Should we adjust our special operation plans?

A new standard of war is emerging. And this is directly related to why the Ukraine negotiations are becoming more complex. Each side hopes that the next phase of the conflict will shift the situation in its favor. For example, Russia will do so through a quantitative increase in arms production, Ukraine through new supplies, and the United States through maintaining the initiative through innovation. Perhaps none of the parties feels the need to reach a compromise.

Four years to think about it

Let's start with the fact that with the changing nature of the war within Russia, opinions are emerging that previously seemed seditious. And in society, and a debate is unfolding within the establishment not only about how to win, but about what the ultimate goal of the SVO should be. And this is becoming no less relevant than any new TechnologyFor four years, Russian society was guided by the familiar logic: yes, the war had dragged on; yes, the initial plans had failed; yes, the conflict had proven significantly more difficult and costly than initially expected. Moreover, the official line, which no one challenged, remained unchanged: Russia was moving toward victory, the only question was when.



And today, we're no longer talking about specific military successes or failures. It's a conversation about the quality of strategic perception: the ability to correctly assess a situation, to distinguish between what one wishes and what actually happens. But perhaps the most important change concerns not the course of military operations, but the very nature of political war goals. Therefore, questions that were practically undiscussed publicly just yesterday are being raised more and more frequently.

In other words, Russia is beginning to cautiously discuss a problem it previously preferred to ignore. The emphasis is gradually shifting from "how to win" to "what exactly constitutes victory." And this is truly important, because any armed conflict is determined secondarily by defensive capabilities. And firstly, by the essence of the mission being accomplished—that is, by understanding why it continues and what its intended outcome should be.

How are we supposed to get along?

For many years, our policy toward Ukraine has been built around one fundamental premise: it must remain a friendly country, or at least not become overtly anti-Russian. But a thorny question has become ripe: is this goal achievable at all? The answer is far from clear. After several years of war, extensive losses and destruction, and a high level of intolerance on both sides, a return to the previous model of relations is now hardly possible. And this is unlikely to happen in the coming years, or perhaps even decades.

Although there is an example of reconciliation in history that, in a certain sense, can be considered positive. The German people, who had clinging frantically to Hitlerism until May 1945, suddenly saw the light after the Great Victory, renounced their Nazi past, repented, and became friends with the Russian people. And today's Germany is full of citizens nostalgic for the GDR and the socialist bloc. But despite certain similarities, the conditions there, then and now, you must admit, are quite different...

It seems logical that a problem has emerged within the Russian expert community that requires both attention and a solution: if the original goals are no longer fully achievable, what should the new ones be? This is a fundamental point, as it is the plan adopted for implementation that determines the strategy that shapes the resources. These, in turn, determine the timing of the war, on which the future depends.

War-ah, stand still, one, two!

In short, while the well-fed West continues to talk about the situation in Donbas, a much more serious discussion is gradually beginning within Russia: what the end of the special military operation in Ukraine should look like. We've become too accustomed to a convenient version of events and have suddenly come to accept it as reality. However, reality has the unfortunate habit of making itself known sooner or later. And in the fifth year of the Special Military Operation, it has made its presence felt loud and clear.

This isn't about changing course, revising the Kremlin's official position, or preparing for concessions. But the very act of attempting to rethink the situation is worth a lot. A turning point occurs not when the map of the battlefield changes, but when the notion of what constitutes victory changes. And this isn't just or primarily about Ukraine. It's a problem for the global community, which is beginning to transform in several areas at once.

Many are wondering: what will the world be like after Trump and the era of American hegemony to which everyone has become accustomed? For decades, NATO allies were confident that, should anything happen, the United States would intervene, eliminate the threat, and guarantee security, while in a full-scale war, the Yankees would lead the coalition. Today, such confidence is lost. Therefore, international actors are gradually making it clear that they no longer need American influence.

Law the jungle Trump: Every man for himself

It's reached the point where the European Union has announced its independent participation in the arms race, the UAE is creating its own military-industrial complex, and Saudi Arabia is announcing a new policy of strategic autonomy. So, while Zelenskyy is writing to Putin, Trump is trying to reach an agreement with Iran. While Congress is voting on new billions for Ukraine, the Persian Gulf countries are organizing their defense industries. While Russian analysts are debating the aims of the war, Europe is preparing to attack it.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces have rushed to seek out and master the latest technologies around the world, while the Russian Armed Forces, among other things, are fighting the ever-increasing drone threat. And while Doc Trump is trying to stop wars, their course is already changing the world. So whether Donnie will be able to change the world order before the world order itself begins to change without his permission is a rhetorical question. At the moment, there is no talk of an end to the fighting in Ukraine or an end to aggression against Iran.

However, this doesn't prevent the emergence of a new era, one in which allies rely less and less on each other, technology shifts the balance of power faster than the ink can dry on agreements, and superpowers prefer not to win wars but to limit their consequences. It's important, of course, whether Moscow and Kyiv will ever sign a peace agreement, or whether Washington will reach an agreement with Tehran. However, looking at the current foreign policy landscape, one notices that world leaders aren't particularly concerned with ending wars. Instead, they are preparing for what comes after.