Russo-Ukrainian War: The Second Year ‘A Year of Struggle’
February 24, 2022. Russian troops lined up on the border led a strike on the Ukraine land, attacking by way of Crimea, the Russo-Ukrainian border, and an allied Belarus. The world was astonished. Russia has continued to wage war, but Ukrainian forces have been fighting a war of attrition, slowly and painfully sending back Russian front lines. Now, a year later, we lay a milestone for one of the most dramatic geo-political wars.
Russia’s unexpected incapability to generate momentum has created a brutal, slow fighting ground. It seems as if neither country has gained anything. However, if the war were to end right this instant, both sides would draw something from it. Ukraine has galvanized the morale of their developing nation, have established a connection with the EU and estranged their ones with Russia. Russia has gained a small morsel of pro-Russian territory, which is a win for them. Their fervent propagandists could embellish the meaning of seizing this territory. Maybe, if a truce was declared, Europe would have more access to natural gas, and Ukraine could begin the recovery effort. An important statement about war, ‘Ending is better for both sides,’ is quite contradictory. The war has been grueling and is at an impasse, on the other hand, both have gained something from it - Europe connections for Ukraine, and territory for Russia. This leaves the daunting question: Has this war been worth it?
Exchange of Suffering
There are many negative connotations to the war - most specifically the suffering of the Ukrainian people. 7,199 Ukrainian civilians have perished in this fighting (statista). As horrifying as this figure is, the war has been good for Russian deterioration. Russia is a prevalent power in Europe, but this war has weakened them from so many fronts. Given the stigma directed towards the Russian government from the West, it could be said that this is a price to pay in order for Russia’s power and outreach to be mitigated. This war has been significantly difficult for Russia. 200,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded in the Ukrainian war. The tactical and technical inferiority of Russian troops has come at a great cost to them. More than 300,000 Russian citizens have evacuated the country, which is deleterious for an already shrinking population. According to Russian president Vladimir Putin, the vast majority of the Russian army has been deployed in Ukraine. Additionally, Wagner mercenaries have been hired by the Russian government. In fact, prisoners have even been released from detention to serve as auxiliary troops. Russia has exerted what seems like every ounce of their military prowess.
While Russia may be losing, the nation is infamous for its tolerance for pain during wartime. The Soviet Union suffered more than 20 million casualties in World War II. Despite this harrowing number, Soviet troops pushed all the way back into Berlin, ending the war. The same is true in the Napoleonic Wars, where Napoleon had pressed the Russians into their capital, Moscow. The freezing weather and a vicious counter-attack ultimately sent Napoleon all the way into Paris. The Russians even burned their own crops (a source of survival), in order to militarily win. Pain can be harsh for Russia, but military matters will be put first. Russia is exhausted, it seems. However, in the scope of history, for Russia, exhaustion appears to be only the beginning.
Ukrainian Connections
In retrospect, the war may have been started because Russia was worried that Ukraine, a former satellite state and breadbasket, was going to form ties with the west. The irony in this is, Ukraine has made these joints as an effect of the war. The West, concerned with Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has given them an opportunity to stage another proxy battle, backing the Ukrainian troops with weapons and support. This is the beginning, the bud, of Cold War Europe. Ukraine is a crucial stage for proxy fighting, and in course, has been connected with the West.
Rather than this being a mere proxy war, the relations between NATO, Ukraine and the EU seem more everlasting. Zelenskyy made a visit to the White House in December, affirming that he wishes for future support and connection with the United States, envisioning a similar pattern in the fight for independence between the two. He has also spoken to the EU, NATO, and many other places, indicating that this has now become a public effort. The struggle of Ukraine has been brought to the front of attention.
This, of course, is a benefit for Ukraine, which will have a higher power tol funnel support into it.Ukraine has been integrated into Western politics; this is a reason to end the war. But if this comes to nothing, if this war ends, will Ukraine be important anymore? Does the West need this proxy ground? If so, under which circumstances? Mainly, there are two questions to be asked. One from the Ukrainian perspective and one pertaining to the West. The first is: What is the best way to become an integral part of Western culture and politics? The second being, what is in it for the West if they bind themselves to a nation quarreling with Russia?
The Natural Gas Problem
Russia’s closing of the NordStream pipeline has greatly affected the most affluent and discernible EU leader: Germany. Germany needs natural gas as a source of power since climate activists have opposed fossil fuels, and solar and wind are difficult to harness. Thus, natural gas is crucial to the economy. If the West continues to side with Ukraine, will this relationship become more and more estranged with Russia?
