The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established in 1949 as a direct response to the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Built upon the principle of collective defence, enshrined in Article 5 of its founding treaty, NATO played a pivotal role in maintaining transatlantic security during the second half of the 20th century. However, in the post-Cold War era, NATO’s relevance has been increasingly questioned due to shifting global power dynamics, emerging security threats, and internal divisions among member states. While NATO remains a significant military alliance, its ability to adapt to contemporary security challenges will determine its continued importance in the evolving world order.
The Cold War’s End and the Loss of a Defined Adversary. NATO was created primarily to counter the Soviet Union and its communist bloc. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the alliance lost its primary adversary, creating uncertainty about its purpose. The following decades saw NATO struggling to redefine its role as the global security landscape shifted away from Cold War-style confrontations. While NATO expanded its membership and engaged in various global missions, critics argue that the absence of a direct military threat comparable to the Soviet Union has undermined its necessity.
Reduced Military Engagements and Shifting Priorities. In the post-Cold War era, NATO took on out-of-area missions, notably in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya, demonstrating its role in global security. However, its military engagements have become more restrained in recent years. The withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and the reluctance of many European nations to involve themselves in conflicts beyond their immediate borders signal a decreasing appetite for large-scale NATO-led interventions. This shift has raised questions about NATO’s continued role as an active military force or whether it is becoming more of a political and diplomatic entity.
Evolving Threats: Cyber Warfare, Terrorism, and Hybrid Conflicts. Modern security threats have evolved beyond conventional military conflicts. Cyber warfare, terrorism, pandemics, and economic crises increasingly define global security concerns. NATO has attempted to adapt by enhancing its cyber defence capabilities and counter-terrorism strategies. However, critics argue that these new threats often require diplomatic, economic, and technological responses rather than purely military solutions, making other organisations such as the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) more relevant in addressing such challenges.
Multipolarity and the Shift toward Asia. The global power structure is transitioning from a unipolar world dominated by the United States to a multipolar system in which China, Russia, and other regional actors exert significant influence. This shift challenges NATO’s traditional dominance. The rise of China and its increasing military modernisation, alongside new security alliances like AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) and the Quad (US, India, Japan, Australia), suggest that the Indo-Pacific region is becoming a greater priority for NATO’s key member, the United States (Brookings Institution, 2024). As a result, NATO’s Euro-Atlantic focus risks diminishing in importance, particularly as Washington recalibrates its strategic priorities toward the Indo-Pacific.
Divergent Security Interests among NATO Members. NATO members increasingly have divergent security concerns. While Eastern European countries prioritise the threat from Russia, Western European nations emphasise diplomatic solutions and strategic autonomy. Meanwhile, Turkey pursues its regional agenda in the Middle East, often clashing with broader NATO objectives. These competing interests create friction within the alliance and raise doubts about its long-term cohesion.
Burden-Sharing and Defence Spending Disputes. One of NATO’s most persistent internal challenges is burden-sharing. The 2014 NATO Summit set a target for member states to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence, yet as of 2023, only 11 out of 31 members met this goal (The Economist, 2024). The United States, which contributes disproportionately to NATO’s military budget, has repeatedly criticised its European allies for failing to uphold their financial commitments. These disparities fuel tensions and questions about NATO’s sustainability if burden-sharing remains unbalanced.
NATO’s Provocative Expansion. Since 1999, NATO has added 14 former Soviet or Warsaw Pact states to its membership, exacerbating tensions with Russia. Critics argue that NATO’s eastward expansion has contributed to geopolitical conflicts, particularly in Ukraine. Russia perceives NATO’s enlargement as a direct security threat, and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine can, in part, be seen as Moscow’s pushback against NATO’s growing footprint in Eastern Europe. While NATO insists on its open-door policy, some analysts caution that continued expansion risks further escalating tensions with Russia without necessarily increasing European security.
The Rise of Alternative Security Frameworks. As NATO grapples with internal divisions, other international alliances emerge as alternative security structures. Organisations like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) present non-Western frameworks for economic and security cooperation. The European Union (EU) has also pursued greater military autonomy through initiatives like PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), signalling a potential shift away from US-led security arrangements. If Europe continues to develop independent defence capabilities, NATO’s role as the continent’s primary security guarantor could diminish.
