As the war in Ukraine drags into its fourth month with no end in sight, a number of observers are beginning to ask, “Will the West grow tired of supporting Ukraine?” Some commentators have opined that “time is on Putin’s side,” and that the fierce response of NATO and other global democracies will gradually wane in the face of economic challenges stemming from inflation, Russia’s choking off of Ukrainian agrarian and hydrocarbon products from the global economy, internal political divisions (especially in the U.S.), and issue fatigue as the relentless 24/7 news cycle moves on.

I’m old enough to remember the U.S. experience in Vietnam, and Putin’s situation is increasingly reminiscent of that long, painful misadventure. His hand of cards, weak at the start of the conflict, is getting weaker by the day. Time is more on the side of Ukraine and the west than on Putin, and as the year wears on this will become more apparent.

Let’s start with the military facts on the ground. Putin’s original goal was to conquer all of Ukraine in one sweeping thrust, decapitating the Zelensky government and installing a puppet regime in Kyiv. That “Plan A” has failed, a result of over confidence, bad intelligence, worse generalship, execrable logistics, and terrible on-the-ground leadership. His “Plan B,” is a retreat to traditional Soviet/Russian tactics: grinding out small stretches of territory and terrorizing the Ukrainian civilian population with a deliberate campaign of war crimes.

But like the U.S. in Vietnam, the majority of the population in Ukraine is deeply opposed to the outside aggressor. Instead of being greeted with promised bottles of vodka when they invaded, Russian soldiers were greeted with Molotov cocktails. The revelations about war crimes will only stiffen the resistance and will of the Ukrainians, and time will only strengthen their resolve.

Thus Putin’s chances of truly upending the situation on the ground and gaining a significant additional amount of territory appear small. In essence, he started with control of 15% of Ukraine before the invasion, set of goal of gaining nearly 100%, and may end up at best at with 20-25%. That’s a failing grade on any test.

Also similar to the U.S. experience in Vietnam, Putin faces a determined foe with access to outside sanctuaries and bases. The U.S. never successfully cut off the flow of weapons to the Vietcong, and the Russians will likewise be unable to stop significant assistance headed to the Ukrainians. Indeed, the Ukrainians enjoy vastly greater weapons flows across their borders, superb intelligence and cyber support, and far more significant financial resources than the Vietcong ever did.

Read More: Ukraine Is in Worst Shape Than You Think

Casualties are also mounting rapidly, both to Russian soldiers and to their equipment. Reliable estimates indicate Russian killed in action heading toward 20,000—a staggering number almost triple what the US lost in 20 years of the forever wars. The sinking of the Black Sea flagship Moskva was a dagger in the heart of the Russian navy. Over a thousand Russian tanks have been destroyed. This level of loss is unsustainable without Putin putting Russia on a full war footing, something over time that will impact his hold at home, regardless of his media control. LBJ would understand the painful choices ahead for Putin.

In some ways, Putin’s situation is worse than the U.S. in Vietnam. Putin’s democratic opponents—the U.S., most of Europe, all of NATO, Japan, Australia and others—represent nearly 60% of the world’s GDP. Russia’s economy is only around 10%, and they are thus seriously outgunned in the economic sphere. China is showing little appetite to provide Russia a lifeline, and if the U.S. imposes secondary sanctions of those doing business with Russia, the economic situation will only become more dire over time for Putin.

Fortunately for Kyiv, the cost of support to the Ukrainians—set against the huge size of Western economies—is quite small. Compared to the billions per day pumped into Afghanistan and Iraq at the peak of operations, the cost of Ukraine at current standards of support, is modest.

Finally, strategic communications are working against Putin. President Zelensky has proven a master communicator, easily outstripping the ham-handed and implausible Russian narrative of toppling the “Nazi regime” in Kyiv. Over time, Zelensky’s skills in promoting the cause of his nation will strengthen his case.

Putin’s most likely course of action will be to secure as much territory as he possibly can before the “burn rate” in terms of Russians killed in action, destroyed equipment, crushing sanctions, and international opprobrium really kicks in. As an exit strategy, he is probably hoping the west will simply pressure the Ukrainian people into accepting an armistice that gives Russia de jure control over 20% of their nation.

That appears unlikely at this point, given all the war crimes and the Ukrainian’s spirited resistance. Both of those factors will harden in the months to come. Putin holds a bad hand of cards, and like the U.S. in Vietnam, is headed for a significant defeat. Time is not on his side.

Contact us at letters@time.com.

The Tulsa mass shooting wasn’t as deadly as some feared. Instead, it was yet another American tragedy.

