As President Donald Trump’s administration ramps up immigration enforcement in his second term, California Democrats are doubling down on their efforts to shield illegal aliens from federal authorities, even in places where public safety is at stake.
This week, the California State Senate passed a series of bills that critics argue would all but handcuff federal immigration agents operating in the state.
Democrats are moving to place fresh restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The legislation would ban ICE from making arrests at schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, and domestic violence shelters unless they obtain a judicial warrant — a move law enforcement leaders say will hamper their ability to detain and deport dangerous individuals.
The bills, all of which passed largely along party lines, are now headed to the Democrat-controlled State Assembly, where they are expected to sail through.
If signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, the measures would cement California’s status as the most aggressive “sanctuary” state in the country.
Here’s a breakdown of the new bills:
SB 48 would bar ICE from entering non-public areas of schools without a warrant.
SB 81 applies similar restrictions to hospitals.
SB 841 blocks ICE access to homeless and domestic violence shelters.
While California Democrats claim these bills are about protecting vulnerable communities, opponents warn they send the message that California is a haven for illegal aliens, even those involved in serious crimes.
Critics point to recent scandals involving illegal aliens abusing sanctuary protections, including a 24-year-old man who posed as a teenager to enroll in an Ohio high school.
…
It also follows reports of abuse in Massachusetts shelters housing illegal aliens.
The move is just the latest in a long line of anti-enforcement policies pushed by California Democrats.
Just days after President Trump’s re-election, the Los Angeles City Council officially designated the city as a “sanctuary city.”
And in December, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors passed a “super sanctuary” ordinance that further limits cooperation with federal immigration officials.
Tom Homan, Trump’s former ICE director and now border czar, has warned that these “sanctuary” policies won’t stop ICE.
They’ll just force federal agents to operate more aggressively in areas that refuse to cooperate, he noted.
“If local police won’t help us, we’ll do it ourselves — but don’t complain when we’re knocking on more doors,” Homan said.
In April, Trump signed a sweeping executive order directing the Department of Justice and DHS to identify sanctuary jurisdictions and cut off federal funding where applicable.
Lawsuits are also expected to follow.
The California bills, if enacted, would also nullify key reforms Trump made to immigration enforcement immediately after taking office again.
In early 2025, his DHS scrapped the Biden-era “sensitive locations” policy that restricted ICE activity at schools, hospitals, and churches, arguing that such loopholes gave illegal migrants “nowhere to go but safe zones.”
Now, California Democrats are trying to reinstate those protections statewide, effectively turning public institutions into legal fortresses for illegal aliens, regardless of their background.
In addition to restricting ICE’s physical access, California lawmakers are pushing other bills to cut off information-sharing with the federal government.
One would block local governments from giving ICE data on street vendors, and another would prohibit public health departments from disclosing parents’ countries of birth on birth certificates.
Opponents say these laws make a mockery of immigration enforcement and elevate political posturing over public safety.
“California is choosing illegal immigrants over its own citizens,…
They’re creating a parallel legal system for people who shouldn’t even be here — and tying the hands of federal agents tasked with protecting our communities.”
The legislation represents a direct challenge to the Trump administration, which has vowed to prioritize border security and the rule of law in its second term.
Whether Governor Newsom — widely considered a potential 2028 presidential contender — signs the bills could signal just how far Democrats are willing to go in their fight against federal immigration enforcement.
A student in North Carolina just got $20,000 richer.
His school district was forced to apologize to him and make the cash payment because he was suspended for using the term ‘illegal alien.’
The left is so triggered by the topic of illegal immigration, that you can’t even use accurate language when talking about the issue without someone going crazy.
The family of a North Carolina high school student suspended for using the term “illegal alien” is slated to receive a $20,000 payment and a public apology under a proposed settlement, according to The New York Post.
The outlet reported Thursday that the settlement was reached to remove all references to racial bias from now-17-year-old Christian McGhee’s record, provide compensation and issue a public apology “for the mischaracterization of racial bias.”