NATO’s Strength: Adaptation and Collective Defence. Despite these challenges, NATO remains the world’s most powerful military alliance, providing collective security and deterrence. Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all and remains a core pillar of transatlantic security. NATO has also adapted to modern threats by creating rapid response forces, strengthening its cyber defence strategies, and increasing cooperation in hybrid warfare tactics. These adaptations ensure that NATO remains relevant in key areas, even as its global dominance faces competition.
NATO’s Future in an Evolving Global Order. NATO’s relevance in the modern world order is contested. On one hand, the alliance remains a critical security framework for Western democracies, deterring aggression and maintaining transatlantic cohesion. On the other hand, shifting geopolitical priorities, internal divisions, and the rise of alternative security alliances present significant challenges to its continued dominance.
Conclusion. Ultimately, NATO’s future will depend on its ability to adapt to new security threats and navigate internal fractures while remaining a key player in global stability. Whether NATO will evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century or gradually cede influence to emerging security frameworks remains one of the most pressing questions in contemporary international relations.
Please Enhance the content further with value addition.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
References:-
Andersen, L. R. (2021). The challenges of NATO burden-sharing. Global Affairs, 7(2), 185-202.
BBC News. (2023). NATO expansion: What it means for global security. Retrieved from [URL]
Brookings Institution. (2024). NATO and the rise of China: A strategic outlook.
Chatham House. (2021). The future of NATO: Adapting to a multipolar world.
European Parliament. (2022). The EU and NATO: Cooperation and challenges.
NATO. (2023). Cyber security and hybrid warfare initiatives.
Walt, S. M. (2022). NATO’s role in a changing global order. Foreign Affairs, 101(3), 45–58.
My article published on the EurasianTimes Website on 08 Mar 25.
Diplomatic meetings between world leaders are often carefully choreographed to project unity, resolve, and a sense of shared purpose. However, the recent press meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky defied all such expectations, quickly descending into a diplomatic debacle. Marked by confusion, contradictions, and apparent miscommunication, the event highlighted broader concerns about U.S. foreign policy, Ukraine’s ongoing struggle for support, and the personal dynamics of both leaders.
Background: A History of Tense Relations
The Trump-Zelensky relationship has never been straightforward. From the infamous 2019 impeachment inquiry that stemmed from a call between the two leaders to ongoing questions about U.S. military aid to Ukraine, the relationship has been defined by political manoeuvring and controversy. Trump’s scepticism regarding continued assistance to Ukraine and his past praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin further complicated the dynamic, making any public engagement between him and Zelensky a high-stakes affair. Zelensky, who has tirelessly lobbied for international support, entered the meeting seeking reassurances of continued U.S. backing. Conversely, Trump appeared less committed to a strong pro-Ukraine stance, leading to inevitable friction.
The Press Meeting: Breakdown of the Fiasco
Opening Remarks and Immediate Tensions. The meeting began with a sense of unease. Zelensky, clearly aware of the political delicacy of the moment, attempted to emphasise the need for U.S. solidarity with Ukraine. He spoke about Ukraine’s resilience, the necessity of sustained military aid, and the importance of a united front against Russian aggression. Trump, however, struck a different tone. Instead of affirming U.S. support unequivocally, he pivoted to grievances about past U.S. financial commitments, echoing his longstanding argument that European nations should bear more burden for Ukraine’s defence. He also made cryptic remarks about Ukraine’s leadership and the need for a negotiated settlement with Russia, which many interpreted as a sign of wavering commitment.
Contradictory Statements and Public Disagreements. As the meeting progressed, the contradictions between the two leaders became more evident. In response to a journalist’s question about military aid, Zelensky reaffirmed Ukraine’s urgent need for continued weapons shipments. Trump, however, avoided direct commitments, instead suggesting that if he were in office, he would have “ended the war in 24 hours,” a vague assertion he repeated without offering concrete details. The starkest moment of discord came when a reporter pressed Trump on whether he believed Ukraine could win the war against Russia. Trump hesitated, then pivoted to criticising NATO and questioning whether Europe was doing enough. Zelensky, visibly frustrated, countered by stressing that Ukraine’s ability to win depended on consistent U.S. and allied support. The exchange underscored the growing gap between the two leaders’ worldviews.
Mixed Signals. Observers were quick to highlight the numerous diplomatic missteps throughout the meeting. Trump’s non-committal language and refusal to explicitly endorse continued U.S. military support for Ukraine was seen as a signal of uncertainty, leaving allies and adversaries speculating about future policy shifts. While maintaining his composure, Zelensky’s increasingly direct responses indicated his dissatisfaction and frustration with Trump’s reluctance to take a firm stance. Trump’s critique of NATO contributions muddled the broader message further about Western unity, raising concerns among European allies.
