The War of Ukraine: Geoeconomic Tensions Behind the Frozen Fronts and Hypocrisy of The West

 

Original Author: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Serdar Yılmaz

Mugla Sıtkı Kocman University

Department of Political Science and International Relations

 

Translation: Nesibenur Tamgacı

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Serdar YILMAZ

Mugla Sıtkı Kocman University

Department of Political Science and International Relations

Although the war in Ukraine appears “stagnant” on the surface, it is actually entering a new period of rupture both on the ground and globally. While Russia’s claim of having gained control over nearly five thousand square kilometers this year may seem a limited military achievement, it carries considerable psychological importance. Moscow wants to show that it has reasserted its initiative through this strategy. However, the picture of the theater of war is far from simple. In the east, especially along the Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia fronts, the Ukrainian army continues to hold its ground, while Russia’s progress is both costly and unsustainable.

Over the past few weeks, clashes have once more focused on energy infrastructure. Russia is increasing its assaults on Ukraine’s power stations, gas facilities, and transmission infrastructure. With winter approaching, these assaults are not merely a strategy but also turning into a humanitarian crisis. While the Kiev administration prepares for a harsh winter, drone assaults launched by Ukraine into Russia’s hinterland are increasing sharply. It shows that Ukraine is not just responding defensively anymore but has also strengthened its ability to strike.

Nevertheless, the front line is no longer what indicates the progress of war. A decrease in military and economic aid from the West undermines Kyiv’s strategic endurance. The new administration formed after the U.S. elections, combined with stagnation and growing combat fatigue in Europe, makes the sustainability of such support questionable. In contrast, Russia has reorganized its war economy. Russia has expanded its defense industry production capacity and continues to obtain direct or indirect technical assistance from countries such as China, Iran, and North Korea.

The key element at this point in the war is the “hybrid economy” operating behind the front lines. While Western nations pledge billions in aid to Ukraine, they overlook the fact that their companies are indirectly providing military and technological components to Russia. As stated in a recent statement by Ukrainian President Zelensky, many of the systems used by the Russian army contain components originating from the UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, South Korea, and the US. Microchips, optical systems, navigation components, and drone motors reach Russia through third countries.

The core of this trade network consists of countries perceived as “neutral” or “non-aligned”. International transit through the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and China has become an effective way to avoid Western sanctions. Some companies in Europe, instead of selling their goods directly to Russia, remain silent as they are exported to third countries and then redirected to Moscow. It shows that the West attempts to balance its moral rhetoric with economic interests, and often, these interests prevail.

The West’s support for Ukraine through calls for “democracy” and “freedom” while, at the same time, indirectly supplying Russia’s war industry, represents one of the major contradictions of today’s international system. This dual structure extends the duration of the conflict while simultaneously undermining the ethical basis of the international order. If the sanctions were truly effective, such stability in Russia’s military production would not be observed. In the long term, this situation poses a risk of undermining the West’s own institutional credibility. Whenever the rhetoric of a “value-based foreign policy” conflicts with economic interests, not only Russia but also China, Iran, and the Global South watch the situation carefully. It is laying the groundwork for the swift emergence of a new multipolar global order.

In conclusion, the war in Ukraine is not merely a struggle over territory. The conflict acts as a testing ground for the West’s ethical coherence, Russia’s strategic endurance, and the asserted legitimacy of the international system. From a historical standpoint, who is advancing on the fronts today is of lesser significance. The main question is who stays faithful to their values and who compromises them for personal or national gain. Although the West’s support for Ukraine is presented rhetorically as a “defense of freedom” in practice, it produces a form of geoeconomic hypocrisy. If this hypocrisy continues, the war in Ukraine will transform not into a frozen conflict, but into a frozen morality. However, if a genuinely principled will is shown and the grey areas behind the sanctions are closed, the lifelines of hybrid warfare could be cut off. Ultimately, this war will be won not only in Ukraine but also in the conscience of the West. And history will write this examination of the clash between interests and values, remembering it well.

This article has been translated into English by Nesibenur Tamgacı from the study titled “Ukrayna Savaşı: Donmuş Cephelerin Ardındaki Jeoekonomik Gerilim ve Batı’nın İki Yüzlülüğü” by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Serdar Yılmaz.