At the end of February this year, when people had not yet recovered from the aftereffects of the flames of the Beijing Winter Olympics being extinguished, On February 24, 2022, Russian President Putin ordered the launch of a "special military operation" in Ukraine , contrary to everyone’s expectations, Russia launched a full-scale attack on Ukraine.
In the early days of the war, Russia's numerous mechanized troops advanced rapidly along the transportation network in Eastern Ukraine and southern Ukraine, intending to seize a number of strategic locations. Belarus airborne troops forcibly launched airborne raids on airports around the Ukrainian capital Kiev , intending to control the surrounding areas of Kiev as quickly as possible and "behead" Ukraine's military and political core, the Zelenskiy authorities, in order to force the Ukrainian government The army stopped resisting.
This makes many people think that the war will end quickly at Russia's "tempo".
But the subsequent development of the war situation also exceeded many people's expectations: the Russian airborne troops that attacked the airports around Kiev as mentioned earlier were unable to arrive quickly because the airports had been destroyed in advance, and the Ukrainian side was advancing on the front line in the direction of Kiev. The battle for heavy troops eventually led Russia to completely withdraw from Kiev in May and reorganize its troops to other fronts.
Russia's operations in eastern Ukraine and southeastern Ukraine experienced rapid transitions in the early stages of the war, but also progressed slowly in front of Mariupol and other fortified cities that the Ukrainian side has operated for a long time.
In addition, due to the relative shortage of personnel and the fact that some technical weapons in the military reform were not fully in place due to development ideas and funds and other factors, between March and April, Russia's supply lines were often blocked by small Ukrainian forces. Sneak attack on - This makes the appearance of the Russian army quite "astonishing" in front of many people.
However, since April, with the series of strategic and tactical adjustments made by Russia, especially since the reduction of troops in Kiev and other strategic directions that have proven to be "low cost performance" and their deployment to the main battlefield in eastern Ukraine, Russia currently seems to There is also a tendency to fully grasp the strategic and operational initiative on the Ukrainian battlefield.
In terms of international public opinion, various propaganda-style war reports with varying degrees of "water injection" from Ukraine and Russia, as well as various second-hand news from different countries' media with different positions, have made many onlookers watch. I don’t quite understand this war.
Perhaps at this point, we should look back at the past and think about the most fundamental question: This war has been going on for more than four months. What are Russia and Ukraine, including NATO and the United States who are indirectly involved in this war behind the scenes, actually fighting? What?
Russia: Security, Nationality and the New International Order
To analyze "why Russia is fighting this war", we must look at what Russia's top leader Putin thinks.
In the Soviet-style military system, there was something called "Chief's Determination Map" . "Chief's Determination Chart" often exists as an attachment to a combat order or report. It is a detailed text expressing the "basis for organizing operations." It contains detailed information about the deployment of the enemy's and ours' forces, the organization of attack or defense directions, etc.
Here we take the literal meaning of "chief's determination" to see what Putin, the supreme commander of the Russian army, has in his strategic planning or thinking on the Russia-Ukraine war.
As for Putin's strategic considerations, two days before he announced the start of military operations, he recognized the status of Udon Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast "Independent Republic" in his speech, and on May 9 this year It was quite reflected in the Victory Day speech in Red Square. To put it simply, Putin’s “chief’s determination” includes considerations in three dimensions: security, nation, and new international order.
Let’s talk about security first.
In the study of international relations, "security" has always been considered the basis for the survival and development of a sovereign country. The word "security" has both subjective and objective meanings in international relations: Objective security refers to whether the external environment faced by a country poses a threat to the country. The subjective "security concept" can be understood as the "personalized" perception of fear and threats from the core of decision-making to the general public.
In this Russo-Ukrainian war, the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West or NATO and Ukraine can be reflected in the different positions of different countries involved in "subjective" and "objective" security.
