In recent times, there has been a significant media discourse in the West regarding Russia’s supposed precarious position in the ongoing conflict. This article explores some theories surrounding this narrative, offering insights that may challenge common perceptions.
Something is brewing, and it’s concerning. I’ve been reading various Western media outlets asserting that “Russia is losing” and that Vladimir Putin is cornered. Some reports are even discussing a post-war landscape following Russia’s defeat… utter nonsense.… pic.twitter.com/GXc29DTReZ
— Pascal Lottaz (@PLottaz) June 27, 2026
Another factor to consider is the financial interests fueling this narrative, which seem to prioritize military spending over social welfare. The push for such defense increases often comes at the expense of social programs:
NEW: Admiral Sir Tony Radakin has penned a provocative op-ed for The Sunday Times. It marks his first public comments since retiring last year. He called for Andy Burnham to establish a “wartime cabinet” to ensure adequate military funding.… pic.twitter.com/vf0XPqxF4i
— Dominic Hauschild (@domhauschild) June 27, 2026
This combination of misinformation among those who believe a victory over Russia is possible, coupled with those viewing the conflict as a lucrative opportunity, creates a volatile environment.
By Andrew Korybko, a political analyst based in Moscow focusing on the global transition to multipolarity amid the New Cold War. He holds a PhD from MGIMO, affiliated with the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published on his website.
A primary driving force behind these narratives is the desire to present impactful visuals that bolster Ukraine’s position as public enthusiasm wanes in the West, particularly in the lead-up to the November midterm elections in the US.
Recently, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky took pride in his country’s successful long-range strikes against targets in the Urals and Western Siberia. These actions were preceded by a significant attack on Moscow, and followed a period of sporadic strikes targeting St. Petersburg. Zelensky also announced a 40-day campaign aimed at pressuring Russia to halt its actions in the Ukrainian Conflict, likely involving further attacks. Notably, these developments align with the EU distributing the first installment of €3.2 billion from a €90 billion support loan to Ukraine.
There is a palpable sense of fatigue surrounding the war in the West, made apparent by the reluctance of countries like Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary, under their new EU-supportive administrations, to contribute to the aforementioned loan. This funding resistance likely compelled Zelensky to authorize attacks designed to captivate Western audiences. Donald Trump, who voiced his skepticism about Zelensky by calling him “the greatest salesman on Earth,” seems to understand the need for compelling visuals to maintain financial support.
The second aim behind Zelensky’s publicized military strikes appears to be reestablishing the misleading narrative of “Ukraine is winning.” This narrative has been intermittently promoted by mainstream media over the past six months, even though it faced significant scrutiny following the failed counteroffensive in the summer of 2023. Recently, a State Department representative echoed this claim, but RT’s Sergey Poletaev countered, emphasizing that “The drone war is a distraction. Watch the front” as Russia continues to advance in Liman, Rai-Aleksandrovka, and Konstantinovka.
The final objective of Zelensky’s high-profile strikes is to lift the spirits of his citizens, who remain disheartened by the long-standing conflict and the “busification” policy requiring draft-age men to be recruited forcibly. Although the chance of a popular revolt is negligible, Zelensky attempts to instill the belief that they are avenging their country against Russia through these actions. In essence, this string of military strikes serves as a facade.
While Ukraine has indeed inflicted certain damage on Russia’s energy sector, this impact is far from transformative and is insufficient to significantly alter the balance of military strategy in the conflict’s favor. In addition, Trump appears to seek to capitalize on the dramatic scenes produced by Zelensky for his own electoral gains ahead of the midterms, much like Zelensky’s knack for maintaining audience engagement.
This analysis may clarify Trump’s intention to “escalate to de-escalate” against Russia through a planned three-phase approach focused on heightening Ukraine’s offensive capabilities. Although he is unlikely to achieve his overarching goal of persuading Putin to relinquish control of significant state resources, he seems determined to pursue this agenda relentlessly. Continued US-supported Ukrainian strikes on Russia appear probable as summer approaches.
In summary, Ukraine’s recent spate of military operations against Russia seems to prioritize spectacle over strategy, with the primary aim being to produce impactful imagery that supports Ukraine’s objectives amidst growing war fatigue in the West and Trump’s political ambitions ahead of the midterms. While both leaders may seek to intensify their pressure on Russia, it is unlikely that these maneuvers will alter Putin’s calculations regarding the conflict’s resolution or lead to a definitive Ukrainian victory.
