Ali Mammadov
All wars, regardless of their duration or nature, eventually come to an end. Since the onset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, numerous predictions have emerged, many of which have become less likely as the war has persisted longer than anticipated. Donald Trump’s election as U.S. President signals a potential shift in U.S. policy toward reduced support for Ukraine. Additionally, Ukraine’s use of U.S. missiles and Russia’s retaliatory ballistic missiles show critical escalations in the war. Recent developments necessitate updated scenarios.
Scholars offer varied perspectives on how wars end. Clausewitz argues they conclude when political objectives become irrelevant or unattainable over time. Iklé highlights the need for leaders to make hard choices despite fears of appearing weak for resolution. Rose stresses the importance of clear postwar planning for lasting peace to bring the end of war. Wendt argues that wars truly end when adversaries no longer perceive each other as enemies, and Mearsheimer implies the role of decisive power shifts and the mutual recognition of war’s costliness.
To predict the end of the war in Ukraine, it is essential to understand the objectives of each side. From the beginning, Russia’s intentions were slightly unclear—was it aiming to conquer all or parts of Ukraine, expand its borders, or gain leverage in negotiations with the West? Initially, Russia seemed more confident, but as Ukraine’s resistance intensified and inflicted costs, its goals shifted, and Russia is now more open to negotiations. Currently, it is mainly interested in territorial gains, keeping Ukraine neutral, and preventing NATO from being involved directly.
No comments:
Post a Comment