To put it simply, perhaps Russia, NATO and Ukraine did not intend to "subjectively" threaten each other at the beginning. However, Russia’s huge nuclear arsenal and homeland threat, coupled with the historical record of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union’s continuous “enthusiasm” for territorial expansion, have made the West and NATO, as well as a group of former Soviet Union’s “joining countries” and “ satellite state ” cannot be completely reassured by today’s Moscow regime.
Similarly, NATO's gradual eastward expansion after the Cold War and the huge defense pressure on its western borders from potential opponents during World War II and the Cold War have made Russia question whether its western borders will be affected in the context of NATO's gradual eastward expansion. Feeling uneasy about continuing to engage with potential rivals.
In short, in terms of subjective security, both parties feel "unsafe" about the other's existence, and at the same time regard the other's existence as a "security threat" - Both parties' mutual "uneasy" understanding of security threats, in During the color revolution in Ukraine in 2014, Russia's "grabbing chestnuts from the fire" and occupying Crimea further intensified.
Let’s talk about Putin’s security considerations.
In addition to the aforementioned "uneasy about NATO and Western countries" , we have to expand on the historical roots of Russia's uneasiness about potential enemies facing its western border.
In history, from Tsarist Russia to the Soviet Union, the several large-scale war crises faced by Russia all started with the "enemy is coming from the west" situation. This is true for from Napoleon's invasion to and the Crimean War. Especially after the Soviet Union entered the Stalin period and the painful experience of the Soviet-German War, the Soviet and Russian authorities later realized the importance of establishing a "buffer zone" with potential opponents in the west.
After all, the vast Tsarist Empire had long since fallen apart. In order to ensure that the core strategic areas of the Slavic nation had sufficient depth and "safe space", the borders of the Slavic nation-states, or the borders with potential hostile parties, must be ensured. line, the further away from the strategic core, the better.
This idea of ensuring "strategic depth" as much as possible has historically influenced many leaders who are considered to have "made a difference" in this national and cultural context.
From Peter the Great seized St. Petersburg surroundings from the northern overlord Sweden , to Stalin's establishment of many satellite states in Eastern Europe when he expanded the Soviet territory westward before World War II and the redrawing of the European political landscape after World War II, to modern times. Putin went to war in 2008 for South Ossetia and Georgia after joining NATO, as well as today's war in Ukraine.
's focus on "strategic depth" can also explain why Russia is so sensitive to "NATO's eastward expansion".
Although there were conflicts in Russia-Ukraine relations in the early days of the disintegration, factors such as the historical, cultural and industrial production connections of the entire Slavic nation from Tsarist Russia to the Soviet Union were still relatively well controlled. But once Ukraine shows a tendency to leave Russia's "sphere of influence", especially when Ukraine shows a tendency to embrace or follow the West on security issues.
Moscow's "terrifying historical memory" that at its doorstep "may directly border potential opponents" will be directly induced, resulting in a series of "subjective feelings" about Russia-Ukraine relations that are pessimistic and even uncontrollable. The gradual intensification and accumulation of Russia's insecurity may force it to follow the example of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union in history and take the actions we see today.
After talking about safety, let’s take a look at why said that Russia decided to fight this war for “a nation”.
This was reflected in Putin's speech with the meaning of "declaring war" on February 21, the day before the Russian-Ukrainian war began, and in his Victory Day speech on May 9.
Let me mention here first, the concept commonly used when we talk about history - historical view . Generally speaking, a specific view of history will determine a specific understanding of history.
From Putin’s two speeches, it seems that we can draw a very unique historical narrative with a large Slavic national perspective as the core. This narrative of is sometimes called "Imperial Russia" narrative on the Chinese Internet. Of course, there is no clear conclusion on the precise connotation of the so-called "Imperial Russia" narrative or the narrative of " Russian Empire ".
But from a national perspective, the "Imperial Russia" narrative mainly believes that Russia should classify all the lands of the "Russian nation or Slavic nation" in history into today's "Great Russia" category - equivalent to them I want to create a relatively weakened version of Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union.
