This piece delivers a jarring, counter-intuitive assessment of the global war in Ukraine: the coalition backing Moscow is outperforming the coalition backing Kyiv in raw utility and strategic alignment. Phillips P. O'Brien argues that while Western partners constantly limit and condition their support, Russia's allies are providing the exact tools and manpower Moscow needs to sustain its war machine, including direct combat forces from North Korea. For a listener tracking the shifting tides of this conflict, the claim that the United States is actively using its leverage to protect Russian oil revenue rather than Ukrainian territory demands immediate attention.
The Asymmetry of Alliance
Phillips P. O'Brien frames the central paradox of the war with stark clarity: "Ukraine's allies... should have helped Ukraine win the war by now. They are much richer, more technologically advanced... And yet Ukraine's allies have always tried to finesse their help." The author suggests that this hesitation has forced Kyiv into a defensive posture it never sought, while Moscow's partners have removed the constraints on Russian strategy. This is not merely a critique of aid volume, but of aid philosophy. The West, O'Brien argues, treats assistance as a tool for control, whereas Russia's partners treat it as fuel for victory.
The evidence provided for this asymmetry is grim. O'Brien details how North Korea has moved beyond mere supply lines to active combat roles. "North Korean forces show that one does not have to have a large economy or wide technological base to be an extremely helpful ally," he writes. The author points to reports of North Korean ballistic missile units deploying near Voronezh and thousands of troops fighting under Russian command in the Kursk Oblast. This creates a feedback loop of escalation: "North Korea helps Russia by sending troops in 2024, Russia helps North Korea improve its missiles. North Korea deploys some of those improved missile forces to Russia to attack Ukraine. Rinse and repeat."
North Korea, like Iran, provides Russia what it can in direct military aid with no strings attached.
This dynamic highlights a brutal efficiency in the Moscow-Pyongyang-Tehran axis that stands in sharp contrast to the fragmented Western approach. Critics might argue that the scale of North Korean deployment is still marginal compared to the total war effort, but O'Brien's point is about the nature of the support: it is unencumbered by the diplomatic red tape that paralyzes Western aid. The human cost of this unfiltered support is evident in the attacks on Zaporizhzhia, where O'Brien notes that North Korean missile forces were implicated in an assault that killed nine civilians. The author uses this to underscore a terrifying reality: the "strategic rear" that Russia once enjoyed is now being actively fortified by foreign combatants, turning a regional war into a broader, more dangerous confrontation.
The Leverage of Limitation
Perhaps the most provocative section of the commentary focuses on the United States' role. O'Brien challenges the narrative that limited US aid is a sign of neutrality or incompetence. Instead, he posits a deliberate strategy of leverage. "The US is using its leverage over Ukraine to help Russia. It does not have to do this, it chooses to," O'Brien asserts. The argument hinges on the administration's decision to ration critical air defense systems, specifically Patriot interceptors, to maintain control over Kyiv's operational choices.
The piece cites a specific, high-stakes example: the US intervention to halt Ukrainian attacks on oil tankers in the Black Sea. Despite the strategic value of these strikes in disrupting Russian revenue, the administration intervened. "Washington was concerned that Ukraine could further destabilise oil markets and harm US companies," O'Brien paraphrases the official rationale, before dismantling it. He notes that the "non-Russian" designation for tankers is a fiction, as the shadow fleet is deliberately flagged to avoid sanctions. The result was a direct order to Kyiv to stop a successful campaign that was hurting the Russian economy.
The USA was basically telling the Ukrainians to stop what had been a very effective campaign to help Russia.
O'Brien connects this to the broader humanitarian and economic picture, noting the administration's silence on Russian attacks on Ukrainian grain shipments, which threaten global food prices. "Thus Russian caused inflation seems fine for the USA these days, however, Ukrainian caused inflation gets an official request for a Ukrainian retreat." This framing suggests that the administration prioritizes global market stability and corporate interests over the strategic defeat of Russian aggression. While some might argue that preventing a spike in global oil prices is a legitimate geopolitical goal, O'Brien's analysis suggests this goal is being pursued at the direct expense of Ukraine's ability to defend itself. The administration's reliance on "dribbling small amounts" of aid keeps Ukraine dependent, allowing Washington to veto specific operations that might be militarily effective but economically inconvenient for the US.
The Quiet Offensive
Despite the overwhelming focus on external pressures, O'Brien dedicates the final section to a ground-level reality that often gets lost in the geopolitical noise: Ukraine is still taking ground. The author highlights a summer offensive that has liberated 745 square kilometers and 26 villages, a stark contrast to the doom-laden predictions of the previous year. "Ukraine is slowly but steadily liberating territory," he notes, pointing to the effectiveness of small, highly trained units supported by technology.
This success comes even as the author acknowledges the "horrible benefits" of Russia's alliances. The contrast is striking: while the West hesitates and Russia's allies pour in unrestricted aid, Ukrainian forces are executing a methodical, if costly, advance. O'Brien suggests this is a sign of a maturing military doctrine, one that relies on quality over quantity. "It seems a sign that their growth of using highly trained and motivated soldiers in small numbers, with strong technological support, is working."
The US has achieved major leverage over Ukraine through a brutal rationing of access to Patriot interceptors.
However, this progress is fragile. The author implies that without a shift in the nature of Western support—moving from controlled rationing to genuine empowerment—these gains may be unsustainable against a Russia that is increasingly bolstered by North Korean manpower and missile technology. The "quiet offensive" is a testament to Ukrainian resilience, but it is being fought with one hand tied behind its back by the very allies who claim to support its victory.
Bottom Line
Phillips P. O'Brien's most compelling argument is that the West's strategy of "controlled escalation" is inadvertently strengthening Russia's position by limiting Ukraine's ability to strike at its economic lifelines. The piece's greatest vulnerability lies in its certainty regarding US intent; while the outcomes align with Moscow's interests, the administration may view its actions as damage control for global markets rather than active collusion. Regardless of intent, the result is a war where Russia's allies fight with fewer restrictions than Ukraine's, creating a dangerous asymmetry that threatens to prolong the conflict and deepen the human suffering on the ground.