The international struggle for influence will not stop
The war in Ukraine is a sign of the return of a multipolar world
The Russian attack on Ukraine caused massive destruction in several cities.
AFP
Putin will continue his efforts to break the unipolar situation that dominates the world.
AFP
The Ukrainian army showed amazing resistance to the Russian attack.
dad
picture
The struggle for influence in the world will not stop, and the attempts of major countries to exercise their influence in certain regions to serve their interests, a conflict that is entering a new stage in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine.
And the US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, confirmed at the end of last year that the United States would not discuss Russian concerns regarding Ukraine’s accession to NATO, noting that “no single country has the right to exercise a sphere of influence, and that this idea should end up in a dustbin.” Date".
At the Munich Security Conference, just days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which Russian President Vladimir Putin initially described as a “special military operation,” a number of policymakers echoed Blinken’s assertion, including German Foreign Minister Annalina Birbock. , which said that Europe faces a difficult choice: "Helsinki or Yalta... This means that this choice is between a system of joint responsibility for security and peace... or a system of competition between powers and spheres of influence."
The reason is unknown
Emma Ashford, an American researcher at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, says in a report published by the American magazine "National Interest" that it is therefore easy to see why many welcome the war in Ukraine and the unexpected successes of the Ukrainian army in repelling the initial Russian attack, in rejection of spheres of influence in global affairs. A reassertion of the idea of an American-led liberal international order in which norms and values are more important than power and influence.
Ashford sees this as a big mistake, as any sphere of influence is not a normative concept, or something that one country cedes to another out of courtesy or pity.
It simply comes down to a situation in which a superpower is unwilling, or unable, to provide the necessary resources to force another country into submission.
In this regard, Ukraine is not a rejection of the idea of spheres of influence, but in fact a clear example of how this can be achieved in practice.
sphere of influence indicator
Ukraine is a clear indication of the limits of America's global sphere of influence in the post-Cold War era, and evidence of Russia's ability to defend what it considers its regional sphere.
Thus, the war in Ukraine is not evidence of the continuation of the unipolar moment, but rather a dividing line between the period when the United States considered the entire world its sphere of influence, and a new, more multipolar world in which the United States' influence is limited and constrained.
This means, Ashford asserts, that the war in Ukraine revealed three things about the shift in the global balance of power:
First, while America may still claim to have a global sphere of influence, it is actually unwilling to risk a nuclear war with Russia in order to protect Ukraine.
There is no doubt that weapons, intelligence, and money helped turn the scales in the war, but US forces will not go to war.
Second, spheres of influence are rarely uncontested, and thus Russia has proven unable to impose its will on Ukraine, failing to achieve its primary and secondary military objectives in this war.
On this basis, the limits of any potential Russian sphere of influence may, in fact, be lower than was assumed prior to February 24, the start date of the war on Ukraine.
The third thing is that although much of the coverage of the war in Ukraine takes place within the scope of this bipolar approach, i.e. representing the war as a conflict between Russia and the West, the reaction to the war has not been much clear. Outside of Europe, most countries have taken a more lenient approach. towards the crisis.
Poor African and Asian countries participated in the UN vote condemning Russia, but did not participate in the sanctions.
India has refused to take sides, a decision related to its partial dependence on Russian military exports, and has benefited from low-cost Russian oil exports.
Most of the Gulf states remained neutral, refusing to increase oil production, or even describe the conflict as a war.
On the other hand, Beijing has been a cautious supporter of Moscow, but has rejected any deeper political or economic engagement.
None of this indicates that we are returning to a post-Cold War unipolar moment, or that we are heading toward a new Cold War-style confrontation with Russia, or even with Russia and China, Ashford says.
But in fact, they indicate that the world is increasingly divided into a more complex and multipolar situation in which the adventurism and excessive penetration of long-standing US foreign policy could leave it festering.
Ashford concludes her report by saying that despite all the rumors about the victory of US foreign policy with respect to Ukraine, it would be foolish for US policy makers to assume that this war represents a justification of the liberal order or a rejection of the politics of power and spheres of influence.
Instead, it suggests that they must learn to navigate a world not divided into black and white, but many shades of gray.
Ukraine is a clear indication of the limits of America's global sphere of influence in the post-Cold War era, and evidence of Russia's ability to defend what it considers its regional sphere.
Despite all the rumors about the victory of US foreign policy for Ukraine, it would be foolish for US policymakers to assume that this war represents a justification of the liberal order or a rejection of power politics and spheres of influence.
The war in Ukraine is not evidence of the continuation of the unipolar moment, but a dividing line between the period when the United States considered the entire world its sphere of influence, and a new, more multipolar world in which the United States' influence is limited and constrained.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news