In their view, the land of the Russian nation today has been disintegrated and fragmented due to the Soviet Union's failure in the Cold War and the extremely "unreasonable" internal ethnic division policy, and should be "reintegrated". The land of the current Russian Federation is not enough and cannot be completely Build a community territory of the Russian nation. The basis for
's outward expansion is that "expands to the borders where the residents of those lands begin to spontaneously resist us rather than welcome us" .
Generally speaking, a war declaration issued by a country's leader before a war sometimes also contains the leader's subjective " logically self-consistent " understanding of the impending war - this is also part of the justification for the war.
In Putin's view, this war is part of "demilitarizing Ukraine" and correcting the so-called "historical mistakes." So what is the historical error?
From the perspective of Putin and the relatively extreme right-wing Pan-Slavic nationalist ideology behind his view of history, modern Ukraine as a sovereign country "should not have existed" in history. It was the Soviet Union, especially Lenin, who , the policy of ethnic and internal regional divisions during the Stalin period created and fixed the territory of the current Ukrainian state.
Russians and Ukrainians have been brotherly nations since ancient times and have extremely profound cultural, religious and living habits. Therefore, not only the entire Ukrainian land, but at least part of it should theoretically belong to the future community of the entire Russian nation. .
On the issue of building an "ideal community" , Putin has already taken practical steps.
At the beginning of this year, Russia and Belarus announced that they would establish an "integrated" national alliance. In short, Putin and some right-wing nationalist politicians in Russia hope to restore a loose or politically closely related "Greater Slavic Federation" based on parts of the territory of Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union in history.
Are the above perceptions of Putin and the "Pan-Slavic nationalists" among his current supporters about the future of the Russian nation justified? I think this answer is a matter of opinion.
On the one hand, if we look purely at the territory of Ukraine today, the main part of Ukraine as a sovereign country today was indeed formed in the twentieth century. currently traces the origins of the country established by the Ukrainian nation in history as an "independent nation" rather than a "sub-branch of the Great Slavic nation". is often considered to be the leader of the Ukrainian national uprising in the Polish Empire at that time Heme Linitz based regime established. In order to survive after the establishment of the Khmelnytsky regime, it almost merged with the then Russian Empire.
In fact, the Kievan Rus and Ancient Rus formed around Kiev in today's Ukraine are almost recognized as the earliest prototypes of today's Russian nation state - I have said so much just to explain that until 1917, the Tsarist Russian Empire Collapse in the revolutionary wave, there is really no so-called "independent Ukrainian state" , even if there is, it is only a moment of discovery.
The October Revolution overthrew Tsarist Russia
After the disintegration of Tsarist Russia, the "Ukrainian region" in the geographical sense was split into east and west parts - the Ukrainian Soviet was established in Eastern Ukraine. We Chinese are familiar with this, "How Steel is Made Everyone knows that has become a success.
In the west, Ukraine established the bourgeois Ukrainian government . This government is the "Petliura Gangster" in the socialist camp narrative. Later, Western Ukraine was annexed by the socialist regime in the east, and together with Eastern Ukraine became Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, becoming a member of the Soviet Union.
But in the subsequent Soviet-Polish War the Soviet Union was defeated, Poland expanded eastward and swallowed up Western Ukraine, demarcating its own "Eastern Poland region". But this "Eastern Poland region" was quickly taken back by Stalin before the Second World War in accordance with the "Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact" The secret agreement on the partition of Poland with Germany was taken back by the Soviet Union. In addition, the post-war The liquidation of the Axis camp ceded and fixed a small amount of territory in some Romania and other countries. In addition, during the Khrushchev period in the 1950s, in order to commemorate the "three hundredth anniversary of the merger of Russia and Ukraine", Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine. This was able to form the internationally recognized territorial basis of today’s Ukraine. From this perspective, the territory of modern Ukraine is indeed "formed during the Soviet era."
