Krouzian & Reyes | CLMI
Since February 2014, Russia and Ukraine have been engaged in a complex and ongoing war that has not only impacted and bloodied both nations, but it has put the world - particularly Europe - on edge. Over the years, the war has escalated significantly in intensity and scale. It has also redefined and reshaped the contours of military conflict, engagement and technology.
Political scientist Paul D'Anieri identifies four main reasons for Russia's decision to start its war with Ukraine, emphasizing that Russia's desire to regain control over Ukraine extends far beyond mere territorial interests and regional dynamics …
Russia’s desire to regain control of Ukraine and turn it into a puppet regime.
Russia's conception of itself as a great power entitled to a sphere of influence over the former Soviet Republics.
The security dilemma in Europe, with Russia perceiving the expansion of NATO as a threat, and other Eastern states desiring guarantees against Russian expansionism.
Democratic Ukraine being a threat to authoritarian regime in Russia.
This affects more than just their borders - it impacts international relations, security concerns, and continental stability. That has led to policymakers and world leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron referring to it as the potential beginning of World War III ….
The Russians have globalized the war in Ukraine. There's a conflict in Ukraine, in which Russians, as a matter of fact, have made things global. Will [the war] be limited to this theater? Let's hope so.
The references to World War III might be premature … or they are justifiable words of caution given similar circumstances that created World War II. The only difference being the presence, albeit non-use (for now), of nuclear weapons. As a 2022 Prague Business School study by Wadim Strielkowski grimly explores …
In accordance with the logic of the sequential games, President Putin will continue to escalate the involving conflict to the maximum brink of Russia-NATO military clash (or even World War III). This is in accord with the Schelling’s findings and his analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis when the United States and USSR repeatedly escalated a very dangerous situation to get their way. In order to add more credibility to his actions and to raise the stakes even higher, Putin might be combining this escalation with his “Madman behavior” which he already exhibited by making a public announcement and ordering to place Russian deterrence nuclear forces on "special alert" for demonstrating his unpredictability (Rachman, 2022; Pearce, 2022). In the light of all the possible threats this situation might create for the whole world, the option of recognizing Crimea and the separatist republics would appear to the western democracies as an acceptable and plausible concession to the option of unleashing the nuclear Apocalypse.
But, Strielkowski also cautions …
To sum this all up, what would be this economist’s advice to those who are afraid that the current conflict might evolve into the nuclear and devastating World War III? Do not panic! The more people in the Western countries tend to panic and spread the wild theories of the probable repercussions of the nuclear Apocalypse, the better bargaining position Russia is solidifying for itself in this conflict.
The Trump Factor
With a new U.S. President in office, many have renewed hope that the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine may soon come to an end. Perhaps that’s true as the conflict now appears to transition into a negotiating phase that was never realized during the Biden administration: a “tentative” cease fire a cease fire halting Ukrainian and Russian military activity in the consequential Black Sea, with the White House adding in a recent statement that both countries will "… develop measures to implement the agreement to ban strikes against energy facilities in Russia and Ukraine. We are making a lot of progress."
However, concerns linger as Russia - according to the Ukrainian air force - launched an extensive drone strike against Ukraine while Russia reported a limited response in the Black Sea from Ukraine. Many believe, from European leaders to policymakers at home, that Trump's involvement could exacerbate the situation rather than improve it. Trump has made headlines by attributing responsibility for the Russian invasion in 2022 to Ukraine itself. He suggested that had he been in office, he could have brokered a deal much sooner that would have granted Ukraine almost all disputed land, preventing loss of life and destruction of cities.
What has that timeline looked like? It’s difficult to ignore how much initial success the second Trump administration has made - at least on the surface - in facilitating an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine. Since Russia triggered the Russo-Ukrainian war, the Trump administration has undertaken multiple initiatives aimed at “dictating a swift end to the war.” His efforts include diplomatic engagements, foreign policy shifts, and direct contact with Russia. At least it’s success from the administration’s perspective.
President Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin had their first direct exchange of views since the conflict began, on a telephone call. Both discussed many issues, primarily the situation with Ukraine then agreed to begin immediate negotiations towards ending military activity and bringing the war to a close.
