Expert Speak Young Voices
Published on Apr 16, 2022
Does multipolarity create more scope for conflicts and act as an impediment to global action or does it aid in conflict resolution and act as a harbinger of concerted action?
Russia-Ukraine war: Is multipolarity the cause of crisis? This brief is a part of The Ukraine Crisis: Cause and Course of the Conflict.
The end of bipolarity ushered in an era of multipolarity, especially since the beginning of the 2000s. The US’s unipolar moment ended not only with 9/11 as many scholars remark but also with the subsequent rise of many Asian powers. The question which this brief addresses whether multipolarity is the cause or solution of any crisis and at the same time, an impediment to or a harbinger of concerted action. The idea of multipolarity becomes particularly important when assessed in the light of the current Russo-Ukraine war. At the heart of multipolarity lies the idea of the distribution of power and co-dependency. However, this is not to say that there is equal and favorable co-dependency.  In any crisis, though smaller and middle power nations may find themselves in a fix, they become crucial in the attempts by the bigger powers to rally for their cause. The hierarchical and anarchical world order implies that for great powers to retain their top position, they need to be substantially aided by the smaller and weaker nations. Even though the global hegemons have set the rules, which can be restraining and not serving the national interests of the non-hegemons, such actions of setting rules receive validity only through the observance of the same by other nations who are participants in it and not makers of it. The declining power of the West and the further interconnectedness created due to globalisation allows many countries to strategically use their autonomy to pursue their goals in the global sphere. It empowers the non-hegemonic powers by widening the scope of negotiations and allowing for the reconfigurations of certain power dynamics in the global political order. The extent of the possibilities of these changes being in the favour of the non-hegemonic powers is a matter of contention and a different debate. What multipolarity is also coupled with is the technological prowess which has facilitated and is stimulated by the rise of multinational corporations (MNCs).

The declining power of the West and the further interconnectedness created due to globalisation allows many countries to strategically use their autonomy to pursue their goals in the global sphere.

An application of this theoretical background of multipolarity to the current crisis of the Russian aggression against Ukraine demands attention and critical mention of certain events and actions which prove the case on point. According to the White House’s Fact Sheet, “The United States and more than 30 allies and partners across the world have levied the most impactful, coordinated, and wide-ranging economic restrictions in history.” Countries are now looking for alternatives to the Russian oil and gas imports. The imposition of economic sanctions is supposed to circumvent aggressive and ethically questionable actions by a country. Several multinationals from around the world have suspended business or have completely withdrawn in the wake of the crisis. Their response to crisis has been more temporary and short-term in most cases, allowing them to return in the aftermath of the crisis and removal of sanctions. However, in Russia’s case, despite heavy sanctioning, it hasn’t surrendered to the global call of halting the war. Here, the reasons for going to war may provide some ground of understanding as to why it’s also not willing to stop the war. The war, while it may be influenced by many developments of today, finds its logic in the rivalries of the Cold War even though the immediate cause was to prevent Ukraine from joining the NATO. The fall of the erstwhile Soviet Union had left a deep impact on the region. Both Russia and China have joined hands in countering the West’s influence and actions around the world since then. They have particularly spoken against America’s efforts to exclude nations from becoming influential and for suppressing other nations through the imbalanced power relations in the global order. Russia’s loss of its exclusive control of Eastern Europe, where countries have now harboured relations with the NATO nations and some have joined the NATO, has served as the reason of the current crisis. The growing presence of NATO in Eastern Europe makes Russia hesitant of its political and strategic autonomy. It makes Russia deal with the loss of its hegemony in Eastern Europe due to the independence of these nations as a result of the end of the Cold War and the offerings of multipolarity. What was shocking to Russia was Ukraine’s response to its comparatively overpowering might and its choice to not surrender to its terms or rampant formidable acts of violence on its territory.

Russia’s loss of its exclusive control of Eastern Europe, where countries have now harboured relations with the NATO nations and some have joined the NATO, has served as the reason of the current crisis.

The United States has spoken vehemently against the humanitarian disasters due to the war and the infringement of a sovereign country’s right to autonomy in action and decision-making. The war helps America rally the world in its favour by excluding Russia from global trade and multilateral organisations. It is also in deliberation to relax sanctions on Venezuela at this moment despite sanctioning it for the Maduro government’s anti-democratic behaviour and the plight of its citizens due to the denial of basic right to life with dignity. The sanctions have caused greater harm to the already volatile and plummeting socio-economic situation in the country. The fact that America has also chosen to be accepting of India’s oil deal with Russia given its interest to have a major Asian power as a strong ally to counter China’s expansionism in the Indo-Pacific is in contradiction with its stance on the war. India has also balanced between Russia and the United States through its strategic diplomacy while calling for peace and dialogue engagement to end the war. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is suggestive of one thing in particular that the global liberal order is under threat and the multiple centers of power have created vulnerable interdependencies. This poses the question of whether multipolarity is inherently ridden with the capacity to create conflict and whether multilateralism has ended up giving more space to them. If this is true, then is it possible to find solutions within the form of multipolarity and the actions as well as the theoretical objectives of multilateralism? However, it’s also imperative to consider that multipolarity in itself poses threats to multilateralism. The biggest failure of multipolarity can be seen in the ability to gather a united collective (both of countries and normative/ideological support) against Russia’s aggression. National interest has overridden any concerns of humanitarian crisis around the world. While multipolarity, has restrained nations from acting collectively and surpassing concerns regarding national interest, can it prove to be a solution for the same? Since multipolarity creates extensive unignorable dependencies, it can bind nations through the global supply chains and participation in multilateral organisations. This then questions what sort of checks and balances such a global order can put in place to hold nations accountable and prevent such aggression. In a world order led by imbalanced power dynamics and the decisive idea of sovereignty, putting such checks in place could prove to be difficult and implementing them might also get affected by threats of dependencies.
Muskaan Goenka is a Research Intern at ORF Kolkata.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.