Continuous War or Terrifying Peace? The consequences of the War in Ukraine

At the very beginning, Mykhailo Samus, Deputy Director of the Center for Army, Conversion and Disarmament Studies and the director of the New Geopolitics Research Network (Kyiv) expressed his concern with one of the goals of the Russian aggression which is “denazification”. For him personally, but for many Ukrainians as well, this goal means a genocide. It is hard to understand why the Russian president Putin decided to invade Ukraine in the first place. According to Mr. Samus, the Russians did not make any strategic goals in Ukraine itself, although they tried to do their best to achieve at least some goal before the Victory Parade in Moscow on 9^th May. He reminded the audience that not a single big city (except for Kherson) did not follow in the Russian hands; instead, the main goal for Russian forces is to gain some territory in the Luhansk oblast in the so-called “People’s Republic of Luhansk”. Mr. Samus underlined that the financial and military aid by the Western countries is very helpful for Ukraine at this moment. He expects that the fights would intensify, and that more counter-offensive by the Ukrainian army should follow. In addition, Mr. Samus said that the Ukrainian economy functions normally for the time being, but it is necessary for Ukraine to prepare for the economic hardship and post-war rebuilding.  

Maxim Samorukov, Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Moscow) expressed his views on the Kremlin’s ambitions. For him, the Kremlin’s wish has been to reverse the defeat from the Cold War, and to make a new global order that would be more beneficial for Russia. However, the opposite is happening – Russia is in the process of losing the status of great power, and everything that had not been lost during the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has been losing now. As geopolitical consequence of the Russian aggression, Mr. Samorukov sees the strengthening of the European Union, and the end of the special relations Russia had with Germany. The privileged energy status Russia had with Europe will dissolve. NATO appeared as very relevant security actor in Europe, as it is now clear that the new countries (particularly Finland and Sweden) want to join the alliance. Russian hopes for the help of China have not realized yet, while, at this moment, it is very difficult to imagine long-lasting peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine until Vladimir Putin is at power.

Iskra Kirova, Senior Policy Analyst, Open Society European Policy Institute Brussels pointed out that the war exposed strategic mistakes of Europe in regard with Russia. There is no space for pragmatic relations between the EU and Russia anymore. The imperialist and revisionist nature of the Russian leadership had been displayed with the invasion on Ukraine. The German-led initiative for cooperation called “change through trade” appeared to be an illusion. Ms. Kirova also reminded on big EU dependence on Russia’s natural gas and oil, as the import is continuing to many EU countries despite the war, and as consequence, payments are still pouring to Russia from some EU capitals. Ms. Kirova believes that another strategic mistake by Brussels was the appeasement of Putin, which enabled the Russian president to act without impunity in the past. The EU will change as the result of the ongoing War in Ukraine, probably by the deepening the level of integration. Finally, it is now clear that the EU enlargement policy will change as well, firstly, and mostly with the Ukraine’s candidate bid for the EU membership.

Igor Fedyk, Head of the Balkan section of the Center for Army, Conversion and Disarmament Studies (Kyiv) from the Center for Army, Conversion and Disarmament Studies (Kyiv) said that geopolitical changes in the Balkans will happen despite what would be the result of the War in Ukraine, while these changes will be the biggest precisely in those countries where Russia has had a big influence. Serbia will be hit by these geopolitical changes because the Serbian leadership had allowed the presence of the Russian influence in the past. As an example, Mr. Fedyk reminded about the Serbia’s positive vote at the United Nations General Assembly voting condemning the Russian aggression against Ukraine. President Vučić will have to make a choice – now, he will have to make decision in regard with the Serbia’s position towards Russia. The potential problem for Serbia Mr. Fedyk sees in the energy sector, given the fact that Serbia is hugely dependent of Russia’s gas and oil. It is expected that the military cooperation between Serbia and Russia will downsize, since the military equipment, in general, of Russia is being used now in Ukraine. As a consequence of the Russian aggression, there would be changes on three main security challenges in the Balkans: firstly, it can be expected that North Macedonia would begin its accession negotiation with the EU; secondly, there will be larger pressure on both Belgrade and Prishtina to continue the Brussels-backed negotiation on the Kosovo issue and finally, it should be expected that there would be a bigger pressure on the Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik to end the political crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina.