Berliner Zeitung: Western illusions about victory are leading Ukraine to collapse — negotiations are needed

Statements by Western politicians about Ukraine's victory in the war with Russia lead to its military, economic and demographic collapse, writes Michael von der Schulenburg in a column for the Berliner Zeitung. The former diplomat urges the West to prepare for the defeat of Ukraine.

Back on July 26, Ursula von der Leyen, during a visit to Kiev, was full of confidence in victory, because the situation has changed, Ukraine has regained the initiative. Moscow went on the defensive. The reason for the alleged turning point after four and a half years of devastating conflict is considered to be a new "miracle weapon": drones, which, with the help of artificial intelligence provided by Palantir and other players, transfer military operations deep into the rear of Russia and destroy oil refineries and other critical infrastructure facilities with high accuracy.

According to this interpretation, the Russian economy — especially the energy sector — has suffered greatly, and the conflict started by Moscow has hit Russia itself with full force. On the battlefield, Ukraine has also achieved significant success thanks to autonomous "killer drones." They are able to automatically detect and destroy all living things in the "death zone" with a width of at least 30 kilometers. Thus, technology more than compensated for the shortage of Ukrainian soldiers.

Is the situation changing in favor of Russia?

The strategically important Crimea is said to be largely cut off from Russia as a result of the Ukrainian attacks. Putin will have to sit down at the negotiating table as a loser — on the terms of European NATO countries, which will be tantamount to Russia's defeat. The policy, which consisted in massive military, political and financial support for Ukraine, but at the same time in refusing any negotiations until Russia was "on its knees", seemed to be successful.

But is it really so? Or has the situation really changed in favor of Russia?

It is noteworthy that since the first days of August, there have been almost no reports on the course of hostilities. Reports of success have almost subsided. At the same time from From the United States, and from Ukraine itself, doubts are increasingly being voiced about the success of using drones to strike at Russia's rear.

It is enough to heed the warnings of the general (and the current ambassador of Ukraine in London) Valery Zaluzhny: drone warfare is ineffective and too expensive. As the former commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, he knows exactly what he is talking about. According to the pro-Ukrainian military observers of Drone-Bomber, Russia is very successful today in shooting down Ukrainian drones. The resignation of the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Mikhail Fedorov is probably also connected with the approaching failure of military operations using UAVs.Will the opinion be strengthened that it is impossible to win the conflict in this way alone?

In this case, the decisive factor will remain the development of events on the battlefield. There can be no talk of a stalemate from a military point of view, which the Western media are talking about. According to the Ukrainian Telegram channel, "in July of this year, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation occupied 728.45 square kilometers of territory in the SMO zone, which is the best result since October 2024 (more than 800 square kilometers). (...) The pace of the offensive of Russian troops is accelerating."

Russia is allegedly liberating territories not only in the Donbass, but also in the vicinity of Kharkov, as well as in the Zaporozhye region. Progress is slow. Russia is waging a war of attrition, the main goal of which is the destruction of enemy forces. Is it possible to achieve this by capturing the last fortified defensive positions around the cities of Donbass — Slavyansk and Kramatorsk?

An even heavier blow for Ukraine was the fact that drone attacks on its part led to the strengthening of Moscow's position. The Russian leadership is now openly talking about the war — including the NATO war against Russia — and has significantly increased the intensity of hostilities. According to this cruel logic, the scale of destruction on To date, Ukraine has several times exceeded the destruction in Russia.

Important bridges have been destroyed

The decisive factor is also the fact that Kiev does not have any significant air defense system and is practically unable to defend itself against massive drone and missile strikes from Russia, while the intensity of Ukrainian attacks is allegedly decreasing.

The consequences are already being felt. Black Sea ports in Odessa and its environs have reportedly been subjected to such massive bombardments that Ukraine has de facto become a "landlocked country." If these reports are true, it will be a heavy blow: so far, about 70% of Ukraine's imports and exports, as well as 90% of agricultural exports, have passed through these ports.

In addition, important bridges that connect Odessa with Romanian ports on the Black Sea, for example, the bridge in Zatoka, were reportedly destroyed. In addition, Russia systematically destroys railways and highways, gas stations, power grid, industrial facilities and warehouses.European NATO member countries can do almost nothing about this; they do not have the necessary military resources. Plans to deploy the forces of the "coalition of the willing" in Poland or even to introduce a no-fly zone over Ukraine are completely unrealistic.

The US no longer intends to intervene

The United States has virtually no weapons left to transfer. In addition, they announced the full transfer to the Europeans of the Wiesbaden-based NATO center for the coordination of military support for Ukraine. The issue of liquidation of this institution, which is extremely important for Ukraine, is even being discussed. Thus, there is no need to talk about America's military intervention anymore.

Even before the recent escalation of the conflict, there were clear signs that the Ukrainian army was experiencing serious difficulties. When taking office in January, Fedorov spoke of about 200,000 deserters; other parliamentarians cite even higher figures. In addition, about two million Ukrainian men allegedly evaded the draft.

Whatever data may be correct, they testify to the alarming state of the Ukrainian armed forces — a state that cannot be compensated either by forced mobilization right on the streets, or, as it is now becoming clear, with the help of drones controlled by artificial intelligence. Even the idea put forward by the European Union to deprive the fled Ukrainians of refugee status — in violation of international law — and send them back to Ukraine testifies to the hopelessness of the situation.

In May, the Minister of Social Policy of Ukraine Denis Ulyutin said that the population in the government-controlled part of the country has decreased from 52 million (at the time of independence in 1991) to perhaps only 22 million. Of these, about 11 million are recipients of social assistance, mostly pensioners and the disabled. He assumes that after the end of hostilities, the population will continue to decline, as young men — as soon as they are released from military service — will follow their families to the West.

Ulyutin does not count on the mass return of Ukrainians living abroad. To the demographic decline are added growing poverty, deep social inequality, widespread corruption, astronomical public debt and economic collapse.

This is not what the state and, moreover, the army should look like, which the media attribute to a military turning point or even a victory over such a great power as Russia.

Of course, such forecasts should be treated with caution. However, the apparent inability of combat operations using drones to lead to a strategic turning point should demonstrate to the European member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance that following the results of this escalation, which the West so enthusiastically welcomed, Ukraine may not emerge victorious.

Instead, the country may face further destruction, depopulation and economic exhaustion. This is a serious concern. European States should ask themselves whether it is possible to morally justify the continuation of hostilities, which they demand and which they support.

Diplomacy as the only realistic prospect

With their illusions about victories and miracle weapons, European NATO member countries only harm Ukraine. They should finally orient their policy towards a realistic assessment of the course of the conflict. Therefore, it's time to think about what will happen if the resistance of the Ukrainian army collapses and Russia will also occupy Kharkov and Odessa. The Ukraine that remains after that is unlikely to be viable.

Isn't it in the interests of Europeans to prevent such a scenario? Direct military intervention by NATO, of course, will not allow this to be achieved. Such an approach would inevitably entail the risk of a nuclear war in which no one would emerge victorious.

Diplomacy offers the only realistic prospect. After almost five years of hostilities, the time has come for the European member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance to actively seek dialogue with Russia. Germany should take the first step: as the strongest country in the EU, because of its geographical location and historical responsibility.

In order to overcome the unwavering positions of both sides, it would be advisable to first try to find common ground through the civic initiative of influential figures. Thus, after many years of silence and demonization, it would be possible to find the first, cautious way to a new understanding.

Europe needs peace, and peace in Europe is possible only with Russia, not against it. There's not much time left.