Experts say it could take years for Ukraine to reclaim territory as Russia’s gains stall
Analysts say Moscow’s advances have slowed to a crawl, while Kyiv would need sustained Western backing to retake occupied lands.
Ukraine could take years to reclaim all territory Russia occupies since 1991, even as Moscow’s invasion has struggled to gain ground. Military analysts describe the current pace as slow and uneven, with front lines frozen in places and repeated attempts to breach fortified urban belts yielding limited gains. The assessment comes as senior U.S. and European officials emphasize that any return of land would require sustained support for Ukraine on multiple fronts, including arms, training, and deterrence.
Analysts from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) say Moscow’s troops have moved at a glacial pace. In the last 20 months, Russia has captured about 1% more of Ukraine, with gains concentrated around certain pockets near Donetsk and along the southern front while broader accelerations have been elusive. The Russian bombing campaign has persisted, but the ability to convert bombardment into strategic breakthroughs has remained constrained by Ukraine’s defenses and geography. The pace has frustrated Kyiv’s supporters and raised questions about how long Moscow can sustain the attritional approach without provoking a broader strategic or economic consequence.
Analysts warn that even as Moscow’s gains stall, the price of any Ukrainian counteroffensive would be exceptionally high. CSIS’s latest analysis places Russian casualties at about 1 million, including roughly 250,000 dead soldiers, a toll CSIS says is about five times greater than the combined losses in all prior Soviet and Russian wars since World War II. In the same period, Russia is estimated to have lost more than 4,100 armored vehicles and 1,800 tanks. Those figures underscore the brutal battlefield dynamics that any offensive by Ukraine would likely mirror, with heavy casualties on both sides and a laboring effort to breach fortified positions that have become easier to defend than to overrun.
Ukraine would need substantial manpower to mount an offensive in areas Russia currently occupies. Officials note that Kyiv’s armed forces have already suffered tens of thousands of deaths, and Ukraine does not possess the same scale of air power or a navy capable of delivering joint, multi-front operations on the level Moscow can sustain. The limitations of Kyiv’s air and sea capabilities complicate planning for an offensive that would have to cope with extensive minefields, fortified lines, and the logistical demands of sustained operations. Still, some analysts say the path to success remains possible in theory if Kyiv could mobilize and sustain the pressure while securing reliable, long-term Western support that translates into weapons, training, and economic pressure on Moscow.
Peter Doran of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said that with ongoing backing from the United States and NATO, Ukraine’s prospects of reclaiming lost territory could be higher than some forecasts. He cautioned, however, that the price would be steep: a protracted campaign that would place a heavy burden on Ukraine’s manpower and its economy unless Western allies maintain a robust support corridor that includes arms production, training, and auxiliary capabilities. The balance of risk and gain in any offensive would hinge on sustained international commitment and the ability to convert political resolve into battlefield advantage over time.
Analysts have also warned about potential escalation if Kyiv gains ground. Seth Jones of CSIS cautioned that Moscow could consider signaling its nuclear deterrent to deter further losses, though he emphasized the risk of a full-scale nuclear exchange remains remote. Jones noted that Russia has historically linked major concessions to any significant reversal of momentum and has shown a willingness to escalate when it perceives its position as threatened. The prospect of nuclear signaling adds a layer of caution for Western planners as they calculate how best to sustain pressure on Moscow without triggering broader escalation.
Trump’s UN pledge and Kyiv’s response added another dimension to the debate. During a visit to the United Nations General Assembly, the former U.S. president asserted that Kyiv could push back Russia and even retake 20% of the country with continued Western backing. Zelensky met with Trump at the UN gathering, underscoring ongoing Western interest in Ukraine’s trajectory. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov pushed back on the optimism, describing Russia’s economy as sound and characterizing the Russian military as a bear rather than a paper tiger while reiterating Moscow’s decision to continue the invasion and declaring that a cease-fire was not on the table.
If Ukraine were to push Moscow’s forces back, the Kremlin could seek to deter humiliation through signaling or more assertive political-military moves, a dynamic that raises concerns about escalation and miscalculation on both sides. The Zaporizhzhia front, where Kyiv has repeatedly faced pressure, illustrates the war’s stubborn persistence: despite Ukraine’s resilience, Moscow has not delivered a decisive victory that would redefine the overall trajectory of the conflict in a single season.
In this uncertain landscape, Kyiv’s path to reclaiming land remains a long-term project rather than a swift settlement. Analysts say the outcome hinges on a multiplier effect: the persistence of Western military aid, the resilience of Ukrainian defenses, and the willingness of Moscow to endure continued international pressure and economic pain. The war’s evolution over the coming months will depend on how quickly Western partners can sustain arms production, training, and economic sanctions while avoiding a broader confrontation that could redraw regional security arrangements beyond Ukraine’s borders.
As the conflict persists, international observers stress that the window for decisively changing the battlefield balance is not closed but is narrow and contingent on a sustained, multi-faceted effort. The complexity of the war’s logistics, the depth of fortified lines, and the costs of crossing heavily defended front lines make any shift in momentum a slow, costly process—one that could take years to determine whether Ukraine can reclaim the lands Moscow has occupied since 1991. The human toll continues to mount on both sides, and the broader strategic implications for Europe and global security remain closely watched by governments and policy experts alike.
