Russia- Ukraine Standoff: Global Implications

Introduction

In my previous article about the Ukraine crisis, I discussed its roots and mentioned the following three objectives Russia stated for invading Ukraine:

1. Demilitarise Ukraine: Firstly, to demilitarize Ukraine, preventing it from joining NATO and ensuring its neutral status, thus stopping NATO’s expansion into countries that were once within Russia’s sphere of influence.
2. De-Nazifying Ukraine: Secondly, to de-nazify Ukraine, given Russia’s concern over political ultra-nationalism in Ukraine and its history of Ukrainian nationalists collaborating with Germany in World War II.
3. Stopping Ethnic Cleansing: Thirdly, to stop the alleged genocide of ethnic Russians in Ukraine,

The article also highlighted the fact that behind these three stated objectives of the Russian invasion of Ukraine were six strategic objectives: keeping Ukraine part of Russia’s historical baggage, securing Russia’s soft belly, safeguarding its economic interests, hiding imperial ambitions, and creating disunity in Europe.

The punch line was that the conflict in Ukraine was not just about Ukraine; it was also about Russia’s ambitions to maintain its status as a superpower and dominate Europe.

You can read it in full here

https://shahidhraja.medium.com/russias-ukraine-adventure-d3d257376c02

In this article, I am going to explain how Russia’s Ukraine adventure has affected global politics and the international economy in multiple ways. Some of these are

1. Global Geopolitical Realignments

Although the world sleepwalked into the Cold War after the publication of the Neo-con Agenda and the announcement of the Pivot towards Asia strategy in the 2010s, the Ukraine war became the catalyst for this emerging world order consisting of three different groups of nations: those who sided with Russia and its allies, those who pledged support to Ukraine and its backers, and a group of non-aligned nations resisting involvement and/or hedging their bets.

Ironically, it led to unifying the US and the EU through the expansion of NATO, which strengthened NATO’s deterrence posture and increased its forward presence in Eastern Europe. It leapfrogged into Russia’s declared security zone with larger exercises, more readiness, and reinforcement strategies. Finland and Sweden, two countries that had previously shunned NATO membership to avoid antagonizing Russia, decided to join the alliance in a historic shift.

At the same time, it accelerated the emergence of the third block of non-aligned countries when only five countries opposed the UN censure of Russia with fifty-one. The world is now firmly in Cold War mode reminiscent of the 1970s and 1980s.

2. Global Food Shortages

With Russia and Ukraine together accounting for one-third of the global wheat trade, 17 per cent of the global maize trade, and almost 75 per cent of the global sunflower oil trade, the conflict has caused disruptions in their supply chains and raised prices for these commodities in both developed and developing countries. It is estimated that around one million pieces of agricultural machinery have been totally or partially damaged, four million tons of grains and oilseeds have been destroyed or stolen, and storage for more than one million tons of agricultural products has been damaged or destroyed.

Although the implementation of the Black Sea Grain Initiative brokered by the UNO in August 2022 enabled Ukraine to export over 22 million tons of foodgrains through its Black Sea ports, these account for only half of Ukraine’s pre-war maritime agricultural exports. Similarly, the exemption of Western sanctions on Russia’s food and fertilizer exports has not eased the situation because of higher prices of natural gas, an important feedstock for nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Coupled with the dwindling global foodgrain stocks and stagnant yields in several foodgrain exporting countries, these supply disruptions have severely affected the global food security situation Today, WFP reports that a record 349 million people across 79 countries face acute food insecurity. This all-time high represents an increase of 200 million people compared to pre-Covid-19.

3. Global Fuel Crisis

To punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, heavy economic and financial sanctions were imposed on Russia by the USA and its allies, not only to isolate its economy but to cripple it financially by freezing its assets in Western banks. These measures did not prove too effective, but rather resulted in Russia and Iran benefiting enormously due to increased demand and prices for their exported hydrocarbon resources, improving their current accounts and financial stability. At the same time, there were some other unintended consequences.

Firstly, Russia retaliated by cutting its gas supplies to Europe, resulting in skyrocketing fuel prices, which predictably led to public resentment in many European countries against their governments and the USA. Consequently, many European countries witnessed the acceleration of far-right populism, which had already taken firm roots due to increased immigration from those countries suffering from conflicts, crises, and regional wars.

Secondly, fearing long-term fuel supply disruptions due to the Ukraine war, rich countries started massive buying and stockpiling of these commodities. It further increased their prices, resulting in consequential budgetary crises in vulnerable countries.

Thirdly, patterns of international trade started shifting in accordance with the shift in global geopolitical realignments. The most fundamental change has been Europe’s shift away from reliance on Russian gas. Europe has now started buying oil from the USA, cementing American clout in Europe even further while correspondingly reducing Russian influence.

With trust broken, Europe will never return to meaningful dependency on Russian fossil fuels, even after these crises are over. As a result, Russia started looking further and has concluded long-term contracts with India and China. At the same time, those African countries blessed with hydrocarbon resources have seen increased European interest in their affairs.

Fourthly, the quest for renewable energy has got a quantum boost as more resources are being diverted to tap alternatives to fossil fuels for fuel security. Before the Ukraine War started, the EU had pledged to reduce emissions by 40 per cent and attain 32 per cent energy. The war has seen those targets raised to 57 per cent and 45 per cent respectively, leading to an almost fully decarbonized power sector across the EU by 2030/35 with unparalleled expansion in the capacity of offshore wind, solar, and other sources. It would also see a marked change in the geopolitical importance of the Middle East.

