USMC Colonel (Ret) Eric Buer: The Imperative for Political Solutions – Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Iran Conflicts

In an era marked by prolonged military conflicts that have reshaped global geopolitics, two recent wars stand as stark reminders of the devastating human cost of armed conflict: the Russia-Ukraine war that escalated dramatically in February 2022, and the multi-front conflict between Israel and Iran’s network of proxy forces. Both wars have demonstrated the fundamental truth that military solutions alone cannot resolve deeply rooted political, territorial, and ideological disputes. Despite the immense challenges involved, these wars must ultimately, however seemingly unlikely, conclude through negotiated political settlements that address underlying grievances while acknowledging the complex web of emotions, historical grievances, and strategic interests that fuel continued violence.

“War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by other means.”– Carl Von Clausewitz, Prussian General and military theorist, 1828

The Ukraine-Russia Conflict: Personal Animosity and National Tragedy

The war between Russia and Ukraine represents more than a territorial dispute or geopolitical struggle—it embodies a profound clash of national identities, historical narratives, and personal relationships turned toxic. At the heart of this conflict lies the complex emotional dynamic between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, two leaders whose relationship encapsulates the broader tragedy of the war.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine appears driven by a mixture of imperial nostalgia, security paranoia, and personal grievance against what he perceives as Western encroachment and Ukrainian ingratitude. His public statements reveal a man convinced that Ukraine’s independence represents both a historical aberration and a personal betrayal of shared Slavic heritage. This emotional dimension cannot be dismissed as mere propaganda; it reflects genuine psychological factors that have hardened Putin’s position and made compromise appear, to him, as a form of capitulation – tyrants don’t accept alternative futures.

Conversely, Zelensky’s transformation from entertainer to wartime leader has been shaped by the daily reality of defending his nation’s existence. His emotional state appears to oscillate between righteous anger at the destruction of his country and desperate hope for international support. The personal nature of Putin’s attacks on Ukrainian statehood has made this conflict existential for Zelensky, who must balance the immediate need to defend territory with the long-term requirement to preserve Ukraine as a viable state. This is also evident in his interactions with other world leaders – he refuses to “bend the knee”.

These personal dynamics complicate any potential peace process because both leaders have invested enormous political and emotional capital in their respective positions. Putin cannot easily retreat from his maximalist goals without appearing weak to domestic audiences, while Zelensky cannot accept territorial concessions without betraying the sacrifices of Ukrainian defenders and civilians.

The Israel-Iran Proxy Network: Escalating Regional Warfare

The conflict between Israel and Iran’s proxy network represents a different but equally complex challenge to regional stability. Unlike the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, this conflict operates through a web of proxy relationships that have expanded the scope of violence across multiple countries and territories.

Hamas, as Iran’s primary proxy in Gaza, has demonstrated its capacity to inflict significant casualties on Israeli civilians while drawing devastating retaliation that has destroyed much of Gaza’s infrastructure and killed thousands of Palestinian civilians. The October 7, 2023 attacks marked a significant escalation in Hamas‘s tactics, involving unprecedented brutality against Israeli civilians that hardened Israeli public opinion and justified, in many Israeli minds, an overwhelming military response.

Hezbollah, Iran’s most sophisticated proxy force, maintains an arsenal of rockets and missiles that pose an undeniable threat to northern Israel while simultaneously serving as a crucial political actor in Lebanese governance. The group’s dual role as both a military organization and a political party complicates any resolution, as disarming Hezbollah would require fundamental changes to Lebanon’s delicate sectarian balance.

Meanwhile, the Houthis in Yemen represent perhaps the most geographically distant element of Iran’s proxy network, yet their ability to disrupt international shipping through attacks on vessels in the Red Sea demonstrates how regional conflicts can quickly acquire global dimensions. Their involvement in attacking Israeli-linked shipping has effectively globalized what might otherwise remain a localized conflict. In response, the United States and allied forces have committed significant air and sea power resources to both ensure freedom of navigation and to blunt the Houthi and Iranian influence.

Iran’s strategy of using proxy forces allows it to pressure Israel without risking direct confrontation that might provoke overwhelming retaliation. While the United States and its allies have been effective in isolating and striking these proxies, the underlying issues are far from being resolved. However, this direct approach has also created a dynamic where escalation becomes difficult to control, as each proxy group maintains its own decision-making processes and strategic objectives that may not perfectly align with Iranian interests. These unaligned actions also have the secondary effect of creating a growing complex number of grievances from not just the proxies, but their religious, ethnic, or cultural sympathizers.

The Slippery Slope and Decreasing Returns on Military Solutions

Both conflicts have demonstrated the limitations of purely military approaches to complex political problems. In Ukraine, despite Russia’s initial assumption of a rapid victory, the war has devolved into a grinding conflict of attrition that has devastated both countries’ economies and demographics while failing to achieve Russia’s stated political objectives. Ukrainian resistance has proven more resilient than anticipated, while Russian military capabilities have been exposed as less formidable than previously believed.

