Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: causes, consequences, and global implications

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Russia's invasion of Ukraine: causes, consequences, and global implications

Bordilovska O.,

head of the Department of New Challenges, National Institute for Strategic studies under the President of Ukraine (Ukraine, Kyiv)

Sumit Kumar Pathak,

Introduction

Since the beginning of new Kyiv leadership in February 2014, Russia swiftly engaged and annexed the Crimean peninsula that year. Subsequent separatist uprisings erupted in Eastern Ukraine, finally “On February 24, 2022, a patronal autocracy launched a full-scale attack against a patronal democracy”. (Madlovics & Magyar: 2023) This presents a significant challenge to Ukraine and European security.After the success in Crimea, Putin and the Kremlin likely felt emboldened to continue their efforts in Ukraine, particularly in the eastern regions where there was already significant pro-Russian sentiment. However, the Western response caught them off guard. The sanctions imposed by Western nations, including the United States and the European Union, were more severe than anticipated. The duration and intensity of the conflict have surpassed early expectations as the invasion is going to enter into it's 3rd year. This is neither a conventional war nor a symmetrical one, seems more a hybrid war. Hybrid Wars is based on Chaos Theory perceived as Fourth-Generation Warfare. “Hybrid War is a unique asymmetrical part of Full Spectrum Dominance that can be best summarized as the weaponization and attempted management of chaos”. (Korybko: 2015) Hybrid warfare was thus `a useful construct to analyze con icts involving regular and irregular forces engaged in both symmetric and asymmetric combat”. (2012) Clausewitz arrived at: “war is a continuation of policy, but by other means”. (Rothe: 2007). “The term hybrid war first emerged in the work of Major William J. Nemeth in the thesis he wrote while at the Monterey Naval Postgraduate School in 2002, entitled Future War and Chechnya: A Case of Hybrid Warfare”. (Racz: 2015) Thus, Russia embarked on a novel approach to conflict, initiating a new era of fourth-generation warfare through the insidious guise of hybrid warfare, aimed at incapacitating or annexing Ukraine with minimal chance for resistance. This hybrid strategy, characterized by a fusion of conventional military tactics, cyber warfare, disinformation campaigns, and covert operations, enabled Russia to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity with unprecedented sophistication. By exploiting asymmetrical tactics and leveraging a spectrum of non-traditional means, Russia sought to achieve its geopolitical objectives while circumventing conventional rules of engagement, posing a formidable challenge to Ukraine's defenses and the international community at large.

To truly comprehend the complexities surrounding Russia's involvement in Ukraine, it is essential to trace the historical roots of this crisis. The legacy of the Soviet Union casts a long shadow, shaping the geopolitical landscape and influencing regional dynamics. “Predicting Russia's behaviour has always been difficult, but it has become even more so over the past few years. The 2008 war with Georgia, the 2014 intervention in Ukraine, and the 2015 Syria campaign caught policymakers and analysts off guard”. (Wesslau & Wilson; 2016) Ukraine, however, has not been the unescorted playhouse of Putin's incursions into the internal affairs of neighboring states. Russia's actions in Ukraine represent just one facet of a broader pattern of intervention in the region. Putin's ambitions extend beyond Ukraine, as evidenced by Russia's involvement in Georgia, Moldova, and other neighboring states. In Georgia, Russia supported separatist movements in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, leading to a brief but intense conflict in 2008. In Moldova, Russia has supported the breakaway region of Transnistria, undermining efforts to resolve the country's territorial disputes. These actions reflect Russia's broader strategy of asserting its influence in the region and challenging the post-Cold War order. The intricate history of Crimea, with its diverse ethnic composition and strategic significance, adds layers of complexity to the narrative. Furthermore, Ukraine's quest to redefine its identity post-1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, contributes crucial context to the invasion. Ukraine did not join NATO but, in 1995, it joined the Partnership for Peace, even though dialogue and cooperation had started already in 1991. The Partnership for Peace meant that NATO supported Ukraine in building capabilities and interoperability. “To Putin, the trend among countries of the former Soviet Union to join NATO, and Ukraine's desire to follow the majority of East European countries that were part of the Soviet bloc and are now NATO members, perpetuates that “geopolitical disaster”. (Eran&Magen: 2022) “Accommodating Russia's security needs by acquiescing to its desire to control Ukraine”. (D'Anieri: 2019)

This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted factors driving Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It will delve into geopolitics, examining regional power dynamics and historical grievances as key drivers of the conflict. The economic aspects, including energy dependencies and trade relations, will be scrutinized to unravel the intricate web of interests at play. Additionally, security concerns, both regional and global, will be dissected to provide a holistic understanding of the motivations behind the invasion. Furthermore, the paper aims to offer an exhaustive analysis of the global ramifications arising from this transformative event. This includes scrutinizing geopolitical realignments, shifts in alliances, and the impact on international institutions.

