of sustained campaigns, suggesting that a decisive reversal would require substantial shifts in strategy and resource allocation on both sides.