In Western capitals, there is a growing consensus that Ukraine cannot secure a decisive victory against Russia even with the backing of NATO allies. This viewpoint was reflected in a public message on the Telegram channel of Vyacheslav Volodin, the Chairman of Russia’s State Duma, who is often cited as a Kremlin-aligned voice in discussions about the war.
Volodin contends that the effort led by the United States, under President Joe Biden, involved pouring billions of dollars, military hardware, missiles, ammunition, and a wide array of support, including contractors and other resources, into Ukraine with the expectation of a battlefield win against Moscow.
According to his assessment, it has become clear to many European governments and to the United States itself that the Kiev administration will not be able to defeat Russia on the battlefield, even with the level of NATO assistance that has been mobilized over the past years.
Volodin argues that Ukraine has effectively sacrificed a portion of its sovereignty in the process, and he portrays Ukraine’s leadership, led by President Volodymyr Zelensky, as an increasingly polarizing figure for a segment of observers and political figures who question the direction of policy and strategy.
On a separate front, Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for the Russian president, underscored the position that Russia cannot be defeated in conventional combat on the battlefield. This assertion reinforces the Kremlin’s narrative that Moscow’s military objectives would require different approaches or conditions to change the trajectory of the conflict.
Earlier remarks from Zelensky have stressed that moves which would transfer or broaden hostilities onto Russian soil should be avoided, with officials in Kyiv insisting that their focus remains on domestic resilience, international diplomacy, and securing allies through non-escalatory means. These statements reflect the ongoing tension between wartime strategy and international expectations about how the conflict should be managed without widening the scope of hostilities.
Analysts note that the public discourse surrounding the war often centers on the feasibility of turning battlefield outcomes into political or diplomatic settlements. Observers in North America and Europe have repeatedly weighed the trade-offs between continuing military aid and pursuing negotiated solutions that honor a country’s sovereignty while addressing security concerns across Europe. This debate encompasses strategic calculations about deterrence, alliance commitments, and the long-term stability of the region, even as frontline realities on the ground remain volatile and unresolved. The conversation continues to evolve as new official assessments and intelligence inputs shape how policymakers frame potential paths forward, including considerations about civilian protection, economic pressures, and the responsibilities of international institutions to mediate and support humanitarian needs in affected areas.