Diplomacy at its Worse.
The Fragility of Diplomatic Engagements. The meeting’s abrupt shift from a planned minerals agreement to a contentious exchange underscores the delicate nature of diplomatic interactions. Despite prior negotiations, the inability to finalise the deal highlights how quickly diplomatic efforts can unravel when foundational trust and mutual respect are compromised. The casual and often adversarial tone of Trump’s remarks toward Zelensky further exemplified a shift in diplomatic norms. Rather than projecting a united front, Trump’s statements highlighted internal divisions and personal grievances.
The Importance of Diplomatic Protocol and Respect. The public nature of the dispute, with President Trump accusing President Zelenskyy of ingratitude, deviated from traditional diplomatic decorum. Such breaches can strain bilateral relations and diminish the effectiveness of future diplomatic engagements, emphasising the need for maintaining professionalism and mutual respect in international affairs. Despite attempts to project unity, Zelensky’s visible discomfort and Trump’s dismissive attitude toward concerns about quid pro quo revealed the limitations of public diplomacy when deeper tensions exist behind the scenes. The meeting failed to resolve underlying doubts about U.S.-Ukraine relations and instead amplified media scrutiny.
Mixing Domestic Politics with Foreign Relationships
The Influence of U.S. Domestic Politics on Foreign Relations. The press conference underscored how U.S. foreign policy, especially toward allies, is deeply entangled with internal political battles. President Trump’s confrontational stance, influenced by internal political dynamics, exemplifies how domestic agendas can shape foreign policy decisions. Trump’s remarks about Ukraine and its supposed history of corruption tied directly into his impeachment inquiry, showing how personal political interests can shape international dealings. This incident illustrates foreign leaders’ challenges when navigating the complex landscape of U.S. internal politics, especially when partisan considerations overshadow international commitments.
The Influence of Personal Diplomacy on International Relations. The incident highlights how personal dynamics between leaders can profoundly impact bilateral relations. The personal grievances aired during the meeting suggest that individual personalities and interpersonal interactions play a critical role in shaping the course of international diplomacy.
The Precarious Position of U.S. Allies in a “Transactional” Foreign Policy. Trump’s “America First” approach was evident in his insistence that European nations should contribute more to Ukraine’s defence. This transactional nature of U.S. support made it clear that Ukraine (and similar allies) could not assume unconditional backing but had to navigate shifting expectations and potential political costs.
Domestic and International Reactions
U.S. Political Response. Reactions to the meeting in Washington were polarised. Trump’s Republican allies attempted to downplay the discord, with some arguing that Trump’s tough talk was aimed at pushing European nations to contribute more. However, critics, especially from the Democratic Party and foreign policy experts, warned that Trump’s ambiguity could embolden Russia and undermine Ukraine’s war effort. Some within the party, particularly those who support continued aid to Ukraine, expressed concerns about how Trump’s remarks might be interpreted in Kyiv and Moscow. Some in Congress argue that Trump’s stance weakens America’s leadership role, while his base largely supports a reduced involvement in Ukraine.
Ukrainian Stance. Reactions in Ukraine were mixed but largely apprehensive. Ukrainian officials emphasised their appreciation for past U.S. support but privately expressed concerns about Trump’s unpredictable stance. Some Ukrainian commentators viewed the meeting as a missed opportunity to secure more substantial commitments from a key U.S. leader with potential future influence.
European Reactions. European leaders, meanwhile, were alarmed by Trump’s comments on NATO burden-sharing. French and German officials reiterated their commitment to Ukraine but privately worried that Trump’s rhetoric could further strain transatlantic relations. Moscow, predictably, seized on Trump’s remarks as evidence of weakening Western resolve, with Russian state media amplifying his criticisms of NATO and U.S. financial commitments to Ukraine.
Russian Reaction. Moscow obviously approved of the discord between the U.S. and Ukraine. Russian officials have openly expressed satisfaction over the fallout, viewing it as a potential weakening of NATO unity and a strategic advantage for Russia. Russia may see this as an opportunity to prolong the war and test NATO’s resolve.
Post-Meeting US Follow-up Actions
Following the contentious Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28, 2025, President Donald Trump has reportedly undertaken several actions.