Police officers block an intersection at Saint Francis Hospital in Tulsa, Okla.Credit…Nick Oxford for The New York Times

By David Leonhardt and Ian Prasad Philbrick

The first public hearing of the U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack put a spotlight on two far-right extremist groups whose members are accused of plotting for weeks to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

Top leaders and members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have been charged with seditious conspiracy in what authorities have described as an organized effort to subvert the election results and keep former President Donald Trump in office.

Here’s a look at the two groups and the accusations against them:

____

WHO ARE THEY?

Proud Boys describe themselves as a politically incorrect men’s club for “Western chauvinists.” Before the Jan. 6 insurrection, Proud Boys members mostly were known for brawling with antifascist activists at rallies and protests.

Less than two months before the 2020 election, group members celebrated when Trump refused to outright condemn the group during his first debate with Democrat Joe Biden. Instead, Trump said the Proud Boys should “stand back and stand by.”

The Oath Keepers were founded in 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, a former U.S. Army paratrooper and Yale Law School graduate. The antigovernment group recruits current and former military, police and first responders. Its members pledge to “fulfill the oath all military and police take to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,’” and to defend the Constitution, according to its website.

WHAT ARE THEY ACCUSED OF DOING?

Messages and social media posts detailed in court documents show how members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were discussing as early as November 2020 the need to fight to keep Trump in office.

Days after the election, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, then-chairman of the Proud Boys, posted messages online calling on his followers to fight the results.

“No quarter. Raise the black flag,” Tarrio said in one post. In another, he wrote that the Proud Boys would become “political prisoners” if Biden “steals the election,” warning that the group “won’t go quietly.”

“The media constantly accuses us of wanting to start a civil war,” Tarrio wrote in another message. “Careful what the f—-k you ask for we don’t want to start one … but we will sure as f—-k finish one.”

Shortly before the riot, an unnamed person sent Tarrio a document that laid out plans for occupying a few “crucial buildings” in Washington on Jan. 6, including House and Senate office buildings around the Capitol, authorities say. The document entitled “1776 Returns” called for having as “many people as possible” to “show our politicians We the People are in charge.”

Tarrio was arrested in Washington two days before the riot and charged with vandalizing a Black Lives Matter banner at a historic Black church during a protest in December 2020. He was ordered to stay away from Washington and wasn’t at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Other Proud Boys, however, met at the Washington Monument on the morning of the riot and marched to the Capitol before Trump finished speaking near the White House. As the angry mob swarmed the Capitol, Proud Boys members dismantled metal barricades, and directed and led members of the crowd into the building, authorities say.

The Oath Keepers also spent weeks discussing trying to overturn the election results, laying out battle plans and purchasing weapons, authorities say. Two days after the election, Rhodes told followers in an encrypted group chat to prepare their mind, body and spirit for a “civil war.”

Rhodes urged members to go to Washington to let Trump know “that the people are behind him,” and expressed hope that Trump would call up the militia to help stay in power, authorities say. Oath Keepers repeatedly wrote in chats about the prospect of violence and the need, as Rhodes allegedly wrote in one text, “to scare the s—-out of” Congress.

The group stashed guns in a hotel outside Washington as part of a “quick reaction force” that would come to their aid if needed, prosecutors say. Days before Jan. 6, one defendant suggested getting a boat to ferry “heavy weapons” across the Potomac River into their “waiting arms,” according to prosecutors.

On Jan. 6, Oath Keepers wearing camouflaged combat attire were seen on camera shouldering their way through the crowd and into the Capitol in a military-style stack formation. Rhodes isn’t accused of going inside the Capitol building, but was seen gathered outside with several Oath Keepers after the riot, authorities said.

WHAT WAS REVEALED IN THE HEARING?

Thursday’s House committee hearing highlighted how the Proud Boys were energized by Trump’s comment to “stand back and stand by.” A member of the Proud Boys told the committee that Trump’s remark prompted membership in the group to skyrocket.

The committee also showed how members of the Proud Boys were among those leading the charge into the Capitol, having marched there while Trump was still speaking on the Ellipse.

Video shown during the hearing showed that Dominic Pezzola, a former Marine known as “Spaz” from Rochester, New York, used a stolen Capitol police riot shield to break a window, allowing the first rioters to enter the building. Pezzola has been charged with seditious conspiracy in the attack.

A documentary filmmaker who was with the Proud Boys on Jan. 6 testified about witnessing a meeting the day before the riot between Rhodes and Tarrio at an underground garage.

No new details about what the two extremist group leaders spoke about were revealed during the hearing and prosecutors have said only that one of the meeting’s participants “referenced the Capitol.” Publicly released video of the meeting doesn’t reveal much about their discussion.

The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have been charged in separate indictments and the Justice Department hasn’t accused them of plotting with one another.

