US President Donald Trump wants to transfer the responsibility for the Ukraine war to the EU. He has mockingly assured that Ukraine with the support from EU can win the war and restore the 1991 borders. US will happily sell them the weapons, but EU has to pay. So now the EU countries are looking deep into their wallets. Will they succeed in continuing the war until the bitter end?

Ukrainian President, Vladimir Zelensky, and the EU can breathe a sigh of relief. The danger of peace in Ukraine has passed. Trump says he is disappointed with the Russians, and he has assured that Ukraine can win the war and restore the 1991 borders. He promised support with US weapons for as long as it takes, on the condition that somebody else pays. Why did Trump fail?

The EU is worried that Donald Trump returning to the White House will mean peace in Ukraine, as Trump has claimed that he can achieve peace on his first day in office. That is unlikely to happen. The reason is that Trump will have to show that he has made a bargain which favours the US, but Russia is unlikely to deliver that. So the war is more likely to continue in 2025, and may even escalate before it ends. Unfortunately. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

As it is often stated, all wars must eventually end, and that is also valid for the Ukraine war. War fatigue is now clearly observable in Ukraine and among some of Ukraine’s Western backers, despite repeated insistence on continuing ‘as long as it takes’. There has up to now been a tacit agreement within NATO not to discuss the option of a negotiated peace openly, so the mantra is still that Putin is the new Hitler and anything but a Russian defeat is unacceptable. But rumours are that discussions are now ongoing in the corridors.

The President of Ukraine, Volodymir Zelensky, has taken advantage of the state of emergency in the country to concentrate all powers in his hands, including deciding how the war shall be conducted. Before winning the elections in 2019 he was an actor (and comedian). Perhaps this is why he is so obsessed with the media, and this may explain his many weird, and apparently self-defeating, decisions. Striving for short-term media successes when leading a country in war, does not bother well.

As defeat is looming for NATO in Ukraine, what will NATO do? Call it quit, negotiate and try to get the best out of it – even if it will not look good? Refuse to accept the defeat and continue to the bitter end, even if that may cost tens or hundreds of thousands more lives and finally ending in losing it all? Escalate and send NATO troops to Ukraine? This is a very dangerous historic moment.

General Mark Milley, chairman of the US’ joint chiefs of staff, said in February 2023 that Russia has already lost ‘strategically, operationally and tactically’. The war in Ukraine is in the US seen as 'a remarkably cost-effective way to degrade Russia’s military capabilities without risking a single (American) life'. So then everything is going according to plan. Or is it?

The loss of lives of soldiers in the Ukraine war is horrific. We don’t know how many are dying, but nobody doubts the number is terrifying high. A recent study gives us a glimpse of what is going on. It shows that 63% of the Ukrainians respond that they have at least one close relative or friend who died, 78% if we include the injured. This is insane. The US, NATO and EU say this should continue for “as long as it takes”. Do they have a good reason for letting this bloodbath continue?

The mainstream thinking in the West is that Ukraine and NATO are winning the war. So the main discussions is how a desperate, defeated Russia will act. You know, wounded animals are dangerous. But what if – hypothetically, of course, against all the clever military expert opinions – it is the other way around? How will NATO react to being defeated in Ukraine? Will it be total war?

The war in Ukraine is a Godsend for the US, and the best we can hope for is that it will continue for as long as possible, as it will ruin Russia. This is the opinion of an associate fellow from Chatham House, a think tank closely related to the UK Government, and frequent contributor to NATO related institutions as the Atlantic Council. Unfortunately, he probably reflects the thinking of influential circles in the US, UK and NATO. If that is the case, it may indeed end up being a very long war.