“The Proposed Settlement provides C.M. with monetary compensation intended to defray the costs of his new school, which is private and charges annual tuition,” according to the document.
The teen received a three-day suspension last year after asking his teacher if a conversation in class was centered around “spaceship aliens” or “illegal aliens who need green cards” after he returned to the classroom from the restroom.
A Latino student present in the class reportedly “joked” that he was going to “kick Christian’s a–,” leading the teacher to escalate the situation to the assistant principal.
What was the school thinking?
Perhaps the person who issued the suspension should be fired.
Mike LaChance has been covering higher education and politics for Legal Insurrection since 2012. Since 2008 he has contributed work to the Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller, Breitbart, the Center for Security Policy, the Washington Free Beacon, and Ricochet. He has also written for American Lookout, Townhall, and Twitchy.
Sometime in the Twenties, Józef Piłsudski quipped that the “most beloved state” of the Polish people is indecision. Almost exactly a century on, the modern nation’s founding father has never been more right, with last week’s presidential election resulting in an almost literal dead heat. Though the conservative Karol Nawrocki finally carried the day, the populist Law and Justice Party (PiS) candidate only defeated Rafał Trzaskowski, the liberal mayor of Warsaw, by just 1.78% of the vote, with less than 370,000 ballots separating the two men in a country of 37 million.
Since Nawrocki’s win, commentators of all stripes have been eager to pigeonhole the election as a win for Russia, as the MAGA-fication of Poland, or as the nail in the coffin of Poland’s warm relationship with Ukraine. In truth, it’s none of those things — politics here is never so simple. The razor-thin margin of Sunday’s election, and indeed the divided, hamstrung government that has existed here for the last 18 months, is emblematic of a deeper fight about the nature of Polish identity in the 21st century. Caught between a future at the heart of the EU, and the familiar, reassuring hearth of traditional Catholic values, Poland is scrabbling for its future, even as it faces the old security challenges Piłsudski knew so well.
In the first place, Nawrocki’s win has crystallised the resurgent ascendancy of the country’s Right, this time with a new anti-establishment cadre of Gen Z acolytes at its back. It’s true, of course, that the guiding star of this quintessentially Polish brand of nationalism lies not in Europe: but in Trump’s America. Not only do its true believers take a “Poland First” approach on immigration and security, but their views on taxation, government regulation, and gun ownership are much closer to Trump’s than those of the PiS. Having posed with Nawrocki during his visit to the Oval Office in May, Trump hailed him this week as an “ally” whose victory had shocked “all in Europe”. But regardless of what Poland’s populists do next, what the country has achieved over the last three or four years cannot be undone. Behind Nawrocki’s win lies the simple fact that this country has left its mark on Europe, becoming indispensable to the very stability of the continent no matter who’s in charge.
The seeds of Poland’s modern-day dualism were sown long before Donald Tusk, the country’s embattled centrist prime minister, took power in 2023. Rather, they stretch back to the twilight days of communist rule. In 1989, after years of chaos and martial law, the country’s Soviet-backed regime agreed to sit down for discussions with Lech Wałęsa and other Solidarity leaders. The talks were ostensibly to diffuse tensions — but in practice ended up setting the stage for the collapse of communism right across Eastern Europe. Alongside Wałęsa, Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński also attended the meetings, with the twin brothers going on to form the PiS in 2001.
The PiS emerged from the ruins of Solidarity Electoral Action, a diverse coalition of parties created as the political wing of Solidarity in the mid-Nineties. Civic Platform, led by Tusk and supported by Wałęsa, was another party to emerge from the ashes of Solidarity Electoral Action. Though Tusk and the Kaczyńskis had common roots in Poland’s anti-communist centre-right, in other words, by the early 2000s their paths had diverged. Civic Platform set its sights on EU membership, while the PiS defended the Polish social conservative tradition.
