 Putin will be main long-term threat to its security of Europe. The Economist warns. The Economist has examined Putin's chances of winning the war and says the West is not doing enough to stop him because it lacks a strategic vision. According to the magazine, the fact that neither side can carry the other out of the areas they control is what makes Putin's victory in the conflict possible. Ukraine's counter-offensive is faltering. Russia loses more than 900 soldiers in the battles in Abdiivka every day and these engagements can be considered a defender's war that will last for many years. The West could do a lot more to frustrate Putin. If it chose, it could deploy industrial and financial resources that dwarf Russia's. However, fatalism, complacency and a shocking lack of strategic vision are getting in the way, especially in Europe. For its own sake, as well as Ukraine's, the West urgently needs to shake off its lethargy, the Economist says. The Economist also notes that if Donald Trump is elected president, having promised peace in short order, America could suddenly stop supplying weapons altogether. Nevertheless, Europe needs to get ready for a drop in USA regardless of who will be elected president. The publication adds that it is pointless to simply hope that Putin's regime will fall because of inflation, army spending and forced mobilization because Putin could remain in power for years. Europe must therefore plan for Putin as the main long-term threat to its security. Russia will rearm. It will have combat experience. Planning for Europe's defense should be designed to prevent Mr. Putin from sensing weakness on its flank, especially if he doubts a President Trump's willingness to fight should a NATO country be attacked, the Economist added. Taking this into account, Europe's best chance of deterring Putin is by demonstrating its resolve by arming Ukraine with air defense and long-range missiles capable of striking Russian supply routes.