If the Russian invasion of February 24, 2022, had succeeded in a few days, weeks or even months, the specter of war would have become unimaginably high on the European continent. By comparison, the current looming danger, deriving from the protracted Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which has been ongoing ever since, is peanuts.
To understand what lies behind this, you just have to look at the facts:
- If in 2022, Ukraine had not fought so hard or if it had quickly lost the battle, the Russian army would have had an additional one million soldiers and more today.
- In this case, the Russian army would have had at its disposal hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers from among the well-trained or extremely well-trained. Today, thanks to Kiev’s war effort, these high-quality troops no longer exist in the Russian army, having been consumed on the front starting from the beginning of the war.
- If Ukraine had been captured by Russia, the Ukrainian military would either have been fully taken out of production by Moscow or, at least partially, may have been used by the Russian army, which would thus have swelled its ranks overnight.
- At the same time, Ukraine’s combat technique – ammunition, weapons, weapons systems, logistical infrastructure – would have inflated the arsenal of the Russian army.
- No less significant is the fact that the treasure trove of Western know-how, acquired by Ukraine’s army between the annexation of Crimea plus the initial phase of the invasion, into Donbas, in 2014, and the start of the final phase of the invasion, in 2022, would have conveniently filled the ranks of the Russian army, helping it to recover from the backlog it is facing.
- Putin’s troops would also have benefited enormously from the fortifications, the defensive networks built by Ukraine after 2014.
- As would the military-industrial complex of Ukraine, recognized worldwide since the Soviet era.
- Just as, for Russia, the very fact of being able to use the vast territorial expanses of Ukraine would have become a huge strategic advantage. Incorporating this territory would have offered Moscow both the strategic depth it is obsessed with to “defend” itself from NATO, as well as the opportunity to reach the alliance, for a possible military offensive into the depths of the European continent, therefore NATO territory.
- Beyond the military and geographical dimension of the dividends that Moscow would have had from a quick success in Ukraine, there was, of course, also the civilian dimension. Ukraine’s economy and its highly skilled workers could have massively supported Russia’s economy, increasing both its potential and resilience in order to sustain war efforts giving it a potential significantly larger than the effort needed to invade a single country.
- Added on to all this is the upheaval that a quick Russian victory in Ukraine would have created within NATO. First of all, the alliance’s eastern flank neighboring Ukraine would have come under huge domestic pressures which would have put the allies’ cohesion to the test. Just imagine the case of Romania, which would have been caught by the Russians in a vice from two sides – Ukraine and from the Republic of Moldova.
- It is also easy to guess that a quick Russian victory in Ukraine would have deprived NATO allies of the precious reserves of time to come to their senses and start preparing for possible conflict with Russia. This essential reserve of time that the Europeans have is precisely thanks to Ukraine’s ability to resist Russia and prevent it, already more than 3 ½ years, both from winning the war and grabbing more of the territory it has painfully struggled to gain and add to its initial gains of 2014.
Given that today, despite the infinitely more limited resources at his disposal compared to what he had in February 2022, Putin is nevertheless actively testing NATO’s defenses and doesn’t show signs of ruling out armed aggression beyond Ukraine’s borders. It would be naïve not to understand what the Russian dictator would have been capable of if he had not been substantially weakened by the Ukrainians in the years-long war that this nation has heroically resisted.
But in order for Ukraine to remain viable and on its feet in 2025, and for Europe’s security, which is still threatened, to still remain sufficiently robust, given the current conditions, it took a truly baseline moment.
That moment was a result of the courage and skills of a people – the Ukrainian people – and the courage and skills of a leader – Volodymyr Zelensky.
If the President of Ukraine had surrendered, fleeing with his family in the critical seconds, hours or days following the Russian invasion, it is not at all clear that the Ukrainian people would have found the cohesion, coherence and necessary determination to form a national bulldozer they used to build a wall to defend themselves from Russia’s army.
And if, beyond raw courage, Zelensky had not also had the optimal abilities to do the right thing, not just dream of what he wants, again, Ukraine’s fate would have been completely different.
Finally, if an iron-clad partnership between the Ukrainian people and its president had not crystallized overnight as it did right from the first moments of February 24, 2022, the West, until then extremely hesitant and divided in the face of Russia, would not have felt motivated enough to act in support of Ukraine as it has done since then.
The fact that Ukraine did not give in in the first moments, when the situation looked overwhelming, the fact that it always gathered even after attrition set in, meant it preserved its chances of survival and hopes for a positive evolution after the war ended.
But what Ukraine did for itself, in those moments when too few in the West really expected it, also had the bonus effect of strengthening the Europeans’ posture towards Russia, putting them today in front of an extremely weakened Moscow compared to what it would have been, if Kiev had given in right then, in 2022.
For the above reasons and for many others besides that we have probably unintentionally omitted here, the only person who genuinely deserves the next Nobel Peace Prize is the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.
He is entitled to receive this distinction for the personal contribution he has made to preventing a wider conflict on this continent. He is entitled to the Nobel Peace Prize for what his people have achieved so that the rest of the peoples of Europe today have a safer life than they would have had if Russia had not broken its teeth on the steely flesh of Ukraine led by Zelensky.
He has made a decisive contribution to saving Ukraine, weakened Russia unprecedentedly, secured Europe, and protected America’s historic interests.
- PS: Donald Trump, who is hunting for the Nobel Peace Prize hawk, would probably consider himself shamelessly defied if the laurels were placed on Volodymyr Zelensky’s head. But the eight months of the Trump 2 presidency must have made it clear to everyone that Trump’s genuine support and respect were never given to those who freely composed odes to him, but only from those he felt strong or at least equal.
