Editor's note: Nikola Mikovic, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a freelance journalist in Serbia, covering mostly Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian foreign policy issues. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily those of CGTN.

Over the past four years, the Russia–Ukraine conflict has had a major impact around the world. It has shifted the balance of power in Europe and significantly disrupted the global political and economic system that emerged after the Cold War. How might this ongoing confrontation reshape the European security landscape?

Although the conflict erupted on February 24, 2022 – which will undoubtedly remain an important date in both Russian and Ukrainian histories – the current crisis is a continuation of the Donbas conflict in Eastern Ukraine that began in the spring of 2014. For more than a decade, the two neighboring Slavic nations, once brotherly, have been engaged in sustained hostility, in one way or another.

Still, February 24, 2022, marked a decisive turning point not only for Moscow and Kyiv, but also for the entire international community, especially Europe. The continent, where both World Wars broke out, has once again become the stage for major-power rivalry. Although at this point there is no indication that Europe could be on the path to a third world war, such an outcome cannot be entirely ruled out in the long term.

European nations are taking widespread measures to prepare for a potential large-scale war. The revival of their military-industrial complexes is in full swing, while some countries are reintroducing mandatory military service. However, at present, Europe remains heavily dependent on the United States, which is currently one of the main beneficiaries of the Ukraine conflict.

Since Donald Trump took office in the US, Washington has significantly reduced military aid to Ukraine. As a result, following his "America First" policy, the United States has been selling weapons to European countries, which are then supplying them to Kyiv. It is no wonder that some European states are unhappy with this arrangement, which is why they are seeking to redefine their relationship with Washington and to pursue greater "strategic autonomy."

The ongoing political tensions between the US and the European Union would likely not have occurred if the conflict in Ukraine had not erupted. Neither would the very high inflation currently affecting almost all European states. The Ukraine crisis has also triggered a transformation of the European energy supply chain. In the past, the EU was heavily dependent on relatively cheap Russian oil and gas. Now that the 27-nation bloc has imposed sanctions on the Kremlin, Moscow has shifted its energy flows eastward, while the EU is purchasing more expensive energy from the United States as well as from other producers.

At the same time, the greatest losers of the conflict are undoubtedly Ukraine and Russia, particularly their citizens. "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare," Chinese ancient military strategist Sun Tzu wrote in his work "The Art of War" about 2,500 years ago. Although the people of Ukraine and Russia almost certainly want the hostilities to end immediately, the chances of that – at least for now – are rather slim.

The ongoing peace talks, led by the United States, have so far failed to produce any results. One reason for this could be Trump's ambition to end the conflict at any cost, as doing so would allow him to portray himself once again as a "peacemaker," while simultaneously enabling him to focus more on launching a war against Iran.

Paradoxically, Trump – who claims to have ended "seven never-ending wars" – is actively preparing to take action against Iran. Fully aware that a potential military campaign in the Middle Eastern nation might not go as smoothly as some American strategies anticipate, policymakers in Washington likely aim to freeze the conflict in Ukraine so that the United States would not have to manage two major fronts simultaneously.

Implementing this, however, is easier said than done. After four years of fighting, neither Russia nor Ukraine has exhausted all of its potential. More importantly, neither side has achieved any of its strategic goals. They remain deadlocked on key issues such as territory and security guarantees. Firmly backed by Western powers, Kyiv refuses to give up the Donbas region. At the same time, Russia does not appear willing to freeze the conflict along the current frontlines, likely fearing that doing so would only allow Ukraine to consolidate and prepare for another round of fighting in the near future.

As a result, hostilities go on, while both Russia and Ukraine continue to suffer heavy casualties. Under the current circumstances, the conflict can end either when one of the two parties, unable to continue fighting, agrees to de facto capitulate, or when both Moscow and Kyiv, weary of bloodshed, abandon zero-sum thinking. In other words, if both sides stop seeing the conflict as a win-or-lose struggle, they could work with other countries and organizations to engage in more open dialogue to find solutions. As a result, they could integrate multilateral mechanisms into major-power coordination and strengthen dialogue to bridge differences.

One thing is for certain: Whenever the conflict ends, its byproduct will be a new security architecture in Europe.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)