Two regions announced independence, got denied their independence by the former Soviet country, leading to Russian intervention in support of the two states with a wide scale war around the time of the Olympics in Beijing, China. This is not the story of the Russia-Ukraine war; this is the story of the Russo-Georgian war in 2008 in support of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two self-declared independent states in former Soviet Georgia. The resemblance with the Russo-Ukrainian war becomes more evident as both wars started following the return of Russian president Vladimir Putin from the Olympics in Beijing. As analysts discuss the possible outcomes of the war between a new world order, cold war, multi-polar world, weakening of Russia among others, the purpose of this article is to build on the historical, economic and geopolitical backgrounds to predict consequent scene and division of power on the international stage following the Russo-Ukrainian war.

 

Historical Background:

Over 1200 years ago, on the edges of the Byzantine Empire, the states of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia shared a common cultural ancestor: the Kievan Rus’ federation.

Since then, Putin has repeatedly claimed that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus are “one people”, and even that the modern Ukraine was an artificial creation of Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin, accusing him of “tearing from her [Russia] pieces of her own historical territory”. Ukrainians, however, claim that they have parted ways from Russia linguistically, historically, and even politically.

In 1991, Ukraine won its independence from the Soviet Republic. Ever since, the country has been witness to swaying political allies, which eventually culminated in mass protests in 2014 when then-president Viktor Yanukovych cemented the country’s ties with Russia by rejecting an association agreement with the European Union.

The protests, now called “The Revolution of Dignity”, lead to the toppling of the pro-Kremlin administration. Putin blamed the West for stirring the revolution, and went on to annex Crimea, while pro-Russian rebels grouped in the self-proclaimed Ukrainian breakaway states of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Since Ukraine’s political detachment with Russia in 2014, Ukraine has strengthened itself militarily, receiving advanced weapons from the West and Turkey, including Bayraktar drones that it used to help Azerbaijan in last year’s skirmishes with Armenia.

While Donald Trump suspended US military aid and exports to Kyiv (which triggered his first impeachment), his successor Joe Biden resumed Ukrainian military aid, and in the last couple of days has pledged a further 600 million dollars for this cause.

Over the past months, Western threats against Russia escalated warning president Putin of attacking Ukraine amid Russian military maneuvers near Ukrainian borders and in Belarus. However, despite the threats of strict measures against Russia, the Russian army launched a countrywide invasion in Ukraine, with an ultimate goal of neutralizing Ukraine’s political line-up and preventing it from joining the NATO. According to Russian leadership, the purpose of preventing Ukraine from joining the NATO is to limit the expansion of Western forces along the Russian border, a process that has been taking place over three decades since the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

Geostrategic Importance of Ukraine:

Putin has been fighting for the Ukrainian membership to the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC). With a powerful agricultural sector and a population exceeding 43 million, Ukraine is seen as an integral asset to the re-establishment of a USSR-like economic bloc, and its refusal to join was seen as a temporary setback to Russia’s plans. However, with Ukraine seeming set on affirming its permanent alliance with the Eurozone, Russia’s temporary setback was more starting to seem as a permanent threat.

In fact, attesting to Ukraine’s powerful agricultural sector, Russia and Ukraine together account for a third of the world’s wheat exports, a fifth of its corn trade and almost 80 per cent of sunflower oil production. This highlights two key points: 1. Global grain production will suffer in the near-future, and 2. potential Russian control or destruction of Ukrainian grain production would give the energy mogul quite an increased strategic edge.

Furthermore, Russia has already started launching an offense from the Black Sea, the channel in which Ukraine exports 95%of its wheat. This has left Ukraine without naval access and has led to disruptions in the regional maritime supply chain.

Yet, this isn’t the sector that has been worrying most, with Russian fuel and energy products accounting for 63% of the nation’s total exports, and Europe receiving 40% of its natural energy supply from Russia. Unsurprisingly, oil prices surged above 100$ per barrel after the invasion, but while the short-term future of the commodity looks bleak, Russian interest lies in controlling Ukrainian pipe routes. Russia has been trying to bypass Ukrainian pipe transit for over two decades now, and while it has been mostly successful in doing so (percentage of Russian gas exports going through Ukraine has dropped from 93% in 2000 to 49% by 2014), a large part of the war is largely influenced by the energy sector. Particularly, energy has been used as a sanction/deterrent by both sides of the conflict, with Germany putting the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline project on hold and Putin threatening the West with restricting energy exports to them.