That was all shortly after his inauguration, when President Trump was threatening additional sanctions on Russia if they failed to engage in peace talks. Simultaneously, Trump continued to emphasize his long-lasting positive relationship with Putin, (which is unusual considering Russia has, for generations, been perceived as a threat to the U.S.) but made it clear of his intention to bring the war to an end. That’s led to situations like an extraordinary partnership in the U.N. General Assembly where the U.S. refused to blame Russia for starting the Ukraine war.
Since June 2024, during the presidential election, Trump had always positioned himself as a master broker of a negotiated end to the Russo-Ukrainian war. Two of his key advisors gave insight into what peace plans were being discussed. They hinted at planning to force both countries into negotiating peace plans, which is what Trump is attempting to do right now by suspending or increasing military aid, threatening major sanctions, and removing aid from Ukraine while acting against European interests. As former Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg indicated …
We tell the Ukrainians, 'You've got to come to the table, and if you don't come to the table, support from the United States will dry up.' And you tell Putin he's got to come to the table and ‘if you don't come to the table, then we'll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field.’
From Trump’s perspective, he sees himself as not only a key player but the key who possesses the skills to bring both parties to the negotiating table, claiming that with his approach, an expedited ceasefire could be reached or even a lasting peace agreement established. He says that he has always supported Ukraine in their struggle against Russian aggression; however, this assertion is met with skepticism by many who point to his controversial statements and policy decisions during his prior administration, during the 2024 elections, and the withdrawal of military and intelligence aid from Ukraine - moves that drew the ire of the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. That was highlighted by that tense and unprecedented exchange in the Oval Office. This sudden withdrawal of support created significant problems and battlefield challenges for the Ukrainians. Without U.S. satellite imagery, Ukraine's ability to strike inside Russia and defend itself from bombardment significantly weakened Ukraine’s military assets. Afterwards, President Zelenskyy ended up expressing his appreciation for the United States, both privately and on social media. Sensing that Zelenskyy was acting in good faith, President Trump then decided to resume military supplies and assistance to Ukraine
In response to Russia's continued military actions, Trump still threatens further sanctions on Russia - yet, in the shuttle diplomacy cease fire deal, Russia signals that it’s waiting on an agreement being implemented on condition that sanctions are lifted given how heavily it’s been economically penalized since its attack on Ukraine. Still, Trump seemed to express concern over heavy casualties faced by Ukraine, one time remarking that "Russia is absolutely 'pounding' Ukraine on the battielfield right now".
It’s only intensified the debate regarding his stance on the conflict and whether he genuinely seeks to assist Ukraine in achieving peace … or that he’s merely playing a political game. Take the narrative Trump and other Republicans have pushed since 2024 claiming that the U.S. has aided Ukraine more than any other country: $300 billion spent in comparison to Europe's $100 billion. Yet, this claim has proven to false, seeing as Congress appropriated a combined $174 billion in aid to Ukraine. As the Council on Foreign Relations calculated …
The U.S. Congress has voted through five bills that have provided Ukraine with aid since the war began, doing so most recently in April 2024. The total budget authority under these bills—the “headline” figure often cited by news media—is $175 billion. The historic sums have helped a broad set of Ukrainian people and institutions, including refugees, law enforcement, and independent radio broadcasters, though most of the aid has been military-related. Dozens of other countries, including most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and European Union (EU), are also providing large aid packages to Ukraine.
And although the U.S. is currently a part of NATO and is Ukraine’s ally, European and Ukrainian officials are a bit alarmed at the interactions between Putin and Trump while weary of possible U.S.-Russia negotiations that could take place without Europe or Ukraine being aware. John Bolton, one of Trump's former adversaries, criticizes the administration's stance and action on this issue, stating that a ceasefire deal is not in Ukraine's best interest, but Zelenskyy had no choice but to agree so he could restore U.S. military and intelligence assistance.
Perhaps his positioning may serve more as a calculation to align with certain political interests or to fulfill a narrative that could be beneficial to his image. The basic optics are favorable for Trump as the conventional wisdom suggests he’s negotiated the war in Ukraine. Still, the divergence of opinion points to a broader concern: in the rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape, the actions and decisions of a leader like Trump could have far-reaching consequences, not only for Ukraine but for global stability. As the war continues unfolding, the world watches closely to see how the dynamics shift and whether a meaningful resolution can indeed be reached.
NATALIA KROUZIAN & WAILANA REYES are both Fellows at the Civic Literacy and Media Influence Institute at Learn4Life.