

Good article, IMHO
The Ukrainians can’t take back lost territory, but they’re not going to get rolled over either. This has come down to a war of economic attrition. It’s what’s happening in the Russian rear that decides this.
Strange as it seems to say this, the Trump administration played this well. They negotiated with both sides, saw that the Ukrainians were willing to make concessions while Putin was stubborn, so they went with the side where they could make money.
The thing I don’t understand is that the administration pulled out of the peace negotiations, but the gas deal with Ukraine requires peace to be realized. Nobody is going to build shale gas extraction facilities in an active war zone, after all.
So, either the Trump administration knows something we don’t about Russia’s ability to continue the war, or they will have to force Ukraine to make concessions to get a peace deal. In both cases, they’d be better off continuing the peace talks, no?
Overall, I would absolutely agree with you. But with the recent fall of oil prices, I don’t think the economics are there for Putin to be able to sustain the war. He needs it to end, and soon.
Zelenskyy, on the other hand, seems to have been rattled by the swiftness with which Russia pushed back Ukraine out of Kursk oblast once America stopped intelligence sharing.
I could see it play out like you describe: both sides continue to just want to outlast the other. Even then, the Trump administration plays linchpin: they can stop intelligence sharing again, and they can push the price of oil up and down to an extent.
I continue being surprised that the war is not more unpopular in Russia. Something that makes a million people flee out of their country can’t really be value neutral or even popular. But then again, Russia has a very long history of stubborn rulers that pushed things too far and then were overthrown when they wouldn’t relent, which is again the scenario you describe.