‘Checkmate’: Russia is winning the war as Ukraine runs out of friends

Russia claimed the balance was shifting because the Trump administration took several actions that weakened pressure on Moscow and strained Ukraine’s war effort. The moves also suggested Washington might be moving closer to Russia’s preferred terms for ending the war.

Within 10 days of a Trump-Putin phone call, Trump waived sanctions affecting Russian diesel supplies, put sweeping new sanctions on hold, restricted Ukraine’s access to vital battlefield satellite systems, and held up critical interceptor missiles. He also said it was time for someone else to negotiate for Ukraine.

Kremlin officials treated these steps as evidence that Western support was crumbling. Dmitry Peskov called Ukraine’s government close to collapse, while Kirill Dmitriev posted “Checkmate.” The article presents these claims as Moscow’s interpretation, not as proof that Russia had already won. Further diplomacy, including talks in Oslo, could still alter the situation.

Ukraine is “running out of friends” because its most important external supporter, the United States, appears to be reducing pressure on Russia while increasing pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky. That matters because Ukraine depends on international backing not only for weapons, but also for diplomatic leverage and access to battlefield technology.

The article identifies Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store as participants in planned Oslo discussions. It also refers to European leaders generally and says Zelensky hopes they can persuade Washington to take a tougher stance against Moscow. Store said the meeting aims to put diplomacy on a more constructive path.

The source does not provide a complete list of countries still supporting Ukraine, nor does it describe each country’s military contribution. It shows that Finland, Norway, other European leaders, and Zelensky remain engaged, while the Trump administration’s support is becoming less reliable.

A sanctions waiver is an official exception to an economic restriction. It allows a prohibited or limited transaction to proceed for a stated period or purpose. In this case, the Trump administration waived sanctions connected to Russian diesel supplies reaching the global market.

The mechanism is both financial and political. Russian companies can continue selling fuel, preserving export revenue and commercial links. Buyers may also see less risk in dealing with Russian supplies. Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev called the diesel decision a step toward wider economic cooperation between Russia and the United States.

The article says the proposed deal would supply only a fraction of America’s daily consumption and would not affect prices. Yet the political effect could be larger. Russia saw the waiver as evidence that sanctions pressure was weakening, while the reported US diesel price still rose to $US6.33 per gallon, up about 5 cents in one week.

The article does not quantify Ukraine’s dependence on US military support. It gives no percentage, dollar figure, inventory count, or estimate of how long Ukraine could continue fighting without American assistance. Any precise measurement would therefore go beyond the source.

It does identify several important forms of support. Trump’s administration throttled Ukraine’s access to vital battlefield satellite systems and held up supplies of critical interceptor missiles. These systems can help forces communicate, observe battlefield movements, and defend against attacks, but the article does not separately explain Ukraine’s intelligence arrangements or list all other military aid.

The wording shows why the issue matters. Zelensky said Ukraine would not survive if the United States aligned with Putin. The immediate concern is not only the quantity of supplies, but Washington’s ability to switch access on or off. The planned Oslo meeting was an effort to put diplomacy on a more constructive path.

If US weapons and technology supplies fall, Ukraine could face a weaker battlefield position and less influence in negotiations. Military strength affects whether a government can defend territory, resist pressure, and demand terms rather than accept them. The article presents this as a serious risk, not a measured forecast.

The specific examples are access to vital battlefield satellite systems and critical interceptor missiles. Losing or limiting satellite support could reduce battlefield awareness and coordination. Fewer interceptor missiles could make it harder to protect forces or important sites. The article also says Trump was holding up supplies, but it does not state how many weapons were affected or when shortages would appear.

Zelensky warned that Ukraine would not survive if Washington supported Putin. Moscow interpreted Ukraine’s renewed strikes and political pressure as signs of “agony.” If US support remains uncertain, Kyiv may enter diplomacy from a weaker position. The Oslo meeting was intended to seek a more constructive direction.

Moscow may view negotiations, energy deals, and pressure on Zelensky as tools for weakening Western unity because each can create different interests among allies. Some governments may prioritise lower energy costs or a rapid settlement, while others focus on maintaining pressure on Russia and supporting Ukraine.

The article gives several examples. Trump’s diesel waiver was presented by Russian officials as a first step toward wider US-Russian economic and investment projects. At the same time, Trump criticised Zelensky and suggested that someone else should negotiate for Ukraine. This could push Kyiv toward an agreement on terms more favourable to Moscow.

Kremlin officials described Ukraine’s resistance as evidence of collapse and celebrated the changing US position. The article also says Putin has repeatedly flattered and influenced Trump, while Russian officials viewed the president as vulnerable over approval ratings and energy prices. These claims reveal Moscow’s strategy, though they do not prove its ultimate success.

Alliances shape modern wars by determining who receives weapons, technology, diplomatic backing, and economic help. Economic pressure can restrict an adversary’s trade and revenue. Control of military resources, such as satellite systems and interceptor missiles, affects what forces can see, defend, and sustain.

The article connects all three factors. The Trump administration reduced pressure on Russia by waiving diesel-related sanctions and pausing tougher sanctions. It also throttled Ukraine’s access to battlefield satellite systems and held up interceptor missiles. Russia treated these changes as evidence that the United States was moving closer to Moscow.

The result can reach beyond the battlefield. Zelensky said Ukraine could not withstand the war if Washington supported Putin. A weaker military position could reduce Ukraine’s negotiating power, while Russian energy and investment proposals could divide Western priorities. The article therefore presents political alignment, economic policy, and military access as closely connected forces.