While the recent US elections were about the Palestinian genocide, many batted their eyes on what the US administration would do differently about the Russia-Ukraine war. The war that broke out in February 2022 is believed to come to an end finally. While this optimism has exponentially risen regarding the war, the complexities along with President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan” have made resolution rather arduous.
The diplomatic challenges have complicated the conflict as the peace efforts have faced several hurdles. Both sides have their respective demands and narratives that are causing the ground to remain war-trodden. Ukraine on one hand is deeming to reclaim all the territories including Crimea while Russia stands potently on the claimed territories. This leaves little room for dialogue between the two international entities. Even though Russian President Vladimir Putin has openly stated that the situation is “changing dramatically” in the Russia-Ukraine war, for many, however, this change is not very pleasant. With the death toll rising to millions, the war is becoming a focal point of discussion and many are exercising their power as international mediators. For example, Turkey and the United Nations (UN) have made a move toward conflict resolution, but the world has yet to see a more active role from the US on the table of peacemaking.
Moreover, the involvement of external forces has deepened the issue at hand. The NATO countries have been pouring billions of dollars when it comes to military aid for Ukraine and thus a war resolution would come out as a form of defeat for them. As much as this is indigestible for NATO, the economic sanctions being put on Russia have added to its benefits as Moscow has found alternative trade networks. With the lack of impact with sanctions being exercised, the need to stop a full-fledged war decreases drastically.
With conflict resolution appearing increasingly out of reach, the economic and humanitarian losses have surpassed all bounds. Hundreds of thousands have either lost their lives or been displaced
While the beneficiaries are profiteering from the war, the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, has been employing strategic diplomacy called the “victory plan”. Ukraine’s victory plan proposes NATO membership and attaining resource-sharing. Other key elements of this plan include a formal invitation to join NATO and lifting the ban on long-range strikes on Russia. In his address to the parliament, Zelensky stated, “We are at war with Russia on the battlefield, in international relations, in the economy, in the information sphere, and in people’s hearts”. However, this plan was met with a reply from Kremlin exclaiming that Kyiv needed to “sober up”. The constant battle of narratives has deepened the contention between the two actors and has reduced the chances of reconciliation.
With conflict resolution appearing increasingly out of reach, the economic and humanitarian losses have surpassed all bounds. Hundreds of thousands have either lost their lives or been displaced. Critically, Ukraine’s infrastructure requires extensive rebuilding, which would severely strain its economy. For Russia, the situation is equally concerning. While sanctions have somewhat increased the resilience of its economy, they have also caused significant strain, with inflation rising to 9%. On the battlefield, Russia suffers an average loss of 1,500 men daily, adding further pressure on the country’s resources.
Although ceasefires have faced repeated challenges, there remains hope for an eventual end to the Russia-Ukraine war. The newly elected president of the United States, Donald Trump, has hinted at a possible American withdrawal from the conflict. However, the reaction of the military-industrial complex remains to be seen. As the world continues to endure the atrocities of wars in critical regions such as the Middle East, international mediators, including the United Nations, have prioritised conflict resolution. A potential approach to ending wars and armed conflicts could involve a frozen conflict, where the parties agree to a ceasefire and accept current conditions. However, negotiations are likely to fail if major powers, particularly the United States, are reluctant to advocate for a lasting ceasefire.