Saturday, March 5, 2022

Russia-Ukraine Conflict Viewed Through the Lens of Complexity and Changing World Order

 

Russia-Ukraine Conflict Viewed Through the Lens of Complexity and Changing World Order

 

K.M. Venkat Narayan

 

         As Ukraine reels under and resists a sustained onslaught by Russian transgression, the world community is shocked and moved by the brutality. The toll on civilians, displacement of nearly a million people, and the pictures of utter destruction have pained people across the world.  Yet, the world at large remains lost about how the situation can be controlled or what set of actions might work.

There can be no justification for this inhumane war and the utmost human suffering that have been unleashed on Ukraine by Putin.  The Russian invasion of Ukraine disregards all international conventions and rule of law. The atrocity has to be unequivocally condemned. But beyond condemnation, what will work and what will not?

To fully understand the crisis and to evolve effective policy, it is important to examine the event from the lens of complexity and the changing world order.  

         First, starting from the end of the Cold War, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has increasingly been uneasy about the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and of the European Union (EU), and of the weakening of the Warsaw Pact.  These together with the spread of democracy into the former Communist nations of Eastern Europe have threatened Russia, which has increasingly felt a loss of pride and power. As John Mearsheimer of the University Chicago wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2014, contrary to conventional wisdom that places the entire blame on Russian aggression, the policies and actions of the liberal world order of promoting democracy, NATO and EU expansion eastward, led by western Europe and the United States, have threatened and provoked Putin. His aggressive actions on Crimea, Georgia, and Ukraine all probably stem from this mindset of paranoia and fear. Against this context of distrust and fear, it is difficult to engage Putin in any meaningful negotiation or for him to even listen.

         Second, the best instrument for international negotiations and peace that we have, the United Nations (UN), seems to be faltering and losing credibility and teeth. Established in the aftermath of World War II, the UN largely reflects the power structure and priorities of that time, and still retains disproportionate and veto powers in the hands of five countries, the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China. Furthermore, over the seventy-seven years of its existence, there have been numerous unfortunate instances of the agency’s policies driven by the interests and values of western Europe and the United States. It has also been the case that the agency has not been consistent in its condemnation of transgressions of international law, and of human rights, and is viewed by several nations of being tight-lipped toward some nations, especially, powerful ones, such as the United States, while being unduly harsh toward others with political positions in opposition to the western nations.  This perception of the UN as an agency dominated by Western Europe and its allies has impaired its ability to act effectively and collectively. Even in the recent vote condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, countries representing the majority of the world population either abstained (as was the case with China and India) or stood behind Russia.

         Third, the world is changing rapidly in terms of economic, military, and cultural powers. The rapid growth across the low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), nations that has been gated out of the industrial revolution during the 19th and 20th centuries, has begun to change the global landscape. This is altering the global dynamics of power, with the two most populated countries of the world, China and India, rapidly ascending in influence. China is already a leading economy and military power, and India though some years behind China is also on that trajectory, as are numerous Asian nations. This means the rise of Asia as an important region of the world in terms of global strategies. Simultaneously, several other LMICs in Africa and Latin America are also experiencing rapid economic development. According to the International Monetary Fund, the emerging markets (e.g., China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Mexico) will dominate the world’s top ten economies by 2050. China, India, and US, in that order, will be the leading economies, and there will be a relative decline of the Western European economies (e.g., Germany, Britain, France). These changes together with the decrease of the unipolar power, influence, and credibility of the United States all mean that the configuration of the new world order will look very different.

         With this context in mind, here are some short- and long-term predictions for how the Russia-Ukraine conflict may play out, and how crisis, such as these, may accelerate changes to the world order and collective governance.

Short-term

In the immediate short-term, we might anticipate the following four things.

 

First, Putin is not going to occupy Ukraine, as he will not want to repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan or that of the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. He will instead take over Pro-Russia parts, encircle Ukraine, and plant a pro-Russia government. This will be similar to how he handled Georgia and all of this may evolve during the next 4-6 weeks or so.

 

Second, western European nations and the United States are furiously putting major sanctions in place against Russia.  This is understandable.  However, these sanctions will take time to have effect, and even then may only have minimal effect on Russia, while they may weaken the western European  economies. Taking strategic advantage of this situation, there are already signs that China, the Gulf countries, Iran, Pakistan, India will get diplomatically around the sanctions and make deals with Russia.