Russia has, once again, overestimated its capabilities and underestimated the global response.  While Putin considered Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO as a direct threat to their security, he missed how his actions would push its northern neighbors, Sweden and Finland, into NATO. He also misjudged his European neighbors’ military and economic responses to his aggression, which led them to expand and modernize their militaries rapidly. A prime example is Poland, which over the next decade will be operating nearly two hundred new AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and advanced strike fighters, supported by an estimated three hundred and fifty new-build M1 Abrams main battle tanks.

Russia’s singular focus on using military superiority has failed. Similarly, Israel’s military supremacy has not translated into sustainable security gains against Iranian proxies. Each military campaign against Hamas or Hezbollah has temporarily degraded their capabilities while failing to eliminate the underlying political conditions that enable their reconstitution. The cycle of attack and retaliation has created a dynamic where military action becomes self-perpetuating rather than self-resolving. It has also exposed their actions to the “CNN effect”, where the reasons for the conflict, no matter how just, fade, and the current reporting focuses only on the aftermath and human suffering.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”- President Dwight D. Eisenhower – April 1953

The civilian cost of both conflicts underscores the moral imperative for political solutions. In Ukraine, hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians have died, millions have become refugees, and entire cities have been reduced to rubble. The psychological trauma inflicted on both societies will persist for generations, creating lasting obstacles to reconciliation and fueling future conflict.

In Gaza and southern Lebanon, civilian casualties have mounted as proxy forces operate from densely populated areas while facing militarily superior opponents willing to accept significant collateral damage. The destruction of civilian infrastructure—hospitals, schools, residential buildings—has created humanitarian crises that extend far beyond the immediate participants in the conflict.

Obstacles to Political Resolution

Despite the clear need for political solutions, numerous factors complicate the path to sustainable peace agreements. In the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the fundamental disagreement over Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent state aligned with Western institutions creates an almost unbridgeable gap between the parties’ minimum acceptable terms.

Russia’s demands for Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of territorial annexations, and limitations on Ukrainian sovereignty are essentially incompatible with Ukraine’s insistence on territorial integrity, democratic governance, and European integration. The personal animosity between Putin and Zelensky adds another layer of complexity, as neither leader can easily make the kind of face-saving concessions that might enable compromise.

The Israel-Iran proxy conflict faces different but equally challenging obstacles. Iran’s commitment to Israel’s destruction as a matter of ideological principle makes meaningful peace negotiations extremely difficult. The proxy structure of the conflict means that even if Iran were willing to negotiate, it would need to convince or compel its proxy forces to accept limitations on their activities.

Additionally, the domestic political dynamics within each proxy territory complicate resolution efforts. Hamas’s control of Gaza is partly legitimized by its resistance to Israel, making disarmament politically suicidal for the organization. Hezbollah’s integration into Lebanese politics means that weakening the organization could destabilize Lebanon’s entire governmental structure.

The Necessity of Political Solutions

Despite these obstacles, political solutions remain the only viable path to sustainable peace in both conflicts. Military victories, even if achievable, cannot address the underlying political grievances, no matter how seemingly irrational, that fuel both wars. Putin’s often exaggerated security concerns about NATO expansion, while not justifying invasion, represent strategic anxieties that must be addressed in any lasting settlement. Similarly, Palestinian grievances about Israeli occupation and even the existence of Israel cannot be resolved through military action alone.

Political solutions offer obvious advantages over continued military confrontation. They can address or acknowledge root causes rather than symptoms, create mechanisms for ongoing dispute resolution, and establish frameworks for economic cooperation that provide positive incentives for peace maintenance. Most importantly, they can end the immediate human suffering while creating space for the generational work of reconciliation.

Successful political solutions will require creative approaches that allow all parties to claim some measure of victory while making meaningful concessions. This might involve international guarantees, phased implementation schedules, and economic incentives that make peace more attractive than continued conflict.

Where do we go from here?

The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East represent profound challenges to international stability and human dignity. While the obstacles to political resolution are formidable—including personal animosities between leaders, incompatible territorial claims, and deeply held ideological commitments—the alternative of continued military confrontation offers only the promise of additional suffering without the prospect of sustainable resolution.

The international community, which is also fragmented, must recognize that these conflicts cannot be resolved solely through military means and must commit the necessary diplomatic, economic, and political resources to facilitate meaningful peace processes. This will require acknowledging the legitimate concerns of all parties while upholding principled positions on fundamental issues, such as territorial integrity and the protection of civilians.

Diplomatic efforts, though fraught with difficulty, need to be prioritized over continued military action that both perpetuates a cycle of violence and prolongs it. Achieving any level of peace requires addressing deep-seated feelings and historical grievances while acknowledging the complex interdependencies that define these geopolitical landscapes. Negotiation, dialogue, and reconciliation are the only credible pathways to lasting resolutions in both the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Iran contexts. The time for serious diplomatic engagement is long overdue, before these wars become so entrenched that a peaceful resolution becomes impossible for another generation – including US and allied forces.