By Nina Bachkatov
Once again, the war in Ukraine is testing the “world order.” Left on their own, Ukrainian forces are not expected to resist beyond March 2025. The country faces a stark choice: secure greater international aid to sustain the fight or pursue an appeasement with security guarantees. For months, it has been clear that Ukraine is in dire straits. The Kursk offensive did not unfold as planned by President Zelensky, and both Russia and Ukraine are straining to recruit men and produce arms. Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is systematically being destroyed, leaving citizens without electricity and paralysing industrial production.
Since November 7, the war has unfolded under the shadow of newly elected U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump has promised to settle the Ukrainian conflict within 24 hours but has offered no specifics, leaving pessimists and optimists alike speculating about his plans. What is clear is that Trump’s team is taking shape and includes figures skeptical of Ukraine’s strategic value. His designated special envoy for Ukraine, Richard Grenell—a former Director of National Intelligence—has openly opposed NATO membership for Ukraine and suggested the creation of “autonomous zones” within its territory.
European Strategic Autonomy in Focus
Amid this uncertainty, both inside and outside Ukraine, President Zelensky has adopted a new pragmatic approach. Fearing a direct U.S.-Russia dialogue that sidelines Kyiv, he has urged European nations to step up if Washington falters. This aligns with Brussels’ ambition for “strategic autonomy,” though conflicting national interests and industrial policies present challenges.
Zelensky’s most discussed statement is his prediction that the war will not end until 2025, asserting that negotiations are impossible “as long as the same man is in the Kremlin.” He has hinted at a willingness to reclaim Crimea “diplomatically”, conceding that Ukraine “cannot afford to lose tens of thousands of lives” to recover the region. In his November 19 address, Zelensky unveiled a 10-point “Internal Resilience Plan” designed to temper expectations for total territorial liberation while reassuring Ukrainians about the nation’s survival. This follows his earlier “Plan for Peace” in June, aimed at forming the basis of a second peace conference in Novembre; and the “Victory Plan” presented in October to Western leaders and Ukraine’s parliament.
A Diplomatic Balancing Act
Since Trump’s election, Ukraine has pursued a dual strategy to win support from both Biden and Trump. With Trump, Kyiv has sought to exploit divisions within the Republican Party, appealing to Cold War-era elements that still view Moscow as an adversary. Direct appeals to Trump’s ego have emphasized that yielding to Putin could tarnish his image as a strong leader and an efficient transactional president. Meanwhile, Kyiv has sought to repair relations with Biden’s administration, which suffered from Ukraine’s perceived bias during the 2024 election campaign and mishaps during Zelensky’s visits in September. On November 20, Zelensky himself appeared on Fox News, projecting a pragmatic image while warning, “If Americans stop their aid, we are finished.”
Biden’s Legacy at Stake
Simultaneously, Ukraine continues to lobby President Biden, who is eager to leave office with his foreign policy reputation intact. Kyiv has argued that “victory” can be defined as creating the “right conditions” through unlocking pre-approved U.S. funds, NATO membership, and permission to strike military targets on Russian soil using Western-supplied long-range missiles. The latter approval came swiftly after reports in early November that 10,000 North Korean troops had been deployed to Russian territories bordering Ukraine. This prompted the launch of ATACMS missiles into Russia’s Kursk and Bryansk regions and new sanctions targeting Gazprombank.
The North Korean deployment has also galvanized Western allies. The UK has authorized the use of its missiles, while France, adhering to its “strategic ambiguity,” expressed interest in deeper arms production collaboration. Western nations are now exploring security guarantees short of NATO membership, including involving private companies on Ukrainian soil to deter Russian aggression after a peace settlement.
Escalation Risks
In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the deployment of the Oreshnik missile—a medium-range weapon capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The missile struck Dnipro, with Russian claims suggesting it targeted Yushmash, a former Soviet missile factory. The launch has stoked fears of nuclear escalation, with UK officials greenlighting further military aid to Ukraine. The specter of World War III is now a topic of serious debate far beyond conspiracy theorist circles.
Experts caution against comparing the Ukraine conflict to the world wars of the 20th century. Unlike WWI and WWII, where colonial powers mobilised global troops and resources, many nations view the war in Ukraine as a regional conflict with international support. Frustration over the war’s dominance at global forums is growing, as issues like climate change, poverty, and trade reform are sidelined. The recent G20 Summit underscored this sentiment, with China emerging as a key diplomatic player.
The Unanswered Question
As the war becomes increasingly internationalised, with foreign fighters and competing peace proposals proliferating, a key question looms: What happens if Putin rejects a negotiated freeze in military operations? The answer may determine whether the world moves closer to peace—or to an unprecedented escalation.