Recent developments suggest that Russia’s Vladimir Putin may be the ultimate winner in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
ByMuhammad Arslan Qadeer | April 2025
As the war in Ukraine grinds on, a shifting geopolitical landscape is forcing both Kyiv and its Western allies to reconsider their long-term strategies. While most Ukrainians desire an end to the war, their paramount concerns remain sovereignty and security. Until recently, the United States strongly supported these objectives. However, with Donald Trump back in the White House, Ukraine finds itself recalibrating its alliances, increasingly looking to European leaders as its primary partners.
The Ukrainian opposition has already sounded the alarm, interpreting recent developments as a sign that Russia’s Vladimir Putin may, in fact, be the ultimate winner in this conflict. The question is: how did we reach this point, and what lessons from history can help us understand the evolving power dynamics?
Wars often conclude not through total military victory but by the shifting calculus of great powers. To fully grasp Ukraine’s current predicament, we must examine past conflicts where great powers have reassessed their commitments.
Consider the Vietnam War (1955–1975). The U.S. initially framed its involvement as an existential fight against communism, pouring military and economic resources into South Vietnam. However, domestic opposition, political fatigue, and shifting global priorities led to the U.S. withdrawal in 1973, culminating in the fall of Saigon two years later. While Washington’s retreat was framed as a recalibration of priorities, it was ultimately a strategic victory for North Vietnam, which successfully consolidated control.
Similarly, the Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989) saw the USSR withdraw after a decade of fighting, not because it was militarily defeated but because the political and economic costs had become unsustainable. In both cases, local allies dependent on superpower backing were left to navigate a precarious future.
Ukraine now faces a similar moment of uncertainty. With the potential shift in U.S. policy, Kyiv must assess whether Western unity can be preserved or if it will be left vulnerable to Russian aggression.
Ukraine’s Changing Realities Under Trump
While the Biden administration has remained steadfast in its support for Ukraine—providing military aid, sanctions against Russia, and diplomatic backing—the Trump presidency has clearly altered Washington’s role.
Trump’s foreign policy doctrine has historically prioritized “America First,” emphasizing cost-benefit calculations over ideological commitments. His previous term (2017–2021) marked a transactional approach to alliances. Trump repeatedly expressed skepticism about NATO’s role, at one point even questioning whether the U.S. should defend member states that did not meet their defense spending obligations.
In early 2025, the Trump administration signaled a reevaluation of its foreign policy concerning Ukraine. President Trump announced plans to reduce military aid to Ukraine, urging European nations to shoulder a more significant portion of the support. This decision has raised concerns about the unity of the Western coalition in countering Russian aggression and the potential implications for Ukraine’s defense capabilities.
The rationale behind this policy shift stems from President Trump’s belief that European countries, being geographically closer and more directly affected by the conflict, should bear the primary responsibility for supporting Kyiv. While European nations have provided substantial humanitarian, economic, and military assistance to Ukraine, the prospect of increasing this burden presents challenges, especially given internal economic issues such as high energy prices and inflation.
The recalibration of U.S. support has coincided with heightened diplomatic efforts to establish a ceasefire in Ukraine. A proposed 30-day truce, brokered by the United States and Saudi Arabia has faced obstacles due to Russia’s stringent preconditions. President Putin has insisted that any ceasefire must be on his terms, requiring Ukraine to halt rearming and mobilization, and for Western military aid to Kyiv to cease. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has accused Putin of using manipulative tactics to prolong the conflict, highlighting the complexities in achieving a durable peace settlement.
Internal disputes have further complicated the diplomatic landscape. Following a heated exchange between President Trump and President Zelenskyy, thousands of foreign volunteers, including many U.S. veterans, joined the Ukrainian army. The U.S. briefly paused military aid and intelligence-sharing with Ukraine but reinstated it after a ceasefire proposal was signed between the U.S. and Ukraine in Saudi Arabia. Despite these efforts, challenges persist, with ongoing Russian missile attacks on Ukrainian cities causing civilian casualties and extensive damage.
In light of the evolving U.S. stance, European leaders have intensified their diplomatic efforts to support Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have played pivotal roles in mediating between the U.S. and Ukraine. They advised President Zelenskyy to apologize to President Trump to ensure continued U.S. support against Russia. This diplomatic intervention led to a compromise: an initial 30-day truce without immediate Western security guarantees, followed by confidence-building steps. This approach aims to secure a ceasefire and set the stage for broader peace talks, underscoring Europe’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and security.
The European Union has also taken measures to bolster its defense capabilities in response to the evolving conflict. Germany, for instance, is advancing significant spending and debt reforms to strengthen its military readiness. Additionally, the EU has renewed sanctions against Russia, signaling a unified stance against aggression and a commitment to upholding international law.
The recent developments have led to perceptions that Russia, under President Putin, has gained the upper hand. The insistence on ceasefire terms favorable to Russia, coupled with the U.S. administration’s recalibrated support for Ukraine, has fueled concerns about a shift in power dynamics. Ukrainian opposition leaders have voiced apprehensions that these changes may embolden Russia, potentially compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
President Trump’s “Big Three” plan, which involves forming alliances with Russia and China to divide global influence and bring peace, has sparked concerns. This approach demands Ukraine to make concessions to Russia and potentially undermines the traditional U.S. role in defending weaker states. Historical parallels show that similar power-sharing schemes have often led to conflict and instability, raising questions about the efficacy of this strategy in achieving lasting peace.
The international community’s response to Ukraine’s plight will significantly influence the conflict’s trajectory. A unified stance that upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty and provides tangible security guarantees is essential. As Ukraine navigates this challenging period, the support of its allies, both old and new, will be crucial in determining the nation’s future and the broader stability of the region.
The question remains: will Ukraine’s allies allow Putin’s patience to triumph, or will they reaffirm their commitment to ensuring that Ukraine emerges from this war with both its sovereignty and security intact? The answer will shape the balance of power in Europe for decades to come.
Leave a Reply