Ukraine’s Strength, Washington’s Blind Spot: The Flawed U.S. Assessments of War and Resistance”

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statements once again confirm the systemic miscalculations of State Department analysts in assessing military and security threats. These mistakes have been evident in cases where the resilience of Afghanistan and Israel was overestimated, while Ukraine’s potential was underestimated. We believe these errors reflect poorly on the White House Administration, particularly regarding recommendations given to President Donald Trump about the possible timeline for forcing Russia into a peace settlement.

At the core of these mistakes is likely a shortage of specialists with an up-to-date understanding of events and dynamics in post-Soviet states. We’re convinced that Washington, for example, has ignored the level of resistance and determination of the Ukrainian people against Russian aggression. This could stem from a flawed perception of Ukraine as still being within Russia’s sphere of influence. As a result, there are signs that State Department experts are relying on mathematical models to evaluate military conflicts—models that Moscow also uses—while ignoring key indicators of a population’s will to resist. Notably, the Kremlin itself made this same mistake in 1979 when invading Afghanistan. This kind of miscalculation dates back to the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C.

Despite Russia’s advantage in manpower and weaponry, Ukraine’s resistance and determination to restore its territorial integrity allow Kyiv to continue fighting—provided foreign aid keeps flowing. Thanks to this support, Ukraine has not only maintained its sovereignty but has also adapted its economy to wartime conditions.

• The Ukrainian government is working on restoring critical infrastructure. International aid is keeping the banking system operational, ensuring stable social payments, and maintaining macroeconomic stability.
• While the war has dealt severe blows to the economy, Ukraine continues its structural economic transformation, transitioning to Western technologies and integrating into the European market through industrial agreements. The country’s energy sector is also adapting.
• Electricity exports to the EU and the development of alternative energy sources are increasing the country’s resilience.
• According to UN data, over 2.5 million Ukrainians returned home in 2023–24, despite ongoing combat and attacks on civilian infrastructure. We firmly believe that once peace is established, a significant number of Ukrainians will return to reunite with family members serving in the Armed Forces.
• The growing demand in Ukraine’s labor market signals strong employment prospects for those returning from abroad.

We are convinced that Marco Rubio’s pessimistic assessments stem from the State Department’s reliance on outdated models—ones originally used for conflicts in Africa. Applying such models to European states with non-tribal social structures is a fundamental mistake.

We also believe that the issue lies in different interpretations of what constitutes “victory.” Rubio has criticized the Biden Administration for promising a “quick win,” but Ukraine’s victory was never about capturing Moscow or toppling Putin’s regime. For Kyiv, victory means preserving its independence and sovereignty.

• The West clearly supports Ukraine in achieving this victory, at a minimum by restoring the country’s pre-February 24, 2022 borders.
• No Western partner has promised a “quick win.” Instead, they have focused on strengthening Ukraine’s defense, developing its military-industrial complex, and modernizing its armed forces to NATO standards—steps that reflect a shift toward modern, effective security and defense management rather than NATO membership amid wartime.
• Unfortunately, Rubio’s claim that “victory is impossible” echoes Russian propaganda, which refuses to acknowledge even a peace agreement that preserves Ukraine’s existence as an independent state. The facts, however, show that Ukraine’s army is successfully deploying Western weapons, which weakens Russia’s conventional military capabilities and reduces risks for the U.S. in case of a new conflict in Europe. Of particular concern is Russia’s alleged attempt to include control over Narva, Estonia, in a potential peace agreement.

In conclusion, Ukraine holds the strategic advantage—provided Western support continues. That said, we share the Trump Administration’s stance on increasing the EU’s role in military aid to Ukraine and boosting NATO’s defense potential.

---