The conflict in Ukraine enters its third unpredictable year.
Russia won an important victory at Avdiivka, but it was not enough to change the situation on the battlefield. In the last days of February 2024, the war on other fronts suddenly became lively, containing many calculations and strategic issues.
Consecutive attacks and calculations
Faced with Ukraine’s somewhat unfavorable situation, the West and NATO launched a series of attacks. Many NATO member countries signed a 10-year security agreement with Ukraine, pledging long-term support and cooperation in the political, military, security, economic and financial fields. More than 500 new Western sanctions were imposed on Russia and corporations of countries with military technology ties to Moscow.
 |
| European leaders meet at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France on February 26 to discuss the Ukraine issue. (Source: Reuters) |
On February 26, two notable events occurred. The Hungarian parliament voted to approve Sweden's membership in NATO; about 20 European leaders met in Paris to discuss support for Ukraine. With the admission of Finland and Sweden, NATO has basically completed its siege of Russia. Ukraine has become the fundamental, most important, and almost final battlefield in the confrontation between NATO and Russia in Europe. Now, both sides will focus all their efforts on this front.
NATO and the West want to take advantage of their numbers, but what to do and how to defeat Russia is a difficult question. Defeating Russia militarily is very difficult. Pushing Russia into a quagmire, economic collapse, political and diplomatic isolation, leading to comprehensive weakening, even fragmentation, is the desire of the West and NATO. This is the basis for the West and NATO to launch a series of attacks in many areas, more drastically, possibly overcoming taboos.
Consensus or difference, division?
In the third year, Ukraine needs a lot of modern weapons, finance, support, direct and indirect involvement in human resources, means, technology, intelligence, information, cyberspace, logistics, transportation, on-site defense production... to defend and be ready for strategic counterattacks.
International experts admit that without aid, Ukraine will fail. However, the US Congress and some Western countries still hold out for aid packages for Ukraine. In that context, the meeting of NATO members in Europe to discuss all-round support for Ukraine has attracted a lot of attention.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said, “We agree that everyone needs to do more to help Ukraine. Kiev needs weapons, ammunition and air defense capabilities. We are trying to solve those problems.” French President Emmanuel Macron was strong, saying “nothing should be ruled out,” including sending troops to Ukraine.
It seems that NATO is in agreement and ready to act at the highest level. But that is not necessarily the case. Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico frankly assessed that providing weapons does not change the situation on the battlefield; military solutions are unreliable; even the Western approach to the war is “an absolute failure”.
The German leader has expressed his opposition to any idea of deploying troops to Ukraine. The United States, the flag bearer, and the United Kingdom, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and many other countries have also expressed no plans to send troops to Ukraine. Direct combat in Ukraine is something to be avoided. The reasons are clear as day.
That was President Emmanuel Macron's idea. Discussing whether to send troops and how to send them is another. The Elysee Palace chief wanted to demonstrate his pioneering and leading role with European allies. That plan backfired. French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne had to defend him, saying that Macron only wanted to promote debate; sending troops (if any) would be limited to activities to ensure bomb and mine clearance, protect cyber security and produce weapons on the spot...
President Macron, though strong, also contained hesitation when declaring that the West will do everything necessary to prevent Russia from winning. Preventing Russia from winning does not mean forcing Russia to fail. No matter how you argue, it cannot hide the fact that NATO and the West have differences and divisions over the conflict and how to resolve the crisis in Ukraine.
In fact, in addition to providing weapons, some NATO member countries have trained, used reconnaissance aircraft, directed attack targets, sent advisors and soldiers to fight under the name of private companies... Those activities help Ukraine improve its combat capabilities, causing damage and losses to Russia, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to change the situation on the battlefield.
The door is open but difficult to enter or the story of taking a detour
As Western leaders gathered in Kiev to mark the second anniversary of Russia's military offensive, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg once again affirmed that Ukraine will definitely join the military alliance. He stressed that Ukraine is closer to NATO than ever.
