GLOBAL LEVEL, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND UKRAINE, CHANGES IN THE WORLD ORDER (2022)

The study constructs a comprehensive global-level model in which the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine is viewed not as an isolated conflict, but as part of a systemic struggle for a new world order.

The basic structure is the juxtaposition of two models:

• the US — normative (rules, values, coalitions outside the UN);

• Russia — polycentric (interests, spheres of influence, the UN as the key platform).

This means that the conflict is not merely geopolitical but systemic and architectural in nature — a struggle over what the rules of international interaction will be.

The second level is the instrumentalisation of global issues. The US uses the humanitarian agenda as a mechanism for consolidating allies, whilst the Russian Federation uses the security agenda (conflicts, nuclear threat) as a tool for exerting pressure and raising the stakes.

It is particularly important that Russia:

• does not resolve conflicts, but maintains them as assets;

• uses the ‘absence of peace’ as a bargaining chip;

• combines participation in conflicts with the ability to block decisions via the UN.

The third level — the ‘assets’ logic. Ukraine is defined as a non-negotiable asset, i.e. a key zone of influence that is not subject to bargaining. Other conflicts (the Middle East, Africa, the post-Soviet space) act as exchangeable assets through which the Russian Federation attempts to influence global agreements. This forms a model: local conflicts → global bargaining → an attempt to consolidate spheres of influence.

The fourth level — the Russian Federation’s miscalculation. Moscow’s strategy was based on the assumption that:

• The West would not be united;

• Ukraine would not receive sufficient support;

• the outcome of force would be recognised as the new reality.

However, the study notes that the opposite occurred:

• a consolidated Western position has emerged;

• Ukraine has become a central element of global politics;

• Russia has been isolated rather than legitimised.

Thus, rather than strengthening the Russian Federation’s position, its capabilities have been curtailed at all levels.

Conclusion: Russia’s war against Ukraine is a key test for the global system and, at the same time, a turning point for Russia itself. The Russian Federation’s strategy was based on the following logic: establishing control by force → subsequent legitimisation through negotiations and bargaining → consolidation of spheres of influence. However, this model failed because:

• it failed to take into account the West’s capacity for consolidation;

• it underestimated Ukraine’s role as an independent actor;

• it overestimated the effectiveness of force as a universal tool.

As a result, Ukraine has transformed from an object of regional influence into
a central hub of global confrontation, determining the balance between two models of world order.

Systemic conclusion: the conflict over Ukraine is not merely a struggle for territory, but a mechanism for the transformation of the global system, where the failure of the Russian Federation’s strategy means a limitation on its ability to shape a new world order and a gradual narrowing of its role as an independent pole.

Introduction. Key concepts.

Global level

• Global issues.

The world order.

CONCLUSION

Introduction. Key concepts.

Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine (the so-called ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine) began on 24 February 2022, at approximately 5 a.m. Kyiv time. To justify the invasion, V. Putin cited the need to protect the ‘DPR and LPR’ and Russia itself, and also used a false characterisation of Ukraine as a neo-Nazi state. Russia’s actions have been strongly condemned by the overwhelming majority of the international community and international organisations, and Russia has been recognised as an aggressor.

What, then, are the real reasons behind Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine? Ukraine has found itself at the centre of a struggle (rivalry, confrontation) between global players in their quest to build a new world order. And these processes will affect both Ukraine and Russia themselves, as well as changing the whole world in general.

Key global concepts covered:

• global players (actors), influence (political, economic and military), global issues (of a humanitarian nature and concerning global security), relevant multilateral frameworks.

Key concepts of global security covered:

• regional conflicts (‘absence of peace’), the fight against terrorism, issues of strategic stability (including the arms race).

Key concepts examined in regional conflicts:

• involvement; Russia’s priority assets (in the acute phase of the ‘military conflict (war) between Russia and Ukraine’); Russia’s non-exchangeable assets (not subject to exchange); the Russian Federation’s exchangeable assets (which may be exchanged, traded or conceded).

Key concepts of the world order examined:

• the UN platform; US and Russian models; alliances (coalitions) outside the UN and the ‘nuclear five’ (‘poles’), democracies and autocracies; values and interests; ‘rules-based order’ and ‘spheres of influence’; consolidated position, allies, sanctions, consequences, isolation.

Global level

Broadly speaking, all events in the world can be divided into three levels: The main international processes at the global level in the current period can be broadly divided into: Let us identify the key global-level players capable of exerting influence—political, economic and military—both on international processes as a whole and on individual regions and countries of the world: ‘aggressive’ players—the US and Russia; ‘passive’ players—the EU and China.

• Local (events within the country under consideration);

• Regional (events occurring between various local, regional and global players in different regions of the world);

• Global (events and issues of international significance or events that may have a significant impact on international processes).

• ‘Global issues’ (of a humanitarian nature and relating to global security)

• ‘Changes in the world order’ (the so-called ‘rules of the game’ for all participants in the international arena);

Therefore, the global level involves monitoring bilateral relations between key global actors (the US, the EU, Russia, China):

The EU was in the weakest position (a passive player), due to its multi-stakeholder nature and greater economic vulnerability to external players, which the Russian Federation seeks to exploit in building its relations with the EU—both in its individual dealings with each member state and in its bilateral relations with the Union as a whole, as well as in global affairs.

With the US, the EU shares an ideological and values-based component (shared values) and a military component (NATO), whilst with Russia and China, the EU shares an economic component.

• US – EU; US – Russia; EU – Russia; NATO – Russia.

• US–China; EU–China; Russia–China.

At the global level, this also involves monitoring relevant multilateral forums—such as the WTO, G7, G20 and others—whose decisions may influence developments in the asset markets.

Global issues.

Although global issues are recognised by all countries as common challenges, they have different priorities for each global player and are used to advance their own interests. Broadly speaking, global issues can be divided into two categories: humanitarian and military.

Humanitarian issues

Thus, humanitarian global issues include the fight for human rights, the fight against climate change, overcoming the consequences of the pandemic, the fight against hunger, globalisation, etc. – the main priority and focus of the Collective West, including the US.

Global security issues

Global security issues (of a military nature) include regional conflicts (‘lack of peace’), the fight against terrorism, and issues of strategic stability – the main priority and area of interest for Russia.

The Russian Federation’s main priorities regarding global issues:

These elements form the logic of instrumentalising global issues as a mechanism of influence. The demonstration of a military threat (particularly a nuclear one) is used as a tool to raise the stakes and compel other actors to take its own interests into account. At the same time, involvement in regional conflicts whilst retaining the status of a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power creates an asymmetrical position – a combination of participation in conflicts and the ability to block international decisions regarding them. At the same time, the fight against terrorism serves as a universal legitimising mechanism for entering regional conflicts. Thus, a model is formed in which global challenges (security, conflicts, terrorism) are not only addressed but also used as tools to expand political and military influence.

Regional conflicts as assets for Russia

For Russia, the ‘absence of peace’ (involvement) is one of the main priorities: ‘assets’ that the Russian Federation can exchange for terms more favourable to itself. In these ‘assets’ (regional conflicts — ‘the absence of peace’), global players are engaged in a struggle for influence (political, economic and military), the outcomes of which may trigger changes in other international processes and issues, as well as alter the status of the participants themselves.

Currently, the ‘military conflict (war) between Russia and Ukraine’ is a top priority not only for Moscow, but has also become a central priority for all representatives of the Collective West.

Even earlier (since 2014), relations between the Russian Federation and the EU had deteriorated significantly due to Moscow’s hybrid aggression against Ukraine, whilst relations with the US (at the start of Russia’s new full-scale military aggression against Ukraine, launched by Moscow on 24 February 2022) were effectively frozen in a state of containment and confrontation. At the same time (February 2022), in virtually all international ‘areas of engagement’, conflict resolution in the interests of the Russian Federation was either frozen or progressing slowly, offering no guarantee of success.

The Russian Federation has sought, and will continue to seek, to pit the interests of the EU and the US against one another in exchange assets, creating conditions for the exchange of assets or the division of spheres of influence within those assets (the objective being to prevent a consolidated position of the Collective West against the Russian Federation or to weaken an already established consolidated position).

Russia is aggressively asserting Ukraine as its own sphere of influence, treating it as an asset of inalienable value. Ukraine will only be able to withstand military aggression from the Russian Federation if it receives the consolidated support of the Collective West. If the Collective West seeks reconciliation with the Russian Federation and the normalisation of relations with it (for example, through the exchange of assets at a global level), Ukraine will be forced to agree to Russia’s terms, which are disadvantageous to it, in resolving the conflict (war), and Ukraine will fall entirely (or partially) within the Russian Federation’s sphere of influence.

Russia’s permanent assets:

Let us identify the Russian Federation’s main priorities where it maintains a formal military presence: Participation in frozen conflicts (presence of the Russian Armed Forces): It should also be noted that the spheres of influence Russia claims are the post-Soviet states, in particular Belarus, Armenia and the Central Asian republics (members of the CIS, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Customs Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation).

• Ukraine (annexation of Crimea (militarisation of the peninsula); occupation of the ORDLO – creation and maintenance of two separatist military corps (since 2014); recognition of the independence of these territories and the subsequent launch of full-scale military operations by the Russian Federation against Ukraine (since February 2022) – the active, acute phase of military operations is ongoing).

