Exhaustion or turning point? Three perspectives on the fourth year of the great war
24 February 09:25
ANALYSIS
Four years of full-scale war — a milestone that seemed almost unthinkable back in 2022. Ukraine has survived. Russia has not achieved its stated goals. But the main question today is not about the past, but about the future. Is Russia really “falling apart at the seams,” as military historians claim? Is its economy capable of withstanding years of war of attrition, even at the cost of turning the country into a closed military camp?
Will Ukraine have enough financial resources to continue the fight if international support diminishes? And finally, who will last longer: a democracy fighting on credit or an authoritarian system ready to tighten its belt to the limit? In a major article, Kommersant Ukrainian presents three different views on the fourth year of the great war: those of a military historian, an economist, and a philosopher. They discuss historical parallels, economic resilience, and the moral state of society — without illusions and without embellishment.
The opinion of a military historian. Russia is cracking
Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine has been going on longer than the fighting on the German-Soviet front during World War II. Historical parallels and prospects for the conflict in an exclusive commentary
“The war has been going on longer than the Great Patriotic War. It’s impossible to imagine. History gives a clear signal about how protracted wars usually end for Russia,” Tamar notes.
According to Tamar, if you look at historical experience, protracted wars have always ended badly for Russia. The exception is World War II, but that was a completely unique situation, the officer emphasizes. He explains that at that time, the USSR was part of a powerful coalition of Western powers.
In other historical episodes, the consequences were much more dramatic. World War I ended with economic collapse and regime change for the Russian Empire, Tamar recalls.
A similar scenario was observed after the Russo-Japanese War.
“It [ed. — the Russo-Japanese War] was not as short as is commonly believed. Russia was economically exhausted. This led to a revolution and a de facto change in the political system — a constitutional monarchy emerged,” says the historian.
The defeat in the Crimean War also led to large-scale internal reforms, culminating in a change in the political system. Serfdom was abolished, adds Grigory Tamar.
Even after the victory over Napoleon and the Patriotic War of 1812, Russia faced profound internal upheavals.
“Russia’s intervention in Europe ended with the Decembrist uprising. In other words, even victories had very complex consequences,” Tamar notes.
Russia’s invincibility is a myth
Grigory Tamar, an officer in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and military historian, also refutes the myth of Russia’s “invincibility.”
“The idea that Russians never lose is nonsense. Remember the Red Army’s Polish campaign in 1920. Look at the Finnish campaign. Formally, the Soviet Union won it, but a few more such ‘victories’ and defeats are not needed,” says the officer.
He also mentions the wars of the modern era — against Georgia and in Chechnya.
“They can be proud of their ‘great victory’ when a huge empire invaded a country with a population of less than four million. As for Chechnya, if you can call it a victory, they are still paying the price for it,” Tamar notes.
According to the military historian, the current war has long gone beyond a purely military confrontation.
“Today, it is a war of economies, a war of state systems, a war of structures. If Ukraine is still holding the front line, conducting successful counteroffensive operations in certain areas, and has built relations with the West, this is a key factor. Without this, Ukraine would not have lasted so many years,” emphasizes Hryhorii Tamar.
At the same time, according to the historian, systemic problems are accumulating in Russia itself.
“Everything is falling apart at the seams. I want to see how the Russians will be able to continue this war for another three years,” Tamar notes.
An economist’s opinion. Ukraine is fighting on credit, while Russia can tighten its belt
In the fourth year of full-scale war, the economic front remains key. It is financial resources that determine how long countries can maintain the intensity of hostilities. This was stated in an exclusive comment
“Ukraine has been fighting on credit since day one. And as long as we have money, we will continue to fight. If we don’t get 90 billion, there will be trouble,” Pendzin emphasized.
At the same time, according to Pendzin, Russia has chosen a fundamentally different model of survival.
“Russia is turning its country into a large GULAG and will fight. They will create a GULAG, they will create labor camps, they will turn the country into a military camp. People will receive rations on coupons, but the country will fight,” said Oleg Pendzin.
In his opinion, the Russian Federation already has serious economic problems, but this does not mean a rapid collapse.
“But the resources it receives from exports and collects from the economy are sufficient to finance the military sector at the expense of social programs. They will continue to do so,” the expert stressed.
Thus, in the fourth year of the great war, the economic confrontation is becoming increasingly fierce. Ukraine remains dependent on the support of its partners, while Russia is increasingly mobilizing internal resources, even at the cost of a decline in the population’s standard of living.
The main question is not only whose economy is weaker, but which system will withstand the war of attrition longer.
A philosopher’s opinion. The question of ending the war remains open
Ukraine has survived a full-scale war — a fact now recognized by both allies and skeptics. However, the main question is what the country has become over these four years and what lies ahead. This is discussed in an exclusive commentary
“It is obvious to everyone that Ukraine has survived. The question of what will happen to us next is very interesting. Unfortunately, there are many destructive aspects associated with the prolonged war and closed borders, a relatively closed society,” Yagodzinsky notes.
According to the philosopher, the full-scale war has changed Ukrainian society — not only in terms of losses or trauma, but also in terms of internal maturity.
“Ukrainians who have lived through this time have, of course, become stronger. We have learned to survive, we have learned to live in very difficult conditions without losing our sanity,” emphasizes Yagodzinsky.
The professor also highlights the transformation in attitudes toward the army.
“We have learned to respect the military. The army has gained the status it should have had from the first days of independence,” says Yagodzinsky.
Despite the complexity of the situation, the overall outlook is optimistic. The only thing that remains uncertain, of course, is the end of the war, the professor notes. Yagodzinsky emphasizes that the political decision to end the war is primarily a matter of responsibility. In his opinion, in the context of a protracted war, political leaders must seek complex compromises.
“You have to shake hands somewhere, negotiate somewhere, because you can’t bring people back. People want to live, people want to work for their country,” concluded Serhiy Yagodzinsky.
The fourth year of the war has shown one main thing: it is no longer just about the front lines and weapons. It is a war of systems, resources, and endurance. There are no simple formulas in this war. There is only a harsh reality: the winner will not be the one who speaks louder about strength, but the one who can hold out longer — economically, politically, and morally. The fourth anniversary is not just a date. It is a test of resilience that is still ongoing.
