Exactly one year ago today, Moscow announced the beginning of a “special military operation” that turned global attention to a protracted war in Ukraine. The war has since displaced millions while killing and wounding tens of thousands of people. It has cost the global economy over $1.6 trillion so far, with over 11,000 counterproductive sanctions on Moscow splitting nations across ideological grounds. In turn, such a Western diplomatic offensive accomplished nothing tangible to bring both sides closer to peace. 

A year of relentless warfare has reinforced the inadequacies of the international order in stemming a geopolitical crisis. The conflict’s deadly fallout puts the spotlight on key hegemonic arrangements, chiefly an expanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which substituted all-out diplomacy with offensive military support. The resulting escalation in humanitarian suffering has left the world a witness. On the first anniversary of the war, the international order appears increasingly insecure and tethered to the ideological dictates of “West versus Russia”. In effect, this warrants a deep reflection of the contours of the crisis, including the need to move away from military support as a tool of engagement for the West. Especially when the current course formidably threatens the protection of future life and liberty within and beyond Ukraine.

The repercussions of sidestepping sensitive, preemptive diplomacy cannot be understated. Look back to NATO’s concerted push to treat Russia’s communicated security concerns on a different footing than that of the alliance itself. It generated substantial trust deficit that heightened Russia’s fears of eastward expansion. 

This critical double-standard should inform course correction within the same alliance at present to draw Europe and world powers back to the realm of “common security”. Legions of casualties have accumulated as the United States stuck to its celebration of Russia-focused intelligence gathering, without assuring European counterparts that an alternative to negotiated peace meant more war.

Related News

Manufacturing civil war: The Zionist doctrine to destroy resistance

The origins of the crisis: An analysis of recent economic and political dynamics in Japan

Billions continue to be directed to Ukraine in the form of “defense” spending, but to the benefit of whom? Shattered cities and obliterated infrastructure in Ukraine fail to emerge as advantageous to the millions now displaced, nor do global concerns about a protracted humanitarian crisis reflect in the West’s “Europe versus Russia” binary. In fact, the military-first approach to the Russia-Ukraine war has thrown an already struggling global economy into a deep recession, and overshadowed the utility of the Minsk Agreement to secure an on-ground cease-fire to the benefit of the world.

Second, the realities of catastrophic humanitarian suffering – as evident during the 2022 Bucha massacre – have been willfully contested and denied justice. Victims caught in the throes of the killings are denied recognition to this day, and Western skepticism of Russia hasn’t brought lost lives closer to accountability. The post-war international order is already being split into Western and anti-Western camps, with Washington pressuring scores of countries to give up their neutrality and take sides at the expense of energy and economic stability. Meanwhile, NATO’s well-established tendency to advance European security at the expense of other states shows no signs of waning. Hundreds and thousands of casualties under open skies should rein-in – not empower – hegemonic blocs in wake of the Ukraine war. And yet, NATO’s push to fuel the war with destructive military assistance, bloc expansion threats, and energy confrontation threatens the sustainability of a just and globally responsive rules-based order.

Beyond the one-year mark, it is clear that the world deserves an immediate, human-centric approach to conflict resolution in Ukraine. Stepped-up nuclear rhetoric risks jeopardizing peace-building intent between Ukraine and Russia, making it critical to bridge differences so that future collateral and casualties can be avoided. 

Given the West’s centrality to a protracted conflict, it is fundamental for key powers to show spine and facilitate stalled talks with the UN Charter principles at its core. It is a fact that perceived power brokers outside Europe have been wrongly construed as partisan to the conflict, frustrating Ukraine-Russia diplomatic common-ground in the process. “Democracies of the world will stand guard over freedom today, tomorrow and forever”, tweeted U.S. President Joe Biden ahead of the Ukraine war anniversary. Marketing self-proclaimed democratic principles as the key to peace-building would not be enough. Particularly when substantial arms support and unilateral sanctions tell a different story on widening trust deficits.

An alternative approach would signal grim consequences. Result-oriented diplomacy needs to take precedence over provocative arms support because the latter drives a vicious cycle of Ukrainian counteroffensives and more Russian troop engagement. In the process, global stability is held hostage and dozens of new sanctions render the West as resistant to all that matters: relief for adversely impacted energy markets, stability in crucial food supply chains, and a hard break from more humanitarian devastation. 

Thus understood, the elimination of irritants to stalled peace talks is the only way for the Ukraine-Russia war to pivot towards conflict resolution. A year of sanctions, counterproductive arms support and selective security constructs offers a wake-up call to prevent the war and its associated spillovers.