As the conflict in Ukraine drags on, experts predict that the war could continue well into 2025.
Sten, the director of the Danish Institute of Advanced Study and a professor of war studies at the University of Southern Denmark, shared insights on the situation, emphasizing Ukraine’s critical need for manpower and the increasing pressure they face on the front lines.
Interestingly, Sten pointed out that the prolonged conflict is beginning to take a toll on Russia’s economy, which is now relying on outdated weaponry and arms sourced from nations like North Korea and Iran.
Sten’s remarks come at a time when NATO is gearing up for its annual nuclear exercise, Steadfast Noon, next week.
This development raises questions about the implications for Western alliances.
He asserts that NATO has re-emerged as a nuclear alliance, despite its leaders primarily focusing on conventional defense strategies.
The reality is that Russia’s nuclear threats are an attempt to intimidate the West, and this tactic appears to be working, as many Western nations seem to self-deter in response.
The backbone of NATO’s strategy lies in nuclear deterrence, a concept that has evolved since the Cold War.
Today, NATO is much larger and more eastern-focused, but its conventional forces are still largely stationed in the West.
This geographical disparity complicates rapid military responses to Russian aggression.
Central and Eastern European allies express skepticism regarding Western European nations’ ability to defend them, leading to a greater reliance on American support than ever before.
Former President Trump’s unpredictable nature adds another layer of complexity to NATO dynamics.
His reputation for making abrupt decisions could destabilize the alliance, raising concerns among member nations.
Sten notes that NATO leaders are keen to project confidence in the alliance, even as they grapple with the uncertainties that a potential Trump presidency could bring.
The specter of unpredictability in U.S. national security policy could push European nations back into a competitive, power-balancing mindset reminiscent of earlier conflicts.
The newly appointed NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, has already engaged in discussions about the war in Ukraine, echoing sentiments previously expressed by former Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
Rutte suggested that had NATO provided more support to Ukraine before the escalation of the conflict in 2022, the war might have been averted.
Sten agrees that this assertion holds merit, but he emphasizes the need to consider the eight years leading up to the war, during which NATO seemed to overlook Russia’s aggressive posturing.
As the war continues, both sides are experiencing fluctuating fortunes.
Ukraine has made significant gains in the past, such as the successful counteroffensive in Kharkiv.
However, the current situation is more precarious.
Sten highlights that Ukraine is struggling to regain territory due to the overwhelming resources and manpower that Russia is deploying.
In response, Ukraine has shifted its strategy to conduct deep strikes into Russian territory, targeting key infrastructure to disrupt the enemy’s war efforts.
This new approach underscores Ukraine’s determination to demonstrate strength against Russia, even as it faces challenges on the battlefield.
The ongoing conflict has forced Ukraine to develop its own defense industrial capabilities, especially as Western allies have been hesitant to allow weapons to reach Russian soil.
By striking deep into Russia, Ukraine aims to undermine the perception of Putin’s power and shake the foundations of his regime.
However, this strategy also places NATO in a difficult position.
The alliance has traditionally maintained a stance of supporting Ukraine within its borders, but Ukraine’s new offensive tactics complicate this dynamic.
NATO’s response has been cautious, with leaders repeatedly delaying discussions about Ukraine’s potential membership in the alliance, opting instead for vague assurances about future support.
Looking ahead, Sten believes that the war is likely to persist for several more years.
While there is momentum among some NATO allies to bolster Ukraine’s defense industry, concerns linger over the hesitancy of major players like the U.S. and Germany.
This hesitation is rooted in a desire to avoid escalating tensions with Russia, which complicates the alliance’s decision-making process.
As the situation evolves, Russia recently claimed to have captured two Ukrainian villages in Donetsk, raising alarms about the implications of this advance.
Sten suggests that the conflict is unfolding on two fronts: while Russia focuses on its offensive in Donetsk, Ukraine is committed to taking the fight to Russian territory.
The balance of power remains delicate, with current trends indicating a slight advantage for Russia in Donetsk.
In this complex landscape, it is crucial to monitor the interplay between military actions and political decisions.
The future of NATO’s commitment to Ukraine and its evolving strategies will significantly shape the outcome of this enduring conflict.