From The Irreversible Path To NATO At The Negotiating Table – Analysis
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues without a pause for the third year, causing significant changes in the international threat landscape with shifting frontlines as never seen before. In this, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has come to a decisive moment, and a new chapter in the annals of high-intensity war in the modern era is likely to be rewritten. The war between Russia and Ukraine is by far the bloodiest symmetric warfare seen in the modern day in terms of intensity and the technologically advanced weapon systems used by both parties, causing enormous destruction.
It is pertinent to look into the concept of symmetric warfare and its applicability in this conflict. Symmetric warfare refers to disputes where the opposing forces have comparable military power,resources, and strategy to combat directly on defined battlefields. Because of the magnitude of military power, symmetric warfare often involves high-intensity combat, inflicting significant casualties and destruction. On the other hand, this type of warfare requires extensive logistic support, advanced technology, and strategic planning.
In this context, Russia, the invader, has been able to maintain its superiority in the warzone to a greater extent despite combined Western military support to Ukraine. This capability has thus far been achieved through President Putin’s autocratic leadership while unfolding his strategic playbook. In pursuing its war strategy, Russia makes decisions independently and does not depend on external parties’ support or inputs, thus causing strategic uncertainty for Ukrainian forces.
On the contrary, Western support for Ukraine has been substantial and multifaceted, augmenting Ukraine’s defense capabilities against Russia. The West has provided significant military support to Ukraine, equipping it with advanced weapon systems to enhance Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and conduct counteroffensives.
However, despite significant support from the West, Ukrainian leadership faces many constraints in prosecuting its war effectively against Russia. This is mainly because Ukraine solely depends on the West for resources and support that is not telegraphed based on the needs of the warfighting and ground realities. In many instances, either Western support was inadequate or delayed due to logistical constraints, causing an enormous impact on the troops in the field and thus causing irreversible setbacks.
As a result, Russian forces have effectively engaged Ukrainian forces while exerting pressure to limit Ukrainian freedom of movement. This Russian strategy has effectively limited Ukrainian initiative and forced them to react to Russian plans rather than retain the initiative to be on the offensive. Even though Ukraine is equipped with one of the most advanced weapon systems of the West to counter Russian battle efficiency, its usage has been limited due to operational imperatives. These operational imperatives are in place mainly to prevent further escalation beyond Ukraine and to prevent NATO from becoming part of direct conflict with Russia on behalf of Ukraine.
In hindsight, it is understandable that these weapon systems were given to Ukraine mainly to use against the invaders within Ukrainian territory and to counter immediate threats. This conditional use, on the other hand, facilitates Ukraine to direct against the immediate threat emanating from Russian forces in the occupied areas of Ukraine effectively and to prevent further loss of ground. It is also evident that such targeting restrictions are imposed due to logistical limitations such as replenishment of ammunition and production constraints. These inherent constraints also highlight the West’s current weapons/ammunition production capability and its inability to meet the demand in high-intensity operations.
Changed Dynamics
This year has been challenging for President Zelensky due to unexpected setbacks not only on the battlefield but also dynamic changes in the international arena, such as geopolitical realignment and growing global security concerns. Such changes have amplified the uncertainty of Ukraine’s future, with a growing humanitarian crisis due to prolonged continuous war.
Hungarian Prime Minister’s Role in Calling for Peace Conference
Prime Minister Orbán of Hungary is already in the limelight after taking over the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union in July. In a dramatic move, he started his work from day one to find a meaningful end to this conflict by visiting Ukraine, Russia, China, and finally, the United States. During his visit to the United States, he met with former President Trump to update on his visits and to discuss ways and means to end the conflict.
Soon after meeting with former President Trump, Prime Minister Orbán wrote to top EU officials that former President Trump had told him he was planning a swift approach to a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Former President Trump’s stance leaves little or no opportunity for Ukraine to resist such a plan if it becomes a reality.
Contrary to Prime Minister Orbán’s facilitation, President Zelensky believes that only leaders with power can negotiate with Russia on Ukraine. For negotiations, one does not need power but wisdom. Wisdom can indeed be a powerful tool for negotiations. So far, no powerful country has taken the leadership to end the conflict meaningfully, as none feel there is an urgency to end this conflict through negotiations. However, there is an urgent necessity to grapple with reality to end this for the betterment of the world. As Ukraine is in the most uncertain times of history, President Zelensky needs to reevaluate his position, strategize a plan with the West for the unthinkable, and start groundwork early to start a meaningful negotiation to end the war.
