Podcast Summary: The Foreign Affairs Interview
Episode: Bonus: Is There an Endgame in Ukraine?
Host: Daniel Kurtz-Phelan
Guest: Michael Kofman, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Date: February 21, 2026
Episode Overview
As the war in Ukraine enters its fifth year, host Daniel Kurtz-Phelan speaks with renowned military analyst Michael Kofman to assess the conflict’s current state, prospects for resolution, and the endurance strategies of Russia, Ukraine, and their international backers. The conversation offers a granular look at the battlefield, diplomatic maneuvering, Western and Russian miscalculations, and the evolving roles of technology, manpower, and foreign support.
Key Discussion Points and Insights
1. War’s Current Status and the Past Year’s Dynamics
- Attrition, Positional Warfare & Adaptation (02:31–05:01)
- Both sides have settled into a “brutal pattern of attrition, adaptation and endurance.”
- Tactical changes, such as increased drone use, have not yielded decisive results for either side.
- Russian advances in 2025 were not operationally successful; small territorial gains came at steep costs.
- Innovation and Stalemate (02:31–04:34)
- Both Ukraine and Russia have significantly adapted their drone and infantry tactics.
- Superiority in “the drone engagement zone” was a key dynamic, shifting back and forth over the year.
Notable Quote:
“This has remained a war really characterized by attrition and positional fighting for the last two years, which is not unexpected in a prolonged conventional war, as both sides adapt to each other, but struggle to establish a kind of decisive advantage...”
—Michael Kofman [02:31]
2. Russian and Ukrainian Performance in 2025
- Russia’s Missed Opportunities (05:01–07:02; 11:09–13:52)
- Despite material advantages, Russia failed to breach Ukrainian lines or achieve major objectives.
- Russian casualties increased to match recruitment, signaling strains on sustaining current operations.
- Kofman critiques Putin’s “two big bets”: expecting Ukrainian collapse via broad pressure and assuming he could diplomatically maneuver the US out of the conflict.
- Putin’s Endurance and Sunk Cost (13:52–15:58)
- Putin remains committed to the war, partially due to sunk costs and personal fixation on Ukraine.
- Russian society and elites have adapted, making continued warfare less disruptive internally, though economic strains are mounting.
Notable Quote:
“Putin wanted the war... He still wants the war, and he wants it more than all the other things currently being offered on the table.”
—Michael Kofman [00:06 & 13:52]
3. The Trump Administration’s Role and Western Support
- Diplomacy and Battlefield Interplay (07:02–09:13)
- Trump’s promise to end the war in 24 hours has not materialized.
- Battlefield dynamics inform negotiation leverage, but political maneuvers have not yielded a ceasefire.
- US Policy Ambiguities (17:47–19:28)
- There is no singular Trump administration policy on Ukraine; motives range from seeking a rapid end to the war to shifting security burdens to Europe.
- Irreplaceable US Support (19:40–21:03)
- US contributions—air defense, intelligence, precision munitions, and overall coordination—remain crucial; Europe cannot quickly backfill these roles.
Notable Quote:
“It’s not clear to what extent there really is a Ukraine policy... Ukraine will essentially be a subcomponent of that broader [US-European security] trajectory.”
—Michael Kofman [18:00]
4. Western and Ukrainian Decision-Making: Lessons and Critique
- Decisions and Outcomes (21:42–26:46)
- Kofman challenges the idea that earlier Western or Ukrainian choices alone could have fundamentally changed the war’s course, citing practical constraints.
- Training and Materiel (23:11–26:46)
- Early US reluctance to transfer capabilities due to assumptions from Iraq/Afghanistan proved overly cautious—Ukrainians could absorb advanced systems more quickly.
Notable Quote:
“This is the kind of like magic wand theory of security assistance... If you could build a bridge in three days, then you’d have a bridge in three days. And the only problem is that you can’t.”
—Michael Kofman [26:30]
5. Manpower, Endurance, and Domestic Constraints
- Ukraine’s Endurance Challenges (30:55–35:42)
- Manpower shortages and reliance on drones pose long-term sustainability problems.
- Increasing Russian strikes have targeted infrastructure, stressing civilian resilience and industrial base.
- Mobilization and Technology (35:55–38:01)
- Ukraine cannot fully compensate for manpower gaps with technology; “drone warfare is manpower intensive.”
- Improvements in force management and addressing issues such as absenteeism are needed.
6. Russia’s Endurance and Economic Strain
- Diminishing Returns for Russia (38:27–41:00)
- Russia is not near economic collapse but faces worsening indicators: manpower limitations, stagnating industry (except arms), and regional budget crises.