Over the next two decades, both parties led governments in Poland, while drifting further and further apart. After joining the EU in 2004, Poland reaped enormous economic benefits, not only becoming the fastest growing economy in Europe, but also gaining the rare distinction of being the only country on the continent not to experience recession in 2008. But in the eyes of the PiS — and the growing number of Poles who saw traditional Catholic values as central to their identity — the boom came with trade offs. Like other conservatives in Europe, they felt that on the road to European integration, something deep within the national soul had begun to slip away. Soon enough, they began to castigate Tusk, Civic Platform, and all liberal-minded Poles, dismissing them as foreign interlopers intent on selling the country out to the old German nemesis. For their part, Poland’s liberals returned the favour. Centred in the cities and more Left-leaning areas in western Poland, they characterised the PiS as the party of backward, provincial cultists, holding the nation back from fulfilling its ambitions.
The pivotal moment came in 2015, when the PiS won a majority in both houses of parliament and secured the presidency for Andrzej Duda, giving the party broad control over the country’s institutions. In the name of completing decommunisation, the PiS reordered Poland’s courts, stacking the constitutional tribunal with loyal judges, all while tightening abortion laws, politicising state media, and cracking down on LGBT rights. Amid the battles with Brussels that followed, Poland’s liberals no longer saw themselves merely as pro-EU advocates fighting to pull their country out of the prejudices of the village — they were now freedom fighters trying to save Poland from a hostile internal takeover.
Into this tumult stepped Russia. In 2021, when with Russian backing Belarusian dictator Lukashenko began luring migrants to the border of the EU, before forcing them to cross into countries like Poland, the PiS was catapulted into the European spotlight. The party was now not only defending Poland’s national character from the scourge of liberalism, but Europe itself from Putin’s hybrid warfare. The fact he chose migrants as his weapon of choice made things even more convenient — its fight against European multiculturalism had become intertwined with Poland’s ancient struggle with the Kremlin.
The start of the war in Ukraine further enhanced the PiS’s role on the European stage, taking Poland as a whole along with it. The party’s leaders became the face of Europe’s embrace of Ukrainian refugees, and the facilitators of Ukraine’s defense, as Warsaw got its first real taste of international prestige. But the moment also gave Poland something else — an opportunity to merge its EU aspirations with its traditional anti-Russian animus. Now, rather than challenging the European order, Polish nationalism was something the EU and Nato not only commended but actually demanded. In other words, then, the PiS had got the best of both worlds, and for a brief moment had bridged the divide that had been growing in Poland since Tusk and the Kaczyński brothers went their separate ways.
Yet before long, things fell apart once again, this time with help from a new brand of populist Rightists — for whom the PiS was an inadequate guardian of Polishness. Fuelled by farmers’ protests over Ukrainian grain imports, anger over perceived preferential treatment of Ukrainians refugees, and a good dose of historical grievance over the unresolved massacres of Poles by Ukrainian nationalists during the Second World War, the Polish far-Right, led by the Confederation Party, pushed the PiS to adopt an ever-harsher line on Ukraine. Not that Ukraine is the only issue these new nationalists care about. Worries about immigrants from non-European countries do too, even as Confederation also calls for economic libertarianism and continues the familiar refrain that Poland’s business interests and political future are being outsourced to Brussels insiders.
Even so, Ukraine has risen to become the essential issue of Polish politics. To be sure, rearming at home and backing Nato abroad are still causes that unify almost everyone from Warsaw to Wrocław. But for Confederation, and increasingly for the PiS too, they are no longer the Europeanist projects they once were — even as they have increasingly begun to see Ukrainians in Poland as an impediment to Polish sovereignty rather than a boon.
