Assessing Russia’s Long Term War Capacity (Video)

Jake Broe Q and A Reviews US Politics, NATO Readiness and the War in Ukraine

Infographic: Army Sizes of NATO, Russia, and Ukraine

(WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) – Ukrainian affairs commentator Jake Broe has addressed a wide range of questions on United States politics, NATO’s military readiness and the future of Russia’s war against Ukraine in a lengthy public question and answer session. The discussion focused on how American domestic politics could shape international security and the implications for Ukraine as it continues to resist Russian aggression.

Broe opened by explaining the format of his monthly session, in which followers submit and vote on questions. The most supported issues centred on the 2026 United States midterm elections and whether they could change Washington’s approach to Ukraine. Broe argued that, as long as Donald Trump remains in office, US policy is unlikely to shift in Kyiv’s favour. He claimed that Trump has aligned himself politically with the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and that this alignment has already shaped recent policy decisions.

Turning to Congress, Broe noted that despite divisions in the White House, there remains broad bipartisan support in the US legislature for NATO and for limited assistance to Ukraine. He cited the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, approved by a large majority in the House of Representatives, which restricts any reduction of US troop levels in Europe without congressional approval and preserves the US role in NATO command structures. The same legislation included approximately USD 400 million in funding linked to Ukraine, largely for the maintenance of previously supplied defence systems. This amount is equivalent to about USD 400 million at current exchange rates, as the funds are already denominated in US dollars.

Summary of selected US defence provisions

Broe stressed, however, that congressional action alone may not guarantee policy implementation, arguing that the executive branch retains significant discretion. He suggested that many lawmakers remain cautious due to internal party dynamics and primary election pressures, particularly within the Republican Party.

On NATO’s readiness without the United States, Broe painted a challenging picture. He said that many European militaries have shrunk significantly since the end of the Cold War, reflecting decades of reduced defence spending. While acknowledging recent increases, he argued that Ukraine currently fields the largest and most combat tested army in Europe. In his assessment, Europe needs Ukraine’s military capacity as much as Ukraine needs European political and economic support.

Broe also discussed broader alliance reform, suggesting that democratic states may eventually need a wider security framework that extends beyond the North Atlantic region. He argued that authoritarian states, including Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, increasingly coordinate their actions, driven by a shared interest in weakening democratic systems globally.

Addressing questions about Trump’s relationship with Russia, Broe claimed that Moscow does not necessarily need leverage in the form of compromising material to influence US policy. Instead, he argued that financial incentives and personal interests are sufficient to explain Trump’s favourable stance towards the Kremlin. He described this as a strategic challenge that democracies must confront collectively.

On the Russian economy, Broe said that while official debt levels appear low, this masks deeper structural problems. Russian companies, particularly large state linked firms, have been operating at sustained losses, supported by state banks and informal arrangements with political elites. He suggested that China plays a crucial role in keeping parts of the Russian economy afloat, often by extending loans secured against natural resources. According to Broe, this creates long term risks for Moscow, including the loss of strategic assets if defaults occur.

Key pressures on the Russian economy

Speculation about China reclaiming territory from Russia was addressed cautiously. Broe noted historical grievances and strategic interests, particularly in Russia’s far eastern regions, but said any direct action would depend on wider geopolitical shifts rather than short term military calculations.

Questions about whether Congress could force renewed support for Ukraine under a divided government were met with scepticism. Broe argued that meaningful change is unlikely before the next US presidential transition. He added that the credibility of the United States has been weakened among allies, who now factor in greater political uncertainty when assessing long term cooperation.

Broe also discussed the easing of certain sanctions on Belarus, warning that dual use goods could indirectly benefit Russia’s military. He described Belarus as closely integrated with Russia’s defence infrastructure, making enforcement difficult.

Looking ahead to the battlefield, Broe said winter conditions alone are unlikely to decide the war. Instead, he highlighted the cumulative effect of sustained Ukrainian strikes on logistics, energy infrastructure and supply lines in Russia and occupied territory. He suggested that economic strain and declining morale could eventually undermine Russia’s ability to maintain its occupation, potentially leading to withdrawals if financial incentives for soldiers disappear.