The main guarantee of peace cannot be Trump’s “good will.” Rather, we must create conditions so that the the enemy simply wouldn’t dare attack again.
Yegor Firsov is a combat paramedic in Avdiivka, Ukraine. He is an activist and a former member of the Ukrainian parliament. This article was translated from Ukrainian by Valentyna Marchenko.
DONBAS — Nowadays, everyone views the possibility of ending the war in Ukraine not as a military process but a political one— particularly with the election of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.
Given his campaign statements, it’s obvious the incoming White House administration will make ending the hostilities one of its priorities. But while it has serious leverage over Kyiv, will Washington really have any over Moscow?
It’s a rhetorical question, of course — otherwise the U.S. would have done so already. However, the war’s cessation cannot be unilateral. That would be a defeat, not peace. And in this particular case, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran would all regard a defeat for Ukraine as a defeat for the entire West, for NATO and, most of all, for the U.S.
Surely, it wouldn’t be beneficial for businessman Trump to start his presidency with such a defeat, especially after Washington has invested tens of billions of dollars in Ukraine’s defense. So, it stands to reason that not everything said on the campaign trail becomes reality.
Moreover, from the trenches here in Donbas, the war looks completely different from how it seems in Western capitals.
Indeed, Ukraine, along with Europe, may be about to lose a powerful ally in the fight against an imperialist and aggressive Russia, but even the cessation of U.S. funding wouldn’t mean an actual end to the war. Rather, it would simply mean Ukraine paying the price of even more victims and losing more territory, while Russia grows stronger and advances closer to NATO borders.
And even if a diplomatic process were to begin, those involved will advocate positions based on the situation at the front. Meaning, it is the military reality that will determine Russia’s compliance and willingness to compromise. Thus, whatever our expectations from the Trump administration may be, both the U.S. and especially Europe should be interested in strengthening the resources of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Otherwise, negotiations will turn from a constructive conversation into a platform for Russian President Vladimir Putin to issue ultimatums.
Ukraine had never prepared for war, naively believing in international security institutions. Hence, it is unfortunately unable to protect international order and peace in Europe with its own resources. It is Western weapons and funds that provide the basis of our continued defense.
By now probably everyone has understood that modern warfare is, above all, a war of resources. And based on the realities on the ground, we can draw an unambiguous conclusion that today’s main military resources are people — in particular infantry — and drones.
I, for one, believe Putin is counting on the fact that the West’s support for Ukraine will waver and the front will crumble, leaving our country without protection. He’s counting on Ukraine running out of ammunition for the Patriot air defense systems; on there not being enough shells for artillery, leaving the infantry exposed to break under pressure from the “liberators”; and on the F16 fighter jets not arriving in sufficient numbers, allowing Russia to maintain its dominance of the skies.
I have been fighting in Donbas for three years, now in the Pokrovsk direction. And, indeed, the situation is such that we’re losing cities: Avdiivka, Vugledar and Selydove were all lost this year, while Kostyantynivka, Chasiv Yar, Pokrovsk, Myrnograd, Toretsk and Kurakhovo are all under severe threat. And this means Russia currently has no incentive to stop hostilities.
Our trench intuition tells us there’s only one option if we are to end this war: We must create conditions so the enemy simply cannot succeed, that it cannot physically advance on Ukrainian soil. And as the deputy platoon commander of a brigade with units consistently among the Ukrainian army’s top ten in terms of destroyed equipment, I am sure this can be achieved — with the help of drones.
Drones have already significantly changed the course of the war. If everything functions smoothly, and reconnaissance drones transmit data to strike crews, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) can strike anything. We’ve been able to drive away heavy enemy equipment 5 to 10 kilometers from the line of contact thanks to high accuracy — so fearful are the Russians, we hardly ever see columns of tanks being deployed on the battlefield as we did a year ago.
Today, Ukraine’s main battlefield problem is the enemy’s infantry. Small groups are attacking our positions in waves, and they’re doing it either at night or in bad weather, when drones are powerless. The UAV crews still have to figure out how to counter them in such conditions, but I’m sure it’s only a matter of time. The experience of this war shows we can adapt to new tactics and strategies quickly.
But more than anything, however, we need more drones.
Technical evolution means that tens of thousands of drones could be in the air simultaneously along the entire front line. They could operate day and night, in cold and heat. They could monitor any enemy movement, including individual infantryman. Indeed, this is already happening, but the small number of drones doesn’t allow this technology to have its fullest impact on the front.
If we had hundreds of times more drones, however, then maneuver warfare would turn into positional warfare. The front would stabilize; any offensive actions would become impossible. And that is when both sides would have an objective interest in the negotiations, regardless of Trump’s or even Putin’s position.
Therefore, if we really want to stop this war, we can only do it by giving Ukraine a technological and quantitative drone advantage.
Some data is classified, of course, but I will give a general figure — in the last month alone, drones have made about 20,000 verified hits on enemy targets.
Thankfully, some countries, such as the U.S. and the U.K., have already announced aid specifically earmarked for drones. And for those of us in the trenches, this news gives us more hope for peace than any of the reports regarding Trump’s “peacefulness.”
Though given our practical experience, there’s still a lingering fear our Ministry of Defense won’t buy what is needed right now, or in specific sections of the front. There’s a worry that we will have to spend time and effort modernizing what’s been purchased and finding components for it.
However, I must emphasize again: Without parity of forces on the front, there can be no compromise diplomacy. A freeze or a truce isn’t peace. And we shouldn’t be under any illusion that Putin will stop without achieving his goals, should he have the resources and opportunities to do so.
Indeed, if there’s a pause in the war, Russia will use it to accumulate such means and continue its aggression. Thus, the main guarantee of peace cannot be Trump’s “good will” but rather strengthening Ukraine to such an extent the enemy simply wouldn’t dare attack again.