The pivotal moment in the PiS’s shift took place late last month, after the first round of voting, when Confederation’s candidate Sławomir Mentzen came third behind Nawrocki. That led Mentzen to invite his PiS rival to appear on his YouTube channel and make his case to Confederation’s voters ahead of the runoff. Without hesitation and on camera, Nawrocki signed a document in support of Confederation’s agenda, notably pledging to oppose Ukraine’s Nato membership. The PiS’s fellowship with Confederation was sealed, and the tactic largely worked: over 88% of Mentzen supporters in the first round voted for Nawrocki in the second. Whatever happens over the weeks ahead, it seems clear that Poland is headed for a PiS-Confederation coalition in 2027, with Tusk’s fragile coalition probably splintering.
For now, though, Poland will remain in stasis, with political gridlock set to continue. It’s ironic, then, that the very voters who ended up delivering Nawrocki his victory were those who’d once yearned for a more dynamic political landscape — and for more options outside the PiS-Civic Platform duopoly. Driven by frustration with the establishment, Mentzen’s effective and direct social media presence, and a desire to return to traditional Polish roots, a slim majority of young people voted for Right-wing populist parties in the first round of the election, subsequently supporting Nawrocki in the runoff. By embracing their desire for more radical ideas and aligning itself with Confederation in the long-term, the PiS may well reinvent itself too, ensuring the tug-of-war with Poland’s liberals remains as energetic as ever.
For its part, Civic Coalition has had to adapt too. Despite his reputation as an urban progressive, Trzaskowki ran a more conservative campaign than expected, even going so far as criticising some social programs for Ukrainians in Poland. Though it clearly didn’t help him, he won’t be the last liberal to appeal to the increasingly conservative masses before the decade is out. Having already moved Rightward on migration, Tusk is also flexing his conservative muscles on the European stage, for instance rallying against the Green Deal earlier this year by framing it as a threat to European competitiveness. In a testament to how much Poland has moved the needle on the continent, meanwhile, many other countries are now following Tusk’s lead.
We shouldn’t exaggerate here. Though his own days as prime minister are numbered, Polish liberals are unlikely to wholly cave to the rising Right anytime soon. The record turnout of Sunday’s vote proved that despite the country’s polarisation, and despite the obstacles in their way, pro-EU Poles will continue to be a force to be reckoned with so long as there remains space for Poland at Europe’s top table.
Cliché though it may be, Poles are capable of overcoming their differences and banding together in the face of adversity. Back in the interwar years, Piłsudski shaped the country’s trajectory as he saw fit, but the Poles themselves were never able to get over their indecisiveness until the Nazis and Soviets came knocking in 1939. In today’s Poland, though, waiting that long may not be an option — a synthesis in national identity will necessarily have to emerge, not only for Poland’s own national security, but if Europe wants to defend itself against whatever Russia has in store for Nato’s east.
Poland’s longtime political divisions haven’t hampered its rise so far, but as it enters a new arena of geopolitical competition, the rules of the game have changed. If it hopes to expand its influence in Europe, solidify its brand — and resist Russian imperialism all at the same time — it will have to break through the glass ceiling currently limiting its rise. Once it does so, a vision that unites forward-looking Europeanism with a positivistic nationalism will be Poland’s only ticket in town. Even in the interwar years, Piłsudski understood this well. “Poland will be great,” the marshal once said, “or it won’t be at all.”
Michal Kranz is a freelance journalist reporting on politics, society and defence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. He runs The Eastern Flank, a Substack newsletter focused on Eastern European geopolitics.
Let’s face it, no one expected Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” to be perfect. But for Elon Musk to adopt the intransigent position that the work of government should stop in its tracks in pursuit of perfection is a manifest nonsense. Especially when considering OMB chief Russ Vought’s explanation of how the bill helps reduce the deficit.
Musk has a habit of failing to see the wood for the trees. He’s been a long-standing backer of China, which my website has reported on for years. He supported DeSantis, not Trump, in the primary. He recently tried to depose Brexit leader Nigel Farage (it went badly for Musk), and just a few weeks ago lashed out at the architect of the tariffs – Dr. Peter Navarro.
Now, he’s set his sights on the President, tweeting this afternoon about how Trump is in the Epstein Files, as if this were new information. It’s not.
Such petulance, however, was visible to some of us for a very long time. A while ago, I told the New York Times: “Musk is an atheistic, amoral, CCP-aligned, unaccountable foreigner that’s going to be the head of the MAGA movement at some point.” I may have been wrong about that last bit.
Now, Elon has very publicly severed his links with the MAGA movement, going so far as to retweet Malaysian influencer Ian Miles Cheong (who, to my shame, once worked for me), saying Trump should be impeached and replaced with J.D. Vance.
Let’s be honest: this is no great loss. Trump should immediately cancel all SpaceX, Tesla and X contracts with the US government.
After all, Elon once claimed he would save US taxpayers $2 trillion. That figure was then revised down to $1 trillion and then to $150 billion. At last check, just 27 percent of these recommendations can be verified. That is worse than failure.
And he’s not just hurting himself with his very public meltdown. He’s harming the MAGA movement. He’s harming the President of the United States. He’s harming his shareholders and investors. And he’s harming the fight against the far left. For what? His amour propre?
It’s a pretty predictable and sad ending for Musk’s short foray with the MAGA right. Good riddance, as far as I am concerned.
The goodwill Elon Musk established with House Republicans is plummeting about as fast his relationship with President Donald Trump, and the GOP doesn’t appear to be concerned the tech tycoon who donated millions to back the party in 2024 could work against them in the 2026 midterms.
Musk has been a fervent opponent of the reconciliation budget bill that narrowly passed the House last week and is being considered by the Senate because it adds too much to the federal deficit and doesn’t cut enough spending. He also reportedly is angry that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act phases out by 2026 the tax credit of up to $7,500 given to buyers of electric vehicles, which could be crucial to the success of Musk’s Tesla.
“I’ve had a lot of love and respect for you for what you’ve done for this country over the last several months, but you’ve lost your damn mind,” Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, told reporters of Musk, The Hill reported Thursday. “You’ve lost your mind. Enough is enough. Stop this. I don’t think it’s healthy.”
Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., said Musk’s standing with Republicans has diminished.
“He’s extremely bright, my God. I mean — SpaceX, Tesla, all that stuff,” Van Drew said, according to The Hill. “However, I never saw that he had his finger on the pulse of America and what the American man and woman is thinking. I quite frankly, don’t think he does.”
Musk compounded his criticisms by urging his followers on X in a Wednesday post: “Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL.” The post had more than 329,000 likes and 46.5 million impressions as of 7:30 p.m. EDT on Thursday.
But out of nearly a dozen Republican Capitol Hill offices that spoke with The Hill, ranging from rank-and-file members to leadership, almost none said they received calls from GOP-supporting constituents opposing the bill by the afternoon after Musk’s tweet, or callers making references to Musk. One office reported a caller who said, “kill the bill.”
As party leaders push to get the legislation to Trump’s desk by July 4, lawmakers said there is no time to go back to the drawing board.
“It would be problematic starting at ground zero since it’s taken us about three months to get what we’ve done,” Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., said Wednesday, according to The Hill. “I don’t know if Elon understands the whole process, but I think that the Senate will make it more conservative.”
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., former chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, noted how Musk stood back while members of the group went to war against GOP leaders and demanded more deficit reductions in the bill ahead of the vote.
When there was blistering fire heaped upon them, he didn’t really have much to say,” Biggs said Wednesday, The Hill reported. “He’s waiting till now to make the assessments? It’s kind of odd.”
House Republicans, including some who benefited from Musk’s donations in 2024, said they are not concerned about losing out on his cash in the midterms, The Hill reported. They aren’t convinced he will follow through with spending plans a year from now, and if he does, it will be effective. Musk and his groups spent more than $20 million to support the losing candidate in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race earlier this year.
