The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine: An Uncertain Future – OpEd
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has reached the culminating point in an unanticipated way for Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is one of the most brutal wars seen in recent history, with exponential losses in terms of human lives and destruction of properties, as well as lingering psychological impacts in both nations.
This war is seen as one of the strategically miscalculated wars immensely supported by the West, which continues to react to Russian strategies instead of being proactive. The West’s reactive approach has proven time and time again that it paved this precarious situation in Ukraine. The West’s unwavering support to Ukraine has undergone different phases of transition with changes of governments of staunch supporting nations.
However, the impact was minimal as the United States was leading the supporting efforts in Ukraine. In this context, Ukraine still obtained all the support needed to prevail in this conflict. The West’s unwavering support, to a greater extent, not only encouraged the ambitious plans of President Zelensky to liberate some areas under Russian occupation but also to challenge Russian military might. As one can see, there were many inconsistencies in Ukraine’s strategic planning and preparations. Ukraine’s response solely depended on external support on paper rather than the availability of resources in hand. This strategic miscalculation of President Zelensky took Ukraine towards an unreversible failed path, thus permanently changing international security dynamics affecting areas beyond Ukraine. One such example is creating a new military alliance between Russia and North Korea that ultimately augmented the Russian military might.
It is evident that President Zelensky’s plans were merely based on hypothetical situations rather than the availability of resources, thereby over-extending capabilities and making them vulnerable. One such example is the occupation of Russia’s Kursk region with battle-hardened brigades with considerable resources, thus creating a vacuum in the frontlines in Ukraine. Without absolute control of the war mechanism under Ukrainian leadership, the success achieved so far with this move is questionable, and it is hard to understand the strategy behind it. Such moves are only effective for a specific battlefield achievement that could turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor within a specified period. However, Russia maintained its strategic objectives unperturbed, effectively dividing Ukrainian concentration until it had enough combat power to retake areas in Kursk. The level of uncertainty is proved by Ukraine’s top military commander, Colonel General Syrskii’s recent statement that the situation on the front lines is “very, very difficult” due to being outnumbered and outgunned by Russian forces.
According to the latest intelligence reports, the Russian military has assembled a force of 50,000 troops, including North Koreans, to retake the territory seized by Ukraine. If this Russian operation goes as planned, Ukrainian troops in Kursk will face one of the biggest challenges for their survival: over 5:1 enemy superiority. This will undeniably thin the frontline combat readiness in Ukraine, likely resulting in an early culmination of the conflict.
Nevertheless, as of now, the recently concluded elections in the United States won by former President Trump have sent a clear message to the rest of the world that the United States does not intend to drag wars to achieve indirect strategic advantage but aims to stop killings for a better world. As one can see, no supporting country to Ukraine has put forward any means to end the war or encouraged Ukraine to resort to negotiations. This attitude of the staunch supporters has given President Zelensky a free hand that led to this calamity in the international security landscape.
Unrealistic planning, while dependent on external support with hope, is not a recipe for success but leading the way towards a strategic failure. So far, President Putin’s gambit worked as he had envisaged, including incorporating North Korean troops to equate to the combined West. On all accounts, the combined West with Ukraine failed to telegraph a plan to halt Russian aggression and prevent weakening Ukraine’s security posture. On the other hand, President Zelensky’s unrealistic, ambitious plans further weakened Ukraine’s security posture and made frontlines even more vulnerable.
Yet, despite strategic miscalculations, President Zelensky seems not to realize the ground realities. He faced a significant setback in his latest plan, demanding regaining Crimea control. A senior advisor to President-elect Donald Trump has said Ukraine needs to be “realistic” in its aim for the war, adding the Russian-occupied peninsula of Crimea was “gone.” It is time to grapple with the reality that unwavering support does not mean being unrealistic. In such a scenario, “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”
It is time to take a prudent approach to end this brutal war meaningfully that promotes broader international security. It is evident that President Zelensky’s “Victory Plan” has fallen well short of achieving its intended goals. Many Western staunch supporters have expressed different opinions on the Victory Plan for practical reasons, such as to avoid escalation and dragging them toward direct conflict with Russia. It is time for President Zelensky to come to reality and devise an alternative plan to sustain its efforts realistically to garner international support to end the war.