It is imperative to recognize, that this invasion transcends the realm of a mere territorial conflict; it is, in every sense, a seismic event that has fundamentally reshaped the global landscape. In stark contrast to the ideological struggles of the Cold War era, the crux of this crisis lies within the sphere of geopolitics, geoeconomics and power politics. “Ukraine's turn to Europe is an existential challenge to Putin and Russia's ruling elite”. (Balzer, 2015) The utilization of asymmetric tactics and the insidious deployment of psychological warfare by Moscow in the lead-up to the invasion, notably exemplified by the ominous buildup of Russian military forces along the Ukrainian border, serve as a compelling testament to the complexity of this situation. This transformation transcends borders and ideologies, representing a pivotal moment in the evolution of international relations. However, the Western response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine proved to be more robust than he had anticipated, even if it fell short of the expectations of many. At the time of Putin's strategic move, few could have predicted that a year later, the West would implement a stringent sanctions regime against Russian officials and entities. This unforeseen development underscores the dynamic nature of geopolitical events and the adaptive capacity of international actors in responding to emerging threats.

The events in eastern Ukraine, following the annexation of Crimea, illuminate the complexities of geopolitical maneuvering and the significance of understanding the sociocultural dynamics at play. Putin's misjudgment of Ukrainians' determination to protect their nation revealed the limitations of relying solely on military might without considering the deeply ingrained sentiments of the local population. This pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict serves as a testament to the unpredictable nature of geopolitical strategies and the indomitable spirit of a people united in defense of their homeland. However, Ukrainian military forces had been battling Russian-backed separatists along the border of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Republics since 2014. Since the start of Russian military aggression in February 2014, Ukraine has shown remarkable resilience, mobilizing citizens and effectively equipping a substantial force. This strategic response has bolstered Ukraine's capabilities, enhancing its ability to deter potential invasions. Through extensive mobilization, Ukraine has tapped into patriotic spirit, fostering unity and pride. This effort involves not just the military but also broad societal engagement, creating a collaborative front. By harnessing collective strength and strategic initiatives, Ukraine has fortified its ability to deter invasions and sent a strong message about its determination to safeguard sovereignty and protect citizens' interests.

Causes of the Invasion

The causes underpinning Russia's invasion of Ukraine are a complex tapestry, intricately woven with the threads of geopolitical nuances. Unlike past ideological confrontations, this crisis is rooted in a realm of power politics. The employment of asymmetric tactics, punctuated by psychological warfare, underscores the calculated nature of this incursion. This deliberate approach manifested itself in the considerable buildup of Russian military forces along Ukraine's border, hinting at the multifaceted intricacies inherent in this event.

Simultaneously, Russia escalated its propagandist campaigns within its ideological sphere. Since the Soviet Union's disintegration, Russia has harbored deep-seated resentment towards independent Ukraine, viewing it as an integral part of `Mother Russia' or so called “Historical Russia.” Russian President Vladimir Putin vigorously propagates the inaccurate historical notion of a unified Ukrainian-Russian identity, aiming to reunite former Soviet states and rectify what he terms the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century.

During the Russia-NATO Council session in Bucharest in April 2008, Putin called Ukraine “a complex state formation. Later during the same summit, in a discussion with U.S. President George Bush, Putin said that Ukraine was “not a real country.” This is clearly light-years away from the “common principles” laid down in the Founding Act, signed by Russia and the members of NATO in 1997, in which Russia had recognized the inherent right of all countries “to choose the means to ensure their own security.” Putin's declaration was a scarcely veiled threat that Russia would intervene if Ukraine decided to join NATO. (Herpen: 2014)

