Search

The current Russia-Ukraine military conflict reveals how the laws established by the United Nations to guide “war behavior” need to be realistically reconsidered in light of the changes since WWII that now characterize military conflicts. Today dominant nations circumvent rules of engagement by resorting to new tactics. It also unmasks a prevalent “global dominance by the West” favoring marketplaces for military weapons disguised in humanitarian rhetoric which reveals hypocrisy and double standards. This is reminiscent of how the COVID-19 pandemic has unmasked existing racial and economic inequalities especially in the prosperous West. But whereas the Pandemic was well managed by the United Nations, filtering down to local populations, demonstrating the strength of a globalized, inter-connected world, the current Russia-Ukraine conflict weaponized globalization when it dismantled economic linkages. Also the Pandemic has led to the creation of a vaccine against the virus, whereas the Russia-Ukraine war is yet to lead to a “vaccine”, as it were, against the use of military warfare as a solution to global issues of insecurity. This article suggests possibilities that might lead to a better path for humankind.

Both democracy (nowadays known as “global democracy”) and war are examples of complexity. Simplification and closing-off (isolation) will never accomplish anything when dealing with either of these kinds of complexity. We have taken for granted that aggression, invasion and war are by definition immoral and illegal and that it is always necessary to distinguish between the “attackers” and the “attacked”, between the “oppressors” and the “oppressed”; war itself, in all of its unspeakable trauma, requires, no matter what the circumstances, a systemic approach to complexity, an analysis or explanation from a systemic perspective. Keeping in mind that there are currently a considerable number of conflicts in the world, ignored by the global media system and therefore completely forgotten, this latest war runs the tangible risk of escalating globally, with extremely heavy costs in human suffering and loss of lives, costs that will be “paid”, of course, by the civil populations, by the people of the world. The strategy of sanctioning, and even more so, of fostering hostilities towards Russian culture, systematically closing off all that comes from Russia or can be traced back to that country, risks further exacerbating the distances, reinforcing those “logics of separation” which render—and in the future, will continue to render even more impractical, not to say impossible, the (complex) path towards post-conflict reconstruction. Creating and fueling further divisions, in this moment, towards a people and a culture with—moreover—extraordinary qualities will end up radicalizing, even more deeply, dynamics that are already bellicose and highly destructive. The pathways of separation and isolation, in other words, run an all-too-real risk of permanently closing everyone off, including those who are struggling—using a range of effective instruments (not only in terms of “soft power”)—who are fighting an arduous and complex battle to construct modern democracies, to build societies that are truly open and inclusive. If we cut them off, the sole victims will be the populations, the people, the most vulnerable subjects. It has always been so. One “certitude” can indeed be taken to be certain: we must get ourselves back onto the path of diplomacy (by everyone, for everyone) and politics. These events, so dramatic for the history of humanity, have once again shown us how weak statesmanship is today, and how politics has by now become the “handmaiden” of economic powers. The very concept of an “international community” has laid bare its own incapacity to describe the current multi-polar global context. Let us start over, starting with politics, with diplomacy, “real” on-the-field diplomacy, continuous and systemic: less “theater” and more “backstage”; now is not the time for “simulated diplomacy” and/or media storytelling, which unfailingly leads us in the opposite direction from our expected and desired objectives. Let us start over, beginning with politics and diplomacy, and also with the value of culture and education in mind, for the future: Ukraine’s future, Russia’s future, humanity’s future, the future of our entire planet. Violence has never brought anything other than more violence, more division, more incurable fractures.

