The Russia-Ukraine war, which began in February 2022, marks one of the most significant conflicts in modern history. Stemming from long-standing tensions over Ukraine’s sovereignty, its Euro-Atlantic aspirations, and Russia’s regional ambitions, the war has escalated into a full-scale confrontation with devastating consequences. The conflict is not just a conventional battle over territory but also a clash of power politics, pitting a Western-aligned Ukraine against a resurgent Russia seeking to reassert its sphere of influence. With advanced military technologies, including hypersonic missiles and drones, and asymmetric strategies employed on both sides, this war after witnessing rapidly shifting frontlines is now in a frozen phase. Despite suffering grave losses, Russia is still slowly gaining ground. The war has been raging for more than three years and symbolizes failure of international community’s resolve for conflict prevention and conflict resolution.
On 5th October 2024, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky unveiled his Victory Plan for the first time. This plan was aimed at securing country’s future amid Russia-Ukraine war. However, the plan, while ambitious and visionary, drew criticism for its unrealistic expectations. Zelensky’s Victory Plan comprised of five publicized objectives. First, Ukraine would seek to solidify its security by joining NATO, rendering future negotiations with Russia on Ukraine’s sovereignty moot. Second, the plan called for substantial military support, including advance weapon systems, training, and support equipment. Third, the plan suggested deployment of NATO troops and NATO systems in Ukraine as a form of “extended deterrence” to counter potential Russian aggression in future. Fourth, Ukraine would offer access to its vast deposits of critical minerals such as uranium, lithium, and titanium, with objective to attract Western investment. And finally, plan proposed that Ukrainian forces could assume security roles in Europe post-war, potentially allowing the U.S. to pivot to other global challenges like Taiwan or the Middle East.
Despite its audacious goals, the plan received no considerable reception in Western capitals as besides misjudging rapidly transforming geopolitical landscape, the Zelensky’s plan also overestimated Western willingness to commit continuous war resources’ supply for Ukraine. An ineffective and poorly structured plan not only fails to achieve its objectives but can also have detrimental long-term consequences. For Ukraine, the repeated and abrupt demands for weapon systems which U.S. and its allies deem highly escalatory created the perception that Kyiv lack a coherent strategy to counter Russia. This could bolster calls for premature peace negotiations, potentially on terms unfavorable to Ukraine.
The conflict has seen abrupt escalation in recent week primarily due to arrival of North Korean troops, targeting of Russian mainland by ATACMS by Ukraine, and Russia’s use of new Oreshnik medium range ballistic missile against Ukraine. As Donald Trump – who has vowed to put an end this conflict within 24 hours – is about to hold his position in White House as president of United States, both countries are employing increasingly assertive means to secure dominant position in battlefield. This position will grant significant political leverage on negotiation table.
Donald Trump has recently assigned Keith Kellogg as special envoy for Russia-Ukraine war. Previously served as chief of staff for National Security Council (NSC) during Trump’s first term, Keith Kellogg shares similar thought as far as Russia-Ukraine war is concerned. Kellogg’s plan calls for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement to end the Russia-Ukraine war. This plan follows a multi-dendritic approach to address the issue. According to this plan, Washington would sustain the delivery of military hardware and weapons to Ukraine to enable it to counter potential aggression from Russia. However, this military aid will be conditional as Kyiv would have to show willingness to participate in peace talks with Moscow. If Ukraine refuses to do so, United States can simply halt further delivery of weapon systems it has pledged, thus hampering Ukraine’s ability to defend against Russia. As far as Moscow is concerned, Washington would incentivize it by ensuring that Ukraine’s application for joining NATO will be paused for time being. Additionally, limited relief will be provided to Russia as far as economic sanctions are concerned. Currently, it’s hard to evaluate that to what extent both Russia and Ukraine will be willing to acknowledge peace negotiations structured upon aforementioned conditions.
In past, Zelensky has been criticizing Trump’s swift peace plan by warning that a rushed peace deal will be dangerous for Ukraine. Although, he has expressed his wish for ending the war: but not at the cost of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Kyiv has repeatedly emphasized that Russia must leave the occupied Ukrainian territories – including Crimea, before approaching for any peaceful settlement of war. Since 2014, Russia has captured about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. Kyiv is currently planning for joint meeting with its key Western allies to strengthen its position in potential peace talks. As next year is approaching, tensions are increasing, both in battlefield as well as on discussion tables.
There can be four primary scenarios as the potential outcomes of the Russia-Ukraine war. The first is a prolonged war characterized by attrition, where both sides will keep pushing each other to final limits in a drawn-out battle. However, with rapidly depleting resources on both sides, neither Moscow nor Kyiv want this situation to prevail. The second is a “frozen conflict,” where both militaries will consolidate their positions to the point that neither side will be able to make any breakthrough. In this case, the battlefront will remain contested and losses will continue to mount albeit at a reduced rate compared to attrition. The third is a Ukrainian victory, contingent on increased Western support enabling Ukraine to push Russian forces back to the pre-war demarcation line of February 23, 2022. This outcome is reflected in Zelensky’s victory plan. And considering the ground realities, despite desperate attempts, this outcome is no longer a possibility. And finally, a defeat for Ukraine could see the country accepting Russian terms, including territorial concessions, a change in government, demilitarization, and neutrality.
Beside aforementioned scenarios, there is Trump swift peace plan which will employ carrot-and-stick strategy to compel both antagonists to sit on negotiation table and settle issue on give-and-take basis. However, the prospects for peace are hindered by mutual distrust, conflicting strategic goals, and the deep scars left by the war. Thus, for a durable conflict resolution, Trump’s plan appears as a viable solution. However, instead of imposed negotiations, all sides must willingly engage in meaningful discussions to end this conflict on agreeable terms.