75th Anniversary of NATO Summit
NATO concluded the much-awaited 75th anniversary by highlighting NATO’s commitment to collective defense and adapting to new security challenges, including reaffirming its long-term support for Ukraine in its fight against Russia. NATO leaders affirmed to Ukraine that the country was on an irreversible path to NATO. This declaration signifies a firm commitment from NATO to include Ukraine within its framework. However, NATO must clarify under what circumstances this irreversible path prevails. The changing political environment in Europe and the forthcoming elections in the United States are most likely to decide the future of this conflict one way or the other. Due to complexities and geopolitical dynamics, no roadmap for an irreversible path to NATO has been formulated. Significant challenges to the irreversible path to NATO include ongoing conflict with Russia, political and military reforms, the consensus among NATO members, security guarantees for NATO with modern military force, and economic stability.
These are the significant challenges Ukraine needs to overcome before becoming a member. In this, Ukraine and the West have a daunting task of maintaining an irreversible path approach to prevent it becomes an illusion path. History has many lessons to this effect, such as promises without tangible effect and action plans that are insufficient to alter the course of results and are likely to fall by the wayside.
Former President Trump’s View
So far, neither United States leadership nor the West have made tangible efforts to end the war other than paving the way for the continuation of the war. However, former President Trump has been highly vocal on the Ukrainian issue, and he emphasized his intention to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia if he is reelected. He has claimed that he could end the conflict swiftly through negotiations that sent ripples around the globe. He intends to stop the killings through a negotiated peace plan. Former President Trump’s view on Ukraine is entirely different from the current administration and another setback for President Biden’s administration, which has not garnered support to end the war through diplomacy and pursuing a war path to achieve intended results. Former President Trump’s peace-loving approach leaves no room for others to influence President Zelensky in the future. In this context, it leaves no room for President Zelensky’s hard stance to pursue a military solution but to soften his stance as he runs out of time.
Controversial Allegation against Ukraine Generals
In another surprising turn of events, a Ukrainian member of parliament- Mariana Bezuglaya, who also serves as a deputy chair of the national security, defense, and intelligence committee, recently claimed that Ukraine’s top commander, Aleksandr Syrsky might be ready to surrender to Russia. She further suggests that General Syrsky is colluding with former commander Valery Zaluzhny to undermine Ukraine’s chances of victory against Russia. These claims are controversial and not officially confirmed. President Zelensky had been vocal about some of the military leaders in the past for their incompetency, resulting in their removal from their posts. However, nothing surfaced in this regard despite ideological differences in the manner of conduct of war. However, the latest allegations of Mariana Bezuglaya highlight the complexities and tensions within Ukraine’s political and military leadership during a time of ongoing conflict. On the other hand, the military’s morale is at a low ebb, without an end in sight, and there is a higher rate of casualties. The existing increased conscription efforts are causing a social impact, and many people are reluctant to serve due to the intensity of the war and the uncertain future of Ukraine.
Way Forward
Ukraine faces many challenges in continuing this war, with waning public sentiment, maintaining its military strength, and extensive logistic requirements. There are reports that Ukrainian combat troops have raised their concerns about the combat support they get and restrictions on the use of ammunition due to shortages, significantly impacting their ability to defend effectively. This shortage makes them more vulnerable on the frontlines and can lead to increased casualties and lower morale. As one can see, Ukraine heavily relied on foreign military aid, and any delays or reductions in aid could exacerbate shortages. Additionally, bureaucratic hurdles such as delays in procurement, inefficient distribution, corruption, and communication gaps have worsened the situation. Under these circumstances, grievances cannot surface for many reasons, such as operational security, reprisal, avoiding negative public/ international sentiment, bureaucratic hurdles, and censorship. However, addressing these grievances before they reach a boiling point is crucial for military effectiveness and morale.
Nevertheless, it is essential to closely monitor the situation within and outside of Ukraine to take mitigatory measures as required. History provides enough examples of similar scenarios where persistent outcries turned into uncontrollable state of affairs. In this case, allegations and powerful statements of the inner circle like Mariana Bezuglaya underline the necessity of having a plan B to prevent another situation like the “Fall of Kabul” and to secure technologically advanced weapon systems.
Without a national strategy, President Zelensky could not draw a roadmap that would either continue the war backed by the West or go for negotiations. Obviously, without a national strategy, there is no success, and it is a recipe for failure. In either case, Europe needs to shoulder more responsibility without the United States’ direct involvement in the region. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the supporting role of the West could be a classic case study for future warfighting, evaluating the combat readiness and the capabilities of NATO.
