‘We will pay a huge price’: Ukraine fears war could drag on for years

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Ukrainian Officials Warn of Prolonged Conflict with Russia Amid Stalemate"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.0
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Ukrainian officials are expressing deep concerns that the ongoing conflict with Russia is likely to persist for several more years, despite international diplomatic efforts led by figures such as Donald Trump. The recent direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow, held in Istanbul, ended inconclusively, raising doubts about Russia's commitment to peace. This skepticism is further emphasized by Russia's recent drone attack, which marked the largest of the war, targeting central Kyiv and regions in the east. A senior Ukrainian official articulated a grim outlook, stating that without significant support from the United States, the balance of power could shift in favor of Russia, leading to devastating consequences for Ukraine. The official emphasized that while Ukraine remains resilient, the cost of prolonging the conflict would be enormous, both in terms of human suffering and territorial integrity.

The situation is complicated by Russia's explicit intentions to continue the war, as indicated by comments from officials who are willing to fight for years if necessary. The negotiations have highlighted fundamental disagreements between Russia and Ukraine, particularly regarding issues of sovereignty and military ties with Western nations. While some Ukrainian leaders remain hopeful for potential flexibility in future discussions, the stark reality is that the two sides are far apart on critical matters. Moreover, the differing perspectives of Trump and Putin on negotiations pose additional challenges, as they approach the conflict from vastly different ideological standpoints. Ukrainian officials are increasingly convinced that without a significant shift in support from Western allies, the likelihood of a prolonged war is high. They warn that a war of attrition could lead to catastrophic outcomes for Ukraine, underscoring the urgent need for enhanced military and economic assistance from the international community to prevent a collapse of the frontlines.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article discusses the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the bleak outlook expressed by Ukrainian officials regarding the war's duration. It highlights a stalemate in negotiations with Russia and the significant military challenges faced by Ukraine. The sentiments captured in the article reflect a deep concern for the future, not only in terms of military engagement but also in terms of international support and the precarious balance of power.

War of Attrition and Stalemate

Ukrainian officials indicate that they foresee a protracted conflict, largely characterized by a war of attrition. This perspective suggests that both sides are entrenched, making substantial military advancements difficult. The mention of Russia's recent drone attacks underscores the ongoing intensity of the conflict, while the lack of progress in negotiations highlights the futility felt by Ukraine in seeking a resolution.

International Dynamics and Assistance

The reliance on U.S. support is a recurring theme in the article, with Ukrainian officials emphasizing that without it, the balance of power may tip in favor of Russia. This dependency on foreign aid reflects broader geopolitical strategies and the implications of international alliances, particularly the role of the U.S. in shaping the conflict's trajectory.

Russian Strategy and Negotiation Tactics

The statements from Russian negotiators about their willingness to prolong the conflict signal a strategic posture aimed at exhausting Ukraine. Such comments indicate a maximalist approach to negotiations, with Russia demanding significant territorial concessions. This not only complicates peace talks but further entrenches the positions of both parties.

Public Perception and Psychological Impact

The article may aim to evoke a sense of urgency and despair among the public regarding the war's prospects. By articulating the potential for suffering and loss, it seeks to galvanize support for continued military and financial assistance from allies. This narrative could also solidify public resolve, framing the conflict as a defining moment for Ukraine's sovereignty.

Manipulative Elements and Trustworthiness

While the article presents factual accounts of military actions and diplomatic efforts, it also employs emotionally charged language that may serve to manipulate public sentiment. The framing of statements from officials could lead to an interpretation that emphasizes hopelessness, potentially overshadowing any positive developments or opportunities for negotiation. This could be seen as a strategy to maintain public and political pressure for ongoing support.

In summary, the article paints a grim picture of the situation in Ukraine, focusing on the potential for an extended conflict and the critical need for international assistance while highlighting the entrenched positions of both Russia and Ukraine. The implications of such narratives on public sentiment and international policy could be significant, influencing both domestic and foreign responses to the ongoing war.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Ukrainian officials believe a largely stalemated war of attrition withRussiais likely to continue for several more years, despite international efforts pushed by Donald Trump to end the fighting.