There is one common estimation, that at its heart, the invasion signifies the culmination of mounting tensions between Moscow and Washington, encapsulating their divergent visions of the global order. Crucially, this is not an ideological clash, but rather a manifestation of geopolitical rivalries driven by a struggle for influence rooted in history. “Over time, Joseph Stalin feared that Ukrainization could lead to a national identity that would cause Ukraine to seek independence from the Soviet Union. Stalin wrote on August 11, 1932, “At this point the most important thing is Ukraine. The situation in Ukraine is very bad. If we don't take steps now to improve the situation, we may lose Ukraine”. (Fagergren; 2022) Thus, The Ukrainian national identity has been a matter of debate for centuries. In the Putin era, Russia has attempted to recapture its stature of yore. It has been put forth to elucidate Vladmir Putin's immediate decision to launch an invasion, pointing to factors such as NATO expansion and Ukraine's inclination towards EU membership as pivotal triggers. These explanations underscore the intricate geopolitical landscape that contributed to the escalation of tensions. One compelling perspective suggests that Putin perceived NATO's continued expansion as encroaching on Russia's sphere of influence, creating a sense of strategic vulnerability. The alliance's enlargement into Eastern Europe, coupled with discussions of potential Ukrainian NATO membership, may have fuelled concerns in the Kremlin about a diminishing buffer zone between Russia and the Western military alliance.

Despite disagreements about whether the West made implicit promises to Russia about not enlarging NATO, in 1997 both sides signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act (NRFA). The goal of the NRFA was to encourage Russian acceptance of NATO's enlargement by highlighting Russia's importance in European security, giving Moscow a voice and special consultative standing with NATO, but no veto over NATO enlargement or actions. (Marten; 2017)

Ukraine has turned up as one of the most significant obstacles in NATO-Russia ties and a litmus test for the trajectory of the relationship. It seems closer that Ukraine also emerged as an American-Russian wrestling ground. John Mearsheimer stated that “the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault,” (Mearsheimer: 2014) while Andrew Wilson wrote that “the Russians went ape”. (Wilson: 2014) “Ukraine is caught, geographically and culturally, between Russian exceptionalism or particularity (samobytnost) and the western `Russia anxiety'. (Leonardo: 2022) However, it is essential to note that that Ukraine is a peace-loving tolerant and multiethnic country. Since her independence in 1991, the first officially Military Doctrine (1993) speaks the story: “Ukraine links the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons located on its territory with the adequate actions of other nuclear states and the granting by them and the world community reliable guarantees of its security”. (Polyakov; 2018) So, the post-Soviet Ukraine, both leadership and society, desired to maintain friendly and beneficial relations with the neighbors and, as nuclear weapons were not relevant means for these goals, Ukraine gave them up in exchange for the unique “security assurances” of its territorial integrity provided by the US, the UK, and Russia, in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (later France and China also confirmed their allegiance to it).

In 1997, Ukraine and Russia signed the friendship treaty, which established mutual recognition of the state borders. The same year both countries signed separate agreements with NATO, i.e., Ukraine-NATO Charter on Distinctive Partnership and Russia-NATO Founding Act. From the Ukrainian point of view, these three documents concluded a formula of balanced relations in the triangle of non-bloc Ukraine Russia the West. However, President Putin since 2000 started deconstruction of the basic principles of relations with Ukraine. First, he restored the former USSR's anthem, called the dissolution of the USSR “the main geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century” and claimed that Russians have become a “divided nation.” Putin called for the promotion of the “Russian world” (`Russkiy Mir'), community that must have “right to protection” from the Russian state as long as members of this community speak Russian or consider themselves believers of the Russian Orthodox Church (https://journal. ipripak.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Article1-IPRI-Journal-XXII-II-.-Olexiy-Haran-DE.pdf)

In its three decades of independence, the West has endeavored to draw Ukraine closer by bolstering its connections with NATO and the European Union. Conversely, Putin seeks to exert control over the central government in Kyiv, employing various tactics such as “gas wars,” product blockades, intelligence operations, and most recently, military force. On the other hand, Putin's ethnonationalist approach to Ukraine is a foundational pretext to justify the Kremlin's actions against Ukraine. When Putin written an article published on July 12, 2021, titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”, he tried to explain, that Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, or commonly phrased in his article, Velikorussia (Big Russia

- geographically what is now Russia), Belarus, Malorussia (Little Russia current geographic state of Ukraine), and Novorossiya (New Russia

- the land in South/Southeastern Ukraine that borders the Black Sea, Azov Sea, and Russia), were “ethnically and religiously diverse” but symbiotically worked together to form the entire Russian nation (Fagergren; 2022).