But prosecutors have indicated there was at least some communication between the two groups. In one message, a man described by authorities as the leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers discussed forming an “alliance” and coordinating with the Proud Boys ahead of the riot, authorities have said in court documents.

WHAT HAVE THE LEADERS SAID IN DEFENSE?

Rhodes has said in interviews with right-wing hosts that there was no plan to storm the Capitol and that the members who did so went rogue. But he has continued to push the lie that the 2020 election was stolen, while posts on the Oath Keepers website have depicted the group as a victim of political persecution.

Oath Keeper defendants have argued in court that the only plan was to provide security at the rally before the riot or protect themselves against possible attacks from far-left antifa activists. Text messages revealed in court documents show Oath Keepers discussing plans to provide security around Jan. 6 for longtime Trump political confidant Roger Stone and “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander.

Defense attorney Nayib Hassan said Tarrio never instructed nor encouraged anyone to enter the Capitol or to engage in any violence or destruction on Jan. 6. Hassan also described prosecutors’ arguments about the garage meeting with Rhodes as “frivolous at best.” Tarrio went to the nearby hotel to get information about a potential attorney to represent him in the vandalism case, Hassan said in a court filing.

A jury trial for Tarrio and four other Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy is scheduled to start on Aug. 8. The trial for Rhodes and four other Oath Keepers members and associates is scheduled to begin in Sept. 26. The seditious conspiracy charge calls for up to 20 years in prison.

___

For full coverage of the Jan. 6 hearings, go to https://www.apnews.com/capitol-siege.

Ever since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February, the war has been an uneven fight of sweeping breakthroughs, tactical withdrawals, and grinding attrition that has made progress in the conflict difficult to gauge.

In a recent sign of this, Kyiv won a symbolic and strategic victory on June 30 when Russian forces withdrew from Snake Island in the Black Sea less than a week after its own forces pulled back from heavy shelling and a Russian advance on the city of Syevyerodonetsk in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region.

Russian forces are continuing to press forward with their aims of capturing more of the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces and now have their sights on Lysychansk, the sister city of Syevyerodonetsk, where Ukrainian troops once again find themselves under fire from a devastating Russian artillery barrage.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces have made several counterattacks in the country’s south and made new territorial gains.

To find out more about how to measure the pace of the war and how Russian and Ukrainian forces compare, RFE/RL spoke with Dara Massicot, a senior researcher at the U.S.-based RAND think tank and a former senior analyst at the Pentagon, where she focused on the Russian military’s capabilities.

RFE/RL: In recent weeks, we’ve seen a far slower moving and grinding war in Ukraine, especially in the Donbas. In your view, is it possible to tell who is winning a war like this and, if yes, what are some of the key indicators to watch?

Dara Massicot

Dara Massicot: You’re correct. We are seeing a slower, more deliberate Russian approach featuring a lot of artillery strikes, followed by incremental movements behind them.

In the weeks ahead, I would be watching out for controlled departures, [such as] from the Ukrainian side, like we’ve seen in Syevyerodonetsk and will likely see in other areas [nearby]. Sometimes things stall in particular areas for a few weeks or a few months and then progress can be quite rapid. So it’s not necessarily a linear fight happening.

RFE/RL: Obviously, it’s difficult to say who’s winning the war, but is there anything else to keep an eye on?

Massicot: I listen to the words of the Ukrainian military themselves, and they’re saying that they are outgunned by a significant margin, particularly in terms of artillery strikes. Russian [forces] have numbers, both in terms of quantity and the range that they can apply against them, and those kinds of things are unlikely to change, even with the deliveries of some of the more advanced equipment in the weeks and months ahead.

This isn’t only a numbers game, though. The Ukrainians have been fighting very smartly and very wisely, but I think the Russians do have a bit of an upper hand on the ground. They also have collapsed their objectives, [and] they’re now focusing on two particular areas right now. In Syevyerodonetsk, they applied airpower and they’re learning how to apply closer air support more effectively.

I was surprised this week to see more robust strikes from Russia into other areas of Ukraine. We haven’t really seen dozens of missiles being launched at the same time in quite some time. So I’m looking at that closely right now, but again, I think the area to watch is in [the] eastern Luhansk [Province] right now.

RFE/RL: What sort of things can Kyiv do to build an advantage on the ground, especially when they’re outgunned and outnumbered?

Massicot: They were really effective in the early days about attacking logistics lines and going after resupply lines and disrupting routes. Those types of things would continue to have an impact on Russian forces, but again, it’s difficult for them to get to do that in Luhansk and Donetsk because the lines have been set [since 2014].

RFE/RL: There are growing reports that Russia is increasingly relying on reserve forces, including so-called “volunteers.” Is this enough to allow Russia to sustain itself on the ground at its current rate without calling for a full-scale mobilization?