Public Criticism of President Zelensky. In the aftermath of the meeting, President Trump publicly criticised President Zelensky, accusing him of disrespecting the United States during his visit to the Oval Office. Trump expressed that Zelensky’s attitude was not conducive to peace negotiations and suggested that U.S. support could be reconsidered if Ukraine is not committed to resolving the conflict.
Suspension of Military Aid. President Trump ordered a “pause” on U.S. military aid to Ukraine, aiming to pressure President Zelensky into engaging in peace talks with Russia. This suspension affects all military equipment not yet in Ukraine, including weapons en route by air or sea and those held in transit areas in Poland.
Suspension of Intelligence Sharing. President Donald Trump has suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine. The suspension encompasses critical data on Russian military movements and intentions. The Trump administration has indicated that this suspension is a temporary measure contingent upon Ukraine’s engagement in peace negotiations with Russia.
Re-evaluation of U.S. Support for Ukraine. The administration is reassessing its stance on unconditional support for Ukraine. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated that the U.S. is no longer willing to provide unchecked aid without a clear path to peace, reflecting a shift in policy towards a more conditional approach based on Ukraine’s cooperation in peace efforts. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz mentioned that the U.S. is pausing and reviewing all aspects of its relationship with Ukraine.
Russian Recent Kursk Operations
In recent developments, Russian forces have launched a significant offensive in the Kursk region, aiming to encircle Ukrainian troops. On March 5, 2025, taking advantage of the cessation of U.S. intelligence support to Ukraine, Russian units advanced rapidly southward, threatening the main Ukrainian stronghold at Sudzha. This manoeuvre risks encircling approximately 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers, prompting the Ukrainian command to consider a strategic withdrawal to avoid substantial losses. The suspension of U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing has critically weakened Ukraine’s defensive capabilities in the area. These developments underscore a rapidly evolving and precarious situation in the Kursk region, with potential implications for the broader conflict dynamics.
Implications
Uncertainty over Future U.S. Policy. The meeting reinforced growing uncertainty over the future of U.S. policy toward Ukraine. With Trump’s return to the White House, Ukrainian officials must prepare for a more transactional approach to diplomacy that could demand greater European involvement and a shift in U.S. support priorities.
Impact on Ukraine’s War Effort. For Ukraine, clarity on long-term U.S. support remains critical. Trump’s lack of firm commitments in this meeting means Kyiv will likely intensify its outreach to Congress and other Western leaders to secure ongoing aid. If Trump or his allies push for a reduction in assistance, Ukraine may face more significant challenges in sustaining its military operations against Russia.
Zelensky’s Political Future. Domestically, Zelensky faces mounting pressure. Critics argue that his confrontational approach with Trump may jeopardise Ukraine’s international support, leading some U.S. lawmakers to question continued assistance. Senator Lindsey Graham suggested that Zelensky consider resigning or altering his stance to maintain U.S. support.
Geopolitical Ramifications. Beyond the U.S.-Ukraine dynamic, the meeting had broader implications for global diplomacy. It highlighted deepening divisions within the West over approaching the Ukraine conflict and signalled to adversaries that American foreign policy may remain unpredictable. This uncertainty could embolden Russia while complicating efforts to maintain a strong and united Western response.
Knock-on Effects
Impact on NATO and Global Diplomacy. The incident has exposed rifts within NATO and raised questions about the alliance’s cohesion. European nations would now contemplate increased defence budgets and a more autonomous security strategy independent of U.S. leadership.
Power Dynamics in Asymmetrical Alliances. Zelensky’s cautious and deferential tone initially highlighted the challenges faced by smaller nations dependent on U.S. military and financial support. His attempt to downplay the controversy around Trump’s alleged pressure suggested an effort to maintain favour with Washington while avoiding deeper entanglement in U.S. domestic politics.
The Strategic Calculations of Smaller Nations. Ukraine’s predicament reflects the complex calculus smaller nations must perform when aligning with major powers. Balancing national interests against the expectations of powerful allies requires astute diplomacy, especially when those allies’ internal politics are in flux. Countries reliant on U.S. security guarantees may reconsider their alliances, fearing instability in American foreign policy.
The Necessity for Allies to Diversify Support. Given the U.S. administration’s unpredictable stance, Ukraine’s subsequent outreach to European leaders signifies the importance of nations diversifying their alliances. Relying on a single ally, especially one with shifting foreign policy positions, can leave countries vulnerable, underscoring the need for a broad base of international support.
