Section 4: The Consequences of War and Peace

If the War Stops (Peace Deal is Reached)

• Humanitarian:
  The most immediate impact would be the end of daily violence. For Ukrainians, this would mean fewer bombings, fewer deaths, and families finally reuniting after years of displacement. Hospitals could focus on healing instead of emergency triage, and millions of refugees scattered across Europe could consider returning home. However, the “peace” might feel hollow if it’s built on territorial concessions, leaving many Ukrainians feeling betrayed.

• Economic:
  A ceasefire or peace agreement would bring much-needed stability to global markets. The war has disrupted grain exports, driven up fertilizer prices, and caused energy shortages. If it ends, food prices could come down, and Europe could start rethinking its heavy reliance on Russian energy. Stable supply chains would also mean fewer shocks for everyday consumers worldwide—everything from bread to gas bills could become more affordable.

• Geopolitical:
  Here’s where things get complicated. If Ukraine is forced to cede land—whether the Donbas or Crimea—it sets a dangerous precedent. It signals that borders can be redrawn by force, emboldening authoritarian regimes to use military aggression as a bargaining tool. It could also fracture the Western alliance, as European nations may view a U.S.-brokered deal as appeasement at their expense. The “peace” might prevent fighting today but plant seeds of conflict tomorrow.

If the War Continues (No Deal is Reached)

• Humanitarian:
  The tragedy of war would persist. Every day, more lives would be lost—soldiers on the frontlines and civilians caught in the crossfire. The displacement crisis, already one of the largest since World War II, would deepen. Cities in eastern Ukraine could continue to be reduced to rubble, while children grow up in a constant state of fear and uncertainty.

• Economic:
  Sanctions on Russia would remain in place, keeping global energy and food markets unstable. Consumers across the world would feel the pinch through higher fuel prices, more expensive groceries, and inflationary pressures. Countries dependent on Ukrainian grain—especially in Africa and the Middle East—would continue to face food insecurity.

• Geopolitical:
  A drawn-out war would perpetuate instability in Europe, forcing NATO to stay on high alert and draining Western resources. The U.S. would keep applying economic pressure on countries like India to reduce ties with Moscow, potentially straining friendships and trade alliances. Worse still, prolonged conflict increases the risk of miscalculation—whether through cyberattacks, weapons escalation, or even spillover into neighboring regions.

The Big Picture

So whether peace is achieved or the war drags on, both paths carry heavy costs. Peace through compromise may save lives but risks legitimizing aggression. Continued war preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty but prolongs suffering. And through it all, countries like India find themselves caught in the crosscurrents—forced to balance their economic interests with the geopolitical demands of a fractured world.

Conclusion

Trump’s dual strategy—punishing India with tariffs while courting Putin with peace deals—illustrates the entangled nature of global power. Trade is no longer just economics, and peace talks are no longer just diplomacy. Both are levers in a broader geopolitical chessboard.

Whether these moves deliver peace or simply new fractures remains uncertain. As Financial Times put it, “The Trump doctrine is transactional, disruptive, and deeply consequential for allies and adversaries alike” (FT).

The question now is: will tariffs and pressure tactics bring stability, or will they only redraw the map of global alliances in unpredictable ways?