Ukraine's strategy for building security alliances amid geopolitical instability

The world order established after World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union is decisively crumbling. The war in Ukraine has dealt a near-final blow to the foundations of the old world and signalled its definitive end. Indeed, the hesitancy of the Biden administration and the United States as a whole in making critical decisions to support Ukraine in defeating Russia has not only underscored their diminishing influence on global affairs but also appeared as a last-ditch effort to preserve the existing world order.

Fears of a Russian defeat have prolonged the war on one hand and increased financial and political costs on the other. The drawn-out conflict, deeper involvement of democratic economies – especially the United States – and the formation of strategic alliances by Russia have led to an unwillingness to incur excessive costs without clear political justification. As a result, new forces emerged to counterbalance the situation. The American electorate made its legitimate choice, signalling to us that the world is changing irreversibly.

This world really needed changes. It’s no coincidence that as early as 2007, someone announced such a shift at the Munich Security Conference. And it’s equally unsurprising that in 2024, Americans re-elected Donald Trump as their president. Despite heavy criticism, he represents a historical trend – one that must be acknowledged and reckoned with.

Washington, aware of overextension, appears to seek a reduction in its overseas commitments, particularly in Europe, possibly to refocus on preparing for intense competition with China. This is evident in both the rhetoric and actual decisions that increasingly prioritize domestic concerns and cast doubt on the unconditional continuation of aid to Ukraine. Even worse, support for Ukraine is becoming hostage to internal United States political fluctuations.

Importantly, these shifts stem not from individual political actors but from a broader global doctrine aimed at building a new world order. Fortunately, we are still in a transitional phase.

These changes are occurring alongside rapid, systemic technological breakthroughs in key sectors such as energy, IT (especially AI), nanotechnology, new materials, and biotechnology. States are restructuring their economies, revising resource priorities, and thereby accelerating the evolution of warfare capabilities. These changes will shape the future global order and determine the agency of its actors.

The first large-scale war of the 21st century in Ukraine has confirmed historical trends in the evolution of warfare. It is now clear that cheap, mass-produced weapons can deplete expensive and powerful arsenals. While this allows Ukraine to hold the line and develop asymmetric strategies, the country’s transitional status and lack of full-spectrum defensive capabilities, especially high-tech ones, make long-term resistance in a war of attrition highly uncertain. This reality has turned Ukraine into a "mega-customer" for both old and new weapons, including domestically produced ones.

Despite the emergence of new opportunities for Ukraine’s defence-industrial complex, the only consistent force on the front line remains the Ukrainian soldier. Today’s battlefield places unprecedented physical and psychological pressure on personnel. The widespread use of drones has made soldiers constant targets 24/7, regardless of season or conditions – directly impacting their endurance.

Given the physical impossibility of rapidly replenishing manpower, Ukraine urgently needs a new paradigm for soldier protection – adapted to modern realities of both defence and offense. Developing this quickly is crucial to avoid burnout of Ukraine’s core fighting force and to prevent Russia from gaining the upper hand by establishing its own protection systems. This effort requires not only resilience and innovation but also external support. It cannot be Ukraine’s long-term strategy alone and is unlikely to lead to victory without robust technological partnerships.

The same is true for another major challenge: defending against air attacks on civilian and military infrastructure. Russia’s mass deployment of drones, ballistic and cruise missiles, and guided bombs demands a wholly new, nationwide air defence system – layered both geographically and in altitude and intercept capabilities.

The key principle of modern war is that cheap weapons can wear down costly systems. Effective air defence cannot rely solely on prohibitively expensive systems. Most of today’s air defence platforms were designed for quick guerrilla-type wars, not for defending against waves of mass attacks.

While this may not yet be fully grasped in the United States, it is well understood in Russia – making it a decisive factor not only in Ukraine’s future but also in the architecture of future alliances. International support remains essential not only to preserve Ukrainian statehood but also to build the capacity of potential allies.

So preserving effective international support and building future alliances are vital tasks for Ukrainian diplomacy.

Our closest neighbours, the European Union, despite efforts to support Ukraine, remain relatively weak, overly dependent on the United States, and slow to make decisive moves in foreign and defence policy. European countries have struggled to rapidly transform their defence industries and lag behind both autocratic Russia and the capabilities of the United States.

Some have begun preparing for a war reminiscent of World War II, burdening their budgets without realizing that the war of February 2022 will not repeat itself. The EU lacks sufficient hard power and struggles to consolidate its economy especially given competing national ambitions and the geographic distance of many countries from Russia.

The geopolitical instability is also reshaping Europe itself. Governments fear backlash from electorates unwilling to endure deteriorating living conditions. Thus, relying on long-term or even timely aid from Europe must be done cautiously.

