Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is now entering its fifth grim year, having already lasted longer than the entire eastern front campaign of World War II. While the Soviets advanced from the gates of Leningrad to Berlin in just over 15 months in 1944-45, Russia’s current rate of gain in Ukraine is far slower—averaging 70 meters a day near Pokrovsk and 23 meters near Kupiansk, according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
These gains are minimal relative to Ukraine’s size, amounting to about 1,865 square miles in 2025 (roughly 0.8% of the country). The Russian narrative—sometimes accepted by a credulous White House—that Ukraine is suffering a slow-motion defeat is inaccurate. In reality, despite hundreds of thousands of homes being left without electricity, heating, and water due to Russian bombing, Ukraine is refining its strategy and achieving modest successes in pushing back.
A Ukrainian counterattack north of Huliaipole in the open terrain of Zaporizhzhia province has reclaimed an estimated 40 square miles this month. This advance took advantage of Elon Musk’s Starlink system belatedly blocking Russian soldiers from using its satellite communications within Ukraine. It follows Ukraine’s recapture of Kupiansk in the Kharkiv region last December. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited the town three weeks after Russia had claimed its capture.
“The Kremlin is trying to create a narrative that Ukraine is on the verge of collapse,” says Christina Harward of the Institute for the Study of War. “It’s completely false. What we are actually seeing are small-scale liberations by Ukraine, taking advantage of winter weather and the blocking of Starlink.”
Against this backdrop, it is unsurprising that Russia continues to demand Ukraine withdraw its military from Kramatorsk, Sloviansk, and the rest of Donetsk—recently suggesting a demilitarized zone patrolled by Russia. Earlier this month, a NATO intelligence official estimated that Russia is unlikely to capture the region “anytime within the next 18 months.” Given the area’s urbanization, it could take far longer, potentially costing 600,000 or more Russian casualties.
This diplomatic maneuvering highlights Russia’s poor military performance. Last week, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov became the latest Kremlin official to reference alleged understandings reached in Anchorage, claiming that at an August summit in Alaska, former U.S. President Donald Trump agreed with Vladimir Putin that Ukraine should hand over the rest of Donetsk without a fight. However, while Trump has occasionally flirted with the idea, the U.S. has not enforced this position due to Ukrainian and European objections.
The situation contrasts sharply with a year ago, when Trump and Zelenskyy openly argued in the Oval Office and it seemed U.S. support for Ukraine might end entirely. “The worst-case scenario didn’t happen, though,” said Orysia Lutsevych, a Ukraine expert at the Chatham House think tank. “The U.S. is selling arms to Ukraine, still supplying intelligence, and whatever pressure exists, it is not strong enough to force Kyiv to concede.”
Of course, Ukraine still faces considerable challenges. The utility situation is catastrophic after systematic Russian bombing, leaving over a million Ukrainians without electricity, heating, and water during a cold winter with temperatures as low as -20°C. In Kyiv, 2,600 buildings are without power or heating, with the worst-affected areas on the eastern left bank, where indoor temperatures can drop to 5 or 6°C.After a cynical bombing campaign sometimes described as the “Holodomor” (death by cold), the weather is set to improve. However, the failure of Western allies to produce enough air defense missiles is not only evident but arguably worsening. Hopes have been placed on cheap ground-based interceptors for Shahed drones, such as the Wild Hornets’ Sting missiles, which have been on the front lines since autumn. Yet, a statistical analysis from the Institute for Science and International Security shows that the proportion of armed Shahed drones hitting their targets rose from 6% last January to 30% in May and remained at 29% in December.
Despite this, Russia’s relentless attacks on Ukraine’s civilian population have so far yielded minimal strategic gain. It is a curious strategy for Putin to adopt, given his notorious claim that the two countries are “one people.” Ukraine’s population may be exhausted, but there is still no desire to yield to Russian dominance, let alone hand over the rest of Donetsk. Nor has there been any obvious shift in battlefield dynamics in Moscow’s favor.
More than a million Ukrainians are without electricity, heating, and water during a cold winter, with temperatures dropping to -20°C.
Meanwhile, Ukraine has adopted a more forceful approach. The country’s new defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, aims to eliminate 50,000 Russian soldiers per month—an increase from the current casualty rate of about 35,000 a month, of which NATO estimates 20,000 to 25,000 are killed. This stark target is designed to exceed Russia’s current recruitment rate of about 30,000 to 35,000 per month, forcing Moscow into a politically risky mobilization or a more realistic diplomatic position.
Experts believe the higher target is theoretically achievable, though it depends on Russia continuing its attacks. An estimated 80% of casualties are caused by drones operating up to 15 miles (25km) behind the front lines, which effectively prevents either side from massing more than a handful of soldiers unless under cover of rain or fog. However, Ukraine also faces the sheer exhaustion of many of its best units and soldiers.
Last month, Fedorov acknowledged that 200,000 Ukrainians were absent without leave, unable to endure the strain of staying at the front. The army may not be able to operate at a higher tempo.
Jade McGlynn, a research fellow at King’s College, expressed concern that Ukraine’s allies have no credible plan to force Russia into a ceasefire in what is essentially a deadlocked conflict. “I don’t see a strategy in Europe, and the U.S. has its eggs in the peace process, but there is no process if Russia is not engaging properly,” she said.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the current state of the war in Ukraine framed around the observation that four years in Russia has made limited gains and Ukraine continues to stand strong
BeginnerLevel Questions
Q Its been four years since Russia invaded Ukraine Who is winning
A There is no clear winner While Russia controls about 18 of Ukrainian territory its initial goal of taking the entire country failed Ukraine has defended its capital and reclaimed some land but the front lines have been largely static for over a year The situation is a grinding war of attrition
Q What does limited gains mean for Russia
A It means that after four years of fighting at a huge cost Russia has only managed to capture a significant amount of territory in one region and a strip of land in the south Its advances have been extremely slow and costly failing to achieve its main objectives like taking Kyiv or forcing Ukraines surrender
Q How is Kyiv standing strong
A Despite constant missile attacks Ukraines government remains functioning in Kyiv the capital was never captured and the countrys military and society continue to resist Ukraine has also maintained international support secured major defense aid and kept its economy running under extreme conditions
Q Why hasnt this war ended yet
A Both sides have fundamentally different and incompatible goals Ukraine is fighting for its full sovereignty and territorial integrity Russia is unwilling to give up the land it has seized With neither side able to secure a decisive military victory or agree to the others terms the conflict has stalemated
Advanced Strategic Questions
Q If Russia has a much larger military why has it only made limited gains
A Key reasons include poor Russian planning and logistics early on fierce Ukrainian resistance and adaptability massive Western military aid effective use of drones by Ukraine and Russias struggle to replace its own lost troops and modern equipment without a full national mobilization
Q What is a war of attrition and how does it apply here
A A war of attrition is a conflict where winning depends on grinding down the enemys resources faster than they can grind down yours This war has become exactly thata brutal exchange along fortified front lines
