As the war in Ukraine rages on in its third year, thousands of souls have perished from both sides, while millions of Ukrainians have been displaced and have had to flee for their lives. Spending some time on platforms such as X or Telegram, one can easily witness the total annihilation inflicted by this war. However, despite the urgent calls to put this war to an end, a diplomatic solution that could bring a ceasefire has never been within sight, let alone a peace accord. Why is this the case?
The Origin of the War
Origins of wars may vary; oftentimes, they stem from the avarice of monarchs or leaders who would like to bathe themselves in military accomplishment. Wars have been highly effective in addressing domestic hardship, as it means more resources for the conquerors if they succeed, with the subdued people facing slavery or labor exploitation under the rulers. More land inherently equals more economic prospects, particularly in deltas or estuaries accessible to maritime routes and ports.
However, the case for the Ukraine war is multifaceted, with intense strategic calculations from both belligerents and the parties involved (NATO, China, and other countries). This is partially why the war has dragged on for three years with no peace talks in the foreseeable future.
Russia has been demonized by Western media since the 2000s as the troublemaker that would undermine European security. It came as no surprise that after Putin commenced his special military operation in Ukraine, mainstream public sentiment boiled with fear and anger, with news coverage depicting Russia as a pariah country, its leaders and high-ranking officials as oligarchs, and claiming that the West was fighting to defend a democratic edifice while authoritarianism would rise again if this war were lost.
Before reaching our conclusion, let us visit the reasoning behind each side’s decision.
For Russia, they believe that an existential threat was in the making, which is hard to refute
This is a map detailing all NATO countries and their location relative to Russia (the X on the left is Ukraine, the other is Russia). Unless one has significant problems with colors, it should be obvious to them that Russia is being surrounded on the left side by a nuclear-capable military alliance; and the de facto leader of it, despite its effort to prove otherwise, is the US. The accession of Ukraine’s membership by NATO would effectively create a vast expanse and border for the deployment of military equipment over a 2000-km shared border, and it would be unwise to believe that no nuclear warhead would be present. Such an imminent threat is adequate to keep any (competent) leader awake at night. The situation is further exacerbated by the geographical curse which Russia has to confront, detailed in this topography map.
You may have noticed that the northern and southern regions of the continent are densely separated by the Alps (marking the border of Switzerland, France, and Italy), the Pyrenees (France and Spain), and the Carpathians (the Balkans). In stark contrast, the east-west corridor of the continent is largely flat, often referred to as the North European Plain, accommodating both Paris and Moscow. In effect, one can drive from the Atlantic Ocean to Moscow without any ordeal, which is frequent in more treacherous terrains.
But militarily speaking, this spells existential dangers.
In his book, Prisoners of Geography, Tim Marshall believes that if Putin had a dream, it would be to raise some mountain ranges to the west of Moscow. Mountain ranges, despite their economically restrictive nature, have served as formidable natural barriers in favor of defenders since antiquity, with fortified cities and defensive structures densely distributed to repel offensives at chokepoints, where the defenders can effectively control these bottlenecks with fewer resources. In the meantime, countries with vast expanses of plain, flat land have to distribute their human and military resources over a huge area, posing the threat of overstretching. In the case of Russia, the North European plain widens once it reaches Ukraine and Russia, stretching far and wide until it meets the Urals. In short, Russia’s borders with Ukraine are easy to cross, and its NATO membership is simply unpalatable to the Russians, as the bloc can make future military advances without facing any significant natural barriers, while nuclear missiles could reach Moscow in around 5 minutes. A thorn in the side is an understatement for this situation.
The West’s Strategic Ambiguity and Hypocrisy
In the meantime, as the war in Gaza is about to enter its second year, the double standards upheld by the West have become ever clear. As Israel commits atrocious war crimes and genocides in Gaza, the West remains astoundingly silent, with only sporadic criticism. Any sensible person will have to pose some questions regarding the different treatment received by both war-waging countries.
The most seemingly valid point made is that Russia commenced the war, while Israel suffered from a catastrophic attack by Hamas on October 7th. Nevertheless, this point omits the fact that the West is far from being blameless, as their constant citation of freedom of choice, which claims the Ukrainians are entitled to make their choice, be it joining NATO or the EU. An interesting counterargument for this view is the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which the US planned pre-emptive strikes on Cuba to destroy any imminent missile threats which could have reached continental America. It is safe to argue that Cuba was likewise entitled to their choice, which was to be protected by the USSR; but the West, for some reason, has completely forgotten all about this historical event in today’s context. Russia, meanwhile, has complained and warned the West against NATO’s eastward expansion for decades, and for good reasons. If the US could not withstand the idea of a missile-equipped Cuba, why force Russia to bear the same pain-in-the-neck scenario?
And who really benefits from this war?
Russia, despite its captured land and human resources, is simply not the winner, however they emerge from this war, owing to the copious resources spent on armament. It would be a long time before their gains could pay dividends, as they are in decline and face significant demographic challenges. Their war-torn cities would need multi-billion-dollar rebuilding projects, their war supplies need restocking, and their economy needs revitalizing.
For Ukrainians, the answer is even more obvious. People displaced, infrastructure disintegrated, and resources exhausted. It will take decades, not years, for them to restore even a shadow of their former self, let alone regain their former strength. It is unlikely that the exiled will return to their homeland given the potential instability, as the West and Russia compete for influence. There is no denying that rebuilding a war-torn Ukraine would cost thousands of billions of dollars, and who is going to cover such a hefty bill?
The West, of course, but there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The military and financial aid given to Ukraine are largely loans, which means they are required to be repaid once the war (if ever) is over; but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Destroyed cities will need rebuilding, and it is safe to say that the West’s prominent financial institutions will soon jump in to make investments and profit indirectly from this war, while being hailed as the saviors of the country. They are also containing Russia without any death toll, while Ukrainians are being used as mere pawns, sacrificing their lives for the calculations of foreign powers who have manipulated them into believing neutrality is a poor idea.
I would love to discuss more on this, but seriously, who is going to read until this line. :>
