National Review Publishes Opinion Piece Asserting Putin Has Lost Ukraine War

The Catalyst

National Review, a conservative American editorial magazine, published an opinion piece titled "Putin Has Lost the War in Ukraine" with the subtitle "The only question is what the endgame will look like." The source data provided consists solely of this title and the single-sentence subtitle. No author name, publication date, article body, evidence, citations, or primary sources are included in the source data. The piece appears to be an editorial or column expressing a definitive conclusion about the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War, which began with Russia's full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022. As of the system date of July 14, 2026, the war has continued for over four years with significant casualties, territorial changes, and geopolitical repercussions. The source does not provide details on the author's identity, their credentials, the specific arguments made in the piece, any battlefield assessments, casualty figures, economic data, diplomatic developments, or statements from Russian or Ukrainian officials. The source does not provide details on what specific "endgame" scenarios the author envisions. The source does not provide details on whether the piece references any classified intelligence, open-source intelligence, satellite imagery, or on-the-ground reporting. The source does not provide details on the editorial process at National Review that led to publication of this definitive claim. Without the full article text, it is impossible to evaluate the reasoning, evidence, or sources underlying the headline assertion.

Historical Context

The Russo-Ukrainian War began in 2014 with Russia's annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. The full-scale invasion launched on February 24, 2022, marked a major escalation. As of July 2026, the conflict has involved multiple phases: the initial Russian drive toward Kyiv (repelled by April 2022), the battle for the Donbas (mid-2022), Ukrainian counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson (late 2022), a grinding war of attrition through 2023-2024, and continued fighting along a roughly 1,000-kilometer front line. Western military aid to Ukraine, led by the United States, has totaled over $175 billion in appropriated assistance since 2022 according to Congressional Research Service reports. Russia has mobilized hundreds of thousands of personnel, shifted to a war economy, and faced extensive sanctions from the EU, US, UK, and allies. Territorial control has fluctuated: Russia currently occupies approximately 18% of Ukraine's internationally recognized territory including Crimea, parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson oblasts. The source does not provide details on how the National Review author assesses this historical trajectory. The source does not provide details on whether the piece addresses the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive's limited gains, the 2024 Russian advances in Avdiivka and surrounding areas, or the evolving balance of artillery, drones, and air defense. The source does not provide details on the author's treatment of Western political will, US election cycles, European defense production, or Russian domestic stability. Historically, definitive declarations of victory or defeat in prolonged conventional wars have often proven premature; the source does not provide details on whether the author acknowledges this pattern.

Stakeholder Positions

The Ukrainian government, led by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy since 2019, maintains the goal of restoring Ukraine's 1991 borders, including Crimea, and has rejected territorial concessions. The Russian government, led by President Vladimir Putin since 2000 (with a 2008-2012 interregnum as Prime Minister), has stated objectives including "denazification," "demilitarization," and the recognition of Russian sovereignty over four annexed oblasts (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson) plus Crimea. The United States under the Biden administration (2021-2025) and subsequent administration has provided the largest share of military aid, with Congress appropriating funds through multiple Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Acts. The European Union and NATO members have provided financial, humanitarian, and military support, though delivery timelines have frequently slipped. China has provided diplomatic support to Russia and increased trade, while avoiding direct lethal aid per US intelligence assessments. The Global South has largely avoided alignment, with India, Brazil, South Africa, and others maintaining economic ties with both sides. The source does not provide details on how the National Review piece characterizes any of these stakeholder positions. The source does not provide details on whether the author cites statements from Zelenskyy, Putin, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin or his successors, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg or his successor, or any other principal. The source does not provide details on whether the piece addresses internal Ukrainian political debates about mobilization, corruption, or war aims. The source does not provide details on whether the piece addresses Russian elite cohesion, Prigozhin's 2023 mutiny, or domestic Russian public opinion polling. The source does not provide details on whether the piece discusses the role of US presidential politics, particularly the 2024 election and its impact on aid flows. The source does not provide details on any stakeholder the author identifies as pivotal to the "endgame."