Simultaneously, Ukraine's pursuit of closer ties with the European Union is often seen as a catalyst for the Russian intervention. To Putin, the trend among countries ofthe former Soviet Union to join EU and especially NATO, and Ukraine's desire to follow the majority of East European countries that were part of the Soviet bloc and are now NATO members, perpetuates that “geopolitical disaster of the USSR's collapse”. The prospect of Ukraine aligning itself more closely with Western political and economic frameworks might have been perceived by Moscow as a direct challenge to Russia's regional dominance and influence. Moreover, internal considerations within Russia, such as domestic political dynamics, economic concerns, and the desire to maintain control over key geopolitical assets, likely played a significant role. Examining the interplay between domestic factors and external pressures can shed light on the multifaceted nature of Putin's calculus in orchestrating this significant geopolitical manoeuvre. By first invading and annexing Crimea with stealth forces and then moving into and occupying eastern parts of Ukraine, Putin was sending clear signals to his neighbors that attempts to democratize, liberalize, and integrate more closely with Western institutions like the European Union NATO was not an issue at that time would not be permitted. “Moscow would decide what was best for Ukrainians, Georgians, Moldovans, and others, denying them the right to choose their own destiny. And the West, Putin thought, would do nothing about his efforts to carve out a real sphere of influence” (Kramer; 2015).

This poignant incident serves as a stark reminder that contemporary global conflicts are increasingly shaped by realpolitik considerations and the relentless pursuit of strategic advantage. At the heart of this geopolitical manoeuvring lies the singular objective of maintaining political power, irrespective of the potential costs and even when it jeopardizes Russia's long-term interests and future well-being. “President Putin is using a historical narrative to counterthe Western influence and justify the Kremlin's actions in “historical Russian lands. Russia's timing to redefine the current world order is based on President Putin's perception of reality” (Fagergren; 2022). The ramifications of Russia's invasion of Ukraine extend far beyond the confines of the immediate conflict zone, setting off a chain reaction of challenges that penetrate the essence of global diplomacy, state sovereignty, and international stability. The Concept reaffirms NATO's intent to “keep open channels of communication with Moscow to manage and mitigate risks, prevent escalation and increase transparency”, but the pre24 February 2022 “dual-track” approach, wherein NATO pursued both defence and dialogue with Russia, is no longer the preferred path” (Tardy; 2022). This seismic event poses a direct challenge to a fundamental norm in international relations: the inviolability of state sovereignty. “Russian President Putin has declared that his war was not only against Ukraine but also intended to weaken NATO and the Western liberal international system, explicitly creating an enemy relationship between Russia and the West” (Kirby; 2022). In the aftermath of this invasion, profound questions emerge regarding the sanctity of borders and the international community's ability to safeguard the sovereignty of nations.

The invasion has cast a shadow over the established post-World War II order, pushing international relations into a new era defined by uncertainty and shifting alliances. It strains the bonds of diplomacy, raising questions about the viability of international institutions, such as the United Nations, and their ability to maintain peace and security in a world where powerful nations are willing to disregard international norms. President Zelenskyy's duty to protect his country and upheld the “principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of people” is as enshrined in the Article-2 of the UN Charter. It's not just Ukraine that stands affected; the global implications are palpable. This geopolitical shockwave extends far beyond Eastern Europe. The principles that underpin international law and order are under scrutiny. As the world witnesses the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, concerns about similar actions in other parts of the globe come to the fore. A revaluation of the global security architecture is urgently needed.

Consequences

In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the international community finds itself entangled in the intricate balance between upholding state sovereignty and preventing unchecked aggression. The repercussions of this invasion necessitate a united and comprehensive global response that places a strong emphasis on diplomatic initiatives, economic cooperation, and strategic security measures. The aftermath of Russia's military intervention in Ukraine has left an indelible mark on both the nation itself and the broader global landscape. The documented casualties and injuries stand as poignant reminders of the human toll exacted by the conflict. Since February 24, 2022, Russia launched about 7400 missiles and 3700 drones (up to the end of 2023), destroyed many infrastructural and civilian objects (1 300 schools among them). Beyond mere statistics, these losses represent shattered lives and disrupted communities (people displaced and children stolen), serving as a stark testament to the profound devastation that armed conflicts can unleash.

