The War in Ukraine and the Future of the International System

Russia's attack on Ukraine, which began on 24 February 2022, has been one of the most disruptive events in an international order that had been showing signs of change for some time. Despite Putin's statements on the same day, which were an attempt to legitimise the invasion to the national and international public and were based entirely on subjective justifications, this attack was a clear violation of international law. While Putin was implementing a new example of the expansionist policy inherited from Russia's expansionist past, he was pursuing a policy that confirmed the predictions of those who assess international relations with a realistic approach. According to the classical realist approach in international relations theory, people are inherently selfish and seek power. States are the fundamental actors in the international system. States strive to gain power in order to protect their interests and survive. States' efforts to increase their power in order to protect their existence create a security dilemma due to mutual perceptions of threat. In the new realist approach, due to the anarchic structure of the international system, which lacks a supreme authority, states are actors that act according to the principle of self-help and pursue their interests.

This leads to a structure dominated by a power struggle in which states constantly strive to gain power. The fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989 marked the beginning of the end of the international order that divided the world into two ideological camps.

With the announcement of the dissolution of the USSR on 26 December 1991, the ‘iron curtain’ that had descended on Europe after the Second World War was completely lifted. The countries that seceded from the USSR gained their independence one by one during the disintegration process. The winner in the nearly half-century struggle between two different political systems was the Western Bloc, led by the United States, based on a free market economy and liberal democratic principles. In a sense, the ideological struggle, which was lost without a shot being fired, did not initially create a sense of defeat in the Eastern Bloc countries. Indeed, the policy of détente pursued since the 1970s had reduced ideological tensions and brought the two sides closer together. The socio-economic prosperity achieved by Western Bloc countries through a political system based on popular support and political legitimacy, coupled with a market economy, led communist societies to question their own regimes. The political and social opposition to communist regimes, which intensified over time, facilitated the adoption of the Western political and economic system by Eastern Bloc countries neighbouring the Western Bloc after 1991. The Russian Federation, the leading country of the USSR, initially followed a similar course. It also received support from Western Europe and the United States in this regard. Russia's cooperation with NATO was implemented with concrete steps during this period. Indeed, Russia joined NATO's Partnership for Peace programme in 1994. In 2002, the NATO-Russia Council was established. However, the change of power at the end of 1999 led to a gradual shift in Russia's policy towards the West.

After becoming President of Russia in 2000, Putin remained in office, except for the period between 2008 and 2012. Constitutional amendments made in 2020 paved the way for him to remain President until 2036. During the years when the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Gorbachev, implemented the policies of Perestroika (restructuring) and Glasnost (openness/transparency), Putin was working for the Soviet secret service, the KGB, in the city of Dresden in East Germany (1985-1990). He witnessed the dramatic collapse of the communist system, one of the most symbolic places of the East-West divide, as these policies proved insufficient to prevent the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is possible that the psychological effects of this experience shaped the policies he adopted after becoming head of state. Preventing the Russian Federation, which inherited the legacy of the USSR, from suffering the same fate, and perhaps even restoring it to its former borders, are the most prominent features of Putin's domestic and foreign policy.

In domestic politics, Putin adopted an authoritarian and repressive style of governance that restricted the exercise of democratic rights and freedoms and press freedom, and neglected the rule of law. He used the revenue generated from the country's natural energy resources to raise the economic welfare of the people, thereby preventing the growth of social opposition that could have arisen from livelihood difficulties. He based his real support among the people on military and foreign policy moves aimed at making Russia one of the most important players in world politics again. This policy, which placed Russian nationalism and the Orthodox faith at the centre of its value system, aimed to restore Russia to its geopolitical sphere of influence during the powerful and glorious periods of the Tsarist and Soviet eras.

Within the framework of the Near Abroad Doctrine, countries in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East, which were formerly part of the USSR and within its sphere of influence, became the direct targets of this approach. Some countries in Africa, Latin America and South Asia were also targeted for influence through political, economic and military means. One of the fundamental tools of the policy to revive a great Russia was the use of military force. The intervention in Georgia in 2008 was the most concrete sign of Russia's return to the arena of great powers. The occupation and annexation of Crimea in 2014 was an open challenge to international law. Here, Putin effectively used hybrid warfare techniques to complete the occupation without actually fighting and attempted to legitimise the annexation with a sham referendum. The military intervention in Syria in 2015 and the support given to the Assad regime signalled Russia's attempt to reassert its presence in the Middle East, where it had been influential during the Cold War years. The military operation, which aimed to completely occupy Ukraine and turn it into a state under Russia's influence, failed to achieve its ultimate goal, but it severely disrupted the environment of inter-state non-conflict that had prevailed in Europe for over 70 years.