Mechanics & Evidence

The source data provides no mechanics, evidence, primary documents, data sets, or verifiable claims beyond the headline assertion and subtitle. There are no casualty figures cited, no order-of-battle assessments, no economic indicators (Russian GDP, defense spending as share of GDP, Ukrainian budget deficit, Western aid delivery rates), no territorial control metrics, no weapons production rates (artillery shells, drones, missiles, armored vehicles), no manpower mobilization numbers, no logistics assessments (rail, road, port capacity), no intelligence community assessments referenced, no satellite imagery cited, no intercepted communications quoted, no diplomatic cables referenced, no think tank reports cited, no academic studies referenced, no on-the-ground reporter observations included, and no named sources of any kind. The source does not provide details on the author's methodology. The source does not provide details on whether the piece is based on original reporting, synthesis of open sources, interviews, or pure argumentation. The source does not provide details on any factual premises the argument rests upon. The source does not provide details on how the author defines "lost the war" — whether militarily, politically, economically, strategically, or in some composite sense. The source does not provide details on the timeframe for this assessment (lost as of when?). The source does not provide details on what measurable indicators would falsify the claim. The source does not provide details on whether the piece engages with contrary assessments from the US Director of National Intelligence Annual Threat Assessment, the UK Ministry of Defence intelligence updates, the Institute for the Study of War daily campaign assessments, or Russian Ministry of Defence daily briefings. The source does not provide details on any quantitative or qualitative benchmarks used. Without the article text, no evidence evaluation is possible.

What Happens Next

The source data provides no predictive scenarios, no timelines, no conditional forecasts, no specific policy recommendations, and no concrete description of the "endgame" referenced in the subtitle. The source does not provide details on whether the author envisions a negotiated settlement, a frozen conflict, a Ukrainian military breakthrough, a Russian collapse, a regime change in Moscow, a NATO intervention, a nuclear escalation, or a long-term war of attrition. The source does not provide details on the author's assessment of US political will post-2024 election, European defense autonomy initiatives (e.g., European Defence Industrial Strategy), Russian force regeneration capacity, Ukrainian manpower sustainability, or the trajectory of the global sanctions regime. The source does not provide details on whether the piece addresses the 2025-2026 timeframe specifically. The source does not provide details on any signposts the author identifies as indicators of the endgame approaching. The source does not provide details on the role of potential mediators (Turkey, China, Saudi Arabia, Vatican, African peace initiative). The source does not provide details on the status of the Black Sea grain corridor, the Kerch Strait bridge, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, or other flashpoints. The source does not provide details on the author's view of the information war, cyber operations, or space domain aspects. The source does not provide details on reconstruction planning, war crimes accountability mechanisms, or security guarantees frameworks (bilateral, NATO Article 5, Budapest Memorandum revival). The source does not provide details on any specific actions the author recommends for Western policymakers, the Ukrainian government, or the Russian opposition. Without the article content, no forward-looking analysis can be extracted from the source.

The Bottom Line

The source data consists exclusively of a headline and a one-sentence subtitle from a National Review opinion piece asserting that Vladimir Putin has lost the war in Ukraine and that the only remaining question is the shape of the endgame. The source provides no author, no publication date, no article text, no evidence, no data, no citations, no primary sources, no named officials, no documents, and no verifiable claims of any kind. It is impossible to assess the validity, reasoning, or factual basis of the assertion from the provided material. The source does not provide details on any of the substantive elements required to evaluate a claim of this magnitude — military, political, economic, diplomatic, or informational. Readers should treat this as an unsubstantiated editorial claim pending review of the full article. The absence of any supporting material in the source data means no conclusions can be drawn about the war's actual trajectory, the balance of forces, the durability of either side's war effort, or the plausibility of various endgame scenarios. The source does not provide details on whether National Review's editorial standards require evidence for such definitive declarative headlines in opinion pieces. The source does not provide details on whether the piece underwent fact-checking. The source does not provide details on the author's track record on Ukraine war analysis. The source does not provide details on any corrections or follow-ups. In the absence of the article itself, this item constitutes a headline without a supporting argument, and should be weighed accordingly against the extensive body of primary source reporting, intelligence assessments, and data-driven analysis available from multiple independent outlets covering the conflict since 2022.