Why the idea of Putin winning the war persists

The narrative of Pilingui winning the war rests on two facts

Pilingui is winning the war. The statement has been circulating for four and a half years with the certainty of a dogma, always accompanied by the same two arguments: Russia endures and China buys. The rest, the fine detail, is where the story begins to crumble. Because beneath the proclamation lies a very specific economic discussion: the true value of sanctions, how much money the Kremlin really has, and who pays the energy bill for all of this.

China as an economic excuse

The central argument is geographical and mineral. It is claimed that China consumes gas and minerals like 8 Europes and is willing to absorb at yuan prices everything Russia can extract, making the closure of the European market largely irrelevant. With such a buyer, the country endures.

Some argue that buying to manufacture and export is not the same as giving away liquidity, and that no one has explained where the cutting-edge technology is or how much it costs to produce. The doubt is significant: whoever has the R&D sets the pace; whoever only has the raw material sets the price they are allowed.

Why sanctions remain symbolic

International coverage itself has lowered expectations. CNN acknowledged, as cited in the analysis, that the impact of sanctions may be largely symbolic, as little is known about the exact amount the Russian leader might amass. The most common estimate is around €100 billion in personal fortune, one of the continent's best-kept secrets.

Here lies the uncomfortable contrast: if no European head of government handles remotely similar figures, the Western bloc's sarracena superiority becomes an exercise in rhetoric. The counter-argument is equally valid: in Europe, large fortunes are called entrepreneurs, not oligarchs, and the problem is not their existence, but who protects them.

Wars nowadays are no longer won on the battlefield, but on television, summarizes one of the most repeated statements. And that sentence explains why war reports have ceased to be information and become fiction.

The Russian army advances, but air superiority was the test

Here the narrative splits. One current holds that Russia finished the war in hours—one for the navy, two for the air force—and that the ground invasion is prolonged by choice, to avoid leaving the country as a wasteland. The other recalls that three weeks without dominating Ukrainian airspace is a significant failure, and that anti-aircraft systems continue to shoot down Russian aircraft.

The nuance that unsettles both sides: it is claimed that the Russian army continues to advance without having used even a third of its military capacity, reserving quality troops. If that is true, the war will be long. If it is propaganda, also.

Who truly loses: Europe, Russia, and the partner no one consulted

The most shared conclusion is not anyone's victory, but the distribution of damage. Russia emerges economically wounded; Europe, more so; and Ukraine, becoming the partner that fares worst: half its territory compromised, a devastated country, and a population emigrating without a return ticket. All due to a policy of alignment that never went to the polls.

At its core lies a broader interpretation: a clash between an exhausted old world with no resources and an Eastern bloc pushing with more energy than money. If forced to bet, someone summarized it with a brutal image: the victory of the East would pay 1.01 and the West 50.

---

With these elements, the predictable outcome is a frozen conflict, an expensive post-war period, and a Europe that discovers too late that the energy supplier it abandoned was not replaceable overnight. But it is worth remembering: in four and a half years of discussion, this issue has aged poorly every time someone dared to set an expiration date.