But this statement also ignores the fact that the Ukrainian nation once briefly established its own country in history, and in today's international system, this is an infringement on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a sovereign country widely recognized by the international community. In today's international society, the status of countries is about equality, at least that's what the "United Nations Charter" says - Russia and Ukraine are both members of the United Nations and are obligated to abide by the "United Nations Charter."
What's more, this kind of "Pan-Russian nationalism" thinking also showed considerable shortcomings in this military operation, that is, the Russian side seemed to seriously underestimate the Ukrainian government's resilience and will to resist in the early stages of the military operation.
In fact, according to some information, in the early days of Ukraine's "Color Revolution", when Russia "took chestnuts from the fire" to seize Crimea, there were indeed a large number of pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine. Facing the Russian army, there was a sense of "the king came to look out." And descend" means.
But after Ukraine’s “continuous campaign” against pro-Russian separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine and the evolution of various domestic ideological trends, including neo-Nazism, another recognized fact is: is an independent Slavic religion. The consciousness of the "Ukrainian national community" with historical and cultural background is also slowly awakening - that is to say, more and more Ukrainians realize in many government policies and observations of Russia-Ukraine relations that they do not belong to " Moscow’s side”, but more “the Western side”.
Since we talked about international order earlier, let’s talk about Putin’s third dimension of consideration in planning this war - international order .
From Putin's speech, we can find that Russia is quite dissatisfied with the current international order. This dissatisfaction is actually understandable - to be fair, the international structure from the Cold War to the present is indeed based on the "corpse" of the disintegration of the Soviet Union.As the largest and most direct successor to the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation suffered great losses in the process.
What's more, everyone knows that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia actually hoped to be close to Western Europe in terms of security and economic and industrial structure, but it could not do so.
For a long time, due to domestic economic development and other reasons, obstacles to upgrading the industrial structure, and the "ship disaster turning around", it has been difficult for Russia to rely on EU to establish a relatively developed third country like some former Soviet and Eastern countries. Industry , but had to continue to rely on traditional energy and other industries to make money "hardly" under the "industrial scissors difference ", which also made many people in Russia quite dissatisfied.
Therefore, in recent years, dissatisfaction with the current international order within Russia has been increasing day by day. Many people hope to change the current international order, especially the political and economic order.
As we mentioned earlier, Putin and some people in Russia hope to establish a similar "Slavic community" in the future.
From the perspective of international order, Putin may hope to achieve a partial restoration of the status of the tsar or the Soviet Union on the international stage in the past - it will not be a "big empire", but as much as possible, Russia should be able to become the entire Slavic nation. Representation on the international stage and representation in the international economic division of labor.
Looking at the modern economic history of Russia from the Soviet Union to Russia, it can be said that in the context of the Cold War, the economies of the planned economic system in Eastern Europe under the leadership of the Economic Cooperation headed by the Soviet Union formed a set of economies that were different from those of the capitalist countries at that time. is a relatively independent "exchange" economic model for free market economies.
To put it simply, under the unified deployment of the central government, the various federations in the Soviet Union vigorously developed some special industries according to local conditions. Different special industries and the upstream and downstream of the production chain were due to the combination of the Economic Cooperation Council and the Soviet Union, plus the central planning instructions. Unified mobilization has formed a relatively complete industrial chain and economic category system.
After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, many former member countries lacked a "large state-owned economic management system" and could only rely on the "feature industry foundation" laid in the Soviet era to engage in domestic economic construction - For example, Armenia and other countries will completely become resource countries.
Russia’s so-called “demilitarization” of Ukraine today also has the intention of reorganizing and re-planning the production resources in some areas of Ukraine today.
In fact, the reason why Dongwu broke up with Xiwu during the color revolution in 2014 was also due to industrial factors.
Eastern Ukraine is famous for its heavy industry. During the Soviet era, it established quite tight production ties with relevant upstream and downstream enterprises in Russia today. Western Ukraine is more famous for its agricultural system and natural resources. To a certain extent, this has also led to Eastern Ukraine’s “centripetal force” on Russia’s economy, politics and culture.
In short, from the Russian side, the purpose of this war is to impact the current international system in order to accelerate the reshuffle of a new round of international political and economic order and at the same time realize the reconstruction of "the territory of the Slavic nation and its nation-states". It also hopes to achieve its own geo-security goals.
Ukraine: All-round westward and the new Ukrainian nation-state
Compared with Russia, as the invaded party, Ukraine's first combat purpose is to regain the "lost territory" and protect its territory currently recognized by most countries in the world. territorial integrity.
In fact, since the "Color Revolution" in Ukraine in 2014, when Eastern Ukraine declared independence from the Kiev authorities and Russia occupied Crimea, the Kiev authorities have been hoping to "put out law and order and regain their homeland" - for a sovereign country's government Said that this is the due meaning and legitimate measure to exercise the right of self-defense and internal coercive power similar to "law enforcement power".
However, the performance of the Ukrainian government forces before this year's Russo-Ukrainian war was very poor, and they were even dubbed by domestic netizens as "the second-largest military force in the country."
From 2014 to 2016, the Ukrainian government forces mobilized "militia forces" formed by various "ghosts and monsters" from the government army to the general figures at the time to attack the Eastern Ukraine regions Luhansk and Donetsk The two independent states carried out "security and anti-insurgency operations", but were defeated by the "militia" supported by Russia and the "volunteer army" composed of Russian domestic nationalists. It was also during this period that based on the civil war in Ukraine in 2014 and 2015, the two "Minsk Agreements" led by France, Germany, Russia and other major powers were signed and implemented.
The first "Minsk Agreement" was drafted and signed by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in September 2014. Ukraine signed this agreement, which specifically stipulated some such as armistice lines and prisoner exchanges. etc. content.
After that, in 2015, " New Minsk Agreement " was further reached.
It is worth noting that the signatories of this "Novo-Minsk" agreement, in addition to the Organization for Security in Europe, Russia and Ukraine, also include the leaders of the two "independent states" of Eastern Ukraine. In this "New Minsk Agreement", arrangements were not only made for the armistice between the two parties in the Ukrainian civil war, that is, the government forces and the East Ulu and Donetsk states, but also for the two parties of Luhansk and Donetsk. Arrangements were made for the status and future of the "independent state".
The "New Minsk Agreement" requires that the two states of Luhansk and Donetsk will still belong to Ukraine in terms of sovereignty, but will obtain a "high degree of autonomy" - this leaves hidden dangers for today's Russia-Ukraine war.
But in fact, the calm on the front line brought by the "New Minsk Agreement" did not last long.
On the one hand, Eastern Ukraine is not satisfied with being under the same roof as the pro-Western Ukrainian authorities - As we mentioned earlier, economically speaking, Eastern Ukraine has relatively closer ties with Russia. The areas governed by the Kiev authorities in Ukraine were angered by the "high degree of autonomy" of the two eastern Ukrainian states in the "New Minsk Agreement". To be honest, for the Kiev authorities, this result is indeed no different from "losing power and humiliating the country."
But the Ukrainian government forces are not fighting well, what can they do? What you can’t get on the battlefield is almost impossible to get back at the negotiation table. It can be said that almost before the ink of the "New Minsk Agreement" was dry, the conflict between the government forces and the two eastern Ukrainian states began again.
Of course, the conflicts that lasted until the full-scale war between Russia and Ukraine in February this year were all sporadic conflicts that were cold-blooded. The OSCE observation team has issued more and more reports about "violations of ceasefire agreements." Of course, sporadic ceasefires have also caused continued casualties among people in Eastern Ukraine.
may be here. Some readers want to ask "Who violated the ceasefire agreement first?"
But even the relevant records of OSCE are not clear and unclear. In the author's opinion, it no longer makes sense in a moral sense to accuse a certain party of "violating the conflict ceasefire agreement." It can only be said that eight years after the New Minsk Agreement was reached, greater conflicts have been brewing, and sparks appear and disappear on the edge of the powder keg.
