Caution in Ukraine May Cost the West International Order

By Vitalii Rishko

Key Takeaways

• Western Caution Undermines Ukraine’s War Effort: Delays in military aid, such as tanks, fighter jets, and long-range missiles, prevent Ukraine from mounting effective counteroffensives, leading to manpower shortages and weakening its defense.
• Escalating Authoritarian Cooperation: North Korea is supplying troops and ammunition to Russia, while Iran continues to provide drones and missiles. This “authoritarian alliance” exploits Western hesitation to strengthen its position.
• Peace Through Strength Strategy: A potential U.S. shift under a Trump administration could involve more robust support for Ukraine if Russia refuses meaningful negotiations, reflecting a “peace through strength” approach.
• Threat to Western Credibility: The West’s reluctance to decisively support Ukraine risks undermining its deterrence, especially in the context of U.S.-China rivalry. If the U.S. falters in Europe, its credibility in the Asia-Pacific region could weaken.
• Global South’s Pragmatism: Countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa remain neutral, benefiting from discounted Russian energy. Their distrust of the West and pragmatic ties with Russia challenge the Western-led order.
• Transition to a Multipolar Order: Failure to support Ukraine could accelerate a shift toward a multipolar world, where alliances like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) gain influence, diminishing Western power.
• Urgent Need for a New Western Strategy: The West must eliminate self-imposed red lines, increase military aid to Ukraine, and engage the Global South more effectively to preserve the current international order.

On November 19, 2024, Russia’s war against Ukraine marked the 1000th day of the full-scale invasion. This war has seen an unprecedented scale of military action involving large military groupings, the shelling of tens of thousands of shells, and the use of drones and missiles on a monthly basis. Transformative in nature, the war has become a tipping point for European security architecture and the current international order. Russia has struggled to achieve its strategic military goals, yet its ambitions do not appear to be waning or moderating, even in the face of severe casualties from its war of aggression.

Russia’s combat casualties, according to the General Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, amount to more than 740,000 military personnel killed, wounded, or missing in action. Still, this has not been enough to convince the Kremlin to end the war and move to peace negotiations. On the contrary, Russia continues to pursue its goal of subjugating Ukraine while also simultaneously threatening the West for providing any substantial support to Kyiv.

Delays in military support to Ukraine from the West, both in terms of quantity and type, have been costly for Ukraine. The country has been losing its most skilled soldiers, and some brigades are short of manpower to continue the fight. Domestically, the challenge of effective mobilization persists, and the unpredictability of Western support can be seen as one of the contributing factors.

The West’s current approach barely enables Ukraine to halt the loss of territory, let alone set the stage for a large-scale counteroffensive. The US and the West’s cautious approach to supporting Ukraine seems to embolden the so-called “alliance of authoritarian regimes”—abbreviated as CRINK—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, as witnessed by their deepening cooperation and enhanced partnerships.

At this stage, despite coordinated sanctions, Russia persists in strengthening its military-industrial complex and war-footing economy, also by receiving support from authoritarian regimes. Iran continues to supply Russia with Shahed drones and missiles. At the same time, North Korea not only sends ammunition and missiles but has also committed troops to fight against Ukraine in Russia’s Kursk region. The collective West’s desire to localize the conflict and manage escalation has failed, and its overall deterrence appears weak. A further fracturing of Western support for Ukraine risks Russia and its allies deepening their cooperation (also known as authoritarian solidarity) and undermining the West’s position in the international system.

The Lack of Resolve, Russia’s Military-Strategic Calculus, and Third-Party Involvement

International relations scholars have long studied how the longevity of a war constrains swift conflict resolution and increases the likelihood of third-party intervention. When regional and great powers feel their most vital interests are threatened by the long conflict or see it as an opportunity to boost their power and influence, they might choose to intervene.

Despite the West’s efforts to localize the war, North Korea still has de facto joined Russia’s war effort. If Russia does not achieve major successes quickly, other powers may also consider increasing their support for the Kremlin’s war or join the conflict directly, seeing it as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to weaken the West and potentially gain military technology or other kinds of support from Russia, as has been the case with Iran and North Korea.