The invasion of Ukraine is widely seen as Putin’s war, because he has a retrograde obsession to make Russia great again by reclaiming parts of the former Soviet Union. But Russia’s autocrat made several huge miscalculations regarding his military efficacy, resistance by Ukraine, military support and strong economic sanctions by the US and other nations, and many corporations withdrawing from Russia. Putin may still “win” at a huge cost, or clearly lose; he may settle for a compromise, or a stalemate could last for many months or more. Overall, it will be a lose-lose war, not only for a devastated Ukraine and its many displaced citizens, but for the Russian economy, and the world, facing food security and energy security concerns, huge refugee problems, inflation, and supply chain problems. This setback, roughly equal to the many disruptions from the ongoing COVID-19 setback, could very well be worse. Putin’s foolish and costly military action will lead to greater military spending in NATO countries, at the expense of other forms of security, such as addressing climate change and the necessary energy transition. Attention will focus on military security, at a time when more emphasis should be devoted to the broader concept of human security and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The two broad setbacks to the SDGs are likely to result in little or no progress, and even negative progress for some goals. In response, a forward-looking “war” for human security and sustainability is needed, by ongoing rethinking of the goals and their low visibility. We cannot have sustainability without security, and vice versa. Security aspects of the SDGs should be widely emphasized, as well as the most cost-effective actions for each goal, why investments now are needed to avoid steeply rising costs, and how to best promote the goals as a better and less expensive future for all.

The goal of this paper is to focus on learning major divergences for understanding global human security and modern world order in the 21st century, with the strategic perspective of an integrated approach for peace and economy, considering current events. No global structure of peace can be stable and secure unless all parties recognize others’ legitimate security interests. The best way for the major powers to begin to achieve that is to choose the path of mutual understanding and de-escalation over Ukraine and Taiwan. In the meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party concluded that it could grow rich without giving up power, in fact it could buy off rebellion and rival America’s strategic superiority. Whatever the outcome of the current crises, what is now clear is that Moscow and Beijing are not going to become like us any time soon, and we need to accept the regrettable reality that we are entering another period of strong divergence for global human security and world order. The ultimate problem we face today in EU is still our inability to solve most of the shared existential challenges we face quickly. But there is hope. Divergence Openness is the only way through which we will learn to get through global crises.

This paper argues that science has not been very successful in preventing wars between nations, but may play a significant role in re-building a country or region after devastations from a military conflict. This is illustrated by the case of Ukraine. The specific potential contribution of regional science to the country’s recovery process is highlighted (a ‘phoenix perspective’).

The accelerating pace of change and even the near-term unpredictability of its consequences calls for more enlightened and timely analyses of the most globally disruptive events. The continuing war for Ukraine is indisputably such an event. This essay presents an academically unconventional assessment of what that war means, addressing its consequences in terms of four conditions; winning, losing, fearing and needing. Until the war, at least, stalemates, it will be, if not impossible, unwise to decide on the winners and the losers, or on the fears that were fully realized, or on what needs remain to be met. Every effort has been made to express the listed issues in ways that do not foreclose their analysis, recognizing that, for all of them, tomorrow will be different not only to 24 February but to yesterday.

Following the Second World War, the international community was reinvigorated to design an international body with the capability to limit the onset of another world war. Enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Charter was the vision for the organization to be “a guardian of international peace and security, as a promoter of human rights, as a protector of international law, and as an engineer of socioeconomic advancement”. The idea that Vladimir Putin has reacted in the way that he has because he is determined to re-create the Soviet Union under the guise of a Eurasian Customs Union has become commonplace among the chattering classes in Washington. What is really driving an essentially pre-emptive and largely defensive move on Russia’s part is the prospect of Ukrainian accession to NATO. In Ukraine, there may be no good options for resolving the crisis, but the “least bad” option would be a settlement brokered by the UN. The United Nations and its members have a dream of World Peace just as you and I do. Actually we have arrived in the time of history which is a turning point. Humanity has a decision to make. Will we plant the root of World Peace or are we doomed to repeat the failures of the 20th century? A world of darkness, oppression and conflict deep in war. This paper will examine the question, do we want it to stay that way or should the UN take over what is given in the Charter, as well as to what extent the present position of the UNSC and tenets of international law can enable intervention when responding to internal conflict.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shaken up the academic world. Universities in Ukraine have been bombed and academic staff and students have been killed and injured and many professors and students have fled the country. Institutions especially in Europe are trying to help the academic world in Ukraine and refugee professors and students are helped so that they can continue their studies and research. The consequences of this invasion cannot be foreseen. A cold war signs up with the splitting of the scientific and academic world into two or three large blocks depending on the position of China: “Russia-China and Europe/America”. This will have major concerns for the future of science that is vitally needed by this world, such as climate change, COVID, Space and in many other domains. It is now an important theme that optimal solutions for the future are sought in order to optimize the sad situation. The question raised is what place the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS) can take here.