However, the impact of the invasion extends far beyond the borders of Ukraine, resonating across the global economy partially resulted into economic and political isolation of Russia & economic aid to Ukraine by EU & US as well as European Parliament President Roberta Metsola suggested that Ukrainian and Moldovan lawmakers could join the assembly as “observer” members while the two countries await formal accession into the European Union. The disruptions triggered by the invasion have set off cascading effects on international markets, contributing to significant inflationary pressures. As the conflict unfolded, the world witnessed dramatic fluctuations in global energy, commodity, and food prices, creating ripple effects that reverberated through economies on a global scale.

In energy sector “Russia accounted for 40% of European natural gas consumption, or 155 bcm”.(Patrahau,Rademaker, Geuns, Ojukwu and Geurts:2022) The prospects of reduced Russian oil and gas in global markets and uncertainty regarding new sanctions and future developments, led to global oil and gas prices reaching record highs. These challenges have not only strained household budgets but have also tested the resilience of national and international economic systems. The invasion serves as a sobering reminder that the consequences of such conflicts extend well beyond the immediate battleground, reaching into the very fabric of economies, livelihoods, and the broader global order.

In Food Security, FAO estimated that a prolonged disruption of exports from Ukraine and Russia could increase the number of undernourished people by 8 to 13 million in 2023. It underscores the profound interconnectedness of the modern world, where events in one region can swiftly reverberate across the globe, affecting both developed and developing nations alike. Still, peoples' lives and well-being should not be a part of Russia's blackmail or famine games. In a year of the Black Sea Grain Initiative (reached in July 2022), Ukraine was able to export 32.8 million tons of food to countries in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Ukraine at war is still in Top-10 food exporters of the world.

In the Nuclear Security, Russia constantly uses a black-mail rhetoric with the aim to demonstrate its muscles to Europe. “Russia's modernization of its nuclear forces and Putin's unprecedented rhetoric threatening the use of nuclear weapons to technological innovations that threaten to alter the strategic calculus of nuclear deterrence” (Keller; 2022). The Russian invasion of Ukraine has not only triggered a humanitarian crisis but has also heightened the global nuclear threat. The unfolding events have raised concerns about the potential use or miscalculation of nuclear weapons, posing an imminent danger to international security. The conflict has escalated tensions between nuclear-armed nations, amplifying the risk of a nuclear confrontation. The uncertain circumstances surrounding the conflict and the involvement of nuclear powers demand heightened vigilance and diplomatic efforts to prevent the situation from spiraling into a nuclear catastrophe.

As the international community grapples with the aftermath of this invasion, the imperative for collaborative and multilateral efforts becomes increasingly evident. Diplomacy emerges as a key instrument for conflict resolution, emphasizing dialogue and negotiation to address the root causes of the conflict and promote lasting peace. Economic cooperation, both at regional and global levels, becomes essential for mitigating the widespread economic fallout and fostering recovery.

Furthermore, strategic security measures need to be carefully calibrated to deter future acts of aggression and preserve the stability of the international order. The collective response must prioritize the protection of human rights, the restoration of sovereignty, and the establishment of mechanisms to prevent similar transgressions in the future. In case of Russian aggression, Ukrainian official position is that all international organizations should adopt resolutions on the expulsion, suspension or limitation of the membership rights of the Russian federation. In navigating the challenges, the global community must unite in its commitment to uphold the principles of justice, international law, and the fundamental values that underpin a peaceful and cooperative world order. The consequences of Russia's invasion of Ukraine underscore the urgency for concerted, collaborative action to address not only the immediate fallout but also the broader implications for global peace and security.

Global Implications:

Discrediting global governance, institutions and peace

The repercussions of the invasion extend far beyond the immediate conflict. By challenging the fundamental norm of state sovereignty, this event has triggered a seismic shift in international relations. The world is now grappling with questions concerning the sanctity of borders, the efficacy of international institutions, and the global community's ability to safeguard the sovereignty of nations. The February 2022 invasion of Ukraine signifies a fundamental shift in European security and constitutes a severe breach of international law. Russian invasion of Ukraine is certainly only the beginning of a larger “Cold War 2.0,” and could even be considered as an inflection point for the global order” (Greminger; 2022).