But most importantly, when and under what conditions, is not clear. Will NATO remove its barrier principles? It is difficult. Many NATO countries do not want to take on the burden of violating the principle of common defense when a member state is attacked. Sweden, with advantages like these, has struggled for nearly two years, and Ukraine's prospects are still far away.
 |
| Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (right) and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte signed a security agreement on March 1, paving the way for Amsterdam to provide Kiev with up to 2 billion euros in military aid this year. (Source: Reuters) |
The West had to find a way around it. Some countries signed security agreements with Ukraine, pledging to provide multifaceted support, partly making up for the shortfall caused by the US Congress and some other countries suspending aid bills for Kiev. Through this, NATO could mobilize more weapons and equipment from countries in and outside Europe for Ukraine; creating conditions for counterattacks and raids deep into Russia's rear.
The security agreements demonstrate the resolve of the West and NATO, as well as the material and moral support for Ukraine. However, they do not commit to mutual defense, the most important, highest level of a military treaty.
Russia's response
Faced with the new moves of NATO and the West, especially the idea of sending troops to Ukraine, Russia will certainly react accordingly, with many measures. First of all, it will respond with a warning statement that is equally deterrent and tough.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov made it clear that Moscow should not talk about the possibility (of direct confrontation between Russia and NATO) but about its inevitability. He advised them to ask whether the decision to send troops is consistent with their national interests and, most importantly, the interests of their own people. Deputy Speaker of the Russian Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev warned that NATO sending troops to Ukraine is a “catastrophic scenario” that can be considered a “declaration of war” against Moscow.
President Putin's February 29th Federal Message showed that Russia will strengthen its power by uniting and uniting its peoples; developing its economy; cooperating with friendly countries; promoting its defense industry; and equipping it with advanced strategic weapons. Russia is ready to dialogue with the US on strategic issues, but warns that the West's sending of troops to Ukraine risks provoking a nuclear war and that Moscow has enough weapons to destroy the enemy's targets. President Putin affirmed that he will do everything possible to end the conflict, destroy fascism, and achieve the set goals.
In recent days, Western media have reported that North Korea, Iran and several other countries have supplied missiles, drones, artillery shells and semiconductor chips to Russia. Moscow has not acknowledged this, but it may be a necessary step for Russia.
Very clear, full of weight. Russia does not talk in vain and is capable of action. How it responds depends on the actions of NATO and the West.
 |
| In his 2024 State of the Nation Address, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the West could spark a nuclear conflict if it sent troops to Ukraine. (Source: Sputnik) |
Which scenario was chosen?
The moves of the parties make the conflict difficult to predict, but the following scenarios can be raised:
First , the two sides fell into a prolonged stalemate. Ukraine, strongly supported by NATO and the West, continued to defend, launched deep attacks into the Russian rear and could counterattack to retake some areas. Russia strengthened its defensive position to hold the occupied areas, continued the war of attrition, combined firepower with ground attacks... Both sides suffered losses, aid was not as expected, and external pressure increased. Russia did not win and Ukraine did not lose, the situation was in a stalemate, unlikely to be resolved in the near future.
Second, the war ends in Russia’s favor, and the rest of Kiev falls into Moscow’s political orbit. Russia takes advantage of the victory at Avdiivka, develops attacks on other important targets, consolidates its position, expands its occupied areas, and gains battlefield superiority. This is the scenario Russia wants. NATO and the West will do their best to prevent it from happening.
Third, neither side wins, both internal and external difficulties arise, and losses are unbearable, forcing the search for a non-military solution. Both Russia and Ukraine have set preconditions that the other side finds difficult to accept, but negotiations remain a possible scenario, albeit a very difficult one.
Ukraine could accept a return to the pre-conflict status quo. Moscow could try to expand its territory, creating a security buffer zone between Russia and the West. The “peace deal” could also be temporary.
Four, war between NATO and Russia, even nuclear war. Although it cannot be completely ruled out, this scenario is very, very unlikely, because the consequences are extremely severe, and all sides are trying to avoid it.
***
The longer the conflict drags on, the more both sides suffer, the more tired they become, and the more unbearable it becomes. Other nations, whether they support one side or are neutral, also suffer the consequences of the war. Most want to find a solution to end the conflict.
Which scenario will happen and what the outcome will be depends mainly on Russia and Ukraine. But external factors play a very important and indispensable role. As long as NATO and the West want to maintain a proxy war with Russia; as long as the parties still advocate the use of force to subdue and compete for strategic interests, the conflict will continue.
Source
Comment (0)