“The war in Ukraine as an impetus for revising the security system in Europe: regional and global context”
On 20 April, the Public Diplomacy Foundation hosted a panel discussion on the topic “The war in Ukraine as an impetus for revising the security system in Europe: regional and global context”. We have assembled several experts to assess the situation as it is now, the dilemmas and obstacles to ending the war, and the challenges of envisioning the future security environment regionally and globally.
Experts:
Frederic Labarre, Doctor of political sciences, Adjunct professor of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada and co-chair of the Regional Stability in the South Caucasus Study Group of the Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Mykola Kapitonenko, Co-Editor at UA: Ukraine Analytica, Expert of the International Centre for Policy Studies, PhD in Political Science, Associate Professor at the Institute of International Relations of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Vitalii Kotsur, Senior Research Fellow at the Department of World Political Development, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Rector of H. Skovoroda University in Pereyaslav
We have emphasised the main points made by our experts, which relate to different aspects of addressing conflict dynamics:
Frederic Labarre about the prospect of resolving the war at the stage of the third year after a full-scale invasion:
The anticipation of an expedited resolution to the ongoing conflict hinges significantly upon the outcome of the forthcoming US election. It appears improbable that the war will conclude within the subsequent six to seven months. Nonetheless, the actual severity of the situation diverges from its portrayal in the media; the Black Sea region no longer exclusively falls under the control of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, but rather is shared by NATO and Ukraine. This shift underscores the innovative strategies employed by Ukrainian forces. Despite their lack of air defense, Ukraine maintains parity with Russia in terms of air superiority over its territory, primarily due to the delayed provision of essential aid by Western and other nations. This delay is possibly rooted in an exaggerated perception of Russia’s threat level. As long as this perception persists among Western leaders, the conflict will endure. Once Western leaders reassess Russia’s actual threat level, they may intensify their involvement.
Moreover, the prevailing narrative in Western media emphasizes Ukraine’s victimhood and solicits assistance. While this narrative is morally compelling, the fundamental question for Euro-Atlantic partners pertains to their long-term global dominance aspirations. If they choose not to sustain their supremacy, akin to the post-World War II decline of Great Britain and France, they must acknowledge the potential ramifications, including a diminished role for the United States. Thus, it is imperative to inquire whether Americans are willing to relinquish their top-tier status. While it is likely that Americans perceive themselves as global leaders, posing this question could prompt a necessary reevaluation, potentially leading to increased support for Ukraine in the near future.
Mykola Kapitonenko on the dilemma of strategic visions of war resolution:
This issue extends beyond mere political conjecture or rhetoric; it embodies a strategic dilemma the United States has confronted over an extended period. The nation grapples with a confluence of challenges concurrently. A pivotal lesson drawn from the conflict is the realization of the West’s relative limitations in power. Consequently, prudent resource management becomes imperative for future US administrations. This challenge is inevitable for subsequent presidents to navigate. The perceived decline in Western power underscores the necessity of adapting to a new reality, wherein Western support is contingent upon their strategic interests rather than those of other nations. This realization underscores the danger of formulating strategies based on flawed assessments of reality in conflicts against formidable adversaries like Russia.
Furthermore, the duration of the conflict is likely to surpass initial expectations due to multiple factors. Primarily, the weakened state of the West prolongs the engagement, compounded by a lack of consensus on the definition of victory in contemporary warfare scenarios. The absence of a clear strategic vision on defeating a major nuclear power like Russia exacerbates this ambiguity. Unlike conventional conflicts, this war is entrenched in the foundational interests of Russia’s security, further complicating resolution prospects.
Additionally, the absence of a feasible agreement framework exacerbates the protraction of the conflict, rendering it more akin to a pursuit of annihilation rather than a prelude to negotiations. Both belligerents possess the capacity to sustain prolonged engagement, thus perpetuating the conflict’s longevity. Consequently, it is foreseeable that this conflict will endure for an extended duration, contributing to the ongoing landscape of protracted global conflicts.
Frederic Labarre about the dilemma of paradigms within American and European elites and societies:
In examining the defense posture of Sweden and its decision to align with NATO, a notable shift towards diminished sovereignty in defense policy is evident. This development coincides with broader trends of potential US retrenchment or isolationism. However, the Lisbon Treaty of 2010 extends defense assurances within the European context. The extent to which European states are prepared to leverage these provisions remains uncertain, though escalating tensions could compel a more assertive response. France’s recent proactive stance, signaling a willingness to assume a leadership role, suggests a recognition of the risks posed by the conflict in Ukraine. Despite this elite understanding, the broader public remains inclined towards prioritizing prosperity and avoiding entanglements. However, the evolving geopolitical landscape, influenced by President Putin’s paradigm, may necessitate a reassessment of public attitudes towards potential sacrifices.
Leaders like Macron and Scholz demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the exigencies imposed by the evolving situation, indicating a willingness to prepare their respective populations for potential involvement in Ukraine. Furthermore, indications from the US political arena, particularly from President Trump, suggest a recognition of Ukraine’s plight and a call for increased European involvement. Although Trump’s personal inclination may lean towards non-involvement, the entrenched commitment within the American bureaucracy towards aiding Ukraine underscores the strategic imperative of such actions. The challenge lies in translating bureaucratic consensus into actionable policies that resonate with elected officials and the general public. Irrespective of the electoral outcome, it is anticipated that bureaucratic pressures will persist, advocating for a proactive stance in assisting Ukraine.
Mykola Kapitonenko on China’s approach to the war in Ukraine:
China’s perspective on the ongoing conflict diverges significantly from Ukraine’s, reflecting disparate scales and interpretations. China’s measured approach acknowledges the conflict’s unpreparedness for mediation, positioning its involvement as a future reference point when conditions may be more conducive to resolution. Additionally, China’s engagement is framed within its broader strategic vision of proposing an alternative international order, underscoring its evolving role on the global stage.
As the conflict persists, China’s influence is expected to grow in significance, necessitating a thorough understanding of its genuine interests and strategic objectives. Contrary to traditional notions of American isolationism, contemporary isolationist tendencies are not tantamount to complete disengagement from global affairs, but rather a strategic realignment to address perceived threats, notably China. The focal concern lies in the escalating power disparity between the United States and China, alongside the widening gap between the West and other global actors. Such shifts in hegemony historically precipitate destabilization within the international security landscape. The conflict in Ukraine serves as one manifestation of this broader destabilisation, highlighting systemic challenges within the international order.
In this context, addressing the crisis transcends the adoption of isolationist strategies by the United States alone. Instead, it necessitates a comprehensive reassessment of global power dynamics and the underlying structural shifts reshaping the international system.
Frederic Labarre about the importance of appealing to international law and legal norms:
The current shift in hegemonic power dynamics represents a precarious juncture, with the conflict in Ukraine serving as a symptom of this evolving equilibrium. Amid discussions surrounding future security architectures, the significance of international law appears overlooked. Historically, both Russia and the Euro-Atlantic powers have anchored their stability on adherence to international legal norms, despite occasional violations such as the Kosovo and Libya interventions. However, the principle of territorial integrity established upon Ukraine’s independence in 1992 underscores its entitlement to regions like Donbas and Crimea.
Permitting aggression unchecked and engaging in negotiations may undermine the sanctity of established borders. Concurrently, the United States faces a complex challenge concerning China, particularly in acknowledging Taiwan’s status as Chinese territory while contesting the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party. This nuanced distinction is often overshadowed in discussions of international law. While these issues may appear distinct, they are inherently interconnected, complicating policy formulation.
Ukraine could potentially leverage its claims to Donbas akin to China’s stance on Taiwan to disentangle China’s support for Russia. Additionally, considerations regarding Iran and Israel further underscore the multifaceted nature of the geopolitical landscape. Iran’s actions, reminiscent of past Russian interventions, present an opportunity to curtail its influence and disrupt support to Russia in the conflict. However, the overarching question pertains to the future of international law: whether to uphold existing norms or renegotiate them post-conflict. Any concession on Crimea or Donbas could set a precedent for territorial aggression, potentially reshaping the global balance of power.
Frederic Labarre about obstacles to Ukraine’s accession to Euro-Atlantic alliances:
The prevailing procedural challenges stem from the increasing prioritization of national security and interests over adherence to treaty obligations and international law. Consequently, the criteria imposed on Ukraine and other aspirants seeking EU or NATO membership are predominantly political rather than normative in nature. The evaluation of Ukraine’s proximity to EU or NATO membership is influenced by ongoing political discord within these frameworks, leading to the imposition of additional political prerequisites. The case of Hungary exemplifies this phenomenon, as the country’s internal dynamics impede consensus within the European Union, presenting obstacles to Ukraine’s integration efforts.
The European Union lacks streamlined mechanisms to address dissenting members effectively, exemplified by the challenges posed by Hungary’s behavior. While Austria faced sanctions in the early 2000s for its right-wing government, Hungary’s conduct, akin to aligning with Russian interests within the EU, presents a more complex dilemma. Moreover, other member states harbor divergent interests vis-à-vis Brussels, Paris, and Berlin, leveraging their positions to secure concessions that may impact Ukraine’s trajectory. Despite these challenges, Ukraine’s pursuit of internal reforms remains pertinent for its own advancement, irrespective of the external political dynamics influencing its European aspirations.
Mykola Kapitonenko about the bilateral agreements concluded between Ukraine and the EU countries:
There is some scepticism regarding the series of agreements Ukraine has entered into with Western countries is rooted in several considerations. Primarily, I perceive these agreements as serving as a substitute for explicit security guarantees, a concept pivotal in the support of weaker nations by stronger ones. Traditionally, a stronger nation faced with assisting a weaker one could opt to either expand its security assurances or provide financial and military aid without extending formal security guarantees. In recent decades, particularly with regard to Ukraine, the United States has increasingly favored the latter option, providing weaponry and financial assistance without committing to full-fledged security guarantees. This strategic choice reflects a broader trend in Western policy.
Moreover, the geopolitical landscape has evolved significantly over the past three decades, rendering NATO membership, once a feasible option for Eastern European countries, less viable for Ukraine in the current context. The ongoing conflict has further diminished Ukraine’s prospects for NATO membership, as most NATO member states are reluctant to risk confrontation with Russia. Therefore, it is imperative to envision the post-war investment in Ukraine’s security, delineating the terms of engagement and the associated costs and risks. This envisaged security framework could range from NATO membership to bilateral alliances, security cooperation agreements akin to those already signed. However, the absence of a coherent vision for post-war realities hinders clarity regarding NATO’s future configuration and Ukraine’s integration into Western security structures.
Consequently, these agreements can be viewed as pragmatic but ad hoc measures aimed at addressing current realities and stabilizing the existing situation. While they represent a positive step forward, they do not constitute formal security commitments. Rather, they serve to frame Western support for Ukraine within the context of a protracted conflict with uncertain outcomes.