This crisis marks a pivotal moment in international relations, highlighting the imperative for a comprehensive approach to address its global implications. Diplomatic efforts are paramount for peace negotiations, complemented by economic measures such as sanctions aimed at influencing the aggressor's behavior. In the face of persistent aggression, the contemplation of military options becomes a somber reality when diplomatic and economic measures prove insufficient.

The conflict has not only deepened economic ties between Belarus and Russia but has also resulted in a significant military convergence. The Kremlin is poised to intensify and cement its military presence in Belarus, presenting a potential threat to both EU member states and Ukraine. Economically, the war has brought Belarus into closer alignment with Russia, as both nations navigate the complexities of conflict and its aftermath. Joint economic interests and shared challenges have fostered a deepening economic partnership, creating a scenario where the two nations are more interdependent than ever before. Militarily, the Kremlin is anticipated to leverage this newfound closeness to enhance its military foothold in Belarus. This strategic move aims to serve multiple purposes, including bolstering Russia's regional influence, projecting power towards EU member states, and exerting pressure on Ukraine. The increased military cooperation may involve the deployment of additional troops, joint military exercises, and the establishment of military infrastructure that further integrates Belarus into Russia's strategic defense apparatus. The potential escalation of military presence in Belarus is not merely a localized concern but has broader implications for regional security dynamics. The Kremlin's intentions to use Belarus as a strategic vantage point to exert influence on neighboring EU member states raise concerns about the stability of the region. This move may heighten tensions and trigger responses from NATO and the EU, as they monitor the evolving security landscape.

In the aftermath of this invasion, the international community faces the intricate challenge of balancing state sovereignty with the necessity of preventing unchecked aggression. The repercussions of the invasion necessitate a unified global response, prioritizing diplomacy, economic cooperation, and strategic security measures to restore and maintain global security. Russia's military aggression against Ukraine has reshaped the dynamics of a broader Europe and also, Russia's collaboration in military sphere with countries like Iran and Northern Korea (both have a huge experience how to survive under Western sanctions) provide one more challenge to international community and peaceful coexistance.

Global Peace is a myth: Frequently throughout history, the noble notion of global peace has been mercilessly subjugated and violated by powerful nations employing their military might, and the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine stands as a stark illustration of this unfortunate reality. The blatant disregard for international norms and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter underscores a troubling failure on the part of the international community to fulfill its primary mandate as outlined in Article 1 of the UN Charter: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” (UN Charter; 1945).

The invasion highlights a critical need for a reevaluation of the effectiveness of the United Nations in fulfilling its foundational purpose. Even the UN Secretary General failed to invoke the Article 99 of the UN Charter which says the secretary-general may inform the council of matters he believes threaten international peace and security. The international community must reflect on the structural and procedural shortcomings that allowed such a flagrant violation of a sovereign nation's territorial integrity to occur. This assessment should encompass the role of the UN Security Council, its decision-making processes, and the mechanisms for enforcing international law. To address this failure and prevent future transgressions, there must be a collective commitment to strengthening the United Nations and revitalizing its capacity to maintain international peace. Reforms may include a reassessment of the veto power within the Security Council, ensuring that it does not impede swift and decisive action in the face of blatant aggression. Additionally, enhancing the UN's early warning and conflict prevention mechanisms can contribute to a more proactive approach in averting crises before they escalate into armed conflicts. In light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the imperative to reform the United Nations (UN) becomes increasingly evident. This protracted war underscores the limitations and inefficiencies of the current global governance system, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive reforms within the UN framework. Addressing key issues such as the Security Council's structure and decision-making processes, enhancing the UN's capacity for conflict prevention and peacebuilding, and promoting greater transparency and accountability are paramount in ensuring the organization's relevance and effectiveness in addressing contemporary challenges. Moreover, the crisis in Ukraine serves as a sobering reminder of the consequences of international inaction and underscores the pressing need for a reinvigorated commitment to multilateralism and collective security. As such, reforming/democratising the UN is not merely a matter of institutional improvement but a crucial step towards fostering a more just, peaceful, and secure world for all nations.

