By Muhammad Moteeb
Washington appears to have no clear or leading notion of supporting a truly united Ukraine. President Putin’s expansionist war tactics combined with the excessive use of kamikaze drones while keeping Russia’s strategic stockpiles largely intact have entangled Europe between hopes for peace and preparations for future conflict.
Putin’s motivations remain unclear, whether driven by Cold War nostalgia or ideological alignments. His post-war narrative of supporting Ukraine while simultaneously cultivating relations with hostile states reflects a pragmatic understanding of insurgency and power politics.
A Ukraine peace deal would mark a seminal transformation in the political evolution of both Europe and the United States. President Trump’s twenty-point peace agenda for Ukraine has lifted a dark cloud over Kyiv, which is struggling with a severe manpower crisis. However, the exercise of self-determination by Ukraine’s people and its allies continues to emphasize the country’s territorial unity, accompanied by compelling demands.
Russia’s economic sinews and its war-experienced economy could pave the way for further invasions if another Ukraine—or any neighboring state—seeks NATO membership. While some speculate about the possibility of World War III, the more likely scenario is another Russia–Ukraine confrontation in the near future. Ukraine is expected to rehabilitate itself in a post-war environment with support from Washington and Europe. However, such rehabilitation may be perceived as a threat by Moscow, prompting Russia to attempt to crush Ukraine again with greater force.
Ukraine may emerge as Europe’s “Afghanistan” to counter rival powers, particularly Russia. Yet manpower shortages could force Ukraine to shift from conventional frontline warfare to guerrilla tactics. Putin’s firsthand experience in psychological warfare has fueled deep resentment across Europe, although Russia’s broader security threat has been restrained by countervailing force. The current situation no longer allows Europe to sustain a prolonged proxy war. The United States also seeks an end to the conflict, as Washington faces broader challenges in global geopolitical power competition.
Europe’s economies initially enabled sustained arms supplies, but many European states are now facing recession after purchasing costly American military equipment. Russia, meanwhile, may not be adversely affected by this proxy war. A “war within a war” environment allows Moscow to maintain a battle-hardened army, a war-oriented economy, and tested weaponry. The Pentagon is acting diplomatically by holding strategic discussions with Putin on a peace deal while continuing to supply arms to Ukraine to counter its long-standing Cold War rival.
The Pentagon does not appear to be acting on the basis of Ukraine’s equal sovereign status and has increasingly restrained large-scale support. Ukraine has long viewed itself as a victim of Russian bullying, yet the principle of “as you sow, so shall you reap” resonates strongly in this conflict. President Zelensky’s excessive pursuit of NATO alignment has exposed the broader political and security agendas of major powers. NATO’s perceived security threats to Moscow as a bordering entity have reinforced bullying narratives within global media.
Ukraine’s culmination of war tactics has produced limited results. While Kyiv may claim victory in the future for political rhetoric, Moscow’s quieter narrative may ultimately reinforce President Putin’s hegemonic strategy. Ukraine’s alleged drone targeting of Putin has raised questions about Russia’s defense capabilities, as drones were reportedly shot down just before reaching the main building. Russia possesses the capability to intercept such threats well beyond sensitive airspace, yet allowing them to approach may serve strategic messaging purposes. Moscow has widely circulated the footage, possibly even sharing it with Trump, to preempt criticism should Russia target Ukrainian leadership in the future.
Ultimately, Ukraine has little choice but to accept territorial concessions in pursuit of peace or continue functioning as a proxy force for Europe. Either outcome risks instilling a lasting sense of security inferiority among current and future generations of Ukrainians. This prolonged instability will continue to drive asylum seekers toward Europe. A peace deal—albeit with concessions—remains the most viable option for Kyiv. Ukraine must decide not only for its own future generations but also with consideration for Europe’s fragile economic stability.
Note: Muhammad Moteeb is studying Liberal Arts in the University of Management and technology (Lahore).
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article/Opinion/Comment are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk (DND). Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk.
