In the midst of war, as soldiers engage in conflict, both military and civilian casualties increase daily, leaving behind deep and lasting scars. Often, we ponder what the winners and losers ultimately gain from such strife. In the case of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, a crucial question arises: could war have been avoided altogether? It may be premature to analyze the war's outcome without a clear understanding of its imminent conclusion, yet hopes for a resolution are running high, especially with the Trump presidency about to commence in less than a week.
Given Trump's somewhat unfavourable views toward Ukraine and his apparent affinity for Russia's Putin, it is widely understood that the conflict might conclude soon in favour of the Russians. Should a ceasefire be brokered now, Ukraine would retain only 80% of its pre-war territory, which has been contested since the conflict began in March 2022. Taking into account Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk, which Russia occupied in 2014, Ukraine has effectively lost more than 27% of its territory, totalling nearly 62,000 square miles—an area comparable to the U.S. state of Georgia. Furthermore, the war has inflicted severe damage on Ukraine's infrastructure and utility systems.
In this challenging landscape, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy finds himself with little to show for the conflict, the seeds of which were sown much before his election in 2019, where his campaign focused on pro-Western and pro-NATO sentiments while being staunchly anti-Russian. In retrospect, it becomes evident that he may have lacked the maturity required to navigate relations with Russia under Putin. Instead of seeking a middle ground, his administration has seemingly chased Western patronage at all costs.
It is essential to recognize that Russia has long coveted Ukraine, even after it gained independence in 1991. Ukrainians were aware of their vulnerability to Russian expansionism, which is why they were hesitant to relinquish their nuclear arsenal during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Had Ukraine retained its nuclear stockpile, it is plausible that Putin might have refrained from invading the country.
Given this historical context, one might question whether Zelenskyy should have pursued a more balanced approach rather than placing unwavering trust in the West for rescue. There was a possibility that he badly hoped NATO or U.S. troops to be deployed directly in Ukraine, much like the nuclear arsenal, which could have deterred Putin's invasion.
From Putin's perspective, regardless of Russian lives lost or the limited damage to Russian infrastructure, he has much to be content with. He has gained valuable real estate that includes fertile lands from one of the world’s most critical agricultural regions. More importantly, the Russian economy, despite facing severe sanctions from the West, has not only survived but has come out more resilient than before. It is likely that these sanctions may soon be lifted following Trump taking office. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian economy has been devastated.
The war has also forced the once cumbersome Russian military to abandon outdated World War and Cold War tactics in favour of a more streamlined and modern approach that utilizes advanced AI and drones to inflict maximum damage at minimal cost. In contrast, Ukraine is left with a demoralized military that is fragile and prone to desertion.
As the conflict moves towards an agonizing halt, one may ask: what has Zelenskyy truly gained by leading his country down this tumultuous path? History may not be very kind to him, since in no way he can claim victory with the dreams and hopes of millions of his countrymen shattered. In fact the best way to know whether his policies were continuing to have enough support was to allow his leadership to be evaluated through elections, scheduled for March 2024. By not allowing the elections to proceed, he raised significant doubts about the legitimacy of his regime.
Or was he hoping for a defeat of Trump in the November elections, allowing Biden to continue as President and ensuring continuation of Western military aid? Did he genuinely believe that with Western support, he could conquer the second most powerful military in the world? Were the dreams of NATO membership and joining the European Economic Community more pressing than addressing Ukraine's internal challenges of corruption and governance?By demanding NATO membership, he essentially was steering Ukraine away from Russia’s backyard, akin to Mexico and Canada charting a course counter to U.S. interests—an untenable position for Putin.
Ukraine now stands not at a crossroads but on a path that might require a strategic pivot back toward Russia rather than a one-way ticket into Western alignment. Whether one likes it or not, when this war concludes, Volodymyr Zelenskyy may find that he has few options left.
For Ukraine the writing on the wall is clear.
