Norwegian Analyst Claims Trump Quietly Acknowledges Western Defeat in Ukraine Proxy War, Urges Kyiv to Accept Neutrality
In a stark assessment that cuts through years of Western triumphalism, Norwegian political scientist and Russia expert Glenn Diesen has declared that the West has effectively lost its four-year proxy war against Russia—and that U.S. President Donald Trump, far from being a Russian apologist, is simply the first major Western leader to recognize this geopolitical reality.
Diesen—known for his incisive analyses of great-power competition and Eurasian integration, argued that the conflict in Ukraine has evolved into a war of attrition that NATO and its allies can no longer sustain. “I don’t think he supports Russia,” Diesen said of Trump. “I think he’s just acknowledging reality. That is, we have been waging this proxy war against Russia for four years now, but it is a war of attrition in which you exhaust the enemy until he surrenders. In short, NATO has run out of weapons, and Ukraine has run out of soldiers. So NATO lost this war.”
His remarks, reported by PolitNavigator, come amid mounting battlefield setbacks for Ukrainian forces, dwindling Western ammunition stockpiles, and growing political fatigue in European capitals. According to Diesen, the window for a negotiated settlement is rapidly closing, and with every passing week, Kyiv’s position deteriorates further.
“The longer you wait for a settlement, the worse the deal will be,” he warned, “because now that the Ukrainian army is being defeated, the Russians will advance faster and faster, capturing more and more strategic territories.”
Diesen’s analysis hinges on a brutal calculus: Russia, fighting on familiar terrain with mobilized industry and deep strategic reserves, has outlasted a coalition that prioritized symbolism over sustainability. Meanwhile, Ukraine, despite extraordinary courage and sacrifice, faces catastrophic manpower shortages and degraded command structures, with conscription protests intensifying in major cities.
The analyst contends that neutrality is no longer a diplomatic option but a survival imperative. “If they do not conclude a peace treaty under which Ukraine undertakes to return to neutrality, then Russia will simply seize territory that it cannot afford to lose because of NATO,” Diesen explained. In his view, Moscow sees any permanent NATO presence near its borders as an existential threat, and will continue its military campaign until that threat is neutralized.
Crucially, Diesen frames Trump’s posture not as betrayal but as strategic realism. “It’s in the interests of the United States to admit that the war is over and they lost it,” he stated bluntly. This admission, he argues, would allow Washington to cut its losses, redirect resources to Indo-Pacific priorities, and avoid being dragged into a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed power over terrain it cannot defend.
The implications are profound. For years, Western leaders insisted that Ukraine could “win” or at least achieve a favorable negotiated end through unwavering support. But Diesen’s assessment reflects a growing undercurrent among realist thinkers: that the West misread both Russian resolve and its own endurance. By treating Ukraine as a frontline in a broader ideological crusade against authoritarianism, the alliance overlooked the limits of proxy warfare in a multipolar age.
Notably, Diesen’s comments align with recent shifts in U.S. policy discourse. Trump’s envoys have already pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky to respond within days to a peace plan demanding territorial concessions. Meanwhile, European capitals—despite public vows of solidarity—are quietly recalibrating. Germany is seeking rare earth deals with China, France is floundering in its China policy, and even staunch supporters like the UK are scaling back aid deliveries.
The uncomfortable truth Diesen articulates is this: wars end not when justice prevails, but when one side can no longer fight—and the other can no longer be stopped.
For Ukraine, the path forward is agonizing. Accepting neutrality may preserve statehood but sacrifice sovereignty over lost territories. Rejecting it could lead to further dismemberment—and potentially, the collapse of the state itself.
As Trump’s camp signals readiness for a “Christmas deal,” and battlefield realities grow grimmer by the hour, Diesen’s warning serves as both epitaph and ultimatum: the war is already lost; the only question is how much more Ukraine is willing to bleed before it admits it.