After the inconclusive breakup of the first direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow in Istanbul on Friday, and despite the US president’s planned calls with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy, they see no evidence that Moscow is serious about peace.

The comments came as Russia launched its largest drone attack of the war, with 273 aimed largely against the central Kyiv region and the Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions in the country’s east.

“The Russians can’t destroy us and we can’t liberate territory,” one senior Ukrainian official told the Guardian, adding that without significant US assistance that situation was likely to remain and potentially worsen. “Without the US it is impossible to change the balance. [And over time] it will push the balance to Russia. We will still be alive but we will pay a huge price.”

The remarks follow a week in which senior Russian officials have been explicit about the Kremlin’s appetite for pursuing a long war and making maximalist demands in return for peace. These extend to Ukraine removing its forces from five regions, including areas not occupied by Russian forces.

During the brief Istanbul talks, the Russian negotiator Vladimir Medinsky said his country was prepared to continue fighting: “We don’t want war, but we’re ready to fight for one, two, three years, however long it takes. We fought Sweden for 21 years. How long are you ready to fight?”

While some Ukrainian officials believe there may be more room for flexibility if future negotiations do take place, on the most fundamental issues Ukraine and Moscow are as far away as ever.

“There are a handful of real issues around independence and sovereignty and economic and security ties with westernEurope,” said the senior official.

“On the other things, well, the size of [Ukraine’s] army will be constrained by economic reasons. Neutrality [demanded by Russia] is a question of framing. But we can’t agree to cancel ties with the west.”

The reality, as some Ukrainian politicians are saying publicly, is that the choreography of the current negotiations is as much about Kyiv – and Zelenskyy in particular – working at every move to keep a lukewarmTrump administrationon side in the hope that the US president experiences an epiphany over the nature of Putin’s war aims.

“[Zelenskyy] is in a difficult situation because behind him is a whole nation of people who are suffering,” Oleksandr Merezhko, a politician in Zelenskyy’s party, said recently.

“We are playing [along], we are trying to do everything we can because we don’t want to lose the support of the US. We don’t want to be accused that it was our fault.”

Another issue that militates against a halt to the fighting is the possibility that Putin recognises that restarting a war – after a long ceasefire – would be more challenging than continuing with the current conflict.

For Hanna Maliar, a lawyer and former deputy defence minister, one of the key difficulties facing meaningful negotiations is the very different way Trump and Putin view the process, including the latter’s ideological investment in the mythology of the war he has prosecuted.

She said: “He will continue trying to move forward. He has the power. He has forces to continue to fight. His goal is to occupy the territory of Ukraine. And he is reaching for this goal.”

And in terms of negotiations, she said Putin and Trump “represent totally different cultures”.

“Putin is a former KGB agent. He will never step down and he thinks like an aggressor,” she said. “Trump thinks that this is like a business negotiation that somehow will benefit everyone. But even if they sit at table they will never reach a common agreement because Putin is thinking in only one direction: war, rockets and missiles.”

All of this has convinced Maliar – in common with many others in Ukraine – that the most likely outcome is prolonged hostilities. “If you ask the chances, I would say there is a 90% chance this war continues for another one to two years. Not least because since Trump became president the intensity of the combat has increased,” she said.

The danger, as many are aware, is that in a prolonged grinding war of attrition and with significantly less resources than Russia, Ukraine – without increased support from the US and Europe – faces a long-term risk.

“A war of attrition is like a plateau with a drop at the end of it,” said the senior official. “That drop-off is a collapse of the frontlines.

“You can’t say when it will happen. But you need to push into the future. To prevent that we need to rationalise our war efforts, to become more effective.”

For some in Ukraine, a best-case scenario out of the current negotiations might be a ceasefire that freezes the war along the frontlines without necessarily resolving the issues. While some argue that will inevitably benefit Russia in preparing for a future return to hostilities, others argue that Ukraine could also benefit from a long pause that allows it to reorganise its armed forces, step up weapons production and strengthen frontline fortifications.

“It is a huge miracle that we are chatting now after three years and two months of war,” added the official. “In the meantime I believe Russia will help us by doing by something stupid.”

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian