Ukraine enters fourth year of war with Russia: ‘Closer to the beginning than we are to the end’

We Are Way Closer to the Beginning Than We Are to the End

As Ukraine entered its fourth year of war on November 5, 2024, the Western world found itself grappling with uncertainty about the future of Russia’s invasion. The re-election of President Donald Trump on November 5, 2024, has sparked a flurry of diplomatic activity, with the U.S. seeking to re-establish ties with Moscow in hopes of ending the conflict and securing a peace deal. Over the course of just one week following Trump’s re-election, several high-level interactions took place. These included a call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, a meeting between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and a discussion between retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, the special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth added to the mix by sparking international debate with his statement that Ukraine would likely not be allowed to join NATO under the current administration.

Despite these efforts, optimism about a potential end to the brutal war in Ukraine remains elusive. Instead, confusion and skepticism have grown globally as the geopolitical landscape becomes increasingly murky. Dan Hoffman, a former CIA Moscow station chief, summed up the uncertainty when he said, “What a ceasefire would look like? I have no idea.” Hoffman, who has deep expertise on Russia, emphasized the complexity of negotiations, noting that the key to any successful deal lies in getting Russia to agree to stop its aggression. However, he cautioned that Putin is unlikely to make concessions easily, as he views the United States as Russia’s primary adversary. “He’s a KGB guy,” Hoffman explained. “He hates Donald Trump just as much as he hates Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, and every one of us, because the United States is the main enemy.”

The Trump Administration’s Push for a Ceasefire

President Trump’s re-election has raised questions about his administration’s approach to the Ukraine conflict. Trump has been critical of Zelenskyy, even going so far as to label him a “dictator” and suggesting that he bears some blame for Russia’s invasion. These comments have been met with concern among experts, who worry that such rhetoric could embolden Putin and undermine Ukraine’s position in negotiations. Meanwhile, Trump’s envoy for Russia and Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has struck a different tone, praising Zelenskyy as a “courageous leader” after his meeting with the Ukrainian president.

The Trump administration has made it clear that its primary goal is to secure a ceasefire and a peace deal. However, the path to achieving this remains unclear. Putin’s objectives are straightforward: he is determined to maintain control over four Ukrainian regions—Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—that he illegally annexed in 2022. While these regions remain contested, with Ukrainian forces continuing to resist Russian occupation, Putin has not fully seized any of them. Zelenskyy has been adamant that he will not cede any Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, which Russia has occupied since 2014. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dismissed the idea of Ukraine reclaiming Crimea as “unrealistic,” further complicating the negotiations.

Security Guarantees and the Role of NATO

One of the most contentious issues in any potential peace deal is the question of security guarantees for Ukraine. Experts have warned that Ukraine’s NATO membership should not be used as a bargaining chip, as this could grant Russia de facto veto power over the alliance’s expansion. Catherine Sendak, director of transatlantic defense and security at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), emphasized that “Ukraine’s NATO membership should not be a negotiation tactic, because we don’t want Russia to have, you know, de facto veto power over who joins NATO.”

Despite this, there are growing questions about whether NATO will play a role in enforcing a ceasefire. Some European nations, such as Britain and France, have suggested that they might be willing to deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a deterrent force. However, Russian officials have already made it clear that the presence of NATO forces in Ukraine would be unacceptable. Even if European forces were deployed, their specific role remains unclear. Would they be tasked with policing Ukraine’s borders with Russia, or would they primarily provide air and naval support? These questions highlight the murky nature of any potential ceasefire agreement.

Europe’s Role in the Conflict

The Trump administration has made it clear that it does not intend to send U.S. troops to Ukraine, and there are even suggestions that it may withdraw American forces from Europe. This has placed additional pressure on European nations to take on a more prominent role in supporting Ukraine. However, there are concerns about whether European countries have the capacity and experience to lead such an effort. William Monahan, a senior fellow at CEPA and former deputy assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs during the previous Trump administration, noted that “many European nations just have not had any experience in leading a force of that size.”

At the same time, there are growing divisions between the U.S. and Europe over the approach to the conflict. Sam Green, director of democratic resilience at CEPA and a professor of Russian politics at King’s College London, warned that some European countries, including potentially Britain and France, are beginning to see the U.S. as part of the problem rather than the solution. Green suggested that European nations may need to develop their own strategies for addressing the conflict, potentially even if it means countering a U.S.-Moscow proposal for a ceasefire.

The Shifting Geopolitical Landscape

The divisions between the U.S. and Europe are playing directly into Putin’s hands. For years, one of Putin’s primary strategic goals has been to create divisions between the U.S. and its transatlantic allies. According to Monahan, Putin is likely thrilled with the current state of affairs, as his efforts to sow discord have begun to bear fruit. “I think there’s a need to get a coordinated approach that brings in our allies and partners [and] maintains that source of strength,” Monahan said. “I think Putin is very happy he has been able to achieve one of his strategic goals, which is create disunion and division among the United States and its allies in the transatlantic relationship.”

Hoffman echoed this sentiment, noting that Putin believes he can “break Europe” by exploiting these divisions. “He doesn’t think Europe is going to be strong enough without the United States,” Hoffman said. He recalled how, during the Cold War, it was the strength of the U.S. and its nuclear umbrella that deterred Soviet expansion. “NATO has always been an alliance to deter Russian aggression,” he added.

The Road Ahead

As the situation continues to unfold, one thing is certain: the path forward is fraught with uncertainty. Hoffman warned that the U.S. is still “nowhere close to knowing how all this is going to play out” and that the current cacophony of opinions and actions amounts to little more than “noise.” The Trump administration’s approach to negotiations has been met with both skepticism and concern, particularly given its willingness to re-engage with Moscow while seemingly undermining Ukraine’s position.

At the same time, the growing divides between the U.S. and Europe risk undermining the very alliances that have historically been a bulwark against Russian aggression. As Green noted, the U.S. is increasingly being seen as part of the problem rather than the solution, a perception that could have long-term consequences for transatlantic relations and global security.

Ultimately, the success of any ceasefire or peace deal will depend on a coordinated and united approach from the U.S. and its allies. Without this, the conflict in Ukraine is likely to drag on, with devastating consequences for the Ukrainian people and the broader international order. As the world watches, the question remains: will the U.S. and its allies be able to come together to address this crisis, or will the divisions of the moment allow Putin to achieve his goals? Only time will tell.