As long as a candidate has Trump’s endorsement, one GOP member told The Hill, “You don’t [have] to worry if Elon spends $5 million.” And in a swing district, “Elon being against you if you are a Republican probably isn’t so bad either.”
June 6 marks the eighty-first anniversary of D-Day, when Allied troops crossed the English Channel, landed under heavy fire on the beaches of Normandy, and launched the successful campaign to liberate Europe from Nazi control. It was one of the riskiest amphibious assaults in military history — not only because of the size of the operation, but also because everyone on the continent knew that it was coming.
The German High Command anticipated the timing and location of the Allies’ arrival; but for robust counterintelligence measures, brilliant logistical planning, and good fortune, June 6 could easily have become a day synonymous with demoralizing defeat rather than one remembered for heroic sacrifice and bravery. On the other hand, had the D-Day landings failed, a German-controlled Europe might today be celebrating the Nazis’ successful efforts to repel the American, British, and Canadian invaders.
There are moments in history when all the chips are pushed to the center of the table for one consequential hand, and the future is decided accordingly. D-Day was such a gamble, and those who participated ensured Allied victory.
Part of what captures my heart near D-Day’s anniversary is the thought of its terrifying uncertainty. War-planners spent years preparing for the Battle of Normandy, but much was out of their hands. Smart, capable generals appreciated the tremendous risks involved with moving the bulk of their fighting forces in one fell swoop. The troops understood that they might never return home. Boys who had seen little of the world beyond their farms, towns, or boroughs parachuted out of aircraft and jumped out of landing craft to fight and die on foreign soil.
It simply takes the breath away to consider how so many found the courage to meet danger head-on, knowing that they would likely never see their families again. What an awful yet awe-inspiring thing it is for a man to sacrifice himself, so that others might continue living.
And though the historic significance of D-Day is unique, every soldier, sailor, and marine who struggled through the carnage of WWII endured its perils. The average high school student alive today might have seen enough of Saving Private Ryan to understand why we take time to remember those lost on June 6, 1944, but most have only a vague awareness of the even larger amphibious landing during the Battle of Okinawa that began nearly a year later on April 1, 1945.
Along with the bloody fighting of the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Battle of Saipan, and the Battle of Iwo Jima, Japanese resistance around Okinawa included some of the most ferocious hand-to-hand combat of the entire war. In fact, the barbarity in the Pacific War and the realization that an invasion of mainland Japan would come with heavy casualties were major factors in President Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs. Imagine how hellish war is to conclude that the use of nuclear weapons is preferable to fighting soldiers and civilians across the Japanese archipelago.
To me, D-Day is a chance to think about not only those we lost during the Battle of Normandy but also those we lost during the entirety of the Second World War. Over 400,000 Americans died in the conflict. Another 700,000 were wounded. As terrible as those numbers are, the global numbers are even more shocking. Some eighty-five million died during WWII. More than fifty million civilians died from military actions, disease, starvation, and crimes against humanity. The absolute depravity required to achieve such numbers is horrifying.
After the surrender of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the survivors looked around at the utter ruin that dotted the map from Europe to the Pacific and concluded that such mass death and suffering could never be permitted again. They witnessed the instantaneous destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and concluded that there must never be a third world war because it would surely be our last. Then, just to make certain that the next war would definitely be our last, the United States and the Soviet Union spent the next fifty years building nuclear arsenals capable of killing everyone on Earth.
Yet here we are eighty years after WWII, and we’re galloping down that black road toward oblivion faster than ever. Apparently too much of the world has been enjoying the comforts of peace for too long to worry about what comes when peace ends. This is difficult to believe. After all, much of the planet has been in a state of war rather recently.