Meanwhile, the United States remains a nation of virtually unlimited capacity, with the world’s most advanced economy. The United States holds large stockpiles of outdated or soon-to-be-decommissioned munitions – such as over 170,000 Hellfire missiles, many of which were produced between 1998 and 2018 and are nearing the end of their service life. These weapons could be transferred to Ukraine instead of being destroyed.

The Pentagon is also transitioning to newer JAGM systems, meaning many Hellfires will be phased out. Ukraine can use this window to submit formal requests under various programs, stressing the urgency of bolstering defence and assuring the rational use of these assets.

At the same time, as the United States seeks to dominate in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific while reducing involvement in the "Old World," Europe and Canada may be left with a heavier burden.

This is why the 2024 presidential race led to predictable shifts in foreign policy and aid to Ukraine. In the new reality, military support is no longer automatic or guaranteed. A willingness to engage with Russia, possibly due to an alternative United States vision of the war, poses new political and security risks.

Immediate action is needed to refocus United States attention on Ukraine, because Ukraine’s victory is crucial to preserving America’s global leadership.

A lack of a strong United States stance on Ukraine will be exploited by the new Russia-China axis to weaken transatlantic unity and reshape the world order. Reduced support for Ukraine emboldens Russia and encourages China to push its ambitions – especially regarding Taiwan and the critical The Strait of Malacca.

This poses an existential threat to the United States’s status as a global leader.

With the June 2025 strikes on Iranian targets, global tensions continue to rise. The United States faces the prospect of two simultaneous war theatres – in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific – requiring full military engagement. These would be far costlier than helping Ukraine now.United States military support to Ukraine could act as a deterrent in both regions.

Richard Moore, head of the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, warned of the grave consequences of abandoning Ukraine: "The cost of supporting Ukraine is well known, but the cost of not supporting it will be immeasurably greater." There is a systemic underestimation of the war’s global implications.

In conclusion, alongside the struggle for survival and sovereignty, Ukraine is a cornerstone of global stability. The outcome of Ukraine’s resistance to Russia will influence not only its internal security but also the trajectory of a new world order.

Ukraine must rethink how it engages partners – not just waiting for support, but actively shaping its place in future security alliances. Given the changing nature of warfare, such alliances are being formed now. Without Ukraine, they are incomplete. These alliances are vital for both immediate survival and future security, and will form the basis of the new world order.

Our wartime partnerships have been difficult, though not unpredictable. The experience reveals fundamental differences in how Ukraine and Western partners assess and respond to threats. Building coherent strategies takes time and effort.

Often, our initiatives to form requests were of a political and emotional nature, built on both the consequences of Russian attacks and the schedule of international political activity. This, of course, not only reduces the systematic nature of the requests themselves, but also does not always correspond to the procedurally-oriented logic of Western systems themselves. In addition, most such requests require additional time and resources to fulfill, so they remain only declarative.

To be more effective, Ukraine needs a systematic approach to forming and promoting requests anticipating future battlefield trends, not just reacting to current needs.

One option is launching an expert-driven campaign aimed at United States government officials, legislators, political elites, analysts, and the broader public. The goal: shape narratives that will eventually be reflected in policy.

A key argument will be proving that not supporting Ukraine is the primary geopolitical risk to United States global leadership. The aim is to show that Ukraine’s victory is essential to global security and to sustaining the United States's leading role.

This can minimize political fluctuations and ensure stable, long-term defence cooperation.

It’s equally vital to highlight the transformation of warfare and the urgency of integrating cutting-edge technologies. Scientific and technological breakthroughs have changed war’s nature - but this remains poorly understood in the United States. Failure to adapt risks American leadership.

Thus, the United States must not only support Ukraine militarily but also modernize its own arsenal in partnership with Ukraine. Joint R&D efforts should be based on Ukraine’s battlefield experience.

A practical step would be creating a joint scientific or analytical centre where Ukrainian experts and United States institutions assess events independently. This would remove emotional or political bias and foster evidence-based decision-making.

Western decision-making, though politically volatile, is institutionally stable and responsive to formal requests. Even if not politically convenient, such requests require replies. This builds institutional memory and cross-agency processes that influence future policy.

A useful example is Israel’s communications strategy with the United States, which led to its designation in 1989 as a "Major Non-NATO Ally" guaranteeing preferential defence cooperation. Israel implemented a systematic, rules-based process for requests and ensured United States obligations to respond.

The geopolitical instability caused in part by the war in Ukraine has also opened a historic opportunity. Ukrainian soldiers have not only defended the nation but earned the right to define its geopolitical role.

This moment must be seized. Success depends on our ability to survive today and build a secure future. These goals are inseparable and impossible without strong allies. For multiple reasons, such alliances are impossible without the United States. Only the United States can provide the support Ukraine needs, help form a new democratic alliance, and retain its own global leadership.

Paradoxically, Ukraine’s survival is now the logical foundation for building our shared future. And that future must begin now.