Russian invasion of Ukraine goes much further than phantom pains of Russia’s imperial dreams. This unfolding confrontation must be understood as a major clash in the rising strategic competition to determine the future architecture of the world order and the European security system. To analyse the essence of this aggression, one should not succumb to the temptations to deny Putin and his entourage rationally. Most of the steps taken by the Kremlin, both before and after February 24, 2022, look quite rational, if framed by the regime’s evaluation of the state of the world. This war is not just about Ukraine, in fact Russia tests in Ukraine the US and the West’s “acceptability red lines” and this is seen in Moscow as a prelude to the destruction of the rules-based world order. Global governance indeed begs not just for modern institutions’ reform because their credibility has been substantially eroded by inaction and lack of solidarity but for revision and remodelling because their inadequacy and inefficiency have become ever-present, crying and overwhelming. Redefining multilateralism will not be enough. We will have to reinvent it..

Human Security is the conceptual framework through which multilateral cooperation and common security amongst nations, which is now necessary, can be achieved. The article argues that the concept of human security has not reached its potential to catalyse progress yet. Human Security focuses on people-centered and context-specific responses to challenges. Several existential challenges such as a stable climate, healthy oceans, and pandemics cannot be addressed successfully at a national level. Even the SDGs require a human security integrated approach in order to overcome the inefficiency of silos. Change is needed quickly. Human security can help make that change.

This paper seeks to look beyond the sense of justifiable outrage and horror over the events still unfolding as a result of the war in Ukraine to examine the root causes of the current conflict and the essential issues that need to be addressed in order to end and prevent its recurrence. It challenges simplistic assumptions underlying the sense of pessimism, fatality and inevitability that pervade current thinking so much and which is used to justify the revival of deeply flawed ideas and failed policies, discarded as obsolete decades ago. It re-examines the concepts and strategies on which the current model of security is founded, calling for a shift from competitive national security to an inclusive cooperative security system and for a broadening of our approach to encompass the full gamut of interdependent human security threats–political, economic, social, cultural, technological, personal and environmental–the indivisible dimensions of the three cardinal human aspirations for peace, security and sustainable development. It calls also for immediate affirmation of Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) and other measures to drastically reduce the threat of nuclear war with its calamitous impact on humanity and our planet’s life support system. Finally, it focuses on the essential, irreplaceable function of global rule of law and multilateral institutions in any viable and sustainable system of global governance resting on the foundation of a slowly emerging, richly varied culture of universal human values. Nothing can justify the horrendous suffering and destruction resulting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but outrage and the aggressive defense of human freedom are not sufficient to address the root causes which have enabled it to occur. Wise, visionary, courageous leadership is needed to fashion a multilateral system that can end and prevent its recurrence.

It was a newspaper cartoon that inspired this text, in particular the reflection it carried on the relations between Russia and NATO: what seems unthinkable today was thought yesterday and could be made possible tomorrow. Hence this question: Russia in NATO, thinking the unthinkable. With the dual perspective of a historian, trained in the history of Russia, and a futurist, the author analyzes the ambivalent relationship that Russia and NATO have maintained from 1954 to 1998, a period during which the Kremlin, from Khrushchev to Yeltsin, has, on several occasions, formally requested its membership in the Atlantic Alliance. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, NATO reached out to Russia, but also to the former Warsaw Pact countries, while carefully keeping the door closed to Moscow. The year 1999 was a turning point in relations between Russia and NATO, with the two major events of the military intervention in Kosovo and the enlargement of the Alliance to include Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. In the eyes of observers at the time, the arrival in power of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin the following year appeared in many respects to be a fork in the road. Indeed, at that time, good relations were still possible, which would deteriorate until 2022. By 2050, many metamorphoses are possible, the best and the worst. Can we still think of Russia’s entry into NATO, as it was conceivable to some thirty years ago?

