The Role of the West in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

ანოტაცია

This article offers an in-depth, multidimensional analysis of the role played by Western actors -the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and NATO -in the full-scale Russia-Ukraine war, now widely regarded as the most consequential geopolitical rupture since the end of the Second World War. Although Western states are not direct belligerents, their strategic decisions, policy choices, and coordinated (or at times fragmented) actions have profoundly shaped the military, economic, and diplomatic trajectory of the conflict. The war has emerged as the principal arena in which the resilience of the so-called “rules-based international order” is tested against the revisionist ambitions of a nuclear-armed authoritarian state.

The study employs three principal theoretical frameworks -realism, liberal internationalism, and the collective security paradigm -to examine Western behaviour across key military, financial, political, and normative dimensions. Realism sheds light on shifting regional power balances and recalibrated deterrence principles; liberal internationalism highlights the imperative of defending sovereignty, territorial integrity, and democratic agency; and the collective security model elucidates NATO’s evolving role as it balances between non-escalation and robust deterrence.

The article provides a detailed assessment of Western assistance -ranging from the unprecedented scale of U.S. military and intelligence support, to the EU’s macro-financial and energy-sector interventions, the U.K.’s proactive defence partnership with Ukraine, and NATO’s reinforcement of the Eastern Flank. It also evaluates the long-term impact of Western sanctions, noting that although restrictive measures have substantially impaired Russia’s access to critical technologies and global financial markets, the Kremlin has partially offset these effects through alternative trade channels, third-country networks, and wartime economic restructuring.

A core part of the analysis examines the “28-point peace plan” associated with the Trump administration, which proposes a radically different model for a post-war settlement. The plan challenges several foundational principles of Western diplomacy, imposes extensive limitations on Ukraine’s long-term sovereignty, implicitly legitimatizes territorial changes achieved by force, and diminishes NATO’s strategic role. As argued, such an approach establishes a dangerous precedent by normalizing territorial revisionism in the international system.

Ultimately, the study concludes that the role of the West in the conflict is both indispensable and structurally constrained. While Western support has been vital to preserving Ukraine’s statehood and preventing Russia’s rapid victory, internal divisions, delayed decision-making, sanction leakages, and growing societal fatigue pose significant challenges. The outcome of the war and the future architecture of European and global security will depend on the West’s ability to sustain a unified, proactive, and strategically coherent long-term approach.