Before, the Eastern Ukrainian militias were able to forcefully defeat the Ukrainian government forces only with the support of Russia behind them. However, after the signing of the "Novo-Minsk Agreement", Russia's "ostensibly" public assistance to the two eastern Ukrainian states was significantly reduced - This was because the Russian government at the time subjectively hoped to improve relations with Western Europe and to cope with the then Syrian civil war It is related to the unfavorable war situation faced by Assad's government forces. The reduction in Russia's aid directly means that the "power" of the two eastern Ukrainian states will be continuously eroded by the Ukrainian government forces.
According to data analysis around 2020, only 60% of the previous actual control areas remained in Luzhou and Dunzhou at that time. In fact, in this Russo-Ukrainian war until today, one of the primary goals of the Russian and Luton state militia coalition is to "liberate" the territory occupied by Ukrainian government forces in the two states.
Since 2014, Ukraine has recognized the huge threat from Russia, and therefore hopes to develop further relations with European countries, especially NATO.
Anyone who knows NATO knows that as a political and military alliance, once a member state of NATO is invaded, other member states will assist in defense under the principle of "collective security". Ukraine's wishful thinking is working, but what about NATO?
It is true that in the past few years when relations between Russia and North Korea have been extremely tense, a former Soviet Union country has joined NATO's anti-Russian front, and even actively hopes that NATO will expand eastward. NATO is naturally happy to see this - can deploy NATO troops to Russia and Ukraine The border borders the Russian mainland, which is more direct and threatening than the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States around the "frontline countries" during the Cold War.
But the problem is that NATO does not want a direct military conflict with Russia. Although it is said that Russia’s performance on the battlefield this time is not very good, but if you want to immediately invest all NATO’s military forces in the war against Russia, not to mention the question of whether the war can be won, even if the Putin regime can be defeated in the future Russia has achieved regime change under its leadership, but in the future European political landscape, what status and method will Russia have to coexist with other European countries?
What's more, many media have recently mentioned that Ukraine cannot even meet one of the most basic conditions for recruiting new members of NATO - there are no territorial sovereignty disputes with other countries. After all, NATO does not want "one member country to kidnap the entire NATO" to happen, so that Ukraine can stand up to Russia because of the issues in the two states of Eastern Ukraine.
After we mentioned the "Novo-Minsk Agreement" earlier, there were calls within the Kiev authorities for the agreement to be "a humiliation of power and humiliation for the country", which made the authorities from Poroshenko to the current Zelenskiy authorities have to use it in actual political operations. "Recovering lost ground in the future" is part of its policy agenda.
This is why since March, despite many negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, the Zelensky authorities always seem to put forward in front of the media and the world: "If Russia does not withdraw its troops from Crimea, then war will continue." such a "confusing" clause. After all, the Ukrainian military currently does not expect to use force to solve the Crimea issue.
However, in the view of some people who are pro-Ukrainian government forces, the best outcome for Ukraine's victory is to march into Crimea and regain all the "lost territory" in Crimea and the two eastern Ukrainian states.
However, some recent developments in the war seem to allow people to see another possibility. That is, the "pro-Russian areas" mentioned above such as eastern Ukraine and Crimea were taken away by Russia, and Kiev was historically The authorities established a new "Ukrainian nation-state" based on the western Ukraine that was ruled after the fall of Tsarist Russia with a smaller territory but clearer sovereignty issues.
This new Ukrainian nation-state can more thoroughly "break away from " its political and economic ties with Russia. Therefore, it can more quickly achieve the "economic joining of the European Union" that the pro-Europeans in the Ukrainian government hoped for in the past. Safely join NATO” ’s dream.
In this regard, Russia has at least not denied the possibility of solving the problem in this way.
But no matter what, one thing is certain since the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Regardless of whether the original "all-out westward" dream of the Kiev authorities since the 2014 Color Revolution can be realized, one thing is certain, an independent There is a high probability that the Ukrainian nation with a Russian and Pan-Slavic cultural and historical background will appear. Corresponding to is the emergence of a new "Ukrainian nation-state".
