The war in Ukraine has been going on for more than three years now, and it is becoming increasingly clear that it is not destined to end with a peace agreement but to escalate into a wider and more lethal conflict.

In recent months, Russia has been reaping the rewards of the complex adaptation of its economy and armed forces to waging a long-term war, with the use of large numbers of soldiers, weapons, and ammunition, at great financial expense.

Its industrial apparatus has managed to convert to war production rather quickly and, according to Western sources, is currently capable of producing enough weapons and ammunition to wage war while maintaining a strong superiority over Ukraine in terms of both the number of soldiers mobilized and the availability of weapons and ammunition.

However, as it is not an industrial power on the scale of China or the United States, these expenses can only be financed by gas and oil exports which, due to sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union, Russia is forced to divert largely to China, India, and Turkey, after its traditional European customers significantly reduced their imports.

In August, the European Union purchased only 8% of Russian hydrocarbons, while China and India purchased 40% and 25% respectively; Turkey, a NATO member, imported 21%. This forced market conversion has led to a decline in oil and gas prices. It is therefore possible that Russia may experience financial problems in the long run.

With regard to arms exports, another source of revenue for Russia, the latest SIPRI report for 2024 recorded a significant decline (-64%). However, Moscow remains in third place with 7.8% of global exports, overtaken by France (9.6%), while the world’s leading exporter remains the United States (43%). The demand for weapons for the Ukrainian front and international sanctions make it more difficult for Russia to sell its weapons systems. Looking ahead, however, the production of weapons types tested in war and the increased production capacity of the sector could reverse this trend.

During the recent Zapad 2025 exercises, President Putin stated that Russia had mobilized more than 700,000 soldiers on the Ukrainian front.

Internal stability is threatened by human losses, which are very high on both sides. The exact number is hidden by both states, but it is likely that at least 120,000 Russian soldiers have died and at least three times as many have been wounded. The Russian government is replenishing the ranks of the army mainly with volunteers from the economically poorest regions of the vast country, assuring them good economic conditions and managing not to send conscripts to the front. The Institute for the Study of War (openly aligned with the Ukrainian cause) has revealed that approximately 292,000 volunteers enlisted between the beginning of 2025 and September 15, an average of about 7,900 recruits per week, figures that are in line with data provided by NATO sources.

Conscripts, on the other hand, 160,000 of whom were enlisted in the spring draft, are not being sent to the front. This has prevented an anti-war movement from forming for now. The majority of the population supports the government, thanks in part to the “hysterical” posturing of European states and NATO, which the regime exploits for its propaganda: traditional and orthodox “Holy Mother Russia” attacked by the corrupt and unbelieving West, which, as in 1941, is rearming itself.

Russia’s diplomatic relations, severed by European states, have had to be strengthened with China, a much more powerful economic ally. ‘Normal’ diplomatic relations appear to be maintained with the United States of America, while cooperation with India and the BRICS states, as well as with many African states, especially sub-Saharan Africa, also seems to be strengthening.

As far as we know, the Russian proletariat does not yet seem to be heavily affected by the consequences of the war. The employment rate has increased, with arms factories working three shifts, and wages also appear to have risen. However, there has been a noticeable increase in the prices of basic necessities, probably also due to sanctions.

In this situation, the Russian government is in no hurry to reach a ceasefire without achieving its objectives: the acquisition of the four provinces already annexed to Russia by decree, even if it has not yet completely occupied them, and a Ukraine that is not part of NATO and is demilitarized.

Time is on Moscow’s side, as it waits for the Ukrainian army to collapse with a change of government in Kiev. The situation on the other side of the front is more complex. This war was provoked by the United States and NATO, which went ‘barking’ at Russia’s borders, as even Pope Francis acknowledged some time ago in a colorful but clear manner. But it is being fought by Ukrainian troops, armed, trained, and supplied by Western countries, especially the United States.

After contributing for years, since 2014, to the strengthening and purging of the Ukrainian armed forces, Washington has provided Kiev with most of the cash and weapons aid since the Russian invasion, pushing for a counteroffensive to recapture all territories occupied by Russia, including Crimea.

Now that the United States has achieved its main strategic objective of pitting Russia and the European states against each other, it wants to let them fight each other so that it can profit from military supplies (as in the two previous world wars) and focus its efforts on confronting China, its real global adversary.

