Two Years of Ukraine Crisis

February 24th marks the second anniversary of the escalation of the crisis in Ukraine. The prolonged crisis has not only caused huge losses to the Russian and Ukrainian economies and people’s livelihoods, but has also had a serious negative impact on regional politics and security, the recovery of the world economy, global poverty reduction, food and energy security, and the ecological environment. On the 17th of February, the Ukrainian army, which is short of troops and ammunition, withdrew from the defence town of Avdeevka, which is regarded as the biggest change in the front line since May last year. At present, Russia and Ukraine are at a stalemate on the battlefield, and the tug-of-war between the two sides will continue.

The battle remains a stalemate

The crisis in Ukraine escalated on 24 February 2022, when Russia launched a special military operation against the country, and came at a time when the world was experiencing a three-century pandemic. The war on the front line has been virtually at a standstill for the past 14 months, with Moscow controlling nearly one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory, including the Crimean Peninsula, which it annexed in 2014. The war has caused hundreds of thousands of casualties, destroyed many cities, towns and villages, forced millions of people to leave their homes and left hundreds of thousands more living in occupied territories. Looking back at the two years since the outbreak of the crisis, the war has remained a stalemate, and the impact has continued to spill over, not only limited to the military confrontation between the two countries on the battlefield, but also extended to the game between countries and regions in the political, economic, cultural and other fields, which aggravated the evolution of the world’s pattern of the hundred years of changes, and further pushed the international strategic forces and pattern of in-depth adjustments.

At the time of the crisis, the international community generally believed that Ukraine would soon collapse, but it was met with Ukraine’s stubborn resistance, and the Biden administration of the United States immediately began to unite with its allies to provide Ukraine with a steady stream of arms and financial assistance. At the same time, unprecedented sanctions were imposed on Russia. Russia and Ukraine began to fall into a tug-of-war. In the middle of last year, the world was shocked by the Wagner incident in Russia. This made the world think that Russia was on the verge of collapse after more than a year of extremely difficult fighting, but unexpectedly, Ukraine’s counter-attack was extremely difficult, and to a certain extent, it also slowed down the assistance provided by the United States and its allies to Ukraine, and the two sides once again came to a deadlock. From October last year, when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict broke out again, the crisis in Ukraine changed again, and the Russian army started to take more ground attacks. On 17 February this year, the Russian army took full control of Avdeevka, which became another turning point.

Last Saturday, on the second remembrance of the Russian-Ukrainian War, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, met with three other Western leaders – Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Belgian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – to mark the second remembrance of the Russian-Ukrainian War. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Belgian Prime Minister Alexandre De Croix arrived in Kiev at the same time. In Kiev, they emphasised Europe’s firm support for Ukraine until its “ultimate freedom” is secured. As the Russo-Ukrainian war entered its third year, the Ukrainian forces were facing increasing challenges on the front line, not only in terms of troop strength, but also in terms of weaponry and even ammunition. Commitment and firm support from the Western world at this time is undoubtedly a “shot in the arm”. During their short visit to Kiev, Meloni and Trudeau will each sign a bilateral security agreement with Zelensky. However, US President Joe Biden’s plan to provide US$60 billion in new military aid to Ukraine, although passed by the Democratic Senate, is still being shelved by the Republican House of Representatives, casting a shadow over Ukraine’s hopes to defeat the Russian army, which is superior in numbers and equipment, in battle.

Echoes of World War II

Although the Russian invasion of Ukraine was two years in the making, and the human scale of the destruction was shocking to the world, the scale of the invasion cannot be compared to World War II. However, there are various similarities between the two wars, ranging from the style of street fighting and weapons to the history and background of the times. In particular, the root cause of the two wars was a dispute over “righteousness”, a clash of ideologies, which was manifested in the real world by the financial crisis that had a devastating impact on the whole world; there was a gap of about ten years between the crisis and the outbreak of the wars, as was the case in both 1929 and 2008. Major financial crises and wars are symptomatic of deeper structural problems in society – underlying structural movements that create these cracks on the surface.

The financial crisis did bring many changes to the world, with quantitative easing relief, zero interest rates and fiscal austerity by governments to minimise the damage caused by the crisis, but at a high cost, not least in terms of inflation and the widening of the general wealth gap, which laid the groundwork for populism, extremist ideologies and social unrest. In modern wars, the trigger of World War I was the Sarajevo Incident, while the trigger of World War II was, in a sense, the Treaty of Versailles, which was too oppressive and restrictive, and severely weakened Germany, and Hitler’s ideology that led to the outbreak of the war, and the blitzkrieg attack on Poland in 1939 when Germany tore up the United Nations’ agreement, heralding the prelude to the Second World War. In the view of contemporary political and historical scholars, the Ukrainian War was a war between a democratic regime and an authoritarian regime, a war between two opposing philosophies, which involved the upholding of the norms of international relations. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is also seen by political economists as a proxy war between authoritarian capitalism and liberal capitalism.

