Putin must lose, else we risk losing the rules based global world order

The brazenness with which the Russian military carried out massive missile attacks over civilian targets in Ukraine, while the G-20 was still in session is indicative of Putin’s arrogance. If allowed to go unchallenged, we would see the rise of ‘might is right’ kind of world order.

If Russia is permitted to walk away unscathed, from this molestation of a hapless neighbour, it will open the door to wars of aggression and invasion. Rich and powerful countries already enjoy a discriminatory advantage in the existing world order; condoning Russian actions would further undermine the interest of poor, weaker and relatively unarmed nations.

While the war is being fought in the Eurasian heartland, it has harmed the lives of common people around the world. Unjustified and unprovoked, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought about a crisis in food, fuel, transportation, and energy and caused untold misery. It could not have come at a worse time, as this war has broken the back of economies recovering from the Covid pandemic.

While the adverse impact of this war will be felt in almost all facets of international affairs, I shall highlight three areas where the impact would be most pronounced.

Also read | Birsa Munda anniversary: Let’s not forget Northeast India’s anti-colonial heroes

Might is Right?

If Putin can keep the territories illegally annexed from Ukraine, it would send a signal to the powerful countries harbouring designs on neighbour’s territory. Putin’s success would green signal the Chinese plans to take Taiwan by force. China might also consider settling disputes in the South China Sea, or the boundary issue with India by military force. It would tempt N Korea to make aggressive moves on S Korea. Similarly, Israel would feel no restraints in settling the Palestine question by force. Moreover, Putin will not stop with Ukraine, as Hitler didn’t with Poland. Georgia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would be next in line.  

Putin’s success will lead to a ‘might’ based, instead of ‘rules-based, global world order. International treaties would be junked with careless abandon, in favour of presumed national interest. Countries would seek military alliances and security blocks to protect their territories and interests. Regionalism and the rise of militarized nationalism would fuel the arms race, increasing the possibility of more strife across the world. Countries would drop any pretences of fair play and would follow the principles of self-preservation over rule-based order. In economic terms, countries would prioritize profit over plurality.

The outlines are visible.

Saudi Arabia-led OPEC has decided to cut oil production despite high prices, massive shortages and Russian bullying. This would allow them to make more money, while the rest of the world suffers. Similarly, Israel a long-term US ally has refused to share with Ukraine, air-defence equipment that can help them defend their home and hearth. Israel needs Russian cooperation that allows Israeli jets to transit Syrian airspace, controlled by Russia, in pursuit of its military targets. Weapon supply to Ukraine would invite Russian ire. Similarly, India sees no harm in buying copious amounts of Russian oil, to pursue its energy security.

Also read | The best script for Kokborok? The answer is clear, but politics isn’t

Nuclear blackmail

Nuclear brinkmanship by Putin has worked so far, and this risks dismantling the global architecture designed to achieve nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.

Putin is ravaging a hapless neighbour in broad daylight. Other nations stand in helpless inaction, as bystanders, offering only some moral & material support. Their inaction is compelled by the risk of nuclear escalation. Putin is sabre rattling. His thinly veiled threats of nuclear weapons usage have kept the rest of the world on tenterhooks. Unfortunately, his threats are working. It is primarily the risk of nuclear weapon usage that has kept NATO out of the conflict.

This threat has frightening consequences for Ukraine’s neighbours, who risk bearing the fallout of radiation besides the massive influx of refugees that such a catastrophe would ensue. 

Over the last several decades, there had been a global push for nuclear disarmament. Various resolutions through multilateral forums & international treaties had been disincentivizing the possession of nuclear weapons. Even peaceful use of nuclear energy was discouraged as it was seen to be damaging to the environment in the long run, besides carrying the latent potential for weaponization.

Great progress had been made in this direction, however, all these efforts would likely come to nought. Smaller nations perceiving threats from larger or more powerful adversaries would likely seek a nuclear deterrence force as an insurance policy. Iran would likely redouble its effort to make a functional nuclear weapon. N Korea and Pakistan would enhance their existing nuclear arsenal and delivery mechanisms. Israel would see no point in keeping her nuclear program in the shadows and Saudi Arabia would probably buy a bomb.

S Korea and Japan have the industrial heft and technical prowess to manufacture a nuclear weapon in months, and they would probably make one. Taiwan would certainly be looking to acquire tactical nuclear weapons to thwart a Chinese sea-borne invasion. Similarly, strife-torn African nations, that possess a large quantity of Uranium, would either seek a nuclear program of their own or would seek to make money by exporting these materials, ignoring international restrictions. 

The irony of history is that Ukraine itself was a believer in international non-proliferation efforts. They gave up their nuclear weapons by signing the Lisbon Protocol. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, several thousands of nuclear warheads, hundreds of ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and other nuclear infrastructure were left on Ukraine’s territory. However, they decided to transfer all these to Russia; a decision, I am sure, they regret today. 

Also read | Mary Kom fan, Sarita’s academy product, this Manipur pugilist eyes national glory 

Climate change efforts up in smoke

It is indeed a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the world, as, while the global leaders were attending COP 27, giving shape to policies that could reverse climate damage, the war in Ukraine was causing unprecedented climate damage. 

The ongoing war is adding an enormous amount of greenhouse gases to the earth’s atmosphere. Untold destruction is being caused to the flora and fauna in the region. Water and subsoil are being poisoned through military activity which will take years to heal. Deforestation and soil degradation would hamper food production and likely cause migration of people, straining other areas.

Active battles in the vicinity of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and Chernobyl radiation zone, are ticking time bombs. A radiation fallout would be a climate disaster.

This war will cause nations to seek short-term solutions to ensure their energy security and food security. We would see more and more countries reversing track to increase hydrocarbon extraction and place greater reliance on coal-based energy. Similarly, the Russian blockade of cheaper Ukrainian grain would cause many countries to switch to local production risking the lowering of water tables.

The far more damaging outcome of this conflict would be a fracture in global consensus. Planet Earth can be saved only if all countries, despite ideological differences, can find a way to work together. This war would see a significant reduction in mutual trust and would see a rise of regionalism, with countries opting for short-term economic and security interests over long-term climate preservation efforts.

The environmental impact of this war will be felt across various species, habitats and ecosystems. Damages caused to air, land, and water will take years – if not decades – to heal. An indirect impact would be felt on our access to food, clean air, and clean water. As and when the fighting abates, Ukraine would need to be rebuilt. This reconstruction effort would also add carbon emissions, increase fossil fuel usage and increase deforestation.

This war has put us in a lose-lose situation.

Russia went to war to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. They didn’t want NATO troops on their border. Unfortunately, the reverse happened. Finland and Sweden, Russian neighbours, countries that had historically committed to neutrality, have applied for NATO membership, In addition, it is almost certain that Ukraine would continue to push for NATO admission until she is accepted. Russia will not achieve the strategic aim of keeping NATO away from its borders, and neither would it achieve an outright military victory over Ukraine. Russia enjoys military superiority over Ukraine, however, as long as Ukraine can find people to fight, they would get weapons to fight. This would become an unending war that gradually eroded Russian prestige, economy and international standing. 

This war has caused unimaginable misery to the people of Ukraine, however, citizens in other parts of the world, including Russia are facing the consequences too. The damage caused to climate change efforts, rule-based order and nuclear non-proliferation efforts would take years to recover.

For the international order to survive, Putin must lose.

Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the position of EastMojo

Also read | Birsa Munda anniversary: Let’s not forget Northeast India’s anti-colonial heroes