Ukraine: Putin’s Playing Card Against the West
Ukraine: Putin’s Playing Card Against the West
In recent weeks, concerns about the potential outbreak of World War III have significantly increased. Ukraine, with the White House’s approval, used long-range missiles supplied by the United States to attack Russian territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously warned that such an action would mean the start of a war between NATO and Russia and even mentioned the possibility of using nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East region, and especially in recent days in Syria, rapid developments have occurred that led to Assad’s downfall. All these developments can be traced to the behind-the-scenes actions of Russia and Trump’s America, developments intertwined with the Ukraine war. Both regions are potential grounds for a world war, and if not contained, this danger is serious. It is clear that no government desires a widespread and comprehensive war, so the flames of war, especially the three-year war in Ukraine, must be extinguished. Russia continues to insist on its demands in Ukraine, and the result of this protracted war has led both sides to consider ending it in some way. Although Russia’s threats might initially seem like a bluff to pressure the West, Putin has always made these threats appear more serious with a series of actions.
Putin’s strong reaction, which was contrary to his caution in previous crises, has complicated the path to any peace agreement. In America, this division among factions still exists. Some liberal analysts believe that the imminent presidency of Donald Trump, instead of hastening the end of the war as he promised, might prolong it. If Trump cuts military aid to Ukraine, a significant motivation for Putin to end the war will disappear. On the other hand, the presence of hawks in Trump’s cabinet may indicate a deviation from the peace agenda he promoted in his election campaign. However, Trump has strong reasons to prove his critics wrong.
He knows that failure in foreign policy can reduce a president’s popularity, and he has built his reputation on the ability to end a war that began and intensified during Joe Biden’s tenure. Trump prefers to finalize the agreement in secret negotiations with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky.
Additionally, Moscow will likely retain control over the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine, which are currently under its control.
According to a recent Gallup poll, for the first time, over 50% of Ukrainians are in favor of quick negotiations to reach a peace agreement, even if this agreement includes territorial concessions. After Trump’s victory in the elections, Ukrainian officials have shown more willingness to accept such an agreement.
Putin may also be ready to accept an agreement similar to what Trump’s deputy, Pence, has proposed.
Although the current military situation is in Moscow’s favor, Russia’s achievements have come at a very high cost.
The rate of Russian military casualties has reached its highest level since the beginning of the war, and if the war continues until 2025, Putin may be forced to announce a remobilization of forces and face the risk of internal dissatisfaction.
The most challenging remaining issue will be the post-war security guarantees for Ukraine. Kyiv wants to join NATO, a move that Moscow strongly opposes.
Trump’s transitional team has considered a plan to suspend Ukraine’s NATO membership for 20 years, indicating that Trump may be seeking a solution that preserves the dignity of both Zelensky and Putin.
Ultimately, there is no guarantee that Trump will take the necessary steps to end the Ukraine war or even be able to do so. Nonetheless, in the absence of another leader who can lead the parties towards peace, the best hope for ending the Ukraine war may still be Donald Trump.
The Ukraine War: The West’s Biggest Challenge with Russia
Today, the West Asia region may be the most important crisis in the Middle East regarding East-West relations, but the reality is that Ukraine is essentially a buffer zone or a void area between Russia and the West, holding special significance for both Russia and Europe, with even greater importance for regional and even global security.
In this war, Russia has been fully engaged for three years and seeks to achieve its strategic goals, part of which includes occupying parts of this land. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe and the world have been concerned about the expansion and continuation of the war in other areas, and the possibility of a third war.
Russia tried to justify this invasion by blaming the West, claiming that their action was a preemptive move to prevent NATO’s expansion and subsequently the threat to Russian security.
The West, by setting the stage for this invasion, believed that Ukraine would become a quagmire for Russia.
While not all calculations turned out accurate, perhaps with the measures the West took against Russia, they thought Russia would kneel before them. However, it has now become clear that the results of this war have been different from the goals set by the US and Europe.
In the continuation of the Ukraine war, it was Putin who consistently spoke of Russia’s new demands in a multipolar world and the end of the past era, emphasizing his demands in this war. At least from the political stance of Russia throughout this now three-year war, which has caused extensive damage to the Ukrainian society and threatened countries, no change has been seen in its leader’s positions. The differences among Western allies regarding support for Ukraine may have been more noticeable than Russia’s, which succeeded in gaining the support or neutrality of countries like China, North Korea, and even Iran, which is Russia’s neighbor, as well as other major influential Asian countries like India.
