The Russia-Ukraine has in the mean time slowed down significantly after the diplomatic talks between the delegates of Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul. Russia has withdrawn its military force from the capital of Ukraine. This is a good development. But the war has put a significant threat to the western-led global system, especially which was developed after World War II. Also, the war clearly shows that the extant global system is not enough to successfully deal with wars especially when superpowers are engaged with. Indeed, many diplomatic, sanctions based and other measures were made by powerful counties to prevent the war but the war went on devastatingly for at least one month.
No doubt, there is a range of reasons that make the extant global system inadequate for successfully dealing with or mitigating vital challenges such as war. Some important reasons include the type of geopolitics, exclusionist/isolationist policy, nationalist populism, aggressiveness of nation-states, the issue of security and a long rivalry between/among superpowers. All such reasons deserve detailed discussion but I will here note geopolitics and exclusionist policy in detail. Notably, geopolitics is undeniable as it is needed for serving the economic, political and other interests of nation-states. But geopolitical stance is mostly realist (which considers military-based hard-power politics as given in the self-help or anarchic system) even if significant changes have occurred in the idealist geopolitical line. Consequently, nation states often use hard power (rather than soft power) techniques such as military power.
The exclusionist/Isolationist policy that aims at isolating a country by military, economic or other means is obviously a result of the realist geopolitical policy of nation-states. Notably, isolationism can be self-imposed as was the case of the United States, especially from the end of World War I to the day before its participation in World War II driven by its reluctance to get involved with the European wars, and externally imposed. The isolationist/exclusionist policy, especially that is imposed by other countries, results in devastating negative economic impacts, generates anger among the people of an affected country, and deepens enmity and motivates conflicts between an affected country and imposing countries. Indeed, the exclusionist/isolationist policy led some countries to decisively stand against those countries which imposed such a policy and develop weapons/military strengths and strategies targeting the latter leading to an unending enmity/conflict.
Of course, there are several reasons that inter-played in the Russia-Ukraine war. Notably, this article does not aim at the identification of reasons for the war. But whatever the reasons may be, it has significant economic, political and other consequences on the global system. Of course, the war has already brought enormous economic consequences across countries by boosting prices, fueling inflation, disrupting trade and many other ways. Moreover, it will bring further significant effects to the global economy and affect different countries though those countries which have significant business relations with Russia can suffer more. Given that energy trade shift, supply chains reconfigure and payment networks fragment, there is a possibility of fundamental change in the global economic order. Moreover, there remains a chance, although to a lower extent, of the development of economic blocs, especially by countries aligned with and against Russia, potentially leading to further fragmentation of the global economic system.
Politically, an increased geopolitical engagement with the usage of hard power politics is more likely in the world in the coming days. Most probably, Europe which was more habituated with soft power politics for decades may retake hard power political strategies for its own security. Indeed, the war can be a revival of the European power which was mostly inactive after World War II. Indications of strengthening the military capacity of European countries seem to be visible. By this time, Germany has declared an increase in its military expenditure from 1.53 to 2 percent. Given that the EU takes the responsibility for its own security, more competition for military power and increased tension and destabilization in the world are likely in the days ahead.
Of course, the world may be more destabilized because of not only the potentially increased focus of the European countries to rearm for their own security but also the potentially increased use of military power by Russia to secure its economy and political significance, which Russia is believed to have nourished for a long time. Consequently, the war may encourage some countries, especially those which are aligned with Russia, to strongly stand against the extant global system and strengthen their military power. Moreover, the United States, which applied a self-isolationist policy in the last few years, is likely to be more engaged in global affairs for its global leadership position. Consequently, more conflicts in different parts of the world are also not unlikely in the days ahead.
No less important is that global and regional institutes may be enormously affected because of the war and possibly increased focus by states on national interests. As a consequence, competitive intergovernmental organizations that serve the interest of competitive powers including the BRICS, the EU and NATO are more likely to be strengthened by different competitive power blocks. Also, many international organizations including the United Nations may see a further decline in their exercise of influence. Increased focus on hard power by influential countries including the European countries may reduce budgets for intergovernmental and non-government organizations. Consequently, humanitarian activities and global development efforts may be reduced in many areas in the coming days.
Thus, it is important to improve the global system by addressing its loopholes (noted above) and make it capable of better serving the reasoned interests of all the parties, regardless of region and nation. Moreover, it is vital to reduce the increased chances of more destructive developments based on the war. In this respect, giving a rethink to the war and all war-related developments is, thus, desired. Of course, it is difficult to do so in practical terms because of unprecedentedly complicated developments since the commencement of the war and conflicting national interests, both revealed and unrevealed. But it is also undeniable that the world, which has already faced a devastating threat from the pandemic, is not able to withstand larger conflicts/wars at all.
Of course, the security of nation-states plays an important role in geopolitics and transboundary relations. This is because security threat, real or perceived, determines how a country should react to another and compels one country to boost up its security which leads to the security dilemma, which exists when one country increases its security that decreases the security of others and results in the increased security measures of others and, hence, unlimited security measures and counter-measures. Thus, it is important to give a rethought on the notion of security threats and the extent of security measures and counter-measures. Even if the realist stance is important, the idealist stance of geopolitics also needs to be promoted by countries.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Magazine, its employees or any other authors. Views published are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