 

Third, afraid that Putin may take his invasion spree into other nations with the possible goal of reintegrating the lost Soviet empire, western Europe will increase defense expense and NATO will get more armed. Germany has already announced an increase to its defense budget, a major move for the first time after WWII, and other European nations are following suit. The United States and NATO will undoubtedly get more armed with the perception of the Russian threat.

 

Fourth, China and India, the two most populous nations, will watch and try to play brokers of peace and may slowly gain traction. They have already indicated this by abstaining in the vote against Russia in the UN Security Council. Israel and UAE will also gain traction as peace brokers, and even as we speak, Israel is in conversation with Russia and Ukraine, apparently trying to halt the war. As Christian Amanpour reported, after talking to the President of Ukraine, the countries with any leverage to influence Putin now are China, India, Israel, UAE, and this is only possible as these nations have shown neutrality.

 

Long-term

It is always hard to forecast the long-term, but we will likely see the following patterns emerge over the next 3-15 years.  

 

Russia may have troubles from within due to economic challenges and a change in leadership may eventually happen.  Given the changing global landscape, Russia’s economic woes, and its irresponsible wars, Russia is bound to weaken in the long run, and lose much of its influence on the global stage.

 

Ukraine will likely stay of out of NATO and be neutral or Russia-leaning. Whether this will be through a treaty with Russia or through a pro-Russian government is unclear. There is also the likelihood of Ukraine being a restless state with fragmented internal politics, and periodic violence.

 

Western European economy and influence will weaken, driven by aging population, slow economic growth, and increased defense expenditure. The US economy will stay fine as it is big and also practical, and will realign with new world dynamics, shifting its strategic interests increasingly toward Asia (with strong ties with Australia, Japan, and India as part of the QUAD), while gradually shifting attention away from Europe. However, the influence and power of the United States will gradually decrease, and the country will reconfigure itself in greater trade and strategic alignment with the rising powers, including China and India.

 

China’s economy and influence will grow. While the US and western Europe fear that China may get aggressive and may start conflicts with Taiwan or in the Indo-Pacific, it is unlikely that China will do anything that will jeopardize its economy or global influence.  An examination of China’s long history indicates that an underlying doctrine that drives its foreign policy is based on the ancient treatise of “Art of War” by Sun Tzu, and is a composite approach of multiple skills and strategies but largely focuses on winning without actually going to war.

 

India, the other populous country and growing major economy, will realign interests carefully, and position itself into the future - balancing relationships across all powers without taking sides. Going back seven decades, India has pursued a non-alignment strategy of not aligning itself with any major power, but staying independent and neutral, as far as possible. In the past 30 years, India has begun to modernize its economy, and build stronger ties with the United States and western Europe, Israel, and Japan. It does so while also keeping close ties with Russia, and Iran. The country also has an “look east” policy, and is building ties with several Asian nations. It is simultaneously strengthening its ties with the middle-eastern and African countries. The India-China relationship displays features of long-term cooperation, while some thorny issues remain. Notably, in their 5000-year history, the two countries have fought one brief war lasting days. It is, therefore, unlikely, that any of their disagreements  will spill over into major conflicts. India’s strategic lens is largely based on peaceful coexistence but with self-interest in mind.

 

In summary, while it is natural to view the Russia-Ukraine conflict in isolation, it is important to understand the larger and more complex geopolitical changes the world is going through. What is becoming clear is that the instruments for multilateral engagement and global peace that were put in place in the aftermath of WWII need serious revision to reflect the changing power dynamics. By 2040, China, India, and US will be the big forces, along with several LMIC nations, and new models of respectful multilateral cooperation among them will be needed. Furthermore, multilateral instruments, like the UN, will need revision to reflect the positions and preferences of the changed power dynamics to be effective in maintaining global peace.

 




 

 

 

 


1 comment:

José Becerra said...

Very nice and thorough analysis. Thank you.

One long-term outcome could considered. A new block of nations configuring a Pan America: North, Central and South America (including the Caribbean). This would make a formidable economic power in the future.

Jose Becerra
https://hierarchicaldemocracy.blog