- Sustaining massive war-related budget outlays (8% of GDP) renders it vulnerable to shocks.
Notable Quote:
“Time is increasingly not on Russia’s side in this war and that the war had hit the point of diminishing returns for Russia probably end of 2024.”
—Michael Kofman [38:27]
7. The Evolving Role of Technology: Starlink and Drone Warfare
- Impact of Starlink Access (41:18–43:06)
- Elon Musk’s restriction of Starlink for Russian forces could disrupt Russian drone and command functions, although the full effects remain unclear.
- Both sides highly dependent on satellite communications for tactical and operational effectiveness.
8. Negotiation, Sequencing, and Prospects for Settlement
- Territory and Political Costs (43:51–47:24)
- Territorial concessions (particularly in Donetsk) carry greater political than military implications for Ukraine.
- The Trump administration’s “land for security guarantees” approach is simplistic; meaningful sequencing and implementation are complex and often overlooked.
- Security Guarantees (48:27–52:06)
- Discussions include robust US/European commitments, but credibility and practical enforcement remain uncertain.
- European defense capacity insufficient to replace US roles in either Ukraine or broader continental security.
Notable Quote:
“The biggest issue... is actually sequencing... The question is, what is the likelihood that this deal will be implemented? Because that’s the story of the Minsk1 and Minsk2 agreement.”
—Michael Kofman [43:51]
9. Theories of Success and Possible Trajectories
- Ukraine’s Best-Case Scenario (54:21–55:44)
- Make the conflict futile for Russia through resistance, increased Russian costs, better control of operational depth, and expanded strikes against Russian assets.
- Success means securing an “acceptable end” with potential for further gains via negotiation.
- Technological and Tactical Innovations (56:05–58:37)
- No single “game changer” is likely; lasting effects depend on how new tech is integrated into broader operational concepts.
- The war remains susceptible to sudden, unpredictable shifts ("gradually then suddenly" transitions).
- Worst-Case for Ukraine (58:37–60:51)
- Unexpectedly effective Russian advances, catastrophic infrastructure losses, outside shocks (e.g., major new US military commitments elsewhere) could turn the tide against Ukraine.
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On the logic of war:
“…the fighting informs the relative leverage that either side has in negotiations.”
—Michael Kofman [07:40] -
On the limits of leadership rationality:
“Leaders are often rational, but they’re not necessarily reasonable. If Putin was a reasonable leader, we would not be marking the fourth year anniversary of this war, would we?”
—Michael Kofman [13:48] -
On the challenge of negotiation:
“...the much bigger issue is the sequencing of it. The fact that you could get a deal, Trump administration could walk away and saying, we made a deal to end the war, but it’s actually not implemented, and we end up in a situation of sort of neither war nor peace...”
—Michael Kofman [46:59] -
On the future of security guarantees:
“Ultimately, they’re as credible as you believe that Donald Trump, as a current president of the United States, would act on them in defense of Ukraine. But they are commitments. They are commitments that carry reputational costs…”
—Michael Kofman [51:35]
Timestamps of Important Segments
| Segment | Timestamps | |------------------------------------------------------|--------------| | Introduction/context | 00:00–01:47 | | Year 4 in review—tactics and attrition | 02:31–04:34 | | Russia’s 2025 performance and missed opportunities | 05:01–07:02 | | Trump administration diplomacy & battlefield interplay| 07:02–09:13 | | Putin’s miscalculations and commitment to war | 11:09–15:58 | | Zelensky’s evolution in managing the US | 15:58–17:47 | | US support—what is indispensable | 19:40–21:03 | | Western & Ukrainian strategic choices | 21:42–26:46 | | Ukraine’s enduring challenges | 30:55–35:42 | | Russia’s economic and manpower constraints | 38:27–41:00 | | Impact of Starlink policy shifts | 41:18–43:06 | | Negotiation scenarios and sequencing challenges | 43:51–47:24 | | Security guarantees—meaning and limits | 48:27–52:06 | | Ukrainian best/worst case futures | 54:21–60:51 |
Closing
The episode paints a picture of a grinding, unforeseen war—one not likely to end soon or with dramatic shifts, but with persistent, stubborn adaptation and endurance on both sides. Michael Kofman’s analysis emphasizes the importance of stamina, the limits of technology as a “game changer,” and the daunting complexity of negotiations—especially sequencing and the real implementation of any deal.
For listeners and policy thinkers alike, this conversation punctures easy narratives and underlines the need for hard realism about what an endgame in Ukraine might actually entail.