By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite recent strained relations with the U.S. under President Trump, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy remains confident in continued American support for Ukraine’s war effort against Russia. He highlighted the strong U.S.-Ukraine partnership built over three years of conflict, emphasizing that the relationship extends beyond individual administrations. However, European leaders, such as German leader Friedrich Merz, expressed concern over Trump’s apparent overtures to Putin and the potential destabilization of the transatlantic alliance, urging increased European security efforts. A peace deal remains distant.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s Zelenskyy’s recent pronouncements paint a stark picture: the end of the war with Russia is a distant prospect, a conclusion seemingly very, very far away. The reasons for this are multifaceted, stemming from the entrenched positions of both sides and the complex geopolitical landscape.
The very foundation of any potential resolution hinges on Russia’s unwillingness to cede territory it has seized. Historical precedents offer little hope for a swift reversal; the analogy of the prolonged Russian withdrawal from East Germany suggests a timeline stretching decades, not years. This intransigence is further fueled by the internal pressures on Putin’s regime. Ceding land would be tantamount to admitting defeat, a politically crippling admission in the current climate. Moreover, ending the war would trigger immense economic repercussions, given Russia’s current wartime production model.
The current military stalemate further complicates matters. Despite Ukraine’s resilience and Western support, a complete expulsion of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory appears improbable in the near future. Similarly, Russia, although showing signs of strain, still possesses sufficient manpower—bolstered by ongoing recruitment—and equipment, albeit dwindling, to continue its aggression. This capability is underscored by the continued use of devastating weapons like glide bombs, illustrating Russia’s capacity to inflict damage and terror.
The conflict’s duration is thus likely to be determined by the economic endurance of the combatants. War economies, while capable of withstanding considerable stress, ultimately have a breaking point. The collapse of either Russia’s or Ukraine’s economy could potentially force a conclusion, although the implications of such a collapse are potentially catastrophic for both nations and the wider global economy.
The involvement of external actors, specifically the United States, adds another layer of complexity. A desperate Russia might seek a lifeline from the US, potentially offering substantial concessions in exchange for assistance. The possibility of a Trump administration brokering such a deal, prioritizing economic gains over geopolitical concerns, cannot be dismissed. Such a scenario, however, would be fraught with risk, potentially triggering a drastic escalation of the conflict, including the terrifying prospect of nuclear escalation.
Another critical variable is the role of Vladimir Putin himself. His removal from power appears to be a prerequisite for a lasting peace. However, even a change in Russian leadership doesn’t guarantee an immediate end to hostilities. Any successor likely inherits the same deeply entrenched territorial claims and anti-Ukrainian sentiment, possibly prolonging the conflict or transforming it into a protracted conflict via proxy warfare or other forms of aggression.
The ongoing conflict highlights the limitations of Ukraine’s military capabilities. Despite receiving substantial Western aid, including advanced weaponry and technological advancements like the proliferation of drones, Ukraine faces significant challenges, particularly regarding manpower. This inherent limitation underscores the long road to peace, even if the tide begins to turn militarily.
The potential for a negotiated settlement also appears unlikely in the short term. Negotiations are hampered by deep mistrust and diametrically opposed goals. While some segments of the Ukrainian population may favor a negotiated settlement, even a temporary ceasefire is fraught with uncertainty, potentially offering Russia a valuable opportunity to regroup and recommence hostilities.
Furthermore, the political situation within Ukraine itself is a key variable. Zelenskyy’s leadership is essential to the continuation of the war effort, and his reluctance to negotiate under pressure seems deeply rooted in Ukrainian national sentiment. The complexities of internal Ukrainian politics, including the implications of upcoming elections, present considerable challenges for finding a pathway to resolution. The desire of a large portion of the Ukrainian population to continue fighting, regardless of losses, indicates the deep-seated determination of the nation to fight for its existence. This resolve, while admirable, also suggests a protracted conflict.
The involvement of other countries, such as China, adds another layer to the ongoing strategic calculations. Ukraine’s exploration of potential mineral deals with China highlights the global implications of this conflict and the ongoing competition for resources.
In conclusion, the current state of affairs points towards a protracted conflict. A combination of entrenched positions, the complex internal dynamics within both Russia and Ukraine, and the involvement of external actors create a landscape where a quick resolution seems highly improbable. The war’s end, therefore, seems far from imminent, a conclusion reinforced by Zelenskyy’s assessment, and only a drastic shift in the geopolitical realities, particularly concerning the leadership in Russia and the willingness of all parties involved to negotiate, could potentially alter this grim trajectory.