We are at a turning point in history and are faced with a choice: should we go back to the past or embrace and accept the present, wherein lies the answer to our present problems. Russia has always had an aggressive attitude towards countries that lie in its geographical periphery. It has always demanded compliance from these nations and since Ukraine stood up for her rights and was defiant, Russia attacked her. The article thus strongly calls for Goodwill and Trust in resolving the conflicts humanity faces today, especially the Russia-Ukraine war.

Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has shaken the post-war liberal order, originally designed to prevent war in Europe and between advanced industrialised countries. While the mechanisms to avoid drawing neighbouring countries (and their allies) into the conflict appear to be holding, the risk of further escalation between Russia and NATO remains considerable. With deterrence, pre-emption and negotiation having failed, Western efforts have now shifted to actions that apply pressure for Russia to cease hostilities and withdraw all forces from Ukraine. The US and its allies have firmly ruled out direct military intervention, leaving escalating economic sanctions as the primary tool with which to respond to Russia’s actions. While the package of sanctions in place to date is unprecedented (and continuing to expand) it remains unclear whether it will compel Russia to negotiate before achieving a military victory in Ukraine. Regardless of Russian military’s success or failure, or the shape of the eventual compromise the parties may reach, the current crisis provides a number of observations and lessons with deep implications for both the parties involved and for the wider global order. If the world is to pre-empt future bloodshed and move conflicts without war, it will need to learn these lessons and create highly effective penalties on regimes as a deterrence against violence.

This article is a reproduction of the keynote address by Harlan Cleveland at the William G. McGowan Theatre on October 21, 2006 in the National Archives and Record Administration at https://www.archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/cold-war/symposium/cleveland.html I am not a historian, so don’t look for dispassionate recording of the Cold War in what follows. I was of course an eyewitness to bits and pieces of the whole period we call the Cold War—but don’t look for fragmentary anecdotes which would not do justice to the serious purpose of this symposium. What I will try to do is something in between—an essay about this fascinating almost-half-century—not just what happened, but why, and especially why it came out the way it did. I was fortunate to work, during the 1960s, with a superlative writer named Thomas W. Wilson, Jr. Shortly before we joined forces in the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Tom had almost finished a vignette of history, which was published in 1962. Cold War and Common Sense, he called it—and indeed his book is not only readable history but full of common sense, about matters which were most uncommon and often nonsensical. Especially for those parts of the story that I didn’t myself see unfolding, I have leaned heavily, with posthumous thanks, on his version of the whos and whats and whys. You will find in this text several unattributed quotes; those are passages lifted directly from Tom Wilson’s writing…

The transition to the future we long for requires moving from imposition to discussion, from power to word, from the use of weapons to mediation. And to reduce or, at least, cease to increase the arsenals of bombs, allocating all necessary resources to youth, education, health, intergenerational legacy, so on and so forth. We urgently need a new conception of security and a governance model that supports this new paradigm. It is clear that the solution will not be found in economic formulas, but rather in the timely implementation of profoundly human ethical references and examples. This article thus calls for a mobilisation of powers to fight against short-terms gains and embrace long-term goals and human security.

War is the ultimate expression of polarization. It instantly invokes in all of us the binary divide of life and death. Being supportive of the victims of aggression is a humane mandate. At the same time, the active engagement in the binary logic of war prevents us from recognizing the systemic and violent nature of modern international relations. If we intend to end violent conflicts among humans, a deeper perspective is required. Hopefully, this could contribute to paving the way for a truly Pluriversal World to emerge before it is too late.

This paper makes the case for why we believe that the Russia-Ukraine crisis signals the end of a global era defined by globalisation. Even though Russia’s economy is only a fraction of the US, EU or China, its role in the world is much more relevant and the events in Ukraine are triggering a cascade of effects that will redefine the political, social and economic thinking and interactions among nations long into the future. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the “peace dividend” of recent decades is gone as military budgets are increasing significantly around the world. Energy and raw material dependency on other countries is considered a strategic weakness. The war has disrupted global supply chains and nations are now shunning the exposure to other countries, especially ones that do not share similar values. The macroeconomic environment has changed as growth prospects are depressed and inflation is on the rise. The world is moving to a period of reorganisation and instability.

