The Day After the Russian-Ukrainian War Ends
Al-Ahram, Egypt, March 16
President Donald Trump has begun paving the way for an end to the Russia-Ukraine war sooner than expected. He has already initiated early talks with Russia, which will be followed by further discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. While it is clear that Trump is determined to end the war, there remains considerable uncertainty about how it will ultimately be resolved. Three key factors will determine the outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
First, Russia already controls a significant portion of Ukrainian territory and is unlikely to relinquish it easily. Second, Ukraine’s ability to reclaim this territory is diminishing, particularly with the reduction of American military, financial, and logistical support. European powers are not in a position to replace this support, nor can they defend the continuation of the war if a settlement between the United States and Russia is reached. In such a scenario, Europe will be forced to pursue alternative approaches to protect its security in the face of Russian aggression.
The third factor is the nature of President Trump, who aligns with the far-right realist school of thought, which emphasizes the central role of power—both military and economic—in international relations. Additionally, Trump is known for his preference for negotiating deals to manage American interests. Regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Trump has identified three primary American interests: first, to end the economic burden the war has placed on the United States, which has persisted for three years without resolution; second, to secure Ukrainian minerals through an anticipated agreement, contingent on a cessation of hostilities, so that these crucial investments for the American economy can proceed as part of the broader strategic competition with China; and third, to drive a wedge between Russia and China, the United States’ principal strategic rival.
These three factors suggest that the resolution will be shaped primarily between Russia and the United States, rather than between the two direct warring parties. This is evident in the direct and overt pressure the United States has applied to Ukraine in recent weeks, most notably in Trump’s blunt statement to Zelenskyy that he holds no leverage in this war. This prompted Zelenskyy to test the European card during his recent meeting with Trump. However, despite any European solidarity with Zelenskyy, it is unlikely to reach its full extent or meet his expectations, nor will it reflect the European powers’ willingness to antagonize the United States.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Ultimately, the settlement will likely involve a ceasefire, allowing Russia to retain some, if not all, of the Ukrainian territory under its control, while Ukraine will have to acknowledge that it will not join NATO—a concession Russia would demand in any agreement with the United States of this magnitude. A settlement of this nature would have significant repercussions in several directions.
First, any settlement that results in the annexation of Ukrainian territory by Russia may bring short- and medium-term stability, but it does not necessarily guarantee long-term peace. A peace established on the basis of hegemony and force alone is unlikely to be sustainable. The post-World War I settlements, which collapsed rapidly and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War II, offer valuable lessons in this regard. These risks increase in the event of new developments within Russia, NATO, and European powers, such as further Russian territorial expansion or NATO taking additional steps to protect European security.
On the other hand, resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict in this manner could set a precedent for broader settlements based on major deals and the use of force, particularly in light of existing global conflicts, especially in Asia, such as the Russian-Japanese dispute over the Kuril Islands, the Taiwan issue, the South China Sea disputes, the Sino-Japanese dispute over certain islands, the India-China border dispute, and tensions on the Korean Peninsula. While these conflicts differ from the Russia-Ukraine situation, which stems from Russia’s territorial control over Ukraine, the adoption of force and deal-making as a basis for resolution could encourage other powers to follow suit, should the right conditions arise.
More dangerously, this type of settlement could pave the way for other deals that reshape the geopolitical landscape, particularly in light of President Trump’s remarks about American interests in annexing countries and waterways. Such developments could lead to widespread instability in the global order.
Additionally, this settlement would likely lead to new approaches within Europe for protecting its security, independent of its relationship with the United States. This could include, for example, an increase in arms transfers across Europe and France’s declaration of its willingness to extend its nuclear umbrella to defend European partners—a move that Russia would view as a direct threat to its security. These actions could trigger a new wave of conflict between Russia and the European powers.
The anticipated resolution of the Russia-Ukraine war may not be confined to these three effects but could have even deeper repercussions within the global system.
Mohammed Fayez Farhat, director of the al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