Throughout the war, Russia tested the West’s reaction, resolve, and deterrence (including nuclear), while other powers watched closely the developments on the European continent, learning necessary lessons and upgrading their own militaries. The Western response to the invasion at the war’s outset seemed more coherent and united than it is now. Specifically, the Joe Biden administration in the United States, along with its European allies, voiced full support for Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” But in practice, the approach has been more cautious, avoiding swift provision of various game-changing capabilities, particularly due to concerns over escalation and the potential for the war to spiral out of control and become a regional conflict involving NATO, Russia, and potentially others. This caution was evident in the delayed transfer of tanks, fighter jets, and cruise missiles, as well as the reluctance to strike military targets within Russia – actions necessary to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor.

The reputation of the West among other global powers, in case of failure to ensure long-term support to Ukraine and take necessary steps to boost Ukraine’s strength for potential negotiations, will have dire consequences, especially for the US and the next president. This is also pertinent in the context of the US-China strategic competition since, in the case of Ukraine’s failure, the entire US deterrence and its credibility will be questioned by Beijing and other revisionist powers. The main argument would be that if the US is not willing to protect its most directly threatened interests and stability in the region where American influence is dominant, then how will the US be able to deter or, in the event of a conflict, respond in the Asia-Pacific, or elsewhere?

Reelection of Donald Trump as a Perceived Opportunity to Challenge the Western-Led International Order

Russia’s ambitions in its war against Ukraine do not seem to be decreasing decrease in light of severe casualties, as would have been the case for any other democratic state facing such losses. Now, however, those very ambitions appear to be even greater, amid the rise of right-wing parties in Europe, a gradual decrease in support from Ukraine’s European partners, and, most importantly, the reelection of Donald Trump in the US as the next president, associated with the possibility of either limiting military support to Ukraine or cutting it off completely and favoring Russia’s position.

Trump’s return to the Oval Office presents both challenges and opportunities. However, based on his past foreign policy decisions – criticizing multilateralism, undermining transatlantic relations and NATO, and focusing more on America’s domestic affairs – ensuring his prolonged support to Ukraine poses a critical challenge to Ukraine and its European allies. Furthermore, analysts are worried that his policies could encourage Russia, China, and other revisionist powers to unite and continue to disrupt the Western-led international order, especially if the US is unwilling to defend it and focuses on domestic issues instead.

Even though the US will likely continue to keep an eye on the China threat as part of its security and strategic priorities, neglecting the Russian threat and refusing to address it could have even more dangerous consequences. Should Russia succeed in Ukraine, the US would be forced to allocate far more resources to Europe, including deploying more troops, modernizing logistics to support swift military movements (which are reported to be in poor condition), and supporting the development of Europe’s military-industrial complex directly.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump’s future policy toward the Russia-Ukraine war remains unclear. The communication from the Trump team suggests different options that might include limiting US support to Ukraine or making it conditional to push Kyiv for negotiations. The appointment of Keith Kellogg as the US special envoy for Ukraine and Russia provides a glimpse into the new administration’s future policy toward a diplomatic settlement of the conflict, but the terms and conditions of a potential peace deal remain vague.

On the other hand, observers suggest that Trump might pursue a “peace through strength strategy,” meaning that the US could provide even more robust support to Ukraine if it sees Russia as unwilling to engage in diplomacy and negotiations meaningfully and in good faith. The current developments, however, do not provide any prerequisites for successful negotiations against the backdrop of Russia’s cabal demands addressed to Ukraine and the West. After all, the position of the new administration will be decisive for the final outcome of the war and will have wide-ranging implications for the future of international order, the West’s position in it, and the global equilibrium of power.

Stance of the Global South: Towards a Multipolar International Order?

The Global South’s position on the Russia-Ukraine war remains largely unchanged, with stances varying slightly depending on each country’s specific domestic context and foreign policy strategies, particularly in relation to the West. Countries such as India, Brazil, South Africa, and other small and middle powers have not condemned Russia directly for its aggression against Ukraine, though they have reiterated their commitment to sovereignty and territorial integrity in general, including during some of the votings of the UNGA.

However, this does not indicate that these countries are severing ties with Russia or joining the US and European countries in pressuring Moscow to end the war. On the contrary, the Global South aims to maintain pragmatic relations with both Russia and the West, diversifying their external ties while maintaining an independent and autonomous position in the international system.

