Introduction: The War in Ukraine as a Catalyst for a Global Shift

The war in Ukraine is no longer merely a conflict between Kyiv and Moscow; it has become the epicenter of a broader geopolitical transformation. While the West remains fixated on tactical military developments, Russia has strategically maneuvered the conflict into a mechanism for reshaping the international order.

The February 28, 2025, confrontation between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky was a watershed moment. During a tense exchange, Trump publicly rebuked Zelensky, accusing him of “dragging the United States into an unnecessary global war” (The Times). This marked an official end to full-scale U.S. support for Ukraine, leaving European allies scrambling for alternatives.

For Vladimir Putin, this geopolitical shift is far more valuable than any battlefield victory. His objective is not simply to neutralize Ukraine but to fundamentally alter the balance of power in Europe and beyond. By leveraging the internal fractures of the West, Putin is systematically advancing a long-term strategy:

1. Dismantling U.S. military influence in Eastern Europe.

2. Transforming Ukraine into a permanently neutralized buffer state.

3. Weakening the European Union economically and politically.

4. Undermining NATO’s credibility and functionality.

5. Forging a new multipolar order, with Russia as a central actor alongside China and other emerging powers.

I. The Strategic Decline of Europe: A Continent in Freefall

1. The End of U.S. Military Presence in Eastern Europe?

A key demand in Russia’s negotiations with Washington involves the progressive withdrawal of NATO forces from Eastern Europe, particularly from Poland, the Baltic states, and Romania. This is not just about military logistics; it represents the dismantling of the American security umbrella that has shielded Europe since World War II.

With the Trump administration scaling back its commitments, these states find themselves increasingly exposed. Their security no longer depends on U.S. intervention but on a European defense system that remains underfunded and underdeveloped.

The Council on Foreign Relations has repeatedly warned that “Europe lacks the logistical and industrial capabilities to sustain a prolonged conventional war against Russia without American support” (CFR).

Putin understands this reality. By pressuring the U.S. into strategic disengagement, he forces Europe to face its own vulnerabilities, paving the way for a de facto Russian sphere of influence in the East.

2. The Neutralization of Ukraine: A Strategic Imposition

For Putin, military conquest is secondary to political control. His core objectives regarding Ukraine include:

• A formal commitment that Ukraine will never join NATO or the European Union.

• The dismantling of Western-supplied military infrastructure and a significant reduction in Ukrainian defense capabilities.

• The establishment of a pro-Russian or at least politically neutral government in Kyiv.

The ultimate goal is to transform Ukraine into a permanently demilitarized buffer state, preventing any future Western military encroachment on Russia’s borders.

3. Europe’s Economic and Political Crisis: A Perfect Storm

The economic and political consequences of the war have exposed deep fissures within the European Union, effectively neutralizing its ability to act as a cohesive geopolitical force.

• Germany, the EU’s economic engine, is in recession, crippled by skyrocketing energy costs following the loss of Russian gas imports.

• France faces internal political turmoil, with widespread social unrest limiting its capacity for sustained foreign policy engagement.

• Southern European states, including Italy and Spain, remain financially constrained, making significant military expenditures politically untenable.

Putin’s long-term strategy is predicated on European exhaustion. As months pass, domestic discontent over economic stagnation and energy shortages is expected to push European governments toward a negotiated settlement with Russia.

The Kremlin does not need to directly pressure European leaders; economic realities will eventually do the work for Moscow.

II. The Fragmentation of Western Power and the Rise of Multipolarity

4. The Trump Doctrine and the Unraveling of NATO

Trump’s second term has confirmed his deep skepticism toward NATO, leading to a gradual U.S. disengagement from European defense commitments.

In a closed-door meeting with European leaders, Trump reportedly declared:

“If you don’t pay for your own defense, don’t expect us to die for you.”

The consequences of this shift are profound:

• European nations must significantly increase defense spending, further straining their already fragile economies.

• NATO loses operational coherence, as member states struggle to coordinate military strategies without firm U.S. leadership.

• Eastern European nations—Poland, the Baltics, Romania—face a stark choice: escalate their own military efforts or seek a pragmatic détente with Moscow.

For Putin, this is a silent but decisive victory. Without American backing, NATO becomes an empty shell—formally intact but strategically impotent.

5. The Rise of an Alternative Global Order

While the West remains focused on Ukraine, Russia is actively forging new geopolitical alliances to counterbalance the declining Western hegemony.

• China has become Russia’s primary economic partner, absorbing the energy exports once destined for Europe.

• India maintains a strategic partnership with Moscow, balancing its ties with both Russia and the West.

• Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela serve as auxiliary allies, providing Moscow with alternative trade and military partnerships.

This alignment is not just about economics—it is about redefining global governance. The Western-led post-Cold War order, centered around American supremacy and liberal democratic expansionism, is being systematically dismantled.

Putin is not simply reacting to events; he is actively shaping a new multipolar world where the U.S. and its allies are no longer the sole arbiters of global stability.

Conclusion: Has Putin Already Won?

While Western leaders continue to push a narrative of eventual Ukrainian victory, the structural realities tell a different story:

• Ukraine is indefinitely dependent on Western military aid, unable to sustain itself economically or strategically.

• Europe is economically strained and politically divided, making prolonged confrontation unsustainable.

• NATO is losing its credibility as a military alliance, hampered by American disengagement.

• The U.S. itself is internally fractured, torn between global leadership and domestic retrenchment.

Putin does not need to achieve a spectacular military triumph—he simply needs to wait for the West to implode under its own contradictions.

This is the essence of Russia’s strategy: a war of attrition not on the battlefield, but in the halls of Western power.

The final question is no longer whether the West can “defeat” Russia, but whether it can even survive its own internal collapse.