4. Global Economic Recession

Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the USA and Europe were still amid a weak post-pandemic recovery and experiencing inflationary pressure due to problems with global supply chains brought about by the pandemic. However, this painful surge in inflation was further fuelled by the war’s effect on food and energy prices. It resulted in interest rate hikes, which tipped several European economies into recession. While the UK was already facing recessionary pressure due to Brexit, Japan has been in stagnation for the last two decades. Consequently, the world is slowly but surely inching toward a recession. African and Middle Eastern countries have suffered, especially as they import massive quantities of food, as have poor countries worldwide with little financial leeway.

5. New Military Technology/Warfare Doctrines

The development and deployment of new military technology is one of the spin-offs in almost every war, but the Ukraine War has transformed warfare in multiple ways. Besides the use of hypersonic missiles, several other new and highly disruptive technologies, such as artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, big data, quantum technology, biotechnology, and novel materials, are being tested in Ukraine.

Similarly, drones, which have been used in many war theatres during the last few years, have seen innovative uses. Using decentralized networks on the internet, Ukrainian techies have repurposed cheap consumer drones to put grenades on them and combat Russia’s Orlan surveillance drones. Maritime and aerial drones have been dispatched to attack Russian vessels in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol, which some military observers have dubbed “a glimpse into the future of naval warfare”.

6. Beginning of Russian Balkanization

It is an overstatement to say that the Afghanistan fiasco heralded the end of the former USSR, but its Ukraine adventure does have ominous implications for the survival of Russia in its present form. Its predecessor, the Soviet Union, had more than 100 distinct nationalities and nations under its fold (sack of potatoes-Churchill), the majority of them aspiring for independent nation-states of their own.

Russia is also beset with this problem; it contains around 50 of those nationalities, several of whom are living in areas closer to foreign countries than Moscow. If history is any guide, the weakening of the central power in Moscow has always unleashed serious centrifugal forces around the country. In the case of persistent disruptions and bottlenecks in transportation, it’ll make much more sense for them to declare independence with the help of foreign powers.

In fact, the USA and its allies will leave no stone unturned to help them in this respect. They do not consider Russia a superpower or a threat to their security but believe that Russia has become too big for its shoes, challenging the USA and its allies everywhere. They are perturbed over their Middle East and Afghanistan fiascos and rightly blame Russia for their defeats in these two war theatres. To them, Russia, because of its dwindling population but huge territory, is no longer a viable state that needs to break into pieces.

What is happening now?

According to Mearsheimer, an eminent scholar of global politics and an authority on modern warfare, is the leading scholar of International Relations

1. The Russians have not won yet, but they will win the war because of their experience in a war of attrition, which this war has become, like WW1.
2. In a war of attrition, the goal is to bleed out the other side, and the side that has more of these three things ultimately wins, namely: (1) balance of resolve, (2) population, and (3) artillery.
3. Although both sides are equal in 1, Russia had a 3.5 to 1 population advantage at the beginning of the war. This has grown to about 5:1 as a result of 8+ million Ukrainian refugees, 3 million of whom have gone to Russia.
4. Similarly, the balance of artillery is somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1 in Russia’s favour. The US doesn’t have enough artillery to give Ukraine; that’s why they are providing more tanks and planes to Ukraine and have forced Pakistan to supply artillery firepower to Ukraine. The
5. The Casualty Exchange Ratio (CER) is at least 2:1 in Russia’s favour, meaning that two Ukrainians are likely dying for every Russian. The Ukrainians’ claim of 7:1 CER in their favour is highly exaggerated. Ukrainians are becoming desperate to conscript men. Russia has not fully mobilized yet.

What’s likely to happen next?

According to Mearsheimer

1. Russia will take the 4 oblasts they already annexed plus (if they can) another 4 oblasts to the Dnipro River, including Odesa and Kharkiv. The goal would be to bring all the ethnic Russians under their control to avoid another “Donbas problem.”
2. Russia doesn’t want to take western Ukraine, dominated by ethnic Ukrainians, but their goal is to turn Ukraine into a dysfunctional rump state so it can’t threaten them or be used as a Western bulwark on their border.
3. There’s not going to be a peace agreement. The best case is a frozen conflict because (1) the parties can’t agree on territory. (2) they can’t agree on neutrality. (3) Hyper-nationalism and hatred on both sides make a deal impossible. (4) No trust. Western leaders and Zelensky admitted that they had no intention of honouring the Minsk agreements and entered them just to buy time.
4. As pointed out by George Kennan, Adm. Bill Perry, Amb. Jack Matlock and Gen. Shalikashvili, NATO expansion was a prescription for disaster. They were right. It’s only going to get worse.
5. F16s won’t make a difference because it takes a long time to train good pilots. Also, the Russians have very good air defence, and their own Air Force is ready to engage. The biggest risk of F16s is that Ukraine uses them to attack targets inside Russia, creating an escalation that could draw the US deeper into the war.
6. If the Russians are losing the war, the likelihood of nuclear use to rescue the situation is high because it is an existential war for the Russians. However, as it stands now, the odds of nuclear use are very low because the Russians are winning.

From my book “International Relations: Basic Concepts & Global Issues”, available at Amazon

International Relations: Basic Concepts and Global Issues: A Handbook, 2nd Edition