The international community should also explore innovative approaches to peacekeeping and conflict resolution. This may involve the establishment of specialized task forces or international mediation bodies equipped with the authority and resources to address emerging threats promptly. Collaborative efforts with regional organizations and alliances could further enhance the global community's ability to respond effectively to security challenges.

International Security

Prior to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, there were numerous indicators of Russia's escalating aggression. Among these were the tragic shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014. At that time, conflict was already unfolding in eastern Ukraine, with Russia and its separatist proxies engaged in fierce battles against the Ukrainian government. The loss of nearly 300 innocent lives aboard MH17 served as a stark reminder of the human cost of the conflict and the need for urgent international action. Despite overwhelming evidence implicating Russian involvement in the downing of the plane, the Kremlin's refusal to acknowledge its role only exacerbated tensions and deepened suspicions among the international community. Regrettably, this blatant disregard for accountability allowed many in the West to turn a blind eye to the escalating crisis unfolding in Ukraine. The downing of MH17 should have served as an unmistakable wake-up call, prompting decisive action to address Russia's destabilizing behavior and protect the sovereignty of Ukraine. However, the failure of some Western leaders to confront Russia's aggression head-on allowed the situation to deteriorate further, ultimately culminating in the tragic events of the 2022 invasion. Looking back, it is evident that the international community missed a crucial opportunity to prevent the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine by not holding Russia accountable for its actions surrounding MH17. This serves as a sobering reminder of the importance of swift and decisive action in the face of aggression, and the grave consequences of complacency in the pursuit of peace and justice.

Sweden and Finland, two nations long known for their steadfast commitment to neutrality, made a historic decision to redefine their security posture by joining NATO. This significant shift marks a departure from their traditional stance of non-alignment, which, while largely symbolic in recent times, held deep historical significance. “Sweden and Finland decided to join NATO, thus abandoning their historical (but by now largely symbolical) neutrality” (Lonardo; 2022). The decision to join NATO reflects a recognition of the evolving geopolitical landscape and the imperative for closer cooperation with Western allies in ensuring regional security and stability. Both Sweden and Finland have closely observed the changing dynamics in Europe, including heightened tensions with Russia and increasing global security challenges.

The invasion of Ukraine has disrupted longstanding international security arrangements, marking a clear shift in the global security landscape. The era of unipolar dominance, characterized by U.S. preeminence, has given way to a renewed period of great-power competition. This transformative shift is not confined to the geopolitical realm; it transcends into the realm of international security, reshaping strategies and alliances. This new era of great-power competition underscores the need for a comprehensive reassessment of global security strategies. Traditional security structures and alliances are being tested in this evolving geopolitical landscape, necessitating adaptability and innovation in security measures. The international community must navigate a more complex security environment, where the competition between major powers can have significant consequences for international stability. In addition to the disruption of existing security arrangements, the invasion has amplified calls for an accelerated energy transition. Countries are reassessing their energy policies and sources, moving away from highly polluting fuels, which are often supplied by a limited number of major producers, to embrace low-carbon energy alternatives such as renewables and nuclear energy. This transition has broad implications for global energy markets, environmental sustainability, and international relations.

The escalating nuclear threat arising from the conflict adds a critical dimension to the evolving security landscape. The potential use or miscalculation of nuclear weapons introduces a heightened level of risk, necessitating urgent diplomatic efforts to prevent the situation from spiraling into a nuclear catastrophe. This underscores the imperative for a revaluation of global security strategies to address not only traditional military concerns but also the pressing need for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The evolving landscape of international security, characterized by renewed great-power competition, the imperative of energy transition, and the escalating nuclear threat, highlights the need for a comprehensive reevaluation of global security strategies to adapt to the contemporary geopolitical reality. This reassessment extends not only to the traditional military realm but also to broader diplomatic, economic, and environmental considerations, emphasizing the interconnectedness of contemporary security challenges.

Many experts concluded the estimation of year 2023 as a stagnation. In this context, for Kyiv, the sight of Russia's Novocherkassk landing ship being hit in an air strike in December, was a much-needed boost. With Russia gaining the upper hand in recent weeks and the West's support stuttering, Ukraine has produced another dramatic missile strikes in occupied Crimea on the eve of the year and first week of 2024. Both Ukraine and the UK now say that 20% of Russia's Black Sea Naval Fleet has been destroyed since the start of its full-scale invasion no mean feat for Ukraine, a country whose navy barely has any ships. Mostly, Russia's vessels have been destroyed with long-range Storm Shadow missiles supplied by the West this is a real victory of Ukraine, blamed for unsuccessful counter-offensive in summer 2023.

