Hello from London,

No modern event—perhaps save the Communist revolution—has shaped Russia's conscience as much as the second world war. The views of many born soon after, including Vladimir Putin, were coloured by memories of that immense conflict. No one now wants to dwell on its early period: the almost two years when the Soviet Union cynically allied with Nazi Germany, carving up central Europe between them. Instead Russians like to refer to the Great Patriotic War, or the time from June 1941 to May 1945, when the Soviet Union (with hefty economic and military help from America) triumphed on the eastern front.

That span of time—some 1,400 days—is relevant today. It’s the same period that Mr Putin has (so far) devoted to his not-at-all-great and deeply unpatriotic war in Ukraine, which he launched in February 2022. I’m sure that he didn’t intend this attempt at empire-building to last so long (early on he denied even planning to invade). All the same, he is in no rush to end it, even as Donald Trump’s administration tries to press Ukraine to accept Russian terms.

How long will the current war continue? Historians might reasonably argue that, in fact, it has already gone on for much longer than the second world war. Count this conflict from Russia’s first invasion, when its disguised forces, the “little green men”, seized Crimea from Ukraine in February 2014, and the on-off fighting has dragged on for nearly 12 years. Should you consider other acts of Russian imperial aggression as part of the same conflict, then perhaps the starting gun was really fired by Mr Putin in 2008, in Georgia, some 17 years ago.

A dozen years certainly sounds like a long time for Russia to have been at war with its neighbour. For comparison, the disastrous Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, starting in 1979, lasted a little over nine years. The wars in the Balkans, as the former Yugoslavia collapsed in the 1990s, took about a decade to burn out. America deployed large numbers of soldiers to South Vietnam for roughly a decade, until the early 1970s, before it eventually accepted defeat there.

My gloomy prognosis is that, for at least as long as Mr Putin remains Russia’s leader (and at 73, he looks fit enough, sadly, to be around for a long time yet), then Europe should assume that a state of war—either overt and intense as exists today in Ukraine, or latent and ready to reignite—is the default condition. The consequence of that? Europeans must do vastly more, and urgently, to build up their economic and military strength to push back.

Now to a cheerier topic. Last week I asked for your nominations for our traditional award for the country of the year. I’ve relished going through your many entertaining suggestions. John F. Dini deserves top marks for snark. He urges us to claim that America is the most improved place of all. “I can’t point to too many achievements,” he says, but “kissing up to Donald Trump without foundation has become the fashion among world leaders”. He also has ideas for a shiny, Trump-friendly trophy that we should deliver. More serious, and more appealing, is Reiner Luyken’s proposal that we recognise real improvements in Iraq. “It’s left the trauma of the Saddam years and the war behind. Baghdad is booming. Everything’s changed. New roads, new bridges. Refugees are returning.” I heartily agree, Reiner.

Carlos Báez goes for his home country, Chile, where elections were held this weekend, mostly for its economic achievements. Laird Taylor would nominate Bhutan, “because it hasn’t invaded or threatened to attack its neighbours”. A nice thought, Laird, but that’s surely too low a bar. Rui Rodrigues rates Rwanda for its economic, anti-corruption and other progress. There is much to admire, but I’d have to disagree, Rui, because of the autocratic nature of the regime and its brutal attacks on Congo next door. Will Smith would opt for Namibia, where he foresees a commodities boom. Barbara Bucchioni points to China, for its economic, tech and strategic gains. Basil Gelpke, for similar reasons, would praise Vietnam. Finally, Contreras Suarez Aribel makes the case for Mexico, largely for handling a difficult neighbour well. We will reveal our choice later in the week. Next week, for the end of the year, I’d like to hear your predictions for what 2026 will bring to world affairs. Write to me at economisttoday@economist.com.