The squeaky wheel gets the grease. There are many more voices expressing similar views than just a few. While the alternative media and its contributors offer valuable perspectives, they are not the sole authority on these matters. Selective gatekeeping over which “Western sources” are acceptable—especially when outlets like the New York Times are routinely cited in such posts—risks turning discussion into narrow dogma rather than fostering open inquiry.

When approached with critical thinking and healthy skepticism, diverse sources provide meaningful insights. What’s needed is thoughtful analysis, not reflexive dismissal.

Some other Western Analyses

Brookings Institution: Brookings analysts have highlighted the entrenched positions of both Russia and Ukraine, suggesting that without significant shifts, the conflict is poised to continue. They note that while Russia had some momentum in 2024, it achieved only modest territorial gains and failed to dislodge Ukrainian forces from key regions. The institution emphasizes that a durable settlement requires both sides to move off deeply entrenched positions, and absent a well-conceived strategy, mediation attempts are likely to fail.
(Brookings)

RAND Corporation: In their report Avoiding a Long War, RAND explores potential trajectories of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and their implications for U.S. interests. They note that the war could continue for an extended period, emphasizing the need for the U.S. to consider strategies that avoid a prolonged conflict.
(RAND Corporation)

Royal United Services Institute (RUSI): RUSI’s analysis indicates that Russia has the capacity to sustain combat operations for several years, particularly in areas like artillery shell production. However, challenges remain in regenerating other military capabilities due to sanctions and supply chain issues.
(RUSI)

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): CSIS highlights that the Ukraine war has evolved into a major political and economic conflict between the West and Russia, with long-term implications for global stability. They suggest that even if the war ends in a compromise or ceasefire, a decisive end to the fighting seems uncertain.
(CSIS)

Perspectives from the Global South and BRICS Nations

BRICS Nations: An expert discussion hosted by the Foreign Policy Centre notes that BRICS countries have largely abstained from taking definite sides in the conflict, repeatedly calling for a resolution through peaceful means. They emphasize the need for actual multipolarity in the world, a sentiment echoed by Russian President Putin.
(The Foreign Policy Centre)

China: China’s support for Russia has been comprehensive and enduring, aligning with its long-term strategic interests. However, China’s narratives about the war suggest a preference for a resolution that avoids prolonged conflict, balancing its support for Russia with its global economic interests.
Chinese analyses suggest that the Ukraine crisis has disrupted the current international order, revealing its coercive nature. They advocate for China to contemplate building a new international system parallel to the Western-dominated order, emphasizing the importance of “worst-case scenario thinking” in strategic planning.
(Tricontinental Institute)

African Union: The head of the African Union, Moussa Faki Mahamat, has remarked that Africa has become “the collateral victim of a distant conflict,” highlighting that many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America do not see the Ukraine war as their conflict. This underscores the Global South’s desire to address broader dilemmas of humanity rather than being entangled in great power conflicts.
(Tricontinental Institute)

Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research: This Global South think tank critiques the Western narrative, arguing that the conflict is not solely about Ukraine but is emblematic of broader geopolitical tensions. As such, it seriously complicates the possibility of the parties reaching a settlement focused on Ukraine and it’s borders alone. The Institute emphasizes the need for a new international order that moves away from Western hegemony and advocates for nonalignment and peace.
(Tricontinental Institute)

These analyses underscore a broad consensus that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is likely to persist, with both military and diplomatic stalemates contributing to its prolonged nature. The conflict extends well beyond the immediate battlefield in Ukraine, reflecting deeper geopolitical rivalries that involve numerous global stakeholders. Achieving a lasting resolution will require more than negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv—it will demand broader international engagement and multilateral agreements.

The proxy-war dynamics, with both sides relying on strategic alliances and external support, inevitably extend the timeline for any enduring peace. Beyond their own populations, each party must also navigate the expectations and interests of key allies and partners. In this context, entrenched positions, competing global visions, and complex strategic calculations continue to make a swift resolution very unlikely.

“DJT believes additional sanctions will hasten Moscow to an unfavorable negotiation…”

I’d suggest that’s based on making a significant assumption there. The truth is, none of us actually knows what Donald Trump believes or why he says certain things. He’s a master of distraction and ambiguity — so why would we assume his statements reflect clear strategic thinking? More likely, it’s just typical bluster.

Also, this statement: “Sanctions have not, to date, had the intended impact on Russia financially” doesn’t mean they’ve had zero serious negative effects. Those two outcomes are not mutually exclusive. An impact less than intended is still a negative effect. And we are not privy to all the inside information that Putin has.

And when someone refers to IMF projections to support an argument, it’s interesting how that’s acceptable — even as others (like myself) are ridiculed for citing “unreliable Western sources.” Yet all alternative media and many others regularly quote Politico, NYTimes, The Economist, and Financial Times as sources without issue. That’s cherry-picking what matters and when.

As for Trump and his advisors — of course we all are familiar with them. No one here just “beamed in from a spaceship.” We all know the language, ideology, and narratives involved. Let’s not pretend it’s all new terrain. This isn’t Sesame Street.

I genuinely don’t understand what’s being argued anymore, or why some are so quick to dismiss reasonable, well-sourced analyses. No one can predict the future — but many respected analysts are offering plausible, evidence-based scenarios. Why reflexively attack those?

by Roger