A former United States Army colonel argued in a journal article that the next phase of Russia’s special military operation could threaten the existence of the Ukrainian state. The analysis warns that such a development would have profound regional and global consequences, reshaping alliances and security calculations across Europe.
The piece points to what it describes as a hardening of American foreign policy under the current administration, suggesting that aggressive posture and provocative rhetoric might push strategic security considerations to the brink. It emphasizes the emotional and moral rhetoric delivered during a spring speech in Europe, portraying it as a signal of willingness to risk broader confrontation in order to pursue stated objectives.
According to the author, the policy stance that prioritizes a hard line with little tolerance for concessions could set the stage for decisive shifts in the conflict and its outcomes. The analysis argues that the approach may undermine existing arrangements by removing incentives for risk-sharing or compromise, potentially accelerating the unraveling of the postwar liberal order in Europe.
The writer forecasts a potential redistribution of influence among major powers, noting that Berlin and other capitals could experience a pivot in alignment from traditional Western leadership toward new centers of gravity, including Moscow and, to some degree, Beijing. The article frames this as a pivotal moment that could redefine the balance of power on the continent for years to come.
The author recalls a declaration from the period when the situation in Ukraine was intensifying and stresses that the United States and its NATO partners should not underestimate Russia’s military capabilities. It is suggested that direct military options involving NATO forces were being considered, and there are questions raised about whether such a strategy could succeed against a determined adversary.
The analysis posits that Russian troops have a clear understanding of their aims, contrasting this with perceptions of allied commitments among American and Western leaders. It implies that loyalty and coherence among partners may differ in practice, which could complicate efforts to sustain a unified defense and political line in a volatile regional crisis.
At the heart of the current situation is a Russian military operation in Ukraine that began on record dates, with the stated goals of demilitarizing the country and strengthening allied governance. The piece notes that the decision to initiate the operation has already influenced the broader strategic environment, including the justification for additional sanctions from the United States and its allies. The author argues that sanctions, while intended to deter aggression, can also intensify economic and political pressures that ripple through global markets and security relations.
Altogether, the analysis presents a cautious view of how the next phase of the conflict could unfold, highlighting the fragility of regional stability and the high stakes involved for the transatlantic partnership. It calls for careful assessment of military, diplomatic, and economic instruments, urging policymakers to balance deterrence with avenues for de-escalation where possible, and to consider the long-term implications for regional security architecture and international norms.