The Global South is exploiting Russia’s weaknesses through favorable deals amid Western sanctions, de facto contributing to Moscow’s ability to continue the war (i.e., through buying cheap oil and gas, revenues from which constitute a chief part of Russia’s war economy). In the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine, China and other Global South powers might view the Kremlin as a pawn to accelerate the collapse of the Western-led international order.

What unites many of these countries is their distrust of the West, stemming from their historical experiences and the belief that the West is hypocritical. This distrust, coupled with ongoing global issues, intensifies global competition. Key global governance problems, such as UN reform, equitable access to technology, AI, finance, and addressing climate change, and the lack of the West’s more active engagement could drive the Global South to further align with other great powers, especially China, to create alternative structures that better reflect their interests.

Russia’s war against Ukraine has reignited discussions about the West’s ability to maintain the current international order and the potential for a reordering in which countries of the Global South could play a more prominent role. This could involve greater influence from BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), with China in a dominant position.

Some contend that the future shape of the international order will be determined in Ukraine. In the current context, the West’s lack of strategy to counter Russia effectively and resolve to support Ukraine unequivocally could signal its overall weakening. This could indicate the US and Europe’s unwillingness to defend the core values that underpinned the international order they created after World War II. Others argue that, given the diverging positions of various powers on the Russia-Ukraine war, the world is already witnessing a transition to a post-Western, or multipolar, international order that extends beyond the bipolar confrontation between the United States and China.

For the West to maintain its current position in the international order, it must reshape its strategy on Russia and Ukraine, bearing in mind that the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian war will have a significant impact on the global balance of power. It is also critical to continue engaging with the Global South and countering Russian and Chinese influence over their stances. This may also be important for the Global South’s role as a potential mediator in negotiations over the war.

However, to win the battle for the Global South, the West should not only focus on global governance reforms but also demonstrate greater willpower, resilience, and resolve to convince nations worldwide that it is serious about upholding international rules and is prepared to defend its principles.

In the current stage, when Russia continues to push its demands to Ukraine (such as non-accession to NATO, a neutral status, limitations on the size of Ukraine’s military, and conceding its internationally recognized territories), the lack of decisive Western response serves as evidence of the West’s diminishing power.

Leaving Ukraine without credible security guarantees and reaching a peace agreement based on this scenario would fail to stabilize Europe despite widespread diplomatic calls and the emergence of different peace plans, particularly from the Global South. This could signify a rapid transition to a multipolar international order, in which the West’s position is not as favorable as it currently is.

Conclusions

In light of increased calls for a diplomatic settlement of the Russia-Ukraine war, the US and the West are faced with a critical problem. On the one hand, a diplomatic resolution could be seen as a favorable option to achieve peace. On the other hand, the ongoing developments on the battlefield do not suggest that Ukraine is in a position to negotiate from a position of strength, or at least as an equal party. If Ukraine refuses to accept Russia’s conditions, which it is most likely to reject due to Russia’s unrealistic demands, Putin could opt to continue the war of attrition, aiming to gain more territory, further divide the West, and create more tensions within Ukrainian society.

These developments create an urgent need to review the Western strategy toward Russia-Ukraine, adopting a more proactive and comprehensive approach, and eliminating artificial red lines that self-restraint critical decisions regarding the provision of military support. The fear of escalation has not impacted Russia’s goals in Ukraine, nor has it prevented third-party intervention in the conflict, as seen with North Korea’s involvement.

This updated strategy is even more vital in light of the changing international order and the rise of various powers in the Global South. Their diverging positions and low levels of trust in the West suggest further global polarization. The Western failure in Ukraine could potentially lead to an even greater voice for these powers in international affairs, especially China and those who perceive the current order as created by the West to serve its purposes and interests only. Russia’s war against Ukraine presents a landmark opportunity for the Global South and China, as its perceived “advocate” to push for a multipolar international order – one where the West occupies a more degraded position, while wars of conquest could be normalized and rewarded, with significant consequences for the entire UN system, international law, and the stability of the international order and global governance overall.

Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the papers published on this site belong solely to the authors and not necessarily to the Transatlantic Dialogue Center, its committees, or its affiliated organizations. The papers are intended to stimulate dialogue and discussion and do not represent official policy positions of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center or any other organizations the authors may be associated with.