Uncertainty in the Outcome of the War
The situation imposed by the latest state of the war on both sides still leaves uncertainties about its future outcome. On one hand, Russia has generally achieved its initial goals by capturing the eastern Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula. It seems that if conditions for negotiation are favorable, it might agree to some form of compromise. However, Ukraine has set NATO membership guarantees as a condition for negotiation and insists that after a ceasefire, there should be no threat from Russia. It is under such conditions that Ukraine will agree to negotiate and concede these occupied eastern regions. Recently, when it seemed that the war had reached a stalemate, Putin once again intensified his offensive. What solution Trump intends to present to Russia in the current situation is a big question, but Trump has responded that revealing the details of his plans limits his options. He prefers to finalize the agreement in secret negotiations with Putin and Zelensky.
Therefore, it is highly likely that Russia and Trump, through a diplomatic process, will reach a compromise on the disputes in the ongoing Middle East crisis, including Syria and the issue of Israel’s interventions in Lebanon and Gaza, which have put Russia in a tight spot, and in Ukraine, they will reach agreements. Although the swift developments in Syria have realized this prediction, and the Assad regime has fallen, it is clear that this is the beginning of extensive regional changes in the West Asia domain. It can be imagined that with Trump’s inauguration, the fate of the Ukraine war will also accelerate. A negotiated end to the war is a significant advantage for Russia. It is still not possible to enumerate the final results and potential achievements of the war for Russia, but what is certain is Putin’s focus on achieving his strategic goals in Europe and against the United States, as Russia’s achievements have come at very high costs.
The rate of Russian military casualties has reached its highest level since the beginning of the war, and if the war continues until 2025, Putin may be forced to announce a remobilization of forces and face the risk of internal dissatisfaction.
Even if the war ends and an agreement is reached between the parties, many ambiguities regarding Ukraine and Russia’s future position in Europe and its relations with America as two main players on the international stage remain. The Russians believe that global relations after the end of the Ukraine war will differ from before, and they always present themselves as the victors of this war, while the same claim is made by the US and NATO regarding defeating Russia. They argue that without strong support for Ukraine, Russia intended to erase Ukraine’s map, which has not been the case today, and this country maintains its sovereignty.
The strategic goals in this war from the perspective of the two players, the US and Russia, are more important than Ukraine itself because occupying Ukraine serves as a buffer position between East and West for Russia. If this success is not achieved, the eastern regions of Ukraine will at least serve as a buffer area for Russia. The most challenging issue will be the remaining security guarantees for Ukraine after the war. Trump’s transitional government has considered a plan to suspend Ukraine’s NATO membership for 20 years, indicating that Trump may be seeking a solution that preserves the dignity of both Zelensky and Putin.
Ultimately, there is no guarantee that Trump will take the necessary steps to end the Ukraine war or even be able to do so. Nonetheless, in the absence of another leader who can lead the parties towards peace, the greatest expectation for ending the Ukraine war may still be Donald Trump’s plan.
In conclusion, one can consider a third theory in the analysis related to this issue and in connection with global security from the perspective of this war. The West is evasive of battle, and a swift victory brings great defeats for Russia and will haunt it in the long term. The West deliberately guided Russia down this path. Russia did not have the capacity to implement this alarming fear for two decades, but in Ukraine, it gave a biting response to the West. However, Russia’s problem was not solved with this invasion; rather, it has become entangled in a way that will not be resolved.
The main question is what should the nations neighboring Russia do in the midst of the East and West’s gravitational fields? The expansion of NATO to the east was driven by the desires of these nations in Eastern Europe, not merely the desires of America or NATO. If, before this unprecedented Russian invasion and bombing, Russia had a chance to maintain its influence, from now on, it must maintain Ukraine, if fully occupied, only by force, and this will not be feasible in the long term.
For Ukraine, it would have been better to moderate its westward orientation and establish a positive balance in dealing with Russia and the West. Russia’s mistake was far more significant, damaging, and unjustifiable. The West, like cunning old men, pushed the young bully towards drunken violence to eventually bring him down. In one sentence, the West cannot pull the teeth of this Siberian bear, but it forced the bear to bite into bitter meat, either forcing it to release it or clench it in its jaws for years.