01 March 2025, NIICE Commentary 9970
Dr Chander Shekhar
Since a direct conflict erupted in the Eastern European continent or former USSR region between Ukraine and Russia in Feb 2022, much has been written, forecasted and managed public perception by the east-west media. In the last more than three years, the world has seen comprehensive effects of local conflict on the world community. Several countries sought to initiate bilateral efforts to bring parties involved to the table to manage conflict. Their efforts contributed to placing and pushing countries’ officials for dialogue and diplomacy in Riyad, Saudi Arabia on 18 February 2025, where a positive response was observed between top-ranking officials of both the US and Russia followed by President Zelensky’s meeting in Washington and final meeting with President Putin potentially managing three years of the long war in Europe. With that, not all are happy in real terms as some US allies reacted sharply and wished to take unilateral sides with or without the US’s support for the European security guarantee. As an umbrella term conflict management is a process through which countries with available options and mechanisms try to settle down conflicts in a fair manner and rebuild ties. Unilateral punishment in terms of sanctions did not deter parties from changing minds and de-escalating conflict.
Not an Era of War
Realists stress power and security maximization in an uncertain world. They overlook the structural effects caused by their actions and left perennial conflict. The twenty-first century is embedded in economic interdependence and shared opportunities. Multiple sources indicate that the Ukraine-Russia war was a lose-lose situation after three years of investing men, money and materials, not only between the two countries but also in third countries assisting either country in the war. However, experts may agree or disagree on the cost and benefits of long-term wars. Moreover, Six ripple effects of the Ukraine-Russia War by Pierre Bocquillon et all (2024) had a deep effect on human life; human development, values and attitudes, economies, police and governance, power distribution and relations around the world. International Monetary Fund report claims three main channel effects would worsen the free flow of the global economy: higher prices of food and energy, neighbouring economies grappling with disrupted trade, supply chains, refugee flows and reduced business confidence and creating uncertainties for emerging markets. Likewise, war has affected food security in the world as it caused disruptions in the food supply. Ukraine, given the war, affects, exports wheat, maize, oilseeds staples, etc and affects the SDG’s second goal of achieving Zero hunger and achieving food security.
Given the deep and long-term effects of war, countries at the onset have taken the initiative to stop this war in Europe. In September 2022, the Indian Prime Minister told Putin: “This is not the era for war”, and in June 2023 he called in the US for a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict. Other countries in Asia, Africa, etc have also pushed for conflict management.
Great power game of conflict management
Prima facie as the Ukraine crisis enters its fourth year, there is a need for a comprehensive settlement fraught with challenges, driven by deep-rooted geopolitical divisions and competing interests.
Trump’s arrival in the White House sets this tone and also brings in new understanding and fresh perspective which he had promised during his election campaigns. As a result, the Riyad bilateral summit between two great powers took place where both agreed to achieve three goals: restoring embassies in their respective countries; establishing a high-level team that will deal with the Ukraine peace process; and pushing the two powers to explore close ties and economic cooperation. Although without the presence of the Ukrainian president in the talk several misconstrues were stated against and in favour of the evolved country. Looking beyond the blame game, the efforts of the US, which Europe failed to do so before the war, to understand parties and deals via utilizing shuttle tactics and giving assurance. After days of Riyad meeting, Zelensky’s arrival in Washington was no surprise, but a planned step to manage conflict in the better payoff. Billion dollars of minerals deal with Ukraine and potential security guarantees by the US side, not an incorrect proposition as war is not winnable. However, his meeting with President Trump on 28 February 2025 was portrayed by media as “contentious overall office talk”, and an “angry spat” and left the White House without signing the deal.
The strategic autonomy of Europe after a change in the German government could give little push for building its own security, not abandoning it in times of war. Saadet Gokce notes that “despite differences in positions, dialogue is always better than confrontation, and peace talks are always preferable to war”.
Conclusion
The continuous escalation of conflict between Ukraine and Russia is itself a testimony that they were not pushed to settle down by other great powers. Rather than playing proxy wars, doubts about countries could have been managed initially. American administration under Trump has taken this initiative and prevent future economic loss, which has been appreciated by several countries. Election in the country is a good meter to test public opinion on whether they want war or not. The referendum could be one that the Ukrainian president might think of doing in the next few months with given assurance that there would not be any attack on it after the ceasefire. The European security architecture in the post-Ukraine crisis is rather divisive to build its own security shields and protect itself from neighbouring countries.
Dr Chander Shekhar was associated with the Research Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi, India.
