In the geopolitical sense the war in Ukraine is over.  In global strategic terms Vladimir Putin won; NATO, US, Europe and Ukraine lost.

The take-away is Putin’s military aggression was a success. He’s been rewarded for military aggression in Georgia (2008) and Ukraine twice (2014, 2022). He has gained territory and his reputation for delivering results has been reinforced at home and abroad.   

In the post-Cold War world, the US, Western Europe and NATO the Alliance were confident and expansive.  Putin gambled that applying hard power would be more decisive than the soft power of building trust, creating alliances and ratifying treaties. 

The US victory in the Gulf War (1991) and success in the former Yugoslavia, reinforced Western confidence in its technology and military prowess. This confidence was largely exhausted in Iraq and Afghanistan.   

At the same time Russian military ability was growing in strength, confidence and accomplishments. 

In the tactical military sense this conflict is far from over. Putin is not landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declaring, “mission accomplished.”   

 All is not lost. Unlike 2008 and 2014 the West and NATO provided actual military assistance. The Russians were not able to take Kyiv or Odessa, and may not be able to take Kharkiv.  

But Russia now controls the Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts including a land bridge to Crimea. They will continue to subject Europe to hybrid warfare and economic sabotage. They may pursue further military aggression in Georgia, Moldova or Estonia. 

Estonia would be the most confrontational as it’s a member of NATO. This would test NATO’s Article 5 guarantees. Putin may gamble Article 5 is not worth the paper it’s printed on and he will have a point. 

Would Americans approve of their children going to Estonia or Montenegro to fight the Russians?  

In the 1990s it was suggested that NATO and the EU should grow deeper rather than wider.  It was a suggestion both bodies rejected. This may have been a mistake.