 

What’s Next? Possible Scenarios:

Given the imbalance of power in favor of Russia, and the abandonment of Ukraine’s allies, the direct result of the interstate conflict is expected to be a decisive victory for Russia, followed by negotiations to determine the ceasefire terms of agreement. However, unlike Georgia, Ukraine plays a more critical role in the geopolitics of international relations, and therefore the resulting terms will design the features of the next geopolitical international scene.

Russia’s purpose of launching the war was clearly stated in its leadership’s discourse since 2008 when Putin spoke out against Ukraine’s potential accession to NATO, considering it an existential threat. Consequently, the negotiations will be tailored by the victorious party, obliging Ukraine to abdicate its ambitions to join the NATO, which will not only be a blow to Ukraine but to the Western alliance. NATO’s credibility will therefore face multiple threats, ranging from the loss of a potential ally, to losing its credibility with other nations and the opportunity to have a resource-rich stronghold on Russian borders. The posed threat to NATO will subsequently encourage the West to hold Ukraine from going into negotiations.

Nevertheless, as all conflicts must end at one point, compromises will be made. In this regard, we discuss the different scenarios and their possible consequences.

First, Russia might be able to force its agenda on Ukraine and subsequently on NATO, leading greater Russian influence in Europe and the world. Even with economic and political sanctions, Russia’s military power will have defied American supremacy and encourage worldwide uprising to the current world order, especially with the growing global Chinese influence. With showing credibility in taking decision, following its support to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Syria, Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia will be more assertive in intervening in other geostrategic regions. This does not mean that Russia will not face any drawbacks to its invasion. Indeed, the Western soft power machines will be at their height of enactment, attracting populations around the globe to their “democratic” and “humanitarian” values. Although China constantly keeps a low tone, the Chinese leadership will not be troubled in a world order of tighter American dominance, especially due to its ambitions in the Chinese sea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and others.

Second, a victory by Russia without a peaceful treaty will further exacerbate the tensions between Russia and the West. Although such tensions will not lead a new Cold War due to the imbalance in power in favor of the United States and its Western allies, Russia will still be boosted with confidence to further challenge the sanctions and form stronger alliances against NATO. According to this scenario, China’s stance will matter in the rise of tension and the orientation of future international relations and conflicts. After all, the Russian invasion in Europe, is a rare case of inter-state conflicts since the end of World War two, but it appears to be untying the leash for more harsh power, in contrast to Western approach of sanctions, soft power, and the Machiavelli’s “divide and rule” strategy.

Third, the war might become a war of attrition, draining the Russian’s resources and consequently their leadership’s ambitions of a decisive victory. Such result to the conflict will empower the United States and its NATO allies, not only against Russia, but against Russia’s allies in different regions of the world. Therefore, while the Russia considers this dispute as an existential threat, the United States also perceives it as a decisive phase to determine the future of its hegemonic position.

Fourth, regardless of the outcome of the war, it is not far from conceivable to expect a return to the pre-war status quo in few years or months. The Russo-Georgian war provides lessons on the need of pragmatism in international relations, especially in times of global crises such as global warming, pandemics, cross-border terrorism, oil and renewable energy considerations, and other common threats to all international players. Consequently, a return to the pre-war status quo is potential despite the escalating tensions between the West and Russia.

Lastly, along with the political consequences, economic repercussions are expected – pessimistic ones. The economic aftermaths are multifold and can be divided into: i) sanctions-related; ii) lower productivity in Ukraine and Russia; iii) rise in oil and gas prices; iv) lower trade between contenders; v) lower affordability of basic goods in different regions of the world, and other types of losses on both sides due to the spiral effects of sanctions. The economic threat on everyone is another determinant in persuading the different players into making concessions and ultimately sit on the table.

 

 

 

Note: While this article tackled a generic overview of the possible scenarios following the war, upcoming articles will delve deeper into the particular consequences of economic sanctions, economic repercussions, and regional ramifications.

Post Views: 485