From the other hand, Kremlin still plans to win the war at any cost. One more evidence: Russia launched about 110 missiles as well as drones against Ukrainian targets during the night, December 29, killing at least seven civilians in what appeared to be one of the biggest aerial barrages of the 22-month war. It happened in days after Russia's Novocherkassk ship gas been destroyed. During the night and morning of December 29, Russia spent at least $1.273 billion on another massive attack on Ukraine. https://censor.net/ua/ n3464571

The Way Forward

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the first imperative is the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. This fundamental step is crucial to restoring stability and sovereignty to the Ukrainian people. Diplomatic efforts at various international forums should be intensified to emphasize the necessity of this withdrawal, highlighting the principles of territorial integrity and respect for national boundaries. A strong, independent and sovereign Ukraine is vital for the stability of the Euro-Atlantic area.

There is a prevailing notion, particularly from non-Western nations, that Ukraine could potentially address broader geopolitical concerns and pursue a lasting resolution by adopting a policy of non-alignment and neutrality. This strategy entails refraining from joining military alliances, such as NATO, in an effort to alleviate perceived threats to Russia and create an atmosphere conducive to diplomatic solutions. However, it is widely acknowledged that achieving sustainable peace requires not only a shift in the official approach of the Russian elite but also a transformation in the public consciousness of the Russian people. In this context, the relevance of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) becomes apparent. Non-Western experts argue that Ukraine could benefit from active engagement with the NAM, an international organization comprising states that maintain neutrality and non-alignment with major power blocs. By aligning with NAM principles, Ukraine could underscore its commitment to neutrality and garner broader international support. Nevertheless, Ukraine views this approach as somewhat idealistic, particularly given the aggressive stance of its hostile neighbor Russia. While the values of the NAM align with those of Ukraine, but the country currently has to prioritize security guarantees over a neutral status. Granting Ukraine neutral status may risk emboldening Russia, potentially leading to concessions and misinterpretations of historical and present realities. Thus, while the principles of the NAM hold appeal, Ukraine's immediate concern remains on securing its sovereignty and safeguarding against external threats in general and Russian threats in particular with the help of NATO and friendly nations.

That is why on G-20 summit in Bali, 2022, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy presented a “peace formula” to overcome the Russian threat.

1. Radiation and nuclear safety

2. Food security

3. Energy security

4. Release of prisoners and deported persons

5. Restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity

6. Withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities

7. Restoration of justice

8. Ecological safety

9. Preventing escalation and repetition of aggression

10. Confirmation of the end ofthe war. (https:// war.ukraine.ua/faq/zelenskyys-10-point-peaceplan/)

Today, the 10-point plan stands as the most viable path towards restoring a just and enduring peace for Ukraine. Crafted through rigorous diplomatic efforts and informed by the collective wisdom of international stakeholders, this comprehensive framework offers a roadmap for resolving the conflict and addressing the underlying grievances that have fueled instability in the region.Central to this plan is the principle of inclusivity, which ensures that the voices and aspirations of all parties, including those of the Ukrainian people, are heard and respected. Moreover, the plan emphasizes the importance of upholding international law, respecting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and promoting dialogue and reconciliation among all stakeholders. Additionally, the plan recognizes the need for concrete measures to address humanitarian concerns, facilitate the return of displaced persons, and rebuild war-torn communities. It also underscores the significance of economic development and investment in fostering stability and prosperity in the region.Ultimately, while the road to peace may be challenging, the 10-point plan offers a clear and principled framework for charting a path forward towards a more peaceful and prosperous future for Ukraine and its people.

All conflicts eventually reach a conclusion, and the ongoing war waged by Russia against Ukraine and its people will be no exception. While the journey towards peace may be fraught with challenges and uncertainties, history has shown that even the most entrenched conflicts can be resolved through dialogue, negotiation, and a commitment to mutual understanding. It is imperative to recognize that the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine will require a multifaceted approach, encompassing diplomatic efforts, humanitarian initiatives, and sustained engagement from the international community. This includes upholding the principles of international law, respecting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and addressing the underlying grievances that have fueled the conflict.