Ukraine: Still Standing
Years after Russia’s invasion, Ukraine’s endurance is the story
Four years ago today, February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine—for a second time. On February 27, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops to seize Crimea. Yet, the peninsula on the Black Sea did not erupt into war. It was absorbed. The US and Europe responded with sanctions and press releases that Russia violated international law. Crimean Tatars have borne the brunt of Russia’s illegal occupation. Hundreds of thousands have fled, while thousands have been detained or arrested.
But I don’t come to you today to rant about that largely forgotten injustice to my ethnic brethren. I’m sliding into your inboxes on a Tuesday, to look at what the past four years have meant, for both Ukraine and Russia—and where things could be headed.
Ukraine surprised nearly everyone when it resisted Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Though outmatched militarily, it stood up to Russia—for four years— far longer than he—or anyone—anticipated.
Part of the reason is geography. Ukraine is vast, with roughly 750 miles of active frontline. Not so easy to take.
But Putin made three other miscalculations:
He relied on faulty intelligence that said seizing Ukraine would be simple. That’s what you get when you staff up with sycophants instead of experts.
He assumed that Volodymyr Zelensky, a former actor who had been elected in 2019, would flee as Russia advanced, something the West encouraged him to do. To that Zelensky responded, “I need ammunition, not a ride.”
He failed to anticipate the Western response. Unlike 2014, the US brought the Europeans together to supply both arms and resources to Ukraine.
Putin’s Endgame
Though the economic and human costs of the war have been enormous—and Russia has shown to have a weak, unimpressive military, Putin still presses on. Why?
Sunk costs—and regime survival. Putin has poured enormous resources and political capital into this war. In 2025, nearly 40 percent of Russia’s federal government spending went to defense. Ending it without a clear victory—even as oil prices, which is Russia’s main revenue line—would expose weakness at home and undercut the nationalist narrative that now sustains his rule. It would also risk, as The Economist points out, a recession in Russia.
“Russia has diverted so many resources to defence, which now accounts for 8% of GDP, that the rest of the economy is ailing. The regime’s lawlessness and the prospect of renewed hostilities will deter new investors. The challenge of redeploying resources from warmaking to peace, including finding work for soldiers returning from the front, could induce a deep recession.”
He believes time improves his leverage. Trump’s election led Putin to believe that he could force Ukraine to give up territory, given the US president’s distaste for the transatlantic alliance and his burning desire to “bring about peace.” As Hanna Notte notes, that didn’t work out. While Trump has made things difficult for Ukraine, he’s also not handed the country to Putin—yet.
It’s personal. Putin began this war insisting that Ukraine is not a real, sovereign nation but part of a larger Russian civilization. If Ukraine’s independence is the problem, then compromise over territory does not solve it. This war is ultimately about controlling Ukraine.
Tell Me How This Ends
In Foreign Affairs, Michael Kofman notes that time is working against Moscow. While Russia is bigger and more populous, it has suffered more losses and is struggling to recruit men to fight. That is one reason Putin has focused on attacking Ukraine’s power and energy infrastructure. Amid a brutally cold winter, he is gambling that leaving Ukrainians in the dark and cold will wear them down, leading them to capitulate.
Similarly, Ukrainian soldiers are tired, though as Nataliya Gumenyuk writes that they are “also the most battle-hardened in Europe.” Ukraine has brought an impressive drone game to the battlefield. But even if drones are mechanical hardware, they require money to build and humans to operate—things that Ukraine is also scrambling to maintain.
Trump has tapped Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner to try to get Russia and Ukraine to negotiate a peace deal—a deal he said during the 2024 campaign that he could “end in a day” if he were president. There is no indication that will happen any time soon.
Even if there were a deal on the horizon, there is a question of how it would be implemented. Zelensky has said there can be no peace without security guarantees. Trump has retreated from Europe, weakening NATO and the Europeans aren’t prepared at the moment to provide the type of defense that Ukraine needs.
When I lived in Bosnia in the early aughts, someone once told me there are always two sides to a war: those living inside it, and those watching from the outside. The distance between those two experiences is vast.
For those of us on the outside, this war has unfolded in casualty numbers, territorial percentages, battlefield maps, and negotiations. We debate who is gaining ground and who is losing it. We speculate about endgames.
For Ukrainians, this war has been lived in funerals, departures, blackouts, and basic survival. For them, the measure is simpler: to remain standing. Four years on, endurance in the face of what was meant to break them is its own kind of victory.—Elmira
Editorial Team
Elmira Bayrasli - Editor-in-Chief
An enlightening piece. Thank you Elmira.