Conclusion
The Trump-Zelensky press meeting was a textbook example of how diplomatic engagements can go awry. The event showcased the growing uncertainty surrounding U.S.-Ukraine relations, from mixed messaging to visible tensions. For Ukraine, securing unwavering support remains a top priority, while for Trump, the meeting underscored his evolving and often ambiguous stance on foreign policy. As the war in Ukraine continues, the need for clear, consistent, and unified diplomatic messaging has never been greater. Whether future engagements between the U.S. and Ukraine can avoid similar pitfalls remains an open question with high stakes for both nations and the wider international community.
Please Do Comment.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
References:-
The Guardian. “Trump criticises European leaders at Starmer’s Ukraine summit for saying they need US support – as it happened.” The Guardian, March 3, 2025.
New York Post. “Trump pauses all US military aid to Ukraine after heated Oval Office meeting with Zelensky.” New York Post, March 3, 2025.
The Times. “Zelensky ‘won’t be around very long’, says Trump – as it happened.” The Times, March 3, 2025.
Vanity Fair. “Kremlin Hails Trump’s Zelensky Blow-Up: Washington Now ‘Aligns With Our Vision’.” Vanity Fair, March 3, 2025.
India Today. “Zelenskyy breaks silence on Trump’s public dressing-down: Don’t think it’s right.” India Today, March 3, 2025.
Hindustan Times. “US News Live Today March 1, 2025: Donald Trump says Zelenskyy can return for talks when ‘ready for peace’.” Hindustan Times, March 1, 2025.
The Indian Express. “Zelenskyy wants to work ‘directly’ with Trump, suggests measures to end Russia-Ukraine war.” The Indian Express, December 1, 2024.
The Times. “Trump and Zelensky clash at the White House – as it happened.” The Times, March 1, 2025.
TFI Global News. “Trump Zelensky White House clash: A Diplomatic Disaster with far-reaching consequences.” TFI Global News, March 1, 2025.
Article published in the inaugural issue of the News Analytics Journal
Introduction
The Russia–Ukraine war, now in its third year with no end in sight, has had a profound and complex impact on every aspect of warfare and international engagement. It has brought issues related to the new emerging world order, multilateralism, collective security, nuclear deterrence, economic sanctions, information warfare, and food and energy security to the forefront. Understanding the intricate implications of this war on international relations and military operations is of utmost importance.
Several questions are intriguing to the strategic community and military analysts. For instance, there is a debate over whether Russia has deployed its full military might and failed, as the West has criticised it for its lack of capabilities. Alternatively, is Russia adopting a more nuanced approach to using force and the resulting destruction? The war, which is still fiercely ongoing, has reached a phase of engagement with long-range vectors and drones, with Ukraine’s retaliation and Russian punitive action. There seems to be no end in sight for the conflict. Despite these debates, an analysis of geopolitical aspects, international reactions, and the conduct of military operations can yield valuable insights.
Genesis
On the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine voted in favour of independence from the Soviet Union in a referendum. Russian President Boris Yeltsin accepted the vote, and Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus set up a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In December 1994, after the end of the Cold War, Ukraine, Russia, the UK, and the US agreed to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and borders in exchange for Ukraine abandoning the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviet Union. In May 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed a friendship treaty. It settled a fundamental disagreement and allowed Russia to retain ownership of most ships in the Black Sea fleet (based in Ukraine’s Crimea) in exchange for Moscow paying Kyiv a modest rent to use the port of Sebastopol. Moscow also remained Kyiv’s most important commercial partner, with Ukraine dependent on Russian oil and gas.
Ukraine, perceiving the CIS as a potential tool for Moscow’s influence, maintained a cautious stance and showed an apparent inclination towards the West, actively seeking ties with the US-led NATO military alliance. This oscillation between the Eastern and Western blocs was an essential characteristic of Ukraine’s foreign policy. In 2005, Ukraine reiterated its desire to join the EU, along with NATO. In 2008, at a summit in Bucharest, NATO leaders agreed that Ukraine had a future in the alliance, sparking Moscow’s ire. In 2014, Russia sent its Special Forces to take control of strategic sites on Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula. In March 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty absorbing Crimea into Russia. The annexation provoked the worst diplomatic crisis between the West and Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. In April 2014, a pro-Russian rebellion erupted in Ukraine’s industrial eastern areas. Pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk declare their regions to be independent. Ukraine and its Western allies accused Russia of instigating the uprising and pouring in arms and troops to bolster the self-proclaimed republics. The clashes became a full-blown conflict in May 2014.