Putin is most likely not going to discontinue the war unless exceedingly dire situations are imposed upon Russia. The war in Ukraine with Western support means no gas, as far as it has been proven. Europe, and Germany in particular, faces a difficult dilemma. Should they stop helping Ukraine, and allow Russia to win the war, creating intimidating juxtapositions and giving Putin the idea to take a shot at a Baltic nation or Poland? Or, continue to support Ukraine, and create a need to devise a new way of generating energy. Personally, I opt more towards the second. Europe should not wean off of Russia. NATO needs to become entirely independent from Russia, support Ukraine by way of proxy war, and ultimately, with a passive-aggressive mindset, permit Russia to slowly deteriorate courtesy of its inefficient military, its devastated economy, and its fruitless quality of life. Regardless of this, there is a race against time to switch from fossil fuels. What should be prioritized, getting a maximal chance of saving the planet, or compromising with Russia and risking the softening of NATO’s core?
What Should Russia Do?
Russia is facing an agglomeration of issues. To reiterate them here, there is the war, weakened military, lack of weapons, prisoners on the loose, a deteriorating economy, an aging population, and exodus. What is the optimal solution relating to the war for Russia? Should Russia try to form correspondence with the West? Is Russia’s obstinance the reason this has not happened, or is it unintelligent to do so? Russia can solve the war by calling a truce. The Ukrainian people are so exhausted that they would take any opportunity to surrender from Russia. This will give Russia time to manufacture more weapons and rebuild their army. Restarting trade with the West will expand the quality of life for the people, stopping the exodus. Morale will also be raised due to propaganda; Russia has gained something from this war, so they have a slight leverage over morale in this aspect. Mutual trade is crucial for Russia. Protectionism is no longer relevant, Russia is in a desperate position.
Russia is quite possibly opposed to making amends between Ukraine and the West. While the optimal solution has been noticed as stopping the ongoing war, Putin’s intent seems averse to this. There is a Russian desire to recreate the USSR. To have an empire once more, the most important nation being Ukraine. So, for Putin, Ukraine is only the beginning. The USSR was already estranged from the West during the Cold War, hence the notorious iron curtain. Giving into the West is not an option for the remnants of the USSR. Additionally, the prospective demands would be exceedingly high due to the turmoil Russia has inflicted upon Ukraine. Will this thirst ever be fulfilled? Russia, in the conquest of a single nation has become weaker. Every country which Russia invades will become harder and harder to attain. Ukraine has galvanized as a people, other nations may unite against Russia with the same level of firmness. Maybe, as Russia’s position becomes more precarious, this will be realized.
What Should Ukraine do?
What are Ukraine’s takeaways from this conflict? Will Ukraine be strengthened with Western aid, or will it become weaker? Ukraine is in a tenuous position, despite doing well tactically through the duration of the war. The question is how strong are the correlations between the West and Ukraine. Also, are their remnants of Ukraine’s relationship with Russia?
There are sub-sectors of Ukraine which support Russia, but there are also areas which are displaying recalcitrance towards Russian authority. Donetsk and Luhansk, for example, are annexed Russian territory, and generally support Russia. Even if Ukraine obtains them once more, after this turbulent time, will they be cooperative? The Ukrainian people are divided, and quite frankly, cannot form their future on their own. They have to turn to one side or the other. The best option is most likely the Western side. Even so, does the West care about Ukraine as a buffer against Russia or out of genuine sympathy? Zelenskyy has allied with the Western nations, but they don’t have membership to NATO or the EU yet. If the war ends, the West will contribute to recovery efforts, but then what? They’ll be back where they started, under voluptuous Russian desire once more.
If Ukraine becomes a member of the EU, they can become more affluent and affiliated with larger powers. However, can Zelenskyy expect this to occur? He has had a challenging enough time raising support for aircrafts and tanks. The West doesn’t trust Ukraine enough; they are still too close with Russia. The lingering history has a negative effect on this relationship. What will bring this relationship to a tighter stage? How can Ukraine signify they are over Russia? By getting rid of the separatists. Donetsk and Luhansk are not compliant. But by doing this, it is also giving into what Russia wants. Is this ultimately intelligent?
Ukraine’s position is extremely volatile at the current moment. Zelenskyy needs more time to deduce what the Western intent is on this war. If the war continues, membership is more bound to pursue. The proper handling of Western equipment (for example the tanks supplied) will show the West that Ukraine is trustworthy. Until then, it is a stalemate between Ukraine and Russia. The war, for Ukraine, needs more time. The West and Russia have less and less time, so does Ukraine. The West needs to find a climate friendly solution. Russia needs to save their fading nation, and Ukraine is desperate for more support.
Conclusion
Multiple factors lie in the wake of the Ukrainian war. It has coerced Russia and the West to reassess their role in the world. Is there a solution which works mutually for all three powers? Or is all the ambiguity of the war lost? Will the war, one year from now, have developed or waned? Will Ukraine have created a strong economy or a weaker one? What about the economies of the West and Russia? How fast of a rate will Russia’s military decline if they fight in such a capacity? What will Putin’s agenda be? What of the West? How will all of this connect to the big picture: climate change? These are some crucial questions to pose about the war. The whole balance of things has become more complicated. The mere matter of “Who’s winning in territorial terms?” has now become petty.