Although Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 is considered to be the starting point of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the large-scale military invasion launched two years ago was clearly the first large-scale invasion war on the European continent after World War II, and has dominated international public opinion and become the focus of international geopolitical tug-of-war ever since its outbreak. The Kremlin has confronted the West with accusations of wanting to put NATO on Russia’s doorstep, and has been seen as claiming to be imposing its way of doing things around the world. Two years ago, it launched a “special military operation” in the hope of a lightning victory over Ukraine, but it was clear that his Putin’s ambitions had been dashed. Today, however, the balance seems to have shifted in Putin’s favour. Russia has been unanimously condemned and sanctioned by the West, and President Vladimir Putin is wanted for war crimes in international courts, but criticism from the South is rarely heard, and in the aftermath of the war, closer ties with China, Iran, and North Korea have provided Putin with diplomatic leeway and assistance in the international arena, serving as a platform for counterbalancing the West. Russia is embracing the prospect of a long war that the government believes can be sustained, and is taking advantage of the Ukrainians’ quicker depletion and the fatigue of its allies. It is difficult to say whether such a situation will allow Russia to continue to grow larger, and it is impossible to completely rule out the possibility of a wider war as a result of the friction. As in the case of World War II a hundred years ago, this is unexpected but reasonable.

The latest response from European countries

As a lesson learnt from the Second World War, European countries dare not be careless. After all, once Ukraine is defeated, it is hard to say that Putin will not “open his mouth wide”, and his ambition to regain the glory of the Tsarist Russia era may be on the verge of emergence, and then European countries will have to protect themselves. It is for this reason that French President Jean-Marie Macron, after meeting with more than 20 European leaders on Monday, said in his latest speech that European leaders have agreed to set up a coalition to provide Ukraine with medium-range and long-range missiles and bombs. Macron said the key to European security is to defeat Russia in Ukraine, or at least not to lose, because Europe can not afford the price. The European Union has not ruled out sending Western ground troops to Ukraine, but there are still differences between the allies. Of course, Russia is also “not willing to show weakness”, and has repeatedly warned that any deployment of Western troops in Ukraine will trigger a direct conflict between Moscow and the NATO military alliance. It seems that the situation has been brought back to the “Gordian knot” that existed two years ago, before Russia started its military conflict – NATO is the “thorn” in Russia’s side, and it is not a good idea to hit or even fight against Ukraine. NATO is a thorn in Russia’s side, and to go after Ukraine, even to the extent of fighting it, is the key to establishing its authority in the world. The war between the two sides is bound to continue, and neither side, nor the neighbouring Western countries, dare to act rashly, because a small act will often trigger an unpredictable “butterfly effect”.

Difficulty in opening the final chapter of peace

It has been two years since the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, and the aversion to war and the search for a peaceful solution have been festering around the world. At present, there are only sporadic glimmers of peace, but no clear signs of easing of the situation. Russia and Ukraine have gradually adapted to the situation. The entire Russian state has gradually turned to a wartime system, various economic indicators have rebounded, the military industry is fully supplying the front line, and the supply of troops continues to be replenished, Russia’s GDP has risen instead of declining, which is even more surprising. Despite the economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the West, Russia’s trade with China, India, Brazil, North Korea and many other countries in the Middle East is developing rapidly, forming a new pattern of world economic co-operation. In Ukraine, even though the country is in full defence mode, the majority of the population does not accept negotiations and insists on continuing the war. Although the US and its Western allies have reduced their support for Ukraine due to internal political struggles and the Gaza conflict, they will not stop their support immediately due to ideological and geopolitical factors.

The latest meeting of the European Union shows that these countries are beginning to worry that if Ukraine is defeated, Russia will become a new force dominating Europe, endangering their own survival. The three Baltic states, Finland and Sweden, which have just joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, are even more nervous about the Russian invasion. The former Soviet Union countries in Eastern Europe even believe that they will become the next target after Ukraine falls. The current situation of the Russian-Ukrainian war has made the people of these European countries support a larger-scale confrontation. Of course, Russia’s poor military performance in the past two years has also strengthened the determination and confidence of these countries to demand a war.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a watershed in the world’s development since the end of the Cold War and even the Second World War, and will trigger deep changes in Europe and the Eurasian region, as well as have a far-reaching impact on the future development of the world order. This war is not just a war between two countries, but the most important war in the 70 years of World War II.

Uncertainties

One of the great uncertainties facing the Ukrainian crisis right now is the 2024 U.S. presidential election. If Donald Trump wins the election in November and takes over the White House again, will he cut back on aid, or even change course and refuse to assist Ukraine? This huge uncertainty is a source of great concern for Ukraine and Europe. According to the information of the Kiel Institute for World Economics Research, as of January 2024, the European Union (EU) has provided Ukraine with nearly US$92 billion, while the United States has provided US$73 billion in various kinds of assistance, including arms and funds. It was only after numerous discussions and bargaining that the EU approved a US$54 billion aid program for Ukraine in February this year. However, a new US$60 billion aid program proposed by the Biden administration has not been approved due to bipartisan political differences in the US. Given the unique position of the U.S. military in the West, without the U.S., it would be difficult for Europe’s own military strength to help Ukraine counter Russia. In this sense, the outcome of the US election will likely be a key factor in determining the future course of the Ukrainian crisis.

At the moment, the chances of any meaningful talks between the two sides are slim to nonexistent. There is no sign that Putin and his followers have changed their initial goal of conquering Ukraine, and the Russian leadership seems bent on fighting to the bitter end. For both Russia and Ukraine, war remains the only option. Russia will be tenacious in its campaign of conquest. Ukraine will bravely defend itself. As long as either Russia or Ukraine fails to achieve a landslide victory in the coming months – an unlikely scenario – the war will continue. For some time to come, the crisis may be a long process of alternating hot and cold, slow and fast, with the other side shedding more blood and suffering more losses, maximising the drain on the other side’s resources, and forcing the other side to back down in a battle of wills and resilience. No one can say for sure what the outcome will be. The only thing we can say for sure is that no one on either side of the Russian-Ukrainian war is a winner.

Article/Editorial Sameway

Photo/Internet