February 24, 2025

SHARE |

Three Years of War: Ukraine Holds the Line—But Can It Hold Its Allies?

AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda

Today marks three years since the start of Russia’s multi-front invasion of Ukraine. On the morning of the invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a televised address outlining the objectives of what he euphemistically referred to as a “special military operation.” The stated objectives were the "denazification" and demilitarization of Ukraine and the protection of Ukrainian Russian-speakers from what he falsely alleged was a genocide orchestrated by Kyiv. As Russian forces advanced on multiple fronts into Ukraine, Putin cast Russia as a victim of circumstance, arguing that Russia must “demilitarize” Ukraine to ensure its own security. This meant enforcing Ukrainian neutrality, imposing strict limitations on military capabilities, and disrupting Kyiv’s growing partnership with NATO.

Falsely claiming Kyiv’s government was under the influence of neo-Nazi groups framed the invasion as a moral imperative to protect the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine, a Kremlin pretext previously used to justify its 2008 invasion of Georgia and the 2014 seizure of Crimea. Put simply, Putin’s initial goal was to install a government that would be beholden to Moscow, turning Ukraine into a puppet state akin to Belarus. Although these maximalist objectives remain unchanged, Ukraine has mounted a miraculous defense of its sovereignty thwarting what many thought would be a decisive Russian victory.

The response of the Ukrainian military and people, led by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, shocked observers. Dispelling rumors he had fled the city, President Zelensky gave a televised address of his own, recording a defiant call to action on his smartphone while standing on the streets of the embattled capital. One month later, despite losing major cities like Kherson and Mariupol, Western support had begun arriving in Ukraine and Russian forces were retreating from Kyiv’s outskirts. Evidence of Russian crimes discovered in places like Bucha, in the wake of this withdrawal, stiffened Ukrainians’ resolve and galvanized its international supporters. Revelations of the atrocities committed by Russian forces in Bucha cemented support for Ukraine in Western capitals as a moral imperative rather than just a pragmatic policy to degrade an adversary.

Despite Ukraine’s remarkable successes in the first year of the war, support for the effort has waned both domestically and internationally. Even after the controversial passage of mobilization law reforms, Ukraine continues to struggle to meet its recruitment goals. Many eligible recruits are reluctant to serve in frontline combat units, a hesitation that was largely absent in the early days of the war. This reflects growing concerns over how the military is being managed and how soldiers are deployed by the military and political leadership. Manpower shortfalls and questions over force management have now eclipsed equipment and ammunition shortages, according to several experts. The much-criticized policy of assigning recruits to newly formed combat groups rather than replacing losses in existing units has increased combat fatigue across the force. Many of these newly formed units, often trained by Western partners, have proven to be unreliable. In January a criminal probe was launched to investigate the 155th Mechanized Brigade, which saw hundreds of its soldiers desert late last year.

Meanwhile, Russian forces have been able to rotate units on and off the front to minimize combat fatigue and reconstitute losses. Russia was also augmented by around 11,000 North Korean troops who spent several months fighting in Kursk, before being withdrawn in mid-January due to heavy losses. Despite having sustained some of the war’s highest monthly casualty rates this fall, Russian forces continued their slow but steady advance in the Donbas. In December, as poor weather began to limit the use of air support, Russia’s pace of advance slowed. This decrease in operational tempo, however, has not shaken Russia’s firm grip on the strategic initiative in the war.

As the war enters its third year, President Zelensky’s gravest concern is not on the battlefield, but in Washington. The new Trump administration has adopted a surprisingly antagonistic approach to relations with Ukraine and Europe more broadly. Although President Trump threatened “high levels” of economic retaliation if President Putin refused to enter negotiations in late January, the new administration’s attitude toward the Kremlin has been criticized as naïve and overly accommodating. Supporters of the administration point out that comments by top officials like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who declared returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders and NATO membership unrealistic, are not concessions to the Kremlin, but pragmatic and reflective of facts on the ground.

Yet some of the administration’s moves in recent weeks appear to be aimed more at placating the Kremlin than supporting Kyiv. Hegseth’s NATO membership comment publicly validated one of Putin’s objectives in Ukraine. Trump has also demanded Ukraine reimburse the U.S. for its support by granting access to rare-earth minerals worth $500 billion. Additionally, Trump and his top officials have been accused of echoing Kremlin talking points, blaming Kyiv for instigating the war with Russia and referring to Zelensky as a dictator for having postponed elections. Ironically, this questioning of Zelensky’s democratic legitimacy has boosted his approval rating and unified even his political opponents in supporting his decision to postpone the elections. Zelensky now finds himself having to complete a delicate balancing act as he advocates for Ukraine’s sovereignty while vying with the Kremlin for President Trump’s approval. In a press conference on Sunday, Zelensky even stated he would step down as president if it meant Ukraine could join NATO.

Even the arrival of Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, for an unusually long three-day visit, ended in controversy when the U.S. delegation canceled a planned press conference following his meeting with Zelensky. Although Kellogg appears to have been sidelined by the White House, the visit was an important opportunity for Ukrainian officials to repair the fracturing relationship with the U.S. Observing this change in tac from Washington and after being excluded from bilateral talks between the U.S. and Russia’s top diplomats in Riyadh, Ukrainian and European officials are justified in their concern. President Trump’s primary focus appears to be reaching a deal regardless of its terms or the long-term consequences for Ukraine’s sovereignty and European security. Three years after the invasion began, Ukraine’s resilience is undeniable—but so is the precariousness of its position in a world where alliances are shifting and U.S. support is no longer guaranteed.