A War Rewriting the World: Ukraine as the Defining Turning Point in the Global Balance of Power

Abdelnasser Salem Hamed

On a fog-shrouded morning at the outskirts of Kharkiv, the echoes of explosions merge with the whistling winter winds, creating a sense that what unfolds here transcends Ukraine’s borders and reaches far beyond, reshaping the world itself. The war that began on 24 February 2022 is no longer a mere confrontation between two states; it has become a global test exposing the fragility of the post–Cold War international order and revealing the inability of major powers to prevent a prolonged confrontation that may redefine the contours of the 21st century.

For Russia, Ukraine is not an independent state in the traditional geopolitical sense, but part of its historic and strategic sphere. Since the 18th century, Ukraine has served as the western gateway to Russia’s interior—a forward defensive buffer whose loss, in Moscow’s view, would leave Russia fully exposed. As NATO expanded through the 1990s, absorbing one Eastern European state after another, the West advanced closer to Russia’s core strategic space than at any time in centuries. While Europe saw this expansion as a natural step toward integrating post-Soviet nations, Russia perceived it as a systematic effort to shrink its security depth.

Thus, Ukraine’s clear desire to join NATO became a turning point in Russian calculations. From the Kremlin’s perspective, such a move meant the West was no longer merely seeking to encircle Russia but actively approaching its immediate borders. The military intervention was therefore framed as a “preemptive move” to halt what Moscow interpreted as an existential threat.

When military operations began in February 2022, Russia did not aim to take full control of Ukraine, but rather to redraw the regional security map in a way that would keep Kyiv outside the Western orbit for years. Russia focused on the east and south—Ukraine’s industrial and agricultural heartlands—where it could establish a sustainable land corridor linking Donbas to Crimea. By the end of 2024, Russia had entrenched its control over roughly 18% of Ukrainian territory—a figure that fluctuates at the margins but remains steady in essence—turning these areas into a strategic base unlikely to be relinquished in any future settlement.

At the same time, Russia adopted a broader strategy built on exhausting time before exhausting opponents. Realizing that its economic power could never match that of the West, Moscow sought to turn the war into a political and economic burden on Europe and the United States. By the winter of 2022–2023, the effects were evident: an unprecedented energy crisis, soaring gas prices, temporary shutdowns in parts of Europe’s industrial sector, and increased European dependence on high-cost liquefied natural gas after Russia reduced supplies.

Inside Ukraine, Russian strikes targeted the energy infrastructure to undermine Kyiv’s capacity to endure. Around 40% of the power grid and distribution stations were damaged, leading to widespread outages during the winter months. The objective was not merely military, but psychological as well: turning cold into an additional weapon.

Yet Ukraine did not collapse. It used extensive Western support to reorganize its defenses and launched successful counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson in 2022, aided by Western intelligence that gave it a precise picture of Russian troop movements. Ukraine also adopted tactics centered on small, mobile units and drones—now an integral part of modern warfare.

By 2023, the conflict entered a new phase as Ukraine began striking deep inside Russian territory with long-range drones, targeting air bases, fuel facilities, and military concentrations. Although these attacks had limited military impact, they forced Russia to redeploy internal defenses and created a noticeable psychological shift in the dynamics of the conflict.

Meanwhile, the United States played the decisive role in keeping Ukraine standing. American financial, military, technical, and intelligence support has been crucial in preventing a Ukrainian collapse. But that support is no longer guaranteed. Domestic U.S. politics have become entangled with the conflict, and the future of aid now hinges on the outcome of the upcoming presidential election.

While the Biden administration views support for Ukraine as a strategic necessity to contain Russian influence, the Republican camp—led by Donald Trump—presents a very different approach. Trump has claimed he could end the war “in 24 hours,” a phrase that encapsulates his political philosophy: halting U.S. military aid to Ukraine to force Kyiv and Moscow into accepting the current front lines as a frozen reality and entering direct negotiations. Under this view, Europe would shoulder the primary burden while the U.S. reorients toward Asia, where China poses the greater challenge. If Trump returns to the White House, the war would likely shift into a long-term frozen conflict; maintaining the Democratic approach would keep support flowing, though at a slower pace.

Across Europe, positions vary. Countries such as Poland and the Baltic states view the war as a direct security threat, while Germany and France seek to balance deterrence with avoiding uncontrolled escalation. Turkey and Hungary occupy unique positions, maintaining ties with Moscow despite their membership in Western alliances, giving them significant room for maneuver.

In the background stands China, a major indirect beneficiary of the conflict. It has secured Russian energy at preferential rates, strengthened its role as Moscow’s primary economic partner, and capitalized on Washington and Europe’s preoccupation with the prolonged war. The conflict has given Beijing an opportunity to assess the West’s endurance in a long confrontation and examine the effectiveness of Western structures in managing a proxy war—important lessons for its own calculations regarding Taiwan.

The Black Sea has also become a complex arena where naval, aerial, and economic dimensions intersect. Ukrainian strikes on the Russian fleet have limited its mobility, and repeated suspensions of the grain corridor have disrupted global food prices, revealing the deep connection between military security and global food security.

As the fighting continues, the global economy strains under the weight of the war: inflation, rising energy costs, reconfigured supply chains, and booming defense industries. Europe has reduced its dependence on Russian energy by more than half, but at a steep economic cost. Russia, meanwhile, has redirected its exports toward Asia to offset some losses.

With the war entering its fourth year, the front lines increasingly resemble a long trench conflict. The more than 1,000-kilometer line of contact shows little movement. Russia advances slowly; Ukraine relies on tactical agility and technological innovation. As fatigue spreads across all parties—Russia, Ukraine, Europe, and even the United States—the conflict edges closer to stalemate.

The scenarios ahead are limited: freezing the front lines, imposing an international settlement, or the collapse of one side under economic or political pressure. But what is certain is that the world after this war will not revert to its previous state. The international order is being reshaped, alliances are being redrawn, and the very concept of power is being redefined. And at the center of it all, Ukraine has become the point at which the future of the new century is being redrawn.