It’s hard to find ground in Africa or the Middle East where the blood of one tribe or another has had a chance to dry. Myanmar’s civil war has been raging in fits and starts since the country first gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1948. After millions of deaths, the Korean conflict has persisted for seven decades. The Yugoslav Wars brought a decade of bloodshed to Europe in the ‘90s. Since the last Great War, Americans have fought in Central and South America, Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Independence movements, terrorist cells, communist revolutions, ethnic genocides, religious conflicts, covert proxy wars, and so-called “cold” wars have added to humanity’s butcher’s bill every single year. We humans just can’t stop killing each other, even though we all know where this ends.
Right now much of the West seems desperate to transform the Russia-Ukraine War into a much larger conflagration. This march toward mass death has been at least ten years in the making. European globalists blamed Brexit on “Russian bots.” After President Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton, Democrat operatives, the corporate news media, and Barack Obama’s espionage chiefs similarly blamed “Russian bots.” While working to elect Joe Biden, fifty-one American Intelligence “experts” lied to the American people by claiming that Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” The European Union is quick to blame popular support for conservative political parties on “Russian disinformation.” Ignoring the unifying spirit of athletic competitions, the International Olympic Committee has continued to ban Russian athletes unless they first repudiate the actions of their own government. Romania annulled last December’s presidential election by blaming “suspected Russian interference.” Whenever citizens in the West push back against illegal immigration, rising crime, censorship, or bureaucratic overreach, the leftist-globalists who control the Western news media and Western capitals all blame Russian “Internet trolls.”
At the same time, U.S.-NATO and the European Union have moved closer to Russia’s borders for the last thirty years. As the West blames Russia for interfering in foreign elections, Western NGOs and espionage agencies have repeatedly done the same thing. In 2014, U.S. and European political leaders explicitly endorsed the removal of the legitimately elected Ukrainian president. Today’s war in Ukraine centers around regions that have repeatedly voted to become a part of Russia and whose people have engaged in fierce fighting against the Ukrainian military. The Ukrainian government could only control these regions in the future by imposing strict and brutal martial law. Still, Western politicians pretend that this regional civil war is about protecting “democracy” and “self-determination.”
I find these arguments unconvincing. When Ukraine targets Russia’s long-range nuclear-capable bombers, I find the West’s partnership with Ukraine imminently dangerous. Although Russian news media have so far placed the blame entirely upon Ukraine’s government, there is plenty of online chatter that Western Intelligence services might have assisted in the operation. If that doesn’t fill you with enormous dread, it should.
With D-Day here to remind us about the extraordinary cost of war, please take a moment to pray for peace. Thoughtful people will disagree. But we should all wish to avoid the Armageddon of WWIII.
Key Points – The war in Ukraine is effectively over, with Russia on a clear path to achieving its objectives through a grinding war of attrition that has exhausted Ukraine and outlasted Western and NATO resolve.
-Russia’s military has adapted, its economy has been reoriented away from the West despite sanctions, and its political regime under Putin remains stable. In contrast, Ukraine faces a critical and irreversible manpower crisis that no amount of Western hardware can solve.
-The idea that Russia might still lose is a comforting but dangerous illusion; Russia is methodically consolidating control over its limited territorial aims.
The idea that Russia might still lose the war in Ukraine has become a kind of security blanket for Western elites – a comforting illusion clutched in think tanks, editorial pages, and official briefings long after the battlefield realities have changed. We are now well past the phase where optimism could be excused as ignorance. The facts are in. Ukraine is exhausted. The West is demoralized. And Russia, despite its many internal challenges, is grinding toward its war aims with brutal consistency.
Let’s be clear: if by “lose” we mean military defeat on the battlefield, collapse of the Russian economy, or regime implosion in Moscow, then no – Russia is not going to lose. Not this year, and not under the current trajectory. All the major structural forces – military, economic, political—are now moving in Russia’s favor. The war is not over, but the outcome is no longer up for grabs.