Perspective: Relevant Aspects of Present Conflict
On 24 Feb 22, Russia invaded Ukraine, calling it an extraordinary military operation. The Russian narrative is that “The US-led West (the USA, NATO and EU) is the aggressor, using Ukraine against it as a pawn, not honouring its commitment and expanding the NATO westwards, bringing it to the Russian doorstep, and compelling Russia into taking this drastic action”. On the other hand, the Western narrative is that “Russia is the aggressor, trying to rebuild its lost empire, with Ukraine being the victim, and the West is supporting the democratic rights of the victim country”.
Russian Objectives. Officially, Russia stated its objectives of the “special military operation” as “demilitarisation, denazification and assurance about the neutral status of Ukraine (i.e., not joining NATO).” This operation, also known as the ‘Russian-Ukrainian War ‘, was justified by Russia citing a call for help from the Donbas region for its liberation from Ukraine. An undeclared objective is also to consolidate the Russian hold on Crimea.
Military Power Comparison. There is a significant disparity between the strength of Russia’s and Ukraine’s defence forces. Russia is the number two military power globally. The Russian Air Force is ranked second, whereas the Ukrainian Air Force is ranked 27th globally. Numerically, the Russian Air Force is about 8 – 10 times the size of the Ukrainian Air Force. The Russian army is 3 to 6 times that of the Ukrainian military compared to the army’s strength and equipment.
Orchestration of Operations. The operations were initiated by Russia with hybrid warfare using disruption (cyber-attacks) and destruction (using surface-to-surface and air-delivered long-range vectors). A fair amount of air superiority was achieved in the initial stages. The surface operations were three-pronged, with attacks from North, East and South. In the North, the advance was towards Kyiv and Kharkiv, intending for regime change at the capital. In the east, advances towards Donbas, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Mariupol were obviously to liberate the Donbas area and create a Russia-friendly corridor. In the south, addressing Kherson, Mykolaiv, Odesa, and Snake Island was to consolidate hold on Crimea and deny sea access to Ukraine.
Phase I of The War. In this phase, the Russian intention was to take over the capital with swift action and bring in a regime change. Surface forces advanced towards Kyiv on two axes, with the third axis being by the air domain. The Russian Special Forces took over the Hostomel airport (25 Km from Kyiv) to pump in combatants, equipment and supplies. However, the helicopters and the heavy-lift transport aircraft could not land due to vulnerability from shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, failing the overall plan.
Phase II of the War. The Russian forces reorganised a few weeks into the war, and concentration shifted from northern to eastern and southern areas. The operations in this phase were like urban guerrilla warfare, with Russian forces surrounding the cities and Ukrainian forces employing defensive, hit-and-run tactics. What stands out in the entire operation is that the Russians did not utilise the full potential of the airpower despite the significant disparity between the forces of the two countries.
Russian Referendum. In late September 2022, Russia held referendums in four areas of Ukraine – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. On 30 September 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the takeover of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia in an address to both houses of the Russian parliament. As far as Russia is concerned, this marked the completion of its special operations in Ukraine.
Achievement of Objectives. So far, Russia has been able to create a ‘friendly corridor’ in its eastern region, a term used to describe the areas under Russian control that serve as a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine. The Russians have considerably reduced the Ukrainian combat potential by destroying most of its military bases and selective defence industry. Russia has also consolidated its hold on Crimea, ending its water and power blockade. In addition, it has stalled the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO for the time being.
Application of Military Power. The Russians followed a delicate approach and did not use the full potential of their military power. The Western media criticise them for their poor planning, tactics, and training, poor performance of weapons and equipment and the lack of synergy between defence forces. One of the reasons for the self-imposed restraint could be to avoid too much destruction and collateral damage, keeping in mind the public opinion (domestic and worldwide) and long-term problems of insurgency, revolution, and resistance. For the same reason, Russia has not jumped into information warfare. The second reason could be to conserve its military power for a more significant threat in the future.
Western Aid to Ukraine: Gradually Enhancing its Offensive Capability.