Of course, the future borders of this country will be the same as Ukraine after 1991, or the earliest modern parliamentary system Ukraine under the "Petliura Regime" in 1919, or will it be the same as the original Khmel Taking Nitsky's earliest "Kievan Rus" Ukraine as a reference is another story.
NATO: A stronger self, and the "trap with a slim future"
Theoretically speaking, since we have talked about why the two sides in the Russia-Ukraine war are fighting, it seems that this article can be concluded by talking about Ukraine. But considering the evolution of Russia-North Korea relations, or the fact that a group of NATO countries are now sending arms to Ukraine to support them in resisting Russia on the front line, NATO is the "number two player" standing on the edge of the center stage in this conflict.
Therefore, it is also necessary to briefly talk about NATO's goals for this war.
Since we have said before that the current relationship between Russia and North Korea is highly tense and even hostile, and NATO has always hoped to do everything possible to contain Russia, then this war is a very good opportunity.
Historically, the Soviet Union fell into the trap of the "Graveyard of Empires" Afghanistan War before its disintegration. On the one hand, NATO is sending a steady stream of weapons to Ukraine and building momentum in international public opinion. On the other hand, NATO is keeping a "clear head" regarding Ukraine's desire to join NATO. Isn't this to a certain extent, hoping to create a "Putin's Vietnam War " - may win militarily, but such a victory is almost not cost-effective or even a loss-making business.
At present, NATO’s contact and assistance with the pro-Western Kiev authorities since the color revolution in Ukraine for more than eight years, as well as its “weapons support” in the past few months, have indeed achieved certain results. The Russian offensive was indeed quite contained in March and April. The Russian offensive in the direction of Kiev even took the initiative to withdraw its troops after casualties.
But since May, as the Russian army has changed its deployment strategy and reflected on its tactics on the battlefield, although the Russian army has made slow progress, it is still moving forward. It can be said that the weapons that NATO can currently provide to Ukraine are a drop in the bucket.
Of course, many NATO member states have also used this war and the fear of the Russian threat to gain a pretty good opportunity to "re-arm" or strengthen their armed forces. Germany is an example of this. After this incident, the United States also began to reconsider the deployment of large-scale heavily armed troops in Europe.
In addition, although some countries in this Russia-Ukraine conflict also questioned the role of NATO from a moral level or a performance perspective, they believed that "is NATO's promise like fishing" , or "NATO failed to effectively contain Russia." has led to the development of the situation today.
However, with the "total showdown" in North-Russian relations, in a certain sense, NATO can better integrate the military affairs of countries in the European region - some time ago, Finland, and Sweden, , which have always regarded themselves as neutral, announced that they will join NATO. This is example.
In addition, the further expansion of NATO and its participation in European political and security affairs will also make some countries with relatively greater influence within NATO, such as France or Germany, "happy to see their influence increase with the expansion of NATO" Its success".
Ending
As for the Russia-Ukraine war, it can be said that it involves "two countries and three parties" each with their own agenda. But to be honest, who will be the biggest winner of the war still depends on the development of the war situation and the progress of the "political agenda."
Russia hopes to expand the security buffer zone, but in fact, with Finland joining NATO, the border between NATO and Russia seems to be a fait accompli in the future.
Ukraine is currently the biggest loser. The territory cannot be regained in the short term, but it is still unknown whether there will be a new Ukrainian nation-state "reborn".
Regarding NATO, although we said that NATO will use this crisis to further strengthen itself and relevant member states, as well as increase pressure on Russia. However, it should also be noted that due to the rise of some "non-traditional security factors" after the Cold War and other reasons, some of the military forces of existing NATO member states are unable to fully respond to major power conflicts in traditional Europe ...
I can only say, Soldiers have no permanent momentum, and water has no permanent shape..The performance of all parties in future wars and their assessment of their goals and results will affect the direction of this war to a considerable extent.