Start with the military situation, because that’s the foundation of everything else. On the ground, Ukraine’s strategic position is deteriorating by the month. Mobilization efforts have stalled. Recruitment has collapsed. The average age of a frontline soldier is now nearing 45. Desertion and draft-dodging are spreading, and Western aid – though still flowing – is increasingly mismatched to Ukraine’s real needs. You can send as many artillery shells and drone kits as you like, but you cannot manufacture trained infantry out of nothing. And that’s what Ukraine is short of: not resolve, not hardware, but men.
Meanwhile, Russia’s army has evolved. It’s no longer the chaotic, overstretched force that stumbled out into Ukraine in February 2022. It has absorbed its losses, adapted to the terrain, and reverted to what it does best: attritional warfare, backed by overwhelming firepower and deep reserves of manpower. Russia doesn’t need to stage flashy counter-offensives or overrun all of Ukraine. It only needs to advance slowly, dig in, and bleed Ukraine white – while maintaining pressure long enough to outlast Western political will. And that’s exactly what it’s doing.
The idea that Russia might still lose the war in Ukraine has become a kind of security blanket for Western elites – a comforting illusion clutched in think tanks, editorial pages, and official briefings long after the battlefield realities have changed. We are now well past the phase where optimism could be excused as ignorance. The facts are in. Ukraine is exhausted. The West is demoralized. And Russia, despite its many internal challenges, is grinding toward its war aims with brutal consistency.
Let’s be clear: if by “lose” we mean military defeat on the battlefield, collapse of the Russian economy, or regime implosion in Moscow, then no – Russia is not going to lose. Not this year, and not under the current trajectory. All the major structural forces – military, economic, political—are now moving in Russia’s favor. The war is not over, but the outcome is no longer up for grabs.
Start with the military situation, because that’s the foundation of everything else. On the ground, Ukraine’s strategic position is deteriorating by the month. Mobilization efforts have stalled. Recruitment has collapsed. The average age of a frontline soldier is now nearing 45. Desertion and draft-dodging are spreading, and Western aid – though still flowing – is increasingly mismatched to Ukraine’s real needs. You can send as many artillery shells and drone kits as you like, but you cannot manufacture trained infantry out of nothing. And that’s what Ukraine is short of: not resolve, not hardware, but men.
Meanwhile, Russia’s army has evolved. It’s no longer the chaotic, overstretched force that stumbled out into Ukraine in February 2022. It has absorbed its losses, adapted to the terrain, and reverted to what it does best: attritional warfare, backed by overwhelming firepower and deep reserves of manpower. Russia doesn’t need to stage flashy counter-offensives or overrun all of Ukraine. It only needs to advance slowly, dig in, and bleed Ukraine white – while maintaining pressure long enough to outlast Western political will. And that’s exactly what it’s doing.
The grim truth is that Russia is winning the war – methodically, incrementally, and without apology. It is winning not by blitzkrieg, but by attrition. It is not trying to take all of Ukraine, only the parts it considers vital: the four annexed oblasts, the land bridge to Crimea, and a neutralized rump to the west. And it is succeeding – not because it has outmaneuvered NATO, but because it has outlasted the illusion that victory was ever going to look like the restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 borders.
So is there any way Russia could still lose? Only at the level of fantasy. Only in the realm of narratives unmoored from facts – as with the delusional fantasies regarding Operation Spiderweb. The battlefield favors Moscow. The economic sanctions have failed to break its will. The regime has stabilized. And the West has no plan – none – for reversing any of this.
Which means it’s time to start thinking like realists. The question is no longer how to defeat Russia, but how to limit the damage of a war we have already lost in everything but name. That’s not a message anyone in Washington, Brussels, or Kyiv wants to hear. But it’s the only honest one left.
The tragedy of Ukraine is not that it fought. It’s that it was led to believe victory was possible – when all along, the most it could hope for was survival. And even that now hangs by a thread.
About the Author: Dr. Andrew Latham
Andrew Latham is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities and a professor of international relations and political theory at Macalester College in Saint Paul, MN. You can follow him on X: @aakatham.
