The Russo-Ukrainian War can be termed a multi-dimensional disaster. Many nations are siding with Russia and many are blaming it for the crisis. Amid such a blame game, implications of the war have been taken for granted, as the war is impacting the entire world, including those who are not involved in the crisis. This is what the article aims to highlight: the global responses to the Ukraine war, its implications, and a possible way forward to end the war.
The Russo-Ukrainian war divided the international community into three different parts, each carrying specific dimensions. First, there are the countries that are against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, such as the USA and its allies. They are not directly involved in confronting the Russian military, rather are providing military aid to Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Russia to paralyze its economy to end the war, as they claim. recently, US President Joe Biden said, “this time we are sanctioning Russian banks by cutting off their assets”.
Second, THERE ARE countries that are favoring the Russian stance like Belarus, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and China. During the winter Olympics, China openly supported the Russian stance against NATO expansion. In the meanwhile, China declined to join the West’s sanctions against Russia, opting for normal trade cooperation with Russia. With the slogan “No limits friendship”, Beijing is also helping Moscow tide over sanctions by buying oil, gas, and wheat. To show the objectives of its foreign policy on “commitment to territorial integrity and non-interference” Chinese officials and diplomats have openly said that China is a peace-loving country and wants a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Moreover, China seems to pursue three goals simultaneously: strategic partnership with Russia, minimizing the damage of sanctions from the EU and the USA against Russia and commitment to territorial integrity and non-interference. For maintaining a strategic partnership with Russia, China is supporting Russia as it demands or at least expects Russian support on the Taiwan issue.
Third, countries that are neither interested (at least apparently), in the war nor siding with one or the other, such as India and Pakistan. It seems that India is playing a safe game, but in reality, it is not. It claims to maintain a neutral position in the war taking care of its strategic partnership with both Moscow and Washington, but it appears that India has gone against the Western wish that it vote against Russia in the UN General Assembly because of its national interests.
To conclude, all the set-ups of this war can prove that it is the preparation of a new world order and also a threat to US hegemony. The idea of isolating Russia and securing Europe might lead to the demolition of Europe and the US dominance, because if NATO did not stop its expansion, then Ukraine is not the end but the starting point for Russia.
In this context, Pakistan, a developing country that wants to shift its position from geo-strategic to geo-economics, also claims to be neutral. It was pressurized by the West to vote against Russia on the UN General Assembly resolution but it did not. Pakistan’s neutral stance is important because it is a developing country. It needs cheap energy, pretty much for the same needs as India does, and Russia is selling oil at cheaper prices. Also, Pakistan imports wheat from Russia and Ukraine and the continuation of the war can cause food shortages in the country, as it has already been struck by recent floods affecting more than 33 million Pakistanis in different ways.
To common people, conflicts are seen as two-sided, the left versus the right, the labour versus the management, and one country versus another, but it’s not that simple in almost all cases and the Russo-Ukrainian War is no exception. This conflict has a third side, where states willingly or compellingly pick favourites to support them and the engine of war continuously steams blood not hollow smoke. For instance, in the UN General Assembly, most European nations are taking sides while the Asian and African nations are not interested in doing so, as most probably this suits their national interest.
Keeping in view the global responses to the Russo-Ukraine war, it is pertinent to mention that there are several social, political, and economic implications of it. One of the political implications of the crisis is that it gave birth to Cold War 2.0, and the world will once again become the victim between two blocs and the rivalries will again be the same. Consequently, the war has created a sense of security dilemma among the states and countries are increasing their defence budgets after the crisis. Some have also applied for NATO membership fearing that they would be the next target of Russia after Ukraine.
Moreover, during the economic crisis faced by the countries, there are a lot of protests and riots among the masses which create political and economic instability, and governments are failing to counter their emerging domestic problems. China also got an indication that if the West could not save Ukraine, it would also not fight for Taiwan. This might ultimately boost the Chinese morale to invade Taiwan.
On the social front, this war has generated the greatest humanitarian crisis in Europe since World War II. Many people lost their lives, jobs, and homes. Racism emerged as the Europeans preferred people with white colour and golden hair. It brought a refugee crisis into Europe, and those countries that were already hosting refugees from Syria and Afghanistan compelled them to go back to their countries, in trying to make space for Ukrainian refugees.
The economic implications of the Ukraine war are bleeding all of us. Oil prices are sharply increasing and it is completely affecting the entire world. Prices of food commodities are rising, because Russia and Ukraine are among the largest wheat exporters in the world. Inflation is at its peak, because of the supply chain disruption.
Consequences aside, both countries have certain demands before ending the war. Russia has been transparent about its demands. It has stated its four requirements for Ukraine to end the war: full demilitarization, which means that Ukraine should stop any kind of military action; amending its constitution toward neutrality (which would prevent it from joining NATO); recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, and recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. Ukraine, however, is equally firm in its demands of Russia: it requires peace, immediate ceasefire, immediate withdrawal of all troops, and security guarantees from the Russian invasion.
To ensure peace and stability in the region, it is important to look at how the war could end. For the war to end, Ukraine should declare its neutral status with no membership in NATO and demilitarize the conflictual territories. Secondly, an agreement of no interference in the domestic politics of Ukraine by the USA and Russia needs to be agreed upon. Thirdly, Ukraine should refrain from being the station of any other country’s military base. Fourthly, in Crimea and Donbas, for the debated territories, there should be referendums under international supervision, and lastly, there should be negative security assurances to non-nuclear states.
To conclude, all the set-ups of this war can prove that it is the preparation of a new world order and also a threat to US hegemony. The idea of isolating Russia and securing Europe might lead to the demolition of Europe and the US dominance, because if NATO did not stop its expansion, then Ukraine is not the end but the starting point for Russia.
