Consequences of the invasion of Ukraine
Apart from the wounds inflicted on our sensibilities by the dead and the scenes of destruction in Ukrainian cities, or on our pockets by rising prices and inflation, the Russian attack on its neighbour affects us in many other ways. To begin with, it has revitalised the transatlantic relationship and NATO, which needed it after the damage done by the four years of Donald Trump's presidency, and also the process of European integration, which has been strengthened both by this test and by that of the COVID-19 virus. But there is much more.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has put an end to the peace that has intermittently accompanied us since 1945 and thus brings to an end a geopolitical era based on multilateralism and the political and economic pre-eminence of the West, which was able to impose its rules of the game on the entire planet. Once fascism had been defeated and communism had collapsed, there seemed to be no rivals left for liberal democracy, as Francis Fukuyama mistakenly thought. Russia's break with the European security architecture is the most obvious sign of this end of the geopolitical cycle, manifested in China and other countries' demand for a new distribution of power on a global scale, and in their progressive departure from hitherto shared norms.
Russia, isolated, will have to move closer to China, which in turn is forced to support its "strategic partner" with which it shares the same authoritarian vision of the world and a common animosity towards the United States, but which does not hide its discomfort with an invasion that violates principles dear to it such as territorial integrity, respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, and which also endangers its trade relations with Europe and the US, which are much more important than those it has with Russia. This Sino-Russian rapprochement, in which Beijing will act as a big brother, will accelerate the division of the world into antagonistic blocs with political and economic barriers heralding the unfriendly bipolarism that is looming ahead.
Today, China and Russia's offer of authoritarian governance has many supporters because, according to Freedom House, 80% of the world's population lives in regimes that are not free or only partially free. This is not to say that everyone supports the invasion, because at the UN General Assembly 145 countries condemned it and only four supported it (Belarus, Syria, Eritrea and North Korea). But it should not be forgotten that 35 others abstained (India, Israel, Algeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia...) and some, such as Morocco, absented themselves so as not to be seen. And the same thing, but more, has happened in expelling Russia from the Human Rights Council because, let's not kid ourselves, many countries do not want to antagonise the Kremlin and others do not like the United States (and neither do the Europeans), which is why it is doubtful that Biden's call to expel Russia from the G-20 will be successful. These are countries that think that this is a dispute between Europeans in which NATO and the US have a lot to do with and which also reveals Western double standards, which did not react in the same way to the US invasion of Iraq. This is what the South African ambassador said in the Security Council in the midst of the debate on the Russian attack on Ukraine.
In addition, Finland and Sweden intend to join NATO soon. If they do, Putin (who does not want Ukraine in NATO) will have it 200 kilometres from St. Petersburg. And not a moribund NATO as it was a few months ago (Macron dixit) but one reinvigorated by the fear that Russia inspires. What a piece of cake.
The economic consequences of the invasion are also enormous and will stay with us for a long time because they increase the problems that the pandemic left us with - and from which we have not yet fully recovered - by reducing global growth expectations, increasing public deficits, affecting trade, supply chains, inflation and energy deficits, leading us to increase military spending, and leaving us without food as Ukraine provides 30% of the wheat, 15% of the maize and 76% of the sunflower oil consumed in the world, thus aggravating the famines in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. Xi Jinping highlighted the seriousness of these consequences during the recent EU-China summit because "it could take years or decades to put things back on track".
The fossil fuel deficit caused by the war may also complicate or accelerate the necessary energy transition: it complicates it because it will force some countries to return to burning coal, and it may accelerate it if high oil and gas prices force us to reduce their consumption and make renewables more profitable. Both options will have consequences for the biosphere that keeps us alive. Because, let's not forget, that is the main problem facing humanity, the others are almost unimportant.
In any case, the consequences of the war in Ukraine will continue to affect us for a long time to come. That is why it would be desirable if China decided to show itself to be the great power it is and assume its responsibilities by facilitating a way out of this crisis. Because only China is really in a position to put pressure on the Kremlin, and because hegemony is not only about having the most powerful economy or the most weapons, but also about taking responsibility for the good of the world and working for peace.
Jorge Dezcallar, Spanish Ambassador.