Defence and security links between Ukraine, NATO members and other allies and partners started soon after Ukraine’s independence in 1991. They intensified when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 but primarily took the form of training and the bilateral provision of non-lethal military equipment. After the commencement of the Russia-Ukraine war on 24 February 2022, bilateral military assistance has been significantly stepped up, with many allies supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine. In addition to massive funds, the West gave Ukraine equipment to defend itself. These included anti-tank missiles and drones to stem Russian ground advances. Much more important were the Air Defence systems that prevented the Russian Air Force from using Ukrainian skies with immunity.
During the initial part of the war, the U.S. and Western allies were hesitant to provide long-range offensive and more sophisticated weaponry to Ukraine over fears of an escalation of the war. Either Russia would see it as an escalation from NATO, or Ukraine itself could escalate the conflict by striking targets within Russia. As the conflict in Ukraine has evolved, so have the types of weaponry being provided.
While maintaining the high priority of air defence and the supply of ammunition, the West has gradually enhanced Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities. Ukraine has been pleading for weapons that can strike more profoundly and deeper behind the front lines. Initial aid packages had limited-range howitzers for use at the frontline. Later, the High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS—with 77km range rockets) was added to the package. This was a significant boost for the Ukrainian military, allowing it to target Russian forward area ammunition dumps and weapons storage facilities. After that, a 150 km range Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) was included. It put within reach all of Russia’s supply lines in the east of the country as well as part of Russian-occupied Crimea. Late last year, the U.S. began to supply Ukraine with the older medium-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) armed with wide-spreading cluster munitions that can travel up to 160 Km. Now, the U.S. is leaning toward sending the longer-range version of the missile with a 300 km range.
These weapons, along with drones, provide Ukraine with the capabilities to strike deep farther inside the Russian-held territory. Kyiv has already embarked on a drone attack on oil and energy facilities inside mainland Russia and an attack on a Russian military airfield in Crimea. It also struck the province of Tatarstan earlier, marking Ukraine’s most profound attack inside Russia so far. It has also continued its attack on Russia’s fleet in the Black Sea. Russian punitive strikes with long-range missiles and hypersonic weapons follow these attacks.
Current Phase and the Future Prospects of the War.
Overall, the pace of the war has slowed down with periodic fluctuations. Russia is trying to hold onto the so-called liberated territories, while Ukraine is trying counteroffensives. Ukraine cannot sustain the war on its own and needs economic and military aid from the West. Both countries, besides economic suffering, have suffered losses of men, materials and equipment in the two-plus-year-long war. However, they cannot accept backtracking now. Acceptance of the loss of Ukrainian territory would be seen as a defeat for the US-led West (including NATO and EU countries). Loss of occupied territory back to Ukraine would be considered a defeat for Russia. So, the stalemate continues, and there is no honourable exit possibility for either.
The prevailing domestic situation in both countries is an aversion to further loss of human life. The West is encouraging Ukraine to continue and is enhancing its offensive capabilities with stand-off weapons. Russia is responding to the Ukrainian counter-offensive attacks with punitive strikes using long-range weapons and missiles. This engagement phase with long-range stand-off weapons, drones, and missiles will be long-drawn. The war is, in the broader sense, between the Eastern and Western blocs. So far, due consideration has been given to the escalation control. However, a miss calculation by either side could be catastrophic for the involved countries, the region, and the world.
Claire Mills, “Military assistance to Ukraine since the Russian invasion”, Research Briefing, House of Commons Library, 2 May 2024.
Mike Stone and Max Hunder, “Ukraine’s new weapon will force a Russian shift”, Reuters, February 2, 2023.
Courtney Kube, “Biden administration is leaning toward supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles”, NBC News, Feb. 19, 2024.
“Biden Administration Announces Significant New Security Assistance for Ukraine”, US Department of Defence, Press Release, April 24, 2024.
Sean Boynton, “U.S. is sending Ukraine longer-range weapons with new aid why it Matters”, Global News, April 24, 2024.
Brent M. Eastwood, “Why Hasn’t Russia Unleashed Its Air Power over Ukraine?” Published May 10, 2022.
Tim Robinson, “Air War over Ukraine – the first days”, Royal Aeronautical Society, 2 March 2022.
Davis Winkie, “Ukraine receives more armed drones amid Russian invasion”, Military Times, 04 Mar 2022.
“Understanding the Russo-Ukrainian war: a guide”, from the War on the Rocks Site.
Stephen Crowley, “After a ceasefire, would Russia simply fight again?” commentary, War on the Rocks, Dec 21, 2023.
Disclaimer:
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