• Syria (two military bases);

• Transnistria (Moldova) – peacekeepers;

• South Ossetia and Abkhazia (Georgia) – peacekeepers;

• Karabakh (Azerbaijan) — peacekeepers.

Russian Federation assets that may be subject to barter, exchange or negotiation.

Informal Russian military presence (deployment of Russian private military companies and military instructors) in local conflicts in Africa (EU priority): Libya (private military companies); Mali (PMCs); CAR (PMCs and military instructors); Sudan (development with the possibility of establishing a naval base).

Involvement in or participation in the resolution of conflicts in the Middle East (Iran (nuclear deal), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Yemen, Iraq, maritime security in the Persian Gulf), Central Asia (Afghanistan), Latin America (Venezuela, Cuba), the Indo-Pacific region (DPRK), the Arctic, etc.

As can be seen from the above, there is an interconnection — changes at the global level can lead to changes for Ukraine itself. The conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation is of a regional nature — a regional conflict capable of influencing the global level, whilst the global level, in turn, influences developments in Ukraine. Thus, Ukraine has found itself at the centre of the struggle (confrontation) between global players in their quest to build a new world order.

The world order.

The US seeks to preserve a unipolar system with some shifts in positioning, moving away from the UN platform. The guiding principles are ‘the defence of democratic values’ and a ‘rules-based order’ (a coalition of democratic nations competing with (or containing) autocratic nations outside the UN framework);

In Russia, however, the aim is to establish a polycentric (multipolar) system involving the mandatory recognition and division of spheres of influence among global players (poles) within the UN framework (the ‘Nuclear Five’) – the guiding principle being: ‘interests take precedence over values’.

The US security doctrine identifies autocratic states such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, as well as the corresponding threats to the US: China — a comprehensive threat; Russia — a military threat (including of a regional nature, i.e. primarily to allies and partners).

Based on this, the US’s objective is to weaken the influence (military, political, economic) of authoritarian regimes (China and the Russian Federation) in the international and regional spheres and to strengthen its own influence.

To contain these threats (from China and Russia), the US requires a consolidated stance from its partners and allies (a common political and economic position, a common sanctions policy, a common stance on the development of NATO and other defence alliances, etc.), as well as the implementation of joint global projects with allies (climate protection, joint economic projects, particularly logistical ones, etc.).

Russia’s objective, however, was to maintain and strengthen its involvement and influence (military, political, economic) in the regional sphere in order to shift the consideration of contentious issues (‘assets’) to the UN Security Council and subsequently bargain over such ‘assets’ there to its own advantage, using its right of veto to cement its right to its own ‘spheres of influence’.

To achieve this objective (the division and consolidation of its own spheres of influence in the region), Russia has launched a full-scale military aggression against Ukraine, counting on the fact that the West as a whole and the US will refuse to assist Ukraine and will recognise the Russian Federation’s right (to a sphere of influence) in view of the results Moscow has effectively achieved, and would subsequently be forced to accept Russia’s terms for establishing a new world order, in which the Russian Federation demands to secure for itself the status of a separate independent pole.

Leading Russian experts had warned in advance of the severe consequences for Russia should military action be taken against Ukraine, but the Kremlin decided to pursue a path of aggression, which has already led to the failure of Moscow’s plans at all levels – local, regional and global.

And although Russia’s war against Ukraine is, unfortunately, far from over, the collective West is confident that Ukraine will stand firm and emerge victorious provided it receives consolidated support from its allies and partners, whilst Russia faces severe consequences and isolation, leading to changes not only in the regional sphere but also at the global level.

It is these changes that we will be observing in future publications, examining how Ukraine is influencing the global stage and the world order as a whole, and how these changes will reshape Ukraine itself, Russia and the entire world.

CONCLUSION:

The framework presented demonstrates fundamentally different models of global order promoted by the US and Russia. The US is building a system based on a humanitarian agenda (human rights, climate, pandemics) and UN institutional mechanisms, with a focus on reforming and expanding coalitions (‘coalition of democracies’), reflecting the logic of preserving a unipolar system with a normative (value-based) core. At the same time, Russia shifts the emphasis to a security agenda (strategic stability, conflicts) and utilises existing institutions (primarily the UN Security Council and the right of veto), blocking their transformation and promoting the ‘nuclear five’ format as an alternative centre for decision-making.

The key contradiction lies in the principles: the US operates on the basis of ‘rules and values’, whilst Russia operates on the basis of ‘interests and sovereign interpretation of norms’. This translates into different behavioural models: the US combines its work at the UN with external deterrence through alliances, whilst Russia seeks to consolidate its status as a separate pole with the right to its own spheres of influence. As a result, a systemic conflict emerges not only over influence but over the very architecture of the international order — between normative (rules/values) and polycentric (interests/balance of power) models.