TL;DR
- Russian forces are now 15km from Zaporizhzhia city after capturing Gulyaipole, with Ukrainian defenses collapsing across the southern front
- The conflict has five interlocking layers: internal Ukrainian divisions, Russo-Ukrainian relations, intra-European (NATO), US-Russia relations, and civilizational dimensions
- New START treaty expires February 5, 2026 - Putin has offered to extend limits for one year, but the US has not formally responded
- European strategy lacks coherence: leaders now mention diplomacy but have no path beyond “keeping Ukraine in the fight”
- Russia’s demands are growing (Lavrov mentioned “Novorossiya” in January 14 interview), and continued war only strengthens Moscow’s position
Introduction
On January 18, 2026, with Russian forces advancing on multiple fronts and European leaders making their first tentative acknowledgments that diplomacy might be necessary, the Ukraine war entered what one expert calls “the end of the beginning.” Richard Sakwa, professor of politics at the University of Kent and one of Europe’s leading Russia scholars, argues that the current moment forces a reckoning with failures dating back to 1945. Meanwhile, military analyst Stanislav Krapivnik describes a battlefield reality where Ukrainian defenses are collapsing faster than Western observers recognize.
This synthesis examines both the deep structural causes of the conflict and its immediate military trajectory, drawing on two extensive interviews conducted by Glenn Diesen in mid-January 2026.
The Five Layers of Conflict
According to Sakwa, the Ukraine war operates on at least five distinct but interlocking levels:
Layer 1: Internal Ukrainian Division Two competing visions of Ukrainian statehood emerged after 1991. The “monist” vision treats Russian influence as colonial overlay to be removed, pursuing ethnic homogeneity and Western orientation. The “pluralist” vision accepts Ukraine’s multicultural, multilingual character, including its Russian-speaking population.
Layer 2: Russo-Ukrainian Interstate Relations Sakwa applies Rene Girard’s mimetic theory: the closer two entities are culturally, the more intense their rivalry can become. Russia and Ukraine occupy similar civilizational space - Eastern Slavic, Orthodox, shared history - creating what he calls “narcissism of small differences.”
Layer 3: Intra-European Failure The core failure, according to Sakwa, occurred twice: after 1945 and after 1989. Both moments offered opportunities for “genuine pan-continental unity.” Instead, the “Atlanticist settlement” reproduced Cold War dynamics.
Layer 4: US-Russia Superpower Relations The conflict is also a US-Russia confrontation fought through proxies. Sakwa notes the paradox that peace was expected “from above” - a Trump-Putin deal imposed on Europeans - but Trump “does not have coherent answers” despite asking the right questions.
Layer 5: Civilizational Dimension Both Western and Russian commentators frame the conflict in civilizational terms. Sakwa argues Russia is becoming “post-Western but not post-European” - a distinction with significant implications.
The Military Reality
Krapivnik provides a starkly different perspective - not historical analysis but battlefield assessment:
Southern Front Collapse Russian forces have captured Gulyaipole and are now 15 kilometers from Zaporizhzhia city, having entered the suburban zone. Ukrainian forces are reduced to “suicide PR attacks” - counteroffensives designed for propaganda value rather than military gain.
Casualty Rates According to Krapivnik’s estimates, Ukrainian losses are approximately 1,000-1,500 killed daily plus 2,000-4,500 seriously wounded - “roughly a brigade every single day.”
Logistics Breakdown Ukraine faces what Krapivnik calls “any logistics officer’s nightmare” - equipment from multiple NATO countries with incompatible parts, different calibers, and no standardized maintenance.
Russia’s Position and Demands
Both sources agree Russia’s negotiating position is strengthening:
Military Leverage With Gulyaipole fallen and Zaporizhzhia under threat, Ukrainian leverage diminishes daily.
Expanding Demands Lavrov’s January 14 interview mentioned “serious discussion about the future of the population in Crimea and Novorossiya” - a term encompassing Kharkiv, Dnipro, Mykolaiv, and Odessa.
Strategic Patience Russia is spending 5-7% of GDP on military operations, according to Krapivnik - far from a wartime economy (30-40%). This suggests capacity for prolonged conflict.
European Strategic Vacuum
Both sources are critical of European leadership:
Narrative vs Strategy Sakwa notes European leaders have shifted rhetoric - acknowledging diplomacy, recognizing Russia as European - but lack “any much strategic thinking beyond” hoping Trump is a temporary aberration.
Dependence Trap The war creates a paradox: continued conflict increases European dependence on the US, which then extracts concessions.
Reconstituting as War Project Sakwa argues the push for European military capacity is “reconstituting Europe as a war project” rather than its original foundation as a “peace project.”
Key Insights
NATO’s Self-Defeating Logic: Sakwa’s formulation that NATO has become “a security organization that exists for the purpose of dealing with conflicts that derive from its own existence” captures the fundamental contradiction of post-Cold War European security.
Military Reality Trumps Narrative: Regardless of Western media framing, Ukrainian defensive capacity is severely degraded.
Russia’s Patience: With low GDP commitment to military spending and expanding territorial control, Russia has less incentive to compromise than Western analysts assume.
Implications
Near-term (1-3 months)
- New START decision by February 5 will indicate Trump administration’s ability to conduct coherent diplomacy
- Zaporizhzhia’s fall would represent the largest Ukrainian city lost since Mariupol
Medium-term (6-12 months)
- If current trajectory continues, Ukraine’s army may lack capacity to hold the Dnieper line
- European security architecture faces fundamental restructuring regardless of war outcome
InsightForge approaches geopolitics from a realist perspective. Alternative analytical frameworks exist.