Having achieved that first goal of severing the financial and commercial ties of European states with Russia, the United States has damaged the economies of both and forcibly brought Europeans back into Atlantic diplomatic and military discipline. European states are paying the political and social consequences. The breakdown of trade relations with Russia has exacerbated the industrial crisis in Germany and other countries.

The attack, which has so far gone unpunished, on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, inspired by the United States and carried out by a Ukrainian commando unit with the support of NATO countries, probably Britain and Poland, clearly demonstrated Germany’s subservience to the United States, while the German economy went into recession. Just recently, Polish Prime Minister Tusk wrote on X: “The problem with Nord Stream 2 is not that it was blown up: the problem is that it was built,” reiterating his solidarity with the United States and against Germany.

The attempt to weaken Moscow by pushing it into open war using the Ukrainian army seems to have failed because the Russian army, after several months of retreats and necessary adjustments, has managed to stop the Ukrainian counteroffensive and go on the offensive: it is currently pressing along the entire front line, and Moscow’s armed forces have grown stronger during these years of war.

Ukraine, on the other hand, is on its last legs, both behind the lines and at the front. Ukrainian losses are almost certainly higher in absolute numbers, with a population of 40 million (of which 7-8 million have fled abroad) compared to Russia’s 140 million. Under relentless Russian pressure, soldiers are now deserting in large numbers, while the recruitment of new forces is becoming increasingly difficult.

Kiev’s financial situation is also dire. “Ukraine spends 31% of its GDP on defense, the highest share in the world,” said the chair of the Ukrainian Parliament’s budget committee; “one day of war currently costs Ukraine $172 million,” compared to $140 million a year ago. In mid-September, the defense minister announced that Ukraine will need more than €100 billion to finance its defense in 2026.

The United States has taken note of this situation and, beyond President Trump’s fluctuating statements, has been seeking an accommodation with Moscow for months, at Ukraine’s expense, of course. They are determined to end financial aid to Ukraine and offload everything onto European countries. US diplomacy first seemed to accept that Donbass and the other territories annexed by the Kremlin would pass to Russia, then President Trump spoke of unlikely “reconquests.” Behind this, of course, lies the struggle to plunder Ukraine’s great riches.

However, it will be the Ukrainian government that will pay the price, for whom ceding Donetsk will be tantamount to admitting that eleven years of massacre at the front with hundreds of thousands of deaths have been in vain. This is not just about the fate of the discredited Ukrainian government and Zelensky himself, but about the social stability of Ukraine, where proletarian anger over so many useless sacrifices could turn into revolt, paving the way for the collapse of the state. Proletarians who will understand that they have never had anything to gain from defending national integrity and everything to lose from the defeat of their own country.

The summit between the US and Russia held in Alaska in mid-August confirmed Washington’s attitude, which has no interest in clashing directly with Moscow. The world’s two major nuclear powers continue to proceed by mutual agreement on various important fronts, from the Middle East to the exploitation of Arctic resources. They will agree on a friendly partition of Ukraine, keeping the Europeans out of the picture.

The bourgeoisies of Europe, which have invested billions of euros in the war, will now also be excluded from the big business of reconstruction. This explains their intransigence towards any peace agreement that violates the “sacred territorial integrity of Ukraine.” They are therefore pushing to continue the war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, injuries, and mutilations, as well as other immense destruction, at the expense of the Ukrainian proletariat, the Russian proletariat, and even the European proletariat, which will also pay the costs of this war.

Hence the great agitation of the cross-party war party, represented by the top European leaders and the so-called “willing ones,” who every day discover a provocation by Moscow, who fear probable imminent invasions, who press for further sanctions against Russia, who propose to increase military spending to 5% of GDP, who launch a grandiose and unrealistic rearmament plan, and who fan the flames to prevent any agreement, even talking about sending troops to Ukrainian soil.

The latest alarm, after that of Poland, was raised by the small Baltic states which, fearing the loss of free military aid and military support from the United States, are spreading alarmism about alleged incursions by Russian aircraft, drones, etc.

Internationalist solidarity with the proletariat of Ukraine, Russia, Palestine, and the entire Middle East begins with the struggle in one’s own country and consists of strenuously defending living and working conditions, rejecting the arms race and the sacrifices it entails, rejecting militaristic and patriotic propaganda, and opposing the preparation for war between states with the preparation for war between classes.