Russia's justifications for invading Ukraine included subjective claims of an ethnic, historical and political nature, such as protecting the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas region, viewing Ukraine as historically part of Russia, and accusing the Ukrainian government of Nazism. However, the argument that NATO's expansion to include Ukraine posed a security threat to Russia has emerged as a more widely accepted justification. According to those who assess international relations from a realistic perspective, Russia's invasion, launched on the grounds of gaining power and ensuring its security, was an expected development at a time when a multipolar system was emerging. However, the extent to which this claim, put forward by Russia as one of its strongest justifications, reflects reality is debatable. One of the primary objectives of NATO, established as a defence organisation against the expansion of the USSR, was to protect the political and economic structures of the North Atlantic region countries. Article 10, which provides for NATO expansion, states that countries that can contribute to the security of the North Atlantic region may be invited to join. Until the period when détente policies began to be implemented during the Cold War, there had been a mutual arms race.

In the post-1991 period, defence spending was reduced due to the decline in conventional threats, and a force structure capable of carrying out peace support operations came to the fore. So much so that NATO's very raison d'être was called into question. During the same period, the number of US troops in Europe was also significantly reduced. Therefore, it is considered that the claim that NATO expansion threatens Russia's security does not correspond to reality. On the other hand, it is possible that Putin sees the political and economic structure represented by NATO as a threat to his personal power. Over time, it is highly likely that the Russian people will voice their demands for a liberal democratic system based on the rule of law more loudly.

Although the claim that Russia's security is threatened by the US and NATO does not correspond to reality, it is a fact that the US has used its military power to achieve its political goals since the early 2000s. This situation has led to the questioning of the multilateral and rule-based international system that the US itself pioneered in its establishment after 1945. After the Second World War, with the aim of establishing collective security, the United Nations (UN) was established to prevent armed conflicts between states and ensure world peace. The United States' invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, citing the right to self-defence and without a UN Security Council resolution, and its invasion of Iraq in 2003, under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction that later proved to be false and again without a UN Security Council resolution, have greatly damaged the reputation of the collective security system based on international law.

Russia was one of the countries that opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, alongside the US allies Germany and France. In his speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Putin criticised NATO's eastward expansion and stated that the unipolar system led by the US was weakening international stability and security. Putin thus declared an end to the policy of rapprochement with the West, signalling the revisionist policies based on military power that he would implement in the years to come. Indeed, he soon put these policies into action in Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014 and 2022) and Syria (2015).

With its invasion of Ukraine, Russia has clearly violated the principles of ‘sovereign equality of nations,’ ‘peaceful resolution of disputes,’ and ‘refraining from the threat or use of force in international relations’ as expressed in Article 2 of the UN Charter. It is a historical fact that Russia has pursued policies that undermine the functioning of the rules-based collective security system spearheaded by the United States. However, Russia has adopted an approach that favours expansionist policies based on military force rather than cooperative multilateral policies that would repair this system. The claim that NATO's expansion threatens Russia's security seems to be an argument put forward to justify the strategy pursued by Putin to ensure the continuity of his autocratic form of government, rather than reflecting reality. The policies pursued by the United States during Trump's second term have rendered the international system based on cooperation, multilateralism, and rules, which has been shaken since the 2000s, almost inoperable. The international community, which remained ineffective in the face of Israel's crimes against humanity in Gaza, was also unable to raise a strong objection to the United States' abduction of the Venezuelan President. Trump has expressed his desire to seize Greenland, which is under the sovereignty of NATO member Denmark. In this respect, it is understood that Putin and Trump agree on an international system dominated by power and influence struggles based on a forceful, self-serving and pragmatic approach. The European Union, while demonstrating a rule-based, multilateral and cooperation-oriented stance, lacks the military power and political leadership to steer developments. China, meanwhile, is rapidly making its weight felt in the global economy and military power balances, but has been unable to project a commensurate political weight.

Following the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century, the international community sought to prevent humanity from experiencing the same catastrophes again through a collective security system centred on the United Nations. This system, which has proven ineffective in preventing many conflicts threatening world peace, including the Ukraine War, is showing signs of complete collapse as we enter an era dominated by the struggle for world power and influence. Only time will tell whether a more equitable and functional system reflecting the changing political and military power balances will emerge at the end of a new world war, or whether it will be achieved peacefully through the efforts of people and statesmen who believe in the power of international cooperation and diplomacy. Historical experience shows that large-scale conflict can be prevented as long as the major powers, with their political, military and economic strength, agree on a system that reconciles their interests. A more just and equitable system, built upon the shared values and sensitivities of all humanity, will continue to be the common ideal of those who believe that humanity's historical journey will culminate in a permanent peace order.