Massicot: I think it’s a pretty bad sign for the health of Russia’s professional enlisted fighting force that we’re five months into this conflict and they’re already going to these particular lengths to recruit troops. We have to consider that Russia’s mobilization base and Russia’s professional reserve program have been relatively dormant for the last 10 years, apart from maybe seeing a little bit of activity in the last 12 months. So these are not particularly well-trained individuals. They’re not receiving adequate training — maybe two to three weeks at most — and then they’re being put into a combat situation. Some of them are also older — we’re seeing around 40- to 50-year-old volunteers fighting in the Donbas.

Russian rocket systems fire a barrage in eastern Ukraine in late June.

But when I look at the different policy decisions that they’re making inside Russia, I think that they believe they can still achieve their aims. They’re already looking to the future in a world where they are attempting to annex parts of Luhansk, Donetsk, and parts of Zaporizhzhya and Kherson. [They’re] also trying to put policy options in place right now as if they’re going to have this as their territory. So, clearly, they think that they have enough.

RFE/RL: But is that belief credible in your mind?

Massicot: I think we have to talk about short term and long term. In the short term, they’re clearly scraping from wherever they can to avoid [full-scale] mobilization. I don’t know that they have enough for a major offensive again [and] I don’t think that’s possible. They have a very limited set of things that they can do, [and] I don’t think they can recover from the losses that they’ve taken in personnel and equipment. So we might see [something] like a frozen conflict again, but you’re not going to see another push to Kyiv or something like that.

[Looking further ahead], what they’ve done to their professional enlisted force is that they’ve basically committed all of it from the army and the air force to this war. They’ve taken significant casualties and people do not wish to participate anymore. Many are not going to reenlist after they serve out their contract. So I think we need to pay attention to signs about recruitment and retention.

Ukrainian soldiers in the Mykolayiv region in June.

RFE/RL: Ukrainian forces have pulled back from Syevyerodonetsk and appear to be entrenched at higher ground across the river at its sister city in Lysychansk, where they are also facing heavy fire. What can we expect for this coming fight?

Massicot: I’m not overly familiar with the terrain of that particular area, but Lysychansk will continue to be a focal point. You’re going to see air strikes [and] we’re going to see more artillery barrages. These types of things are very difficult, even if you’re in dug-in positions, to withstand the destructiveness of the fire. I think it’s important for Ukraine to focus on preserving their forces and not just let their units get shredded in order to hold on to a position. They seem to be mindful of this and know that it’s more important for them to have their fighters survive, and when it’s possible, they may try to move to more advantageous ground.

What they don’t want to do is get surrounded or get their troops caught and be taken into Russian custody. There’s so many warning signs at this point that the Geneva Convention is not really being followed on the Russian side — and in a few cases on the Ukrainian side, too. So I would assume that they would not want to put units in that position.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

ALLEN, Ky. (AP) — Three law enforcement officers were killed and five wounded in eastern Kentucky when a man with a rifle opened fire on police attempting to serve a warrant, authorities said.

Police took 49-year-old Lance Storz into custody late Thursday night after an hourslong standoff at a home in Allen, a small town in the hills of Appalachia.

An emergency management official was also injured and a police dog was killed, according to the arrest citation.

The responding officers encountered “pure hell” when they arrived on the scene, Floyd County Sheriff John Hunt told reporters Friday afternoon.

“They had no chance,” he said.

Hunt said four deputies initially responded, then called for backup when they were shot at. The sheriff said Storz surrendered after negotiations that included his family members. Hunt had told local media the deputies were serving a court-issued warrant Thursday evening related to a domestic violence situation.

Hunt said one of his deputies, William Petry, and Prestonsburg Police Capt. Ralph Frasure were killed in the shooting. Frasure worked for 39 years in law enforcement in Floyd County. Another Prestonsburg officer, Jacob Chaffins, died after being hospitalized, the police department said in a social media post Friday night.

Storz was arraigned Friday morning by a judge in Pike County. He pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder of a police officer and was jailed on a $10 million bond. One of the charges was originally attempted murder of a police officer, but a judge said at the hearing that was upgraded to murder. He is also facing another attempted murder charge and assault on a service animal.

Few details were available Friday. State police had said in a brief statement that they were investigating an officer-involved shooting.

“This is a tough morning for our commonwealth,” Gov. Andy Beshear said in a social media post Friday morning. “Floyd County and our brave first responders suffered a tragic loss last night. I want to ask all of Kentucky to join me in praying for this community.”

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron posted on social media that he was heartbroken over news of the officers’ deaths.

“Our law enforcement exhibited unimaginable heroism and sacrifice last night in the face of evil,” he said.