On Feb. 24, four University of Denver professors and a visiting Fulbright scholar hosted a panel discussion on the war in Ukraine.

The panelists, Nadia Kaneva, Lewis Griffith, Rachel Epstein, David Akerson and Dmitrii Kuznetsov, brought a range of expertise in areas including international relations, strategic communication and international law. Together, they offered commentary on the different forces at play in the war.

As for the general current state of the conflict, Griffith, a teaching professor at the Josef Korbel School of Global and Public Affairs, described a “grinding, largely infantry-led ground war,” with “high casualty counts, particularly on the Russian side.” 

Griffith noted an improvement in the Russian military’s performance since the first two years of the war. He attributed the shift to new tactics that resemble those used in World War II, describing the strategy as “two steps forward, a step back, kilometers at a time.”

For the past year, the slow pace has worked to Russia’s advantage, Griffith said. He added that Russia maintains a significant upper hand because it can “pound any target in Ukraine they sit fit for pretty much as long as they see fit.”

Ukraine, on the other hand, has to exert considerable effort in order to execute “very specific, and very clever and sometimes ineffective attacks.”

Griffith said Russia is “winning,” but added that the war has lasted far longer than expected without decisive results. “Russia thought this would be over in three weeks and so did everybody else,” he said.

Nadia Kaneva, professor of strategic communication, delivered comments on the state of diplomacy surrounding the war. 

She began by acknowledging ongoing peace talks, but emphasized that no “tangible results” have been produced, citing an article describing the talks as performative.

Kaneva wagered that analyzing global public opinion is a better way to reveal who is “winning the narrative.”

A recent survey indicates that Ukraine continues to hold the advantage in U.S. public opinion, with 67 percent of respondents saying it is unacceptable to allow Moscow to retain Ukrainian territory seized during the war.

Kaneva considers the narrative in Western Europe similar, but warned that support for Ukraine is not universal across the West. 

She cited the Global Soft Power Index, which ranks Russia 14th, up two places from last year. China, a supporter of Russia, ranks second behind the United States.

Beyond public opinion, Kaneva also noted changes in the narrative Ukraine has sought to position itself in.

Initially, Ukraine’s call to action was focused on defending Western values and democracy. While that remains central, Kaneva said there has been a recent shift toward emphasizing the economic opportunities tied to supporting Ukraine, such as the postwar trade in surplus weaponry.

Law professor David Akerson began the discussion of legal proceedings surrounding the war.

Almost 200,000 war crime cases have been opened by the Ukrainian National Police so far. An overwhelming amount, noted Akerson, who said he had been involved in a project to help the National Police adapt to the unfamiliar proceedings.

“You want to find patterns in war crimes,” Akerson explained, “because that can lead to accountability at high levels.”

Surveillance drones are a key piece of infrastructure being used to build war crime cases in Ukraine. The drones, which Akerson described as nearly omnipresent in conflict zones, are being used by prosecutors to consolidate data, recognize patterns and identify perpetrators. 

In-absentia trials in Ukraine have allowed some cases to proceed to conviction without the perpetrators being present.

 “Accountability is often fleeting in these conflicts,” said Akerson, “but we proceed as if we will have the ability to hold the people who plan and perpetrate mass atrocities [accountable].”

Akerson also mentioned a new court being created by the Council of Europe called the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. The purpose of this court is to prosecute high-ranking officials for launching the war in Ukraine, a charge the International Criminal Court is not currently able to pursue.

Akerson speculated that the new tribunal could allow prosecutions in-absentia. “We’ve never done this kind of prosecution before. No one knows exactly how it’s gonna play out. But certainly, the Russian Federation is not going to willingly participate.”

The panelists offered no firm predictions regarding the end of the war, but outlined several factors that could shape its future.

Akerson said European countries have discussed investing in domestic weapons manufacturing as skepticism grows about the United States’ reliability as a partner.

Kaneva cited surveys from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology that indicate the majority of Ukrainians are willing to “endure the war for as long as necessary.”