Political scientist Ivan Katchanovski argues that Ukraine's military, economic and manpower position is becoming increasingly unsustainable as Russian forces continue advancing. In a wide-ranging interview with Lena Petrova, he challenges Western narratives about the battlefield, forced mobilisation and the prospects for victory, arguing that continued Western support is prolonging a war Ukraine cannot win.
INR Report: Based on an interview with political scientist Ivan Katchanovski by Lena Petrova for World Affairs In Context.
Russia Retains the Battlefield Advantage
Katchanovski rejects claims that Ukraine is winning or has reversed the military balance. He says Russia controls close to 20 percent of Ukrainian territory and continues to gain more territory overall than Ukrainian forces are recapturing, despite the pace of Russia's advance being considerably slower than earlier in the conflict. He points to Ukrainian counterattacks that have recovered some territory, but argues these have not changed the broader trajectory of the war.
According to Katchanovski, Russian forces are now approaching Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, two of the remaining major Donbas cities under Ukrainian control. He argues that Moscow's objective is not the conquest of all Ukraine, but compelling Kiev to accept a settlement incorporating Ukrainian neutrality, restrictions on its armed forces and Russian control of Donbas and at least parts of Zaporozhye. These are Katchanovski's assessments of Russian objectives rather than independently established facts.
The imbalance, he argues, also extends beyond the front line. Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, shipping and infrastructure have attracted considerable attention, but Katchanovski says Russia possesses considerably greater capacity to retaliate with missiles and drones against Ukrainian ports, warehouses and energy infrastructure. His conclusion is stark: Russia possesses what he describes as "escalation dominance" and Ukraine is not capable of winning a prolonged military contest.
Ukrainians, Peace and Mobilisation
Katchanovski draws a distinction between supporting the Ukrainian government and supporting the interests of ordinary Ukrainians. Drawing on conversations with friends, relatives and acquaintances in his native western Ukraine, an area he describes as strongly Ukrainian and hostile to Russian influence, he says there is nevertheless substantial support among people he knows for ending the war. He attributes this primarily to casualties, mobilisation and the effect of the conflict on families and communities.
He makes serious allegations about coercive mobilisation, including personal accounts involving neighbours who he says were forcibly taken into military service. One case, according to Katchanovski, involved a Protestant whose religious beliefs prohibited him from fighting. Another involved a deserter whom Katchanovski says was returned to a training camp and subsequently found dead with severe injuries. These claims are personal testimony presented by Katchanovski in the interview and are not independently verified within the supplied material.
Katchanovski also argues that Ukrainians calling publicly for peace can face considerable social and political pressure, with critics of the war vulnerable to being characterised as sympathetic to Russia. He says this has helped obscure anti-war sentiment even among Ukrainians who have no affinity with Moscow.
The Growing Manpower Problem
A central part of Katchanovski's assessment is Ukraine's ability to continue replacing battlefield losses and desertions. He says maintaining the current size of Ukraine's forces requires approximately 30,000 additional personnel every month, citing recent comments he attributes to the head of Ukraine's presidential office. In his analysis, that requirement illustrates the scale of Ukraine's manpower problem and the pressure behind increasingly aggressive mobilisation.
He considers mobilisation of women a possible last resort, but suggests Kiev could first seek other sources of personnel. These could include lowering the mobilisation age and attempting to return military-age Ukrainian men currently living elsewhere in Europe and other Western countries. These are prospective scenarios raised by Katchanovski, not confirmation that such policies will be implemented.
The broader issue, he argues, is attrition. Russia has a much larger population and, in Katchanovski's assessment, retains advantages in military equipment and its capacity to sustain losses. He therefore argues that Western weapons can prolong Ukrainian resistance but cannot fundamentally reverse the imbalance. Katchanovski says he made essentially the same argument before Russia's February 2022 invasion, maintaining that preventing or diplomatically resolving the war offered Ukraine better prospects than attempting to defeat Russia militarily.
Ukraine's Increasing Economic Dependence
Katchanovski describes Ukraine's economic position as another major vulnerability. He argues the country has become heavily dependent on Western financial assistance to fund not only its military effort, but public-sector salaries, pensions and other government expenditure. With direct US funding having declined, he says European support has become increasingly important to keeping both the Ukrainian state and its war effort functioning.
He also points to damage to ports, energy infrastructure and export capacity as compounding the problem. In his assessment, Russia can impose substantially greater economic damage on Ukraine than Ukraine can impose on Russia, while higher international energy prices add further pressure ahead of winter.
For Katchanovski, this creates a fundamental sustainability problem. Ukraine requires continuing external financing, weapons and intelligence while simultaneously facing manpower shortages, infrastructure damage and reduced economic capacity. Without Western assistance, he argues, Ukraine would not be able to sustain the war at its present level.
Why Katchanovski Says Western Strategy Failed
Katchanovski's central criticism is directed at the premise underlying Western policy. He argues that the US and European governments treated military assistance as a means of enabling Ukraine to defeat or strategically weaken Russia, despite what he regards as a structural military imbalance that made such an outcome unrealistic.
He characterises the conflict as having developed into a proxy war between Russia and the West, with Ukraine dependent on Western financial, military and political assistance while providing the manpower for the battlefield. That interpretation remains Katchanovski's analysis and is contested by Western governments, which have generally characterised their assistance as support for Ukraine's defence against Russia's invasion.
His argument is therefore not simply that Western strategy has failed to defeat Russia. It is that continuing the strategy has increased Ukraine's losses while failing to change the ultimate military balance. He says Western weapons and financing have allowed Ukraine to continue fighting, but have not removed Russia's advantages in manpower, military capacity and escalation.
Can the War Still End Through Negotiations?
Katchanovski believes a negotiated settlement remains possible, but says outside pressure may be required to bring it about. One possibility he identifies is pressure from Washington, arguing that the United States retains substantial influence over Kiev even after reducing direct financial support.
He also argues that the cost of any eventual settlement is increasing as Russia advances. In his assessment, the longer the conflict continues, the greater the possibility that Moscow's territorial demands will expand and Ukraine's bargaining position will deteriorate further.
That leads to the central proposition running throughout the interview. Katchanovski believes Ukraine cannot defeat Russia militarily, that continued warfare will bring further territorial, demographic and economic losses, and that Western support can postpone the outcome without fundamentally changing it. His conclusion is that pursuing a negotiated end to the conflict would now better serve ordinary Ukrainians than continuing an attritional war.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
New Zealand has supported Ukraine politically and materially since Russia's 2022 invasion, making the debate over the effectiveness of Western strategy relevant here as well. Katchanovski's argument raises a question applicable to every Western government supporting Kiev: whether continued military assistance is improving Ukraine's eventual negotiating position or principally extending a conflict whose underlying military balance has not changed.
That does not establish that Katchanovski's assessment is correct. But as the war continues, the distinction between supporting Ukraine's defence and determining what outcome best protects Ukraine's long-term interests deserves continued scrutiny.
Source
World Affairs In Context, hosted by Lena Petrova
Interview: Ivan Katchanovski: Ukraine Is Collapsing as Russia Advances — Why the West’s Strategy Failed
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.