Lessons From The Ukraine War

At last, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has cautiously agreed to a 30-day energy and infrastructure ceasefire in the three-year war, effective at the start of this week. The result underscores Zelenskyy’s massive miscalculation and the reckless support some foreign powers assured him of from the very outset. Even as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer reiterates unspecified “unwavering support” to Ukraine, there is nothing to gloat over beleaguered Zelenskyy’s back down from his three-year stand. The entire event offers a lesson that absurdly overwhelming reliance on big power support can lead to entrapment with an uncertain or disastrously disgraceful exit. 

This scribe from the very inception of the war had always reiterated that Russia would leave no stone unturned to carve out victory. Its defeat would mean NATO troops’ presence in neighbouring Ukraine which until 1991 was a Soviet state. As things stand, Moscow is not prepared to accept the pre-2014 territorial position, having firmly set its focus on permanently taking over the regions acquired in 2014 and after, including Crimea, which it considers “non-negotiable”. That’s a reality the US-led West might accept as a fait accompli.

Both the warring sides might have suffered at least a million casualties. US President Donald Trump claimed the US support for the war amounted to $350 billion whereas others estimate it to be somewhere close to $120b. A few others calculate the value at $200b. In fact, the American president even demanded the repayment of aid and “loans” that his country gave to the Zelenskyy government.

Miscalculation

Deterrence and protection from future incursions and invasions are being searched for, though this could have been secured without three years of war. Well, what is done cannot be blotted out. Ukraine’s defiance and defence sharply eroded and crumbled after the White House spat between Trump and Zelenskyy earlier this month. The threat worked and Kyiv wilted to Washington’s immense pressure. Europe tries to pull Kyiv out of the pit even as Washington glares at it with palpably seething anger. Major European capitals are nervous about the US, with whom they drew up global agendas and cultivated joint programmes for so many decades. 

US Democrats are yet to find a footing to stand firm vis-a-vis Trump. Relief might just come in 2029 when a new face takes over the White House and might offer the much-hoped-for fresh breath of air instead of what they might assess as “four years of reckless” foreign policy the superpower under Trump undertook. That Europe, especially the UK, France and Germany, now talk of foreign and defence policies “independent” of the US confesses their weaker side so far. Riding the US coattails, they had engaged in imposing their agendas on much of the world for eight decades.  

Partisan press, particularly those serving the tycoons involved in the weapons industry, allowed the war to drag on by underreporting Kyiv’s losses and overplaying Moscow’s setbacks. They refrained from giving detailed reports on Russian territorial gains in Ukraine but gave blow-by-blow reports on Russian setbacks, even if isolated or temporary ones.  Such embedded journalism should not surprise Americans considering that less than 40 per cent of them do not trust the mainstream media originating in their own country. That is what multiple surveys have indicated since several years ago. The scorn with which Trump publicly remarked whether anyone had heard of Lesotho echoes an unprecedented language. Had that come from a weak state or country not seeing eye to eye with Washington, the American press corps would have sung a different song.

The venue for the first round of US-Ukraine talks in the Saudi Arabian city of Jeddah on March 11 for a ceasefire spoke of the slight against European cities. The latest US initiatives leave Zelenskyy hardly any choice. Had he responded to negotiations with Moscow in 2022 itself, he would have had considerable bargaining power. For that matter, he might have extracted better terms as late as a year ago. He banked too much on France, the UK and the US for as long as the war could drag on giving him hardly any room for bargaining.

Trump’s electoral win in November itself should have prompted Zelenskyy to get serious about damage control. The Joe Biden administration, too, could have helped and earned at least a modicum of satisfaction at having contributed to a “negotiated” settlement. In 2021, the US had to pull out in defeat from a landlocked, poverty-stricken Islamic state of Afghanistan. The Democratic Party in the US proved to be incompetent in handling the situation and impotent in defending what it initiated with such fierce noise and weapons spending.

Licking the wounds of failure in Afghanistan, Washington ventured into Ukraine at Russia’s doorsteps by nodding at Kyiv to seek NATO membership, which predictably served like a red rag in front of a rogue bull. In March 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved the Warsaw Treaty Organisation whereas NATO continued even during the decade of the unipolar world.

Emerging signs

Foreign mercenary fighters in Ukraine weeks ago dropped their weapons, shed their uniforms and made a run for their lives. This deeply demoralised Ukrainian troops who saw the ignominy of defeat in a war that only brought death, destruction and humiliating defeat as their powerful foreign backers deserted them for gross expediency and unflattering calculations. The likely terms might sound heart-wringing for Kyiv and its allies but that’s the price paid by leaders playing pawns to powers that push for their own “strategic” agendas in the name of balance of power, realistic results and global peace. 

The US, a superpower, having more than 800 military stations spread over 80 nations, constantly talks about its “security interests” in all regions of the world. This is no democratic or fair stance as if others don’t have their interests to ensure within their territories. As for much of the world, there might emerge efforts at agreeing upon spheres of influence among China, Russia and the US. The ongoing exercise will unsettle many things and attract anger and conflicts. Ukraine war carries manifold implications. Discordant voices between the US and Europe are just about audible, with some quarters seeing Trump as “disruptive, destructive”. Trump’s diplomacy of collision and threats of trade tariffs give ample hints about Europe’s thinking over constructing an independent course. 

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)