In an analysis published by Asharq Al-Awsat, journalist Antoine Al-Hajj examines why Ukraine’s expanding ability to strike deep inside Russia has not brought the war closer to a decisive conclusion.

An increasingly optimistic view has emerged in the West, suggesting that Ukraine is no longer fighting solely to survive. Instead, Kyiv is pursuing a systematic strategy of attrition designed to weaken Russia’s military and economic capabilities through technological innovation, particularly low-cost drones, alongside continued Western support.

From Defence to Attrition

When Russia launched its invasion in February 2022, the prevailing assumption was that Moscow possessed the main advantages in a prolonged conflict: a larger population, greater economic resources and a stronger ability to absorb military casualties.

That equation has gradually shifted as Ukraine has moved away from relying primarily on large ground offensives to recover territory. Its strategy increasingly focuses on raising the economic and military cost of the war for Russia.

The approach resembles previous conflicts in which victory was pursued through the gradual exhaustion of an opponent rather than through a single decisive battle.

Technology Takes the War Inside Russia

Ukraine’s defence industry has made significant advances in producing inexpensive and effective drones capable of reaching targets far inside Russian territory.

These systems have also been repeatedly adapted to counter Russian electronic warfare and signal-jamming technologies.

Military experts cited in Al-Hajj’s analysis view this technological development as one of the war’s major turning points. Ukraine has used innovation to compensate for Russia’s numerical advantage, transforming the battlefield into what some describe as a global laboratory for modern warfare.

This capability could also make Kyiv a valuable strategic partner for Western countries after the war.

Ukraine’s strategy has increasingly targeted the economic infrastructure supporting Russia’s military campaign. Oil refineries, supply networks, airports, ammunition depots and logistics centres have all come under attack.

Western estimates cited in the analysis suggest that Russian oil-refining capacity has fallen by more than 40 per cent, resulting in billions of dollars in losses and fuel shortages affecting millions of people.

Ukraine has also targeted distribution centres belonging to major Russian retailer Wildberries, seeking to place additional pressure on the economy and bring the consequences of the war deeper into Russian territory.

A report by the Washington-based Center for European Policy Analysis argues that Russia is consuming personnel faster than its recruitment system can replace them, while Ukraine has gained the ability to strike military and economic targets near major Russian cities.

This has contributed to a gradual change in Western perceptions, shifting the debate from whether Ukraine can survive to whether it can achieve meaningful gains.

Western Support Remains Essential

Despite Ukraine’s technological progress, its ability to continue the war remains heavily dependent on American and European assistance.

Intelligence sharing and air-defence systems, particularly Patriot missiles, remain critical. Shortages of these systems have left Ukrainian cities vulnerable to Russian ballistic missile attacks.

Although US President Donald Trump authorised Ukraine to manufacture Patriot systems domestically, Al-Hajj notes that Kyiv would need considerable time before production could begin. European countries would therefore need to help cover the immediate gap in Ukraine’s air defences.

Tactical Success Is Not Strategic Victory

The war remains unresolved. What Russian President Vladimir Putin originally called a “special military operation” has developed into a prolonged conflict of attrition that Trump was unable to end within the timeframe he had promised.

Ukraine’s recent successes therefore do not necessarily indicate that the conflict is nearing its end. Instead, they may signal the beginning of an even more complicated phase centred on the long-term economic, military and psychological exhaustion of both sides.

Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s ambassador to Britain and former commander-in-chief, has warned against interpreting successful attacks on Russian supply lines and infrastructure as proof that Moscow has already lost the war.

Writing in The Telegraph, Zaluzhnyi argued that such conclusions confuse tactical achievements with the broader strategic reality.

Every battlefield gain now comes at an increasingly high cost. Positions may be captured, but holding and reinforcing them—and evacuating wounded soldiers—has become more difficult because of constant drone surveillance.

Advances are increasingly measured in metres rather than miles, while their human and material cost may greatly exceed their strategic value.

Russia also retains the ability to respond with comparable or greater force. Neither side can depend on the present form of warfare to secure a decisive strategic outcome.

Russia currently lacks the military capacity to subdue Ukraine completely. Ukraine, meanwhile, does not possess the means to liberate all occupied territories through military force alone.

The battlefield has consequently reached a form of balance based on preventing the opposing side from achieving its objectives, rather than securing outright victory.

A Contest of Endurance

Ukraine remains dependent on Western financial assistance, weapons and technological support while facing growing internal pressure.

Moscow understands this vulnerability and has increasingly shaped its strategy around exhausting Ukraine economically, militarily and psychologically rather than seeking rapid territorial advances.

Russia continues to possess larger manpower reserves and greater industrial capacity in several critical sectors, including ballistic missile production. Air-defence systems alone cannot fully neutralise that advantage.

The decisive question, therefore, is no longer which side captures the next village or destroys the next ammunition depot. It is which society can endure the economic, military and psychological burdens of a prolonged war while maintaining sufficient international support.

Al-Hajj concludes that a war now extending beyond its fourth year is unlikely to be settled militarily. Any lasting resolution would require diplomacy addressing security concerns, historical disputes, borders and sovereignty—and ultimately an agreement between the two sides.