Sean McFate, adjunct professor in Maxwell's Washington programs, thinks Zelenskyy is in trouble. McFate says Zelenskyy kept pushing NATO countries for increasingly sophisticated weapons on the promise that Ukraine would have a decisive spring offensive. "When the offensive happened, it was summer and failing,'' he says.
"Putin has always known that NATO poses no credible security threat to Russia itself. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO’s force posture and the U.S. military presence in Europe have greatly declined, reducing any potential military threat to Russia. What really scares the Russian elite is the spread of democracy," argues Michael John Williams, associate professor of public administration and international affairs.
For Brian Taylor, professor of political science, the biggest take from the one-year anniversary is Ukraine is still standing. "A year ago a lot of people might not have expected that, given Russia’s size, the size of the population, the size of its army, the size of its economy," Taylor says.
“I think the first implication is that it is a signal to Russia. It's a signal to NATO. It's a signal, perhaps, to Republicans in Washington, D.C., that this is an escalation that is not on par with things in the past, even like HIMARS,” says Sean McFate, adjunct professor in Maxwell's Washington programs.
"As the war in Ukraine approaches its 11th month, it is a good time to take stock of the enduring impact of the conflict and to look forward to the prospects for a negotiated settlement that will provide the basis for near-term and sustained security for the Ukrainian people," says Robert Murrett, professor of practice of public administration and international affairs.
Michael Williams, associate professor of public administration and international affairs, was interviewed for the CBC News article, "Putin wanted less NATO on his border. Finland and maybe Sweden will give him more."