The seemingly unending Russian war on Ukraine surpassed the four-year mark in late February, with no end in sight. Over the past three days, Vladimir Putin’s regime has launched over 1,000 drones and dozens of missiles at civilian targets throughout Ukraine, leaving several people dead and scores more injured. The attacks lead to Poland and Romania scrambling jets due to the proximity of some of the attacks to NATO airspace.

On Monday night, Moscow launched almost 400 drones and numerous missiles throughout Ukraine, killing at least four and injuring over two dozen. The attack was part of a large-scale assault that continued into the next day, in which over 550 drones were fired during a rare daytime strike. The regime launched an additional 147 drones into the early morning hours on Wednesday, with Ukraine’s air force reporting that over a dozen locations had been struck.

The latest Russian assault is part of a renewed spring offensive that the Institute for the Study of War described as “a significant inflection in Russian strike tactics that allow Russia to threaten more areas of Ukraine for longer periods of time and disproportionately affect civilian areas.”

Putin’s war on Ukraine, which has been largely overshadowed by the U.S.’s ongoing strike on Iran over the past month, has now become the longest European conflict since World War II. It has claimed the lives of over 15,000 Ukrainian civilians, including at least 766 children, and has wounded over 41,000. Analysts estimate that between 100,000 and 140,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died and over 400,000 have been wounded. On the Russian side, as many as 325,000 soldiers have died, with an additional 900,000 wounded (with a significant percentage of these casualties being suffered by conscripted men).

As the war grinds on indefinitely, a Reuters report noted that the Iran war “has ?diverted U.S. attention away from its mediation of peace talks and has replenished Russia’s state coffers thanks to a jump in oil prices. The Middle East war is also draining supplies of U.S. air-defence weapons that Ukraine relies upon to defend its cities, energy infrastructure and military sites.”

Recent talks in Miami between Kyiv’s delegation and the U.S. ended “constructively” according to U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, which reportedly focused on “humanitarian efforts and on establishing a durable and dependable security framework for Ukraine.” But Ukrainian outlets reported that U.S. officials are “again increasing pressure on Kyiv to withdraw its troops from the Donetsk region as part of a potential settlement.” Despite making only small gains in captured Ukrainian territory over the course of 2025, “Russia still has enough manpower to keep advancing this year,” according to Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. So far, Putin’s forces have managed to capture roughly 20% of Ukraine’s territory.

As for how the Trump administration should approach the conflict going forward, experts like Lt. Col. (Ret.) Robert Maginnis, Family Research Council’s senior fellow for National Security, say that the U.S. must be willing to play a long game centered on economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure if it hopes to wrangle Putin’s regime toward a ceasefire or peace agreement.

“The United States still has meaningful tools to pressure Russia, but none offer a quick or decisive outcome,” he told The Washington Stand. “The most effective approach is to raise the cost of continuing the war through tighter enforcement of economic sanctions — particularly on Russia’s energy exports — while sustaining military support that prevents Moscow from achieving battlefield gains. At the same time, Washington can increase diplomatic pressure by isolating Russia and discouraging third countries such as China from enabling its war economy.”

“However,” Maginnis added, “the reality is that these measures take time. Vladimir Putin has shown he is willing to absorb economic pain and military losses if he believes he can outlast the West. The goal, therefore, is not immediate capitulation but altering his long-term cost-benefit calculation so that continuing the war becomes less attractive than ending it.”

He went on to contend that Ukraine may be forced to give up territory to Russia in order to reach a peace agreement if the conflict continues unabated.

“The pressure to give land concessions will grow the longer the war continues and Ukraine’s manpower reaches a critical point or outside assistance dwindles,” Maginnis predicted. “Territorial concessions may eventually become part of a negotiated settlement, but they cannot stand alone as the basis for peace. Without credible, enforceable security guarantees, any land-for-peace arrangement would likely amount to a temporary pause, giving Russia time to regroup and resume aggression later. Ukraine understands this from experience, which is why it has emphasized the need for binding, ‘Article 5-like’ [NATO] guarantees from the United States and its allies.”

“The central issue is not simply where the lines are drawn on a map, but whether Ukraine emerges from this war secure and sovereign,” Maginnis concluded. “A settlement that sacrifices territory without ensuring long-term security risks is setting the stage for the next conflict rather than ending the current one.”