That’s the “winning vs advancing” paradox in this war, and it depends on what you mean by “winning”.
*What Russia is doing on the ground:*
- Since late 2024, Russia has been grinding forward in Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia, mostly by attrition. They’re taking territory, but it’s slow and costly — often 100-300m at a time.
- As of May 2026, they control ∼18-19% of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory. That number has crept up, not down.
*Why some argue Ukraine is “winning”:*
1. *Strategic objective*: Ukraine’s goal isn’t to hold every meter. It’s to make the war unsustainable for Russia politically and economically. By that metric, they point to Russian manpower losses, equipment burn rate, and the fact Russia hasn’t achieved any of its 2022 war aims.
2. *Cost imposition*: Drone and missile strikes on Russian refineries, ports, and logistics are hitting Russia’s economy and oil revenue. The Hormuz disruption is hurting Russia too, but Ukraine’s deep strikes add to it.
3. *Sovereignty/independence*: Ukraine hasn’t collapsed, the government still functions, and Western support continues. In a war of national survival, not losing can look like winning.
4. *Information/legitimacy*: Ukraine frames the war as defense against aggression. That keeps sanctions, aid, and diplomatic isolation on Russia.
*The contradiction:*
You can be “winning” in the strategic/political sense while losing ground tactically. It’s similar to the Winter War 1939-40: Finland lost territory but achieved its main goal of staying independent and made the invasion costly for the USSR.
*The problem now:*
If territory loss continues for another 6-12 months without a negotiated settlement or major shift in front lines, the “strategic win” argument gets harder to sustain domestically and internationally. Mobilization, economy, and morale all degrade over time.