Foreignaffairsilta hyvä artikkeli sodan nykytilasta. Lainaan alle muutamia kohtia, suosittelen lukemaan koko artikkelin.
And if Kyiv refuses to comply and the United States withdraws support—as the Trump administration has reportedly begun doing this week—can Ukraine survive on its own?
Miksi Ukraina on haluton hyväksymään Trumpin vaatimukset?
Demanding unconditional acceptance of the terms pushed on Ukraine would mean that it would come on terms written in Moscow—for Ukraine, making it effectively capitulation. Kyiv would face a stark choice: capitulation or continuing to fight without its key ally. Yet the Ukrainian leadership, with the overwhelming support of the Ukrainian people, long ago decided that surrender was not an option, a commitment reinforced by the experience of the occupied territories: everywhere Russia has prevailed, terror, lawlessness, and destruction have followed.
Ukrainalla on edessä nyt valinta, jossa väärin valitseminen voi olla tuhoisaa.
a withdrawal of that support might in the long run be the outcome of either path presented to Zelensky at the White House: accepting an effectively unconditional cease-fire without security guarantees, or losing U.S. military assistance immediately.
Venäjä ei ole pärjännyt sodassa tähän saakka hyvin.
By almost any standard, and especially given its original plans, Russia has dramatically underachieved in three years of war.
It has lost 900,000 personnel and 100,000 major weapons systems—ships, planes, helicopters, tanks, rocket launchers, artillery. In 2024, Russia managed to conquer less than an additional one percent of Ukrainian territory; this year, its progress has slowed considerably.
Miksi Ukraina voi päättää jatkaa sotaa ilman Yhdysvaltoja, vaikka vakavasti heikentyneenä?
A perceived victory would reinforce Putin’s ambitions, and an operational pause would give him a chance to regroup. Russia would be able to accumulate a critical mass of capabilities and prepare for a new large-scale strike. This offensive would be even more dangerous than the invasion that began on February 24, 2022: Russia would be more prepared to suppress air defenses, control airspace, and disrupt critical infrastructure, and it would likely avoid repeating the mistake of spreading its forces too thin.
Levännyt ja aseistettu Venäjän armeija, joka on oppinut ensimmäisestä sodasta, olisi paljon vaarallisempi.
The consequences of an assault by a rearmed, recovered Russia would be devasting for Ukraine, which without firm security support might not be adequately prepared to withstand it. The mere worry about such a scenario would be an enormous drag on Ukraine’s economic recovery and postwar reconstruction. And the idea that a negotiation over security arrangements can come after a cease-fire is misguided: it would give the Kremlin leverage to stall or block any proposal by threatening the cease-fire, playing on Western reluctance to restart the war.
Lopuksi jotakin rohkaisevaa. Mitä Ukraina on tehnyt viimeisen kolmen vuoden aikana? Eikö tällainen Ukraina olisi uuden Eurooppalaisen puolustusdoktriinin keskeinen toimija?
Born out of necessity, Ukraine is building one of the most advanced defense industries in the world. Over the past three years, its capacity has grown 35 times, reaching $35 billion.
By 2025, Ukraine will manufacture one-third of the weapons needed for its defense, with a goal to reach 50% in the coming years. The Danish model is accelerating this progress—our allies have already invested $1 billion in Ukrainian-made weapons, reinforcing both security and industrial strength.
Drones are at the forefront of this development. In 2024, over 1 million UAVs were produced, and in 2025, that number will rise to 2.5 million. These systems are reshaping modern warfare, giving Ukraine an edge on the battlefield.
This is more than just military production—it is a strategic shift that secures Ukraine’s future and strengthens global defense partnerships. The world is witnessing the rise of a new defense leader, and it is being built in Ukraine.
https://x.com/StratcomCentre/status/1897221224872255791
EU meinaa laittaa 800 miljardia euroa puolustukseen seuraavien vuosien aikana. Mitä jos siitä rahasta annettaisiin vaikka 40 miljardia Ukrainalle droonikehitykseen ja testaukseen? Ylijäämätuotteita voidaan vaikka sitten jaella jäsenmaille omiin tarpeisiin, kun Venäjä on ajettu pois Ukrainasta. Win-win.
Varustaudutaan seuraavaan sotaan, ei edelliseen. Norja voisi auttaa. Ehkä siellä on huomattu, että Yhdysvaltojen tuen vastineeksi voi joutua antamaan vaikkapa pohjanmeren öljykenttiä. Ilman turvatakuita. Ilman tukea. 
Norway rethinks €1.7 trillion sovereign fund to boost support for Ukraine
One idea is to convert some €300 billion of the fund’s €450 billion in liquid bonds into European defence bonds, on the condition that the money is used exclusively to build Europe’s defence.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/norway-rethinks-e1-7-trillion-sovereign-fund-to-boost-support-for-ukraine/
Lopuksi, Trump onnistui tekemään sen, mitä mikään Yhdysvaltojen presidentti ei ole onnistunut tekemään viimeisen 30 vuoden aikana. Herätti Saksan paremmin kuin Putin. Tämä on hyväksi Euroopalle.
Germany will massively increase spending in defense and infrastructure.
- The debt limit law (Schuldenbremse) will be suspended for defense expenditure. The exact number has not been disclosed, yet, but it will certainly be somewhere between 3% and 5% GDP. The main point is that there is no limit and not fixed time-frame. All-in if necessary.
- €500 billion for infrastructure (rail, bridges, airports, critical infrastructure) will be allocated over a period of 10 years.
https://x.com/Tendar/status/1896992735577456924
