‘World order’ in the context of the war in Ukraine: The Tribune India


Abhijit Bhattacharyya

Commentator and author

Three terms—“corruption,” “terrorism,” and “world order”—are highly unlikely to be defined or resolved by consensus (being contentious) in an international forum. Why? Because there are bound to be several antonyms for each of these three words, meaning different things to different nations. “Corruption” can be a “subjective and biased inference” for an accused. “Terrorism” can oscillate between “oppression” for the victim and the cachet of “freedom fighter” for the perpetrator. And “the world order”, being completely out of bounds, hence a joke, by a state feeling victimized by the brute force of the majority club with money, muscle power and machine guns. Seen thus, one must delve deeply into “the world order” in reference to the ongoing conflict in Europe.

As is well known, world history over the past 200 years shows a bewildering variety of alliances criss-crossing the diplomatic high table, where the fittest invariably dominated to establish the conventional and time-tested path to a “world order” of the “fittest”. . Despite this collective intent, however, incessant wars continued over the two centuries, eventually leading to the creation of the League of Nations in 1919 and, subsequently, the United Nations in 1945. Led by the victorious (but beaten) West, the goal was to create a “world without war” (at least for the developed West) through an interconnected “globalized world order”, essentially creating, consuming and concentrating the lion’s share of wealth in and for the West.

But that is not yet the case, as proven by another of the insatiable Western-origin conflicts in the West Country, which ominously draws the non-West (like the two world wars of the 20th century) into a crisis situation for all. -round shortage and scarcity, thus fracturing the commercial, food, financial, energy and economic foundations of the world.

For more than three decades, the West’s overemphasis on “globalization” and “interconnectedness” has ignored the fact that bilateral relations are the core competency of every nation-state seeking stability. near rather than far away. “world order”. Bilateral relations are therefore the cornerstone of international diplomacy; if not, what is the logic of having an ambassador of ‘X’ in ‘Y’ and vice versa? Therefore, any multilateral agreements, diplomacy or convention can be considered as additional means to strengthen international relations and diplomacy through consensus and agreement.

In the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, however, a big question mark suddenly appears as to the future status and position of several multilateral agreements. All of this is tied to the collective security of the West, with a broken Russia as the main potential adversary.

So, as Moscow and Washington become implacable enemies from February 2022, what happens to the Russian-American “Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC)”, a forum created in 2010 on “Measures for the reduction and further limitation of strategic offensive arms”? Especially since “his work is confidential”?

Again, how can Russia still fit into the “Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS)” established in 1992 and consisting of 12 members from Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Russia? , Sweden? Established as a “regional intergovernmental organization” for cooperation between the states of the Baltic Sea region, all 11 are today against (no, hostile to) Russia and trying to stifle the reach of weapons and Russian gas with the reach of the US greenback.

What is even more remote and far-reaching, inadvertently or not, is that the West seems to have sown the seeds of a major European conflict because of its failure to create an atmosphere of mutual trust, faith and of trust with its gigantic eastern landmass stretching from (the border of) Vilnius to Vladivostok in the Far East.

The reality is that mutual trust has rarely developed between the West and Russia at any time. They only changed the names of the leaders of the two sides, but rarely the spirit of the formation of the alliance, the agreement or the convention. “Containment”, indeed, was the password of any alliance with the communist USSR.

Thus was born in 1994 the Mediterranean Dialogue as a “forum of political dialogue” and cooperation between the member countries of NATO and the countries of the Mediterranean (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia). NATO’s post-USSR overdrive was visible.

Subsequently, NATO moved from the Mediterranean to the underbelly of Russia in 2008 with the establishment of the “NATO-Georgia Commission (NGC)” to “serve as a forum for political consultation and practical cooperation to help Georgia achieve its goal of NATO membership.

2008 also saw the launch of the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC) as a successor to the “Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe” launched by the European Union at the “Conference of Europe South-East” of 1999. Its ostensible objective was to promote “mutual cooperation and European and Euro-Atlantic integration of the States of South-East Europe”.

In retrospect, what is strangely striking is Russia’s glaring absence in issues relating to South-Eastern Europe, which are mutually adjacent. There were six areas of discussion for the 46 participants (including NATO): “Economic and social development, energy and infrastructure, justice and home affairs, security cooperation, human capital and parliamentary cooperation”. It was a joint virtual NATO-EU mega-event at the vulnerable gates of Moscow where even Kosovo was present! But, Russia absent? Was this a prelude to our turbulent times? The somber mood was vividly expressed on May 2 by none other than the universally revered, but distraught Pope Francis.

That the breakup of the mighty USSR provided a lifetime opportunity for Moscow’s rivals would be an understatement. Naturally, once a mighty Moscow; now one of 13 members (including Ukraine) of the “Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC)” established in 1992 to “ensure peace, stability, prosperity…cooperation and economic promotion” with its permanent secretariat in Istanbul.

Of all the Western-sponsored networks, however, what stands out again is the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC), established in 1997 “for consultations on political and security issues, conflict prevention and resolution , non-proliferation, arms technology transfer and issues of common concern. The NUC had all NATO member states and Ukraine as participants. The Russians saw, but had to swallow their pride, as NATO arrived in Ukraine six years after Moscow lost its power, prestige and status.

In hindsight, therefore, one can only draw on common sense and the comments of academics: that a single factor cannot create conflict overnight, and that it takes time to build confrontation. and a combat situation. The war psyche only bursts when the gestation period matures.

With the West’s conflict now ravaging the heart of Europe for more than three months, the January 2022 statements of the former head of the German navy (Kay-Achim Schonbach) during a meeting in India merit to be reminded: “At eye level, President Putin deserves respect. And giving it respect costs little or no cost. It’s easy to give him the respect he demands. Was the German admiral prophetic? Or was the Pope right to shake up the West and scold Russia? Only time will tell if “mutual assured destruction (MAD)” averts or delays the end of the human race.


About Author

Comments are closed.