Economic Sanctions are being deployed by the West in the Russia-Ukraine conflict at a level never before attempted with the intention of wrecking the Russian economy. Very little attention is given to the dismal record of sanctions or the consequences of sanctions on civilians, mercantile enterprises, global and regional economies, and the economies of countries applying the sanctions. This paper examines the unintended consequences of sanctions and argues that they are ineffective at countering military aggression because they are ambiguous when calibrated against military actions which require precise responses with strong signals. Criteria for the evaluation of possible responses to military aggression are proposed.

Globalization was challenged by the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced the European Union to acknowledge its limitations on many fronts, from access to raw materials to manufacturing, and from control of data to innovation in general. The ongoing geopolitical situation, which promises to be a game-changer for years to come, only reinforced the consciousness that we might be heading towards a new (old) reality of different blocks with little to no interaction between them. In the EU, the matter of strategic sovereignty has never been so urgent. Especially in regards to energy. The question, now, is how can the EU quickly release itself from the present excessive dependence on a single foreign supplier, while at the same time remain aligned with its green transition goals. Diversification of energy sources, with an emphasis on research and innovation; suppliers and supply chains, with a focus on interconnections; strategic reserves and energy efficiency; joint public procurement and the development of a true European Single Market for Energy. In this paper, I reflect on these and other possible solutions for the present energy crisis.

The war on Ukraine is a wake-up call. Not because not all wars are atrocities that steal lives and future. It is a wake-up call, because it so bluntly reveals the violent perpetuation of a dominance model that has held human evolution captive for 6000 years. The article looks at the underlying pattern that creates, keeps and recreates structures that give rise to mad men and psychopaths who then think appropriating a country (or a woman, or people, or natural resources, or else) is a legitimate act. It explores the still so widespread power narratives that we need to urgently overcome and suggests that investing into the pro-active building of a new power narrative is what needs to underscore all of our efforts towards sustainability transformations. It concludes that, for the paradigm shift to be successful, we must build—throughout the world—resilient partnership approaches anchored in a female reference system of care and consensus building.

As the Russia-Ukraine war continues spreading human misery in its wake, more and more countries are being impacted directly or indirectly by it, bringing the world perilously close to a 1960s like Cold War scenario. As the world becomes divided once again, it is time for the Non-Aligned Movement to take its place in the world again. The Movement was founded to replace division, distrust and the threat of war with world unity, peace and development. A renewed and strengthened Non-Aligned Movement can provide the much needed dynamic, creative, values-based leadership we need today, and contribute to world peace.

The article raises some fundamental questions concerning the Ukraine-Russia war: why is the UN not intervening to bring peace? What does the West want? These are all questions that we should be asking urgently, but don’t.

The extreme dangers of nuclear war are discussed against the background of Russia’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, during which Vladimir Putin put Russia’s nuclear weapons on high alert. It is recommended that the United States and its allies should stop sending arms to Ukraine, that they should halt the eastward expansion of NATO, and that they should withdraw nuclear weapons from positions close to Russia. A diplomatic solution to the conflict must be found under the wise guidance of UN Secretary-General Guterres.

When we view the world from above, can the Ukraine crisis be seen as the beginning of a grand opening and synthesis towards a world unified through collaboration? We are in the aftermath of the pandemic, faced with an increasing worldwide poverty through exploding energy and food prices and the accelerating climate disasters and have to wonder whether a viable future is possible without collaboration on war-footing and on an unknown scale. With such a scenario the Ukraine crisis can become a blessing in disguise that will indirectly free the world from all possible dictators and all sorts of dictatorship. Is collaboration the universal value that will usher us in an era where the centre stage of ego is replaced by the centre stage of being WE and save us all?