President Donald Trump stated that Ukraine possesses no “cards,” while Russia holds numerous advantages. Vice President J. D. Vance asserted that Russia’s superior firepower and manpower suggest the conflict can only conclude with a Russian victory. This perspective is echoed by various commentators, who argue that Russia’s advantages in this war are insurmountable.
As military historians, we believe this interpretation misrepresents the realities on the battlefield and the nature of warfare, particularly the distinction between attritional campaigns and those focused on maneuvering. Historical examples, such as the Luftwaffe and the German submarine force during World War II, illustrate that these forces were not defeated by a single decisive defeat but through a combination of technological advancement and tactical sophistication. This rendered large military organizations ineffective. Similarly, the German army’s advances in the spring of 1918 masked underlying vulnerabilities caused by attrition, which ultimately led to the downfall of the Kaiser’s forces.
We have experienced similar narratives before. Leading up to the war, many in the intelligence community and political circles believed that Russia would swiftly conquer Ukraine, predicting that Kyiv would fall within days and Ukraine itself in a matter of weeks. This intelligence failure must be factored into the assessments made by Vance and others who share his views.
[Graeme Wood: Russia is not winning]
Wars are seldom concluded so decisively, as attrition is a strategic choice as well as a condition of war. Smaller nations can leverage attrition effectively to meet their objectives, particularly if they, like Ukraine, capitalize on technological advancements and garner robust support from allies. Historical instances abound where outgunned smaller powers, such as Vietnam against the United States or the American colonies against the British Empire, achieved significant successes through attrition. Similarly, Iran, despite having a numerical advantage over Iraq in the 1980s, ultimately faced defeat.
The pessimistic outlook regarding the conflict has overlooked the fragile foundations of Russian military power. Russia’s economy is currently grappling with interest rates exceeding 20 percent, soaring inflation, and severe manpower shortages exacerbated by the ongoing war. Economic studies indicate a dire situation for Russia, where military expenditures account for 40 percent of public spending, compounded by diminishing oil revenues due to low prices, Ukrainian attacks, and tightening sanctions noted.
Russian military vulnerabilities are particularly prominent in its army. According to a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Russia lost 1,400 main battle tanks and over 3,700 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in 2024 alone. Meanwhile, their production, including refurbished units, totaled only 4,300, insufficient to compensate for these losses. In a desperate move, Russia has begun restoring its oldest and least effective combat vehicles, many dating back to the Soviet era. A Chatham House study highlighted that the Russian military-industrial complex is ill-equipped to handle the challenges of a prolonged conflict against Ukraine or to secure sustainable production and innovation moving forward.
Manpower issues also plague the Russian military. The number of soldiers stationed at the front reached a peak exceeding 650,000 in spring and summer of 2024 but declined to about 600,000 by year-end, despite the extraordinary bonuses offered to new recruits, amounting to two and a half times the average annual salary in Russia for 2023.
Russian casualties have surged. The British Ministry of Defence reported approximately 500 daily casualties in December 2022, nearly 1,000 in December 2023, and over 1,500 in December 2024. In 2024 alone, Russia endured nearly 430,000 casualties compared to just over 250,000 in 2023.
Although North Korean reinforcements have drawn media attention, their numbers, in the tens of thousands, cannot compensate for the fundamental shortcomings in Russian manpower. Additionally, the high attrition rates have resulted in a military force that is increasingly primitive, poorly trained, and motivated solely by fear.
The previous hiatus in American aid adversely affected Ukraine. Currently, however, stockpiles have improved for various weaponry. Ukraine’s domestic production has soared in critical categories, particularly in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). In 2024, Ukraine received over 1.2 million different Ukrainian-produced UAVs, a staggering increase from the start of the war. Production rates continue to rise, with a goal to produce 4 million drones this year alone.
UAVs have become pivotal in modern warfare, replacing artillery as the most effective battlefield systems. Estimates suggest that UAVs are responsible for 70 percent of Russian losses. Ukraine’s defense industry is evolving faster and more effectively than that of Russia and its allies.
Attritional warfare unfolds across multiple fronts. Russia has intensified its attacks on Ukrainian industrial infrastructure, civilian targets, and energy resources. However, Ukrainian air defenses have successfully neutralized the majority of these assaults, leading to a reduction in civilian casualties. Furthermore, Ukraine has also taken the offensive, producing around 6,000 long-range heavy UAVs to launch strikes deep into Russia, diminishing Russian oil output. Notably, Ukraine is matching the production pace of Russia’s own Shahed drones, which are being manufactured under license from Iran.
Despite American hesitance to provide further support, Ukraine’s European allies can significantly contribute, even if they cannot entirely replace U.S. military aid. Although Europe lacks advanced systems like the Patriot anti-missile defense, they can assist in ramping up UAV production; they possess the capability to manufacture long-range UAV engines at a higher rate.
Moreover, certain European systems that have not yet been supplied, such as the German Taurus cruise missile, could enhance Ukraine’s strategic advantages. The German government has thus far withheld the Taurus, a system boasting greater effectiveness, range, and payload than the Franco-British Storm Shadow/Scalp missiles. The new German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has indicated he would send Taurus missiles to Ukraine should the Russians fail to de-escalate. These systems could further amplify the significant damage already inflicted upon Russia.
[Read: The simple explanation for why Trump turned against Ukraine]
Attritional campaigns necessitate a robust industrial base. The European Union’s GDP is approximately 10 times larger than Russia’s, and including the U.K. and Norway expands this disparity further in favor of Ukraine. Currently, Europe and the U.S. have collectively provided Ukraine with approximately equal military resources (30 percent each), while Ukraine has produced 40 percent of its own military supplies.
The U.S. has contributed more than just military equipment; it has also provided intelligence and access to Starlink internet services. While this support is not easily replicated, the technological and intelligence capabilities available from Europe and like-minded Asian nations should not be underestimated should they mobilize. Though U.S. aid has been limited, Ukraine and its European allies are working to fill the void.
Ukraine is not on the brink of collapse. Instead, it is Russia that is losing the attritional war, rendering the decisions made by the Trump administration shortsighted and tragic. Ukraine possesses numerous advantages, even if Trump and Vance cannot recognize them. If U.S. leaders could exert pressure on Russia comparable to that applied to Ukraine, they might enable Ukraine to secure a much more definitive victory.
