Why Does Russia Consider The Ceasefire To Be A “Crushing Defeat” For The US?

Russia’s assessment is political in nature and intended to challenge the US’ claims of victory.

RT and other media reported that Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described the US-Iranian ceasefire as a “crushing defeat” in an echo of the exact same wording employed by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. Interestingly, that part of her press conference wasn’t included in the Foreign Ministry’s official transcript, which readers can review here. In any case, the question thus arises of why Russia assesses the ceasefire in that way, especially when Iran suffered immense damage.

Its air and naval forces are reportedly destroyed, civilian and energy infrastructure was struck multiple times, and Iran ultimately agreed to the ceasefire and the resumption of talks with the US despite the US attacking Iran twice thus far during prior such talks in less than 12 months. While one might still argue that Iran didn’t suffer a “crushing defeat”, it still most definitely suffered quite a lot and without destroying a single US ship, which its media surrogates hyped supporters up to expect to no avail.

Be that as it may, the US’ regional bases were struck many times by Iran despite the US’ air defenses, its Gulf and Israeli allies both suffered a lot of damage to their military and civilian infrastructure as well, and Iran also didn’t truly experience the regime change that Trump has since boasted about. While it’s true that several waves of government leaders were killed, the Islamic Republic remains intact, and there was also no rebellion among urban civilians or peripheral minorities such as the Kurds like many expected.

As of now, Iran still has enriched uranium in its possession, half of its missile launchers, and thousands of drones, thus meaning that the US hasn’t (at least not yet) denuclearized nor demilitarized it. These facts therefore discredit Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s boast about an “historic and overwhelming victory”, though he’s correct in claiming that “the next targets would have been their power plants, their bridges and oil and energy infrastructure, targets they could not defend and could not realistically rebuild.”

Nevertheless, Trump ultimately eschewed that apocalyptic course of action due to the IRGC changing its mind about “embracing martyrdom” as they perceive their deaths in that scenario as being and instead embracing diplomacy, though he can still resort to it if their talks fail to achieve the US’ goals. For that reason, at this point in time, the outcome of the Third Gulf War remains uncertain. That might change, however, depending on the outcome of their talks or if hostilities resume.

Either way, nobody expected Russia to assess the ceasefire any differently considering its ongoing rivalry with the US with whom it’s fighting by proxy in Ukraine. Any attention that Russia draws to the immense damage that Iran suffered and which was presented in support of the argument that the US didn’t suffer a “crushing defeat” would only be it accuse it of war crimes and generate sympathy for Iran. Likewise, echoing its Supreme National Security Council’s wording was meant to show support, which succeeded.

All in all, the Third Gulf War arguably didn’t end in any of the combatants’ “crushing defeat” since they were all harmed in various ways, though Iran much more than anyone else due the US’ and Israel’s much stronger aerial forces that wreaked destruction all across the Islamic Republic. Russia’s assessment is therefore political in nature and intended to challenge the US’ claims of victory. The outcome of the conflict still isn’t known and can’t be determined till a peace deal is agreed to.