Daily Junction.mobi portalContinued stalemate: The most likely outcome. Neither side achieves a breakthrough, casualties mount, and the war drags on. Western aid continues but does not increase significantly. Russia maintains its territorial gains but cannot advance further. Ukraine holds its lines but cannot liberate occupied territory. This could last for years.
Russian breakthrough: Possible if Western aid collapses, particularly if Trump wins the US presidency and cuts support. Without ammunition and air defence systems, Ukraine's lines could crumble, allowing Russia to advance on Kharkiv, Dnipro, or even Kyiv. This would likely lead to a negotiated settlement on Russian terms or a prolonged insurgency.
Ukrainian breakthrough: Unlikely under current conditions but possible if Western aid surges, particularly if Ukraine receives long-range missiles, F-16 fighter jets in significant numbers, and a massive increase in ammunition. A successful offensive could liberate Crimea or cut the land bridge to Crimea through Zaporizhzhia, forcing Russia to negotiate. This requires political will in the West that currently does not exist.
Negotiated settlement: Possible if both sides conclude that continued war is unsustainable, but the gap between their positions is so wide that this seems unlikely without a major shift. A Trump presidency could force Ukraine to the table by threatening to cut aid, but any deal that cedes territory would be politically toxic in Kyiv and might not hold.
Escalation: The risk of the war expanding—through Russian attacks on NATO supply lines, Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia with Western weapons, or even nuclear use—remains low but non-zero. Putin has repeatedly threatened nuclear escalation, but Western intelligence assesses this as bluffing. Still, the longer the war continues, the greater the risk of miscalculation.
For Britain, Ukraine's survival is a strategic imperative. A Russian victory would embolden autocrats globally, undermine the post-1945 international order, and signal that aggression pays. It would also bring Russian forces to the borders of NATO members Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania, increasing the risk of future conflict. The UK has been clear-eyed about this, which is why British support has been so consistent.
But Britain cannot sustain Ukraine alone. If American support collapses, European aid—including Britain's—will not be enough to prevent Ukrainian defeat. The next US election is therefore as consequential for Ukraine as any battle on the front lines. Britain's role is to shore up European resolve, continue providing military aid within its means, and press the case in Washington that supporting Ukraine is in America's interest.
The war's third anniversary is not a milestone to celebrate. It is a grim marker of how far we are from resolution, how many have died, and how much has been destroyed. The hope that Ukraine would quickly expel Russian forces has faded. The hope that Russia would collapse under sanctions has not materialised. What remains is a long, grinding war of attrition with no clear end—and the question of whether the West has the staying power to see it through.