This week, the war between Russia and Ukraine reached a symbolic milestone of historical resonance: 1,418 days—the same duration as the “Great Patriotic War,” the Soviet chapter of World War II, which began with the German invasion in 1941 and ended with Germany’s surrender. In contemporary Russia, references to World War II are most commonly framed through the prism of the “Great Patriotic War,” which occupies a central place in the country’s historical memory and political identity.
By contrast, the current conflict—officially labeled a “special military operation,” a euphemism employed by the Russian regime—was initially presented as a short campaign meant to “resolve the Ukrainian problem” within days. Instead, the fighting has now far exceeded the very historical timeframe on which the Kremlin anchors its threat perceptions and legitimizes its use of force. According to the regime’s narrative, the war in Ukraine—and, in hybrid form, against Europe as well—is portrayed as a struggle against neo-Nazis who allegedly seized power in Kyiv with Western backing.
In reality, the war has long since evolved into a protracted war of attrition. Russia continues to strike Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in an effort to disrupt daily life in major cities, while ground operations have yielded only marginal territorial gains in the east, at the cost of thousands of casualties each week. At the same time, Russia is experiencing cumulative economic, political, and social erosion, and has yet to achieve its core objectives: ending the war on its own terms, securing territorial concessions from Ukraine, and curtailing Kyiv’s military capabilities and access to Western support, including European and NATO assistance.
As the conflict drags on, the gap between the Kremlin’s narrative and the reality on the ground continues to widen. Whereas the “Great Patriotic War” is remembered as a defensive struggle in which the peoples of the Soviet Union repelled an existential foreign threat—at the cost of tens of millions of lives—the current campaign represents an effort to redraw borders and impose political subordination on a neighboring sovereign state. This approach reflects a revisionist worldview in which certain territories are deemed destined to “return” to Russia’s sphere of control.
Such ambitions stand in direct contradiction to the foundational principles of the international order established after the defeat of Nazi Germany—chief among them state sovereignty, the inviolability of borders, and the right of peoples to self-determination. The eventual outcome of the war, whose end remains uncertain, may therefore serve as a critical test of the international system’s capacity to uphold these principles after eight decades—or, alternatively, signal a shift toward a more unstable and violent global order.
This week, the war between Russia and Ukraine reached a symbolic milestone of historical resonance: 1,418 days—the same duration as the “Great Patriotic War,” the Soviet chapter of World War II, which began with the German invasion in 1941 and ended with Germany’s surrender. In contemporary Russia, references to World War II are most commonly framed through the prism of the “Great Patriotic War,” which occupies a central place in the country’s historical memory and political identity.
By contrast, the current conflict—officially labeled a “special military operation,” a euphemism employed by the Russian regime—was initially presented as a short campaign meant to “resolve the Ukrainian problem” within days. Instead, the fighting has now far exceeded the very historical timeframe on which the Kremlin anchors its threat perceptions and legitimizes its use of force. According to the regime’s narrative, the war in Ukraine—and, in hybrid form, against Europe as well—is portrayed as a struggle against neo-Nazis who allegedly seized power in Kyiv with Western backing.
In reality, the war has long since evolved into a protracted war of attrition. Russia continues to strike Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in an effort to disrupt daily life in major cities, while ground operations have yielded only marginal territorial gains in the east, at the cost of thousands of casualties each week. At the same time, Russia is experiencing cumulative economic, political, and social erosion, and has yet to achieve its core objectives: ending the war on its own terms, securing territorial concessions from Ukraine, and curtailing Kyiv’s military capabilities and access to Western support, including European and NATO assistance.
As the conflict drags on, the gap between the Kremlin’s narrative and the reality on the ground continues to widen. Whereas the “Great Patriotic War” is remembered as a defensive struggle in which the peoples of the Soviet Union repelled an existential foreign threat—at the cost of tens of millions of lives—the current campaign represents an effort to redraw borders and impose political subordination on a neighboring sovereign state. This approach reflects a revisionist worldview in which certain territories are deemed destined to “return” to Russia’s sphere of control.
Such ambitions stand in direct contradiction to the foundational principles of the international order established after the defeat of Nazi Germany—chief among them state sovereignty, the inviolability of borders, and the right of peoples to self-determination. The eventual outcome of the war, whose end remains uncertain, may therefore serve as a critical test of the international system’s capacity to uphold these principles after eight decades—or, alternatively, signal a shift toward a more unstable and violent global order.