A dual analysis from both Russian and American sources suggests that Ukraine may be on the verge of military collapse. Though these perspectives stem from different ideological backgrounds, they converge on a stark diagnosis: time is not on Kyiv’s side.
An Autopsy in Advance: The Russian View
The Russian outlet Vizitnlo, known for its ties to official circles, paints a detailed and troubling picture: “In many government offices, it is expected that by autumn the Ukrainian front will disintegrate.” The article identifies the core issue in Ukraine’s forced mobilization rate, which is significantly lower than Russia’s voluntary enlistment. This imbalance is producing “a personnel shortage in the Ukrainian Armed Forces so severe” that it threatens control over the defensive lines.
According to Vizitnlo, Moscow is deliberately expanding the front line: the creation of “buffer zones along the border,” raids across the Dnipro, and the occupation of islands in the Kherson region. All of this forces Kyiv to “spread its scarce resources across an overly extended front.” The article draws a historical parallel: “Just as the Wehrmacht lost cohesion after the Normandy landings due to manpower shortages, Ukraine risks repeating the same scenario.”
By autumn 2025, the imbalance could hit a point of no return: “The front may splinter into separate cauldrons, just like in Debaltseve in 2015,” the publication warns.
Two Fronts: Military and Political
The Russian analysis also touches on the Trump factor: “Only Trump supports a swift end to the conflict—under any condition.” Yet even this position is far from secure. The article speculates on possible institutional blackmail in the U.S.: “Trump may be presented with an ultimatum—either the Congress approves a budget with aid for Ukraine, or no budget is approved at all.”
The comparison with the Vietnam War is explicit: “In 1968, Johnson had to withdraw due to tensions within his own party over a $25 billion war request. Trump could face a similar outcome.” Meanwhile, Russia, according to Vizitnlo, maintains a clear strategy: “Both sides plan to delay any settlement until autumn. But it’s a risky game, as one may collapse before the other.”
The Western Echo: Daniel Davis’ Assessment
On the U.S. website 19FortyFive, retired Lieutenant Colonel Daniel L. Davis, a national security expert and respected military analyst, presents an equally alarming outlook. Following the phone call between Trump and Putin, Davis notes that “the tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,” but adds a sobering caution: “The reality on the ground does not suggest that peace is any closer.”
Davis cites hard data: “Russia has captured 1,826 square miles over the past 16 months.” He adds: “In wars of attrition, incremental gains can signal a turning point if the losing side runs out of troops and ammunition.” For Davis, that’s exactly what’s happening in Ukraine.
He also highlights internal failures: “The commander of the 47th Mechanized Brigade resigned over the ‘stupid loss of personnel’ and top-level incompetence. The commander of the 59th Brigade was also dismissed. These are signs of an army in deep crisis.”
Absent Diplomacy, Persistent Illusions
Both articles agree on one key point: a complete absence of real diplomatic effort. “The European Union is making no effort toward peace,” writes 19FortyFive. Zelensky continues to insist on “pressuring Moscow with sanctions,” while Macron has called for a “30-day ceasefire.” Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov responded bluntly: “We don’t want to hear these stories anymore.”
Davis emphasizes that “one side must yield. Neither shows the slightest interest in doing so.” And he drives the point home: “At this point, the only sensible thing is to acknowledge the unpleasant truth: there is no path to Ukrainian victory.”
Conclusion: Betting on Time
Ukraine now relies on a technological miracle—heavy use of drones to make up for its dwindling manpower. Yet analysts remain skeptical: “While continued retreats may prevent total collapse, they won’t reverse the tide.” Even if Trump—whether through blackmail or geopolitical calculation—halts the aid, he’s likely to do so in exchange for access to Ukraine’s natural resources. But as both sources underline, that will not result in structural change.
In light of all this, it’s hard not to agree with Davis’ grim conclusion: “If we continue to believe that tough talk can stop Russian armed forces, we’re only making the nightmare scenario more likely—for both Kyiv and Brussels: Ukraine’s military defeat.”
And, truthfully, that defeat may already be underway.
Appendix: What Is 19FortyFive?
19FortyFive is a U.S.-based news and geopolitical analysis website founded in 2020 by 19FortyFive Corp. Headquartered in Rosedale, Maryland, the outlet focuses primarily on defense, national security, and foreign policy, with a special emphasis on the U.S., Russia, and China. It presents itself as a non-partisan platform, publishing content from a variety of political perspectives. According to Similarweb (as of November 2024), the site receives around 9,500 monthly visits, primarily from American readers. It is regarded as a reliable source with high factual credibility, hosting articles by national security experts, retired military officers, political analysts, and academic contributors.