One aspect of the Ukraine crisis that both Russia and the West need to understand is that the rest of the world appears to be relatively unconcerned about it.
Although the West, along with Japan, may view the crisis as a challenge to the global order, most other states do not feel threatened by Moscow’s annexation of Crimea or designs it may have elsewhere in Ukraine. Instead, many view this crisis as being largely about Europe’s inability to resolve its own regional disputes, though a successful outcome could bolster Europe’s global influence as a peacemaker.
As the Ukraine crisis unfolded, Russian policymakers and commentators talked about “the end of the post-Cold War era,” while Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dimitri Rogozin even appeared to welcome the start of a new Cold War.
Such wishful thinking is predicated on the notion that conflict between Moscow and the West would once again come to define the entire international system, thereby returning Russia to its former superpower status.
That is not going to happen.
As emerging powers’ reactions to the Ukraine crisis demonstrate, world politics is no longer defined by what happens in Europe, even when a major conflict is brewing there.
The international system has become so multipolar that non-European states can now choose to follow their own interests rather than feel obliged to side with the East or the West.
Few world leaders doubt that Russia’s use of force to compromise Ukraine’s territorial integrity, change its borders and annex Crimea violated international law. China’s abstention in the subsequent UN Security Council vote clearly signaled its leaders’ displeasure with Kremlin policy, but nearly one-third of the UN’s members sent an equally emphatic message by abstaining or not participating in a General Assembly vote condemning Moscow’s actions.
Even Western-friendly governments — including Brazil, India, South Africa and Israel — were not prepared to take sides. Indian journalist Indrani Bagchi referred to the abstentions as a new form of nonalignment.
Cynicism and schadenfreude may also be playing a role. Prominent Indian strategist Raja Mohan said that Europe “has never ceased to lecture Asia on the virtues of regionalism,” but now seems unable to cope with its own regional security challenges.
The implicit message from the new nonaligned is straightforward: Why should we care about a territorial conflict in Europe when you Europeans fail to act decisively on Palestine, Kashmir or territorial disputes in the East and South China seas?
Instead, many of these countries are calling on the West to de-escalate the crisis and, as a statement from the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs advocated, “exercise restraint and refrain from raising tensions.”
That is good advice and no different from what Europeans tell others in similar situations.
However, unlike other regions of the world, Europe — including Russia — can be proud of its regional security organizations, such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Now, it needs to make them work.
For example, the OSCE would be greatly strengthened if, using its wide range of diplomatic mechanisms (such as roundtable discussions and support for constitutional reforms), it succeeded in defusing the Ukraine crisis and thereby bolstered European security.
Doing so would also provide a powerful example of institutionalized regionalism that might serve as a conflict-resolution model for other countries.
Alternatively, if Europe is unable to resolve the Ukraine crisis with diplomacy, its global influence, and that of Russia, will surely fade.
Russia has reminded the world that it is possible to bully one’s neighbors and steal their territory using brute force, but, in a globalized, multipolar system, this alone will not be enough to rally other countries to its cause. Furthermore, the EU, as a highly sophisticated paper tiger, would be no more attractive.
EU member states have no interest in letting their continent slip back into ethnic nationalism and power politics. The Ukraine crisis is therefore both a challenge and an opportunity. If Europe wants to remain a pole in a multipolar international system, it must prove that it can pursue a common foreign and security policy, particularly in times of crisis and conflict.
That means that the EU must emerge from the Ukraine crisis with a stronger commitment to common defense and joint contingency planning, and a unified energy policy that can secure independence from Russian oil and gas. Yet Europe must also show that it can and will defend the principles of rules-based international relations.
Maintaining and strengthening the pillars of Europe’s common defense is not a simple task; but multilateral security organizations like the OSCE are not made for easy times.
They are intended to protect members from manipulation and aggression and in a way that can garner global support. In this sense, Europe’s main task now is to leverage its already considerable strategic assets.
Volker Perthes is chairman and director of Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (the German Institute for International and Security Affairs).
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS