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.
