Reflections on the Russia-Ukraine War

 To revisit the dynamics surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war, we must start with the fundamental premise: war is the continuation of politics by other means. A military instrument is employed when the objective is to alter the existing peace—the status quo—into a "new peace" that aligns more closely with one’s interests. When no other avenue remains and the objective is existential, war commences. This is a classic formulation.

Given this reality, a cessation of hostilities without security guarantees offers nothing to either Europe or Ukraine, so long as the capacity and will to resist remain. Until the fundamental law of war—imposing one's will through force—takes full effect, the conflict persists. Ultimately, the goal of any war is to force the adversary to accept the "new peace" dictated by the aggressor.

Let us recall the Kremlin’s pre-war objectives: the so-called "denazification" and demilitarization of Ukraine, and its permanent severance from a Western trajectory, specifically precluding NATO integration. Ukraine’s significance to any Russian project—which is inherently imperial in nature—is paramount. In Putin's vision, there is no "Third Rome" without these Slavic territories; this is the core of their imperial perception. To date, these maximalist goals remain unachieved, with control established only over partial territories.

Because the imposition of Russian will through military means remains ambiguous, the situation dictates that either Ukrainian resistance must be broken, or the war will continue.

The complexity of the current situation lies in determining what guarantees can be offered to Ukraine and at what cost. This is inextricably linked to Kyiv’s perception of the battlefield and its definition of political objectives within this war. Without this definition, interpreting "compromise" becomes impossible.

Ukraine must clearly define what constitutes "success" or "victory" in this historical perspective, as this determines the war’s endpoint. If the goal is merely to deny the Kremlin its objectives, then one can speak of Moscow's success. If the goal is the full restoration of territorial integrity, the calculus changes. This is the primary task of the political leadership during wartime.

Conversely, Russia cannot stop because its goals (denazification, etc.) have not been met. Complicating this is Russia’s mobilized war economy and Putin’s domestic imperatives. Consequently, a peace based on terms where Russia’s objectives remain unsatisfied is unacceptable to Moscow, and vice versa for Kyiv. Thus, we face the current deadlock.

Europe must adopt a long-term view: what will this "new peace" bring, and might it contain greater threats than the status quo? A sudden halt by Kyiv, resulting in fragile peace, is almost certainly a guarantee of renewed war in the future.

Since total objectives are currently out of reach for both sides—especially Moscow—any negotiation providing concrete guarantees to Kyiv requires Ukraine to clearly conceptualize its military-political limitations. If the military objective is immediate territorial restoration, the potential to achieve this does not exist in the near term. Whether it will exist in the future depends heavily on American and European approaches to the structure of the new peace.

Beyond external guarantees, Kyiv must ensure internal political and societal resilience in the post-war environment to avoid falling victim to Moscow’s hybrid warfare methods. Post-war environments are chaotic; accumulated internal grievances and systemic rot will surface.

Therefore, combating corruption and ensuring systemic stability will be Ukraine’s most critical near-term agenda. A corrupt official is a vulnerability—not only susceptible to prosecution but, more dangerously, susceptible to recruitment by the enemy.

For peace negotiations to be realistic, Kyiv must delineate its immediate political objectives and communicate them transparently to its population. Simultaneously, the West has its own divergence in objectives. Europe must emerge from this conflict as an independent geopolitical actor if it wishes to maintain long-term stability. Unilateral communications and separate plays by the United States regarding Ukraine naturally undermine transatlantic unity.

Taking all this into account, the picture is stark. We must also not overlook the role of the "Eastern enablers" of this war, who operate with their own distinct agendas.

Throughout this entire period, history is being written in the blood of Ukrainian soldiers and citizens. They have no other choice. The situation is grave; without difficult compromises, Kyiv has few options left so long as Moscow retains the capacity to wage war.

Therefore, the guarantees underpinning this new peace must establish conditions in which Kyiv feels secure regarding its political objectives in the immediate term. Simultaneously, Europe must anchor the pillars of its own new security architecture within the very structure of this peace settlement.