The Russia-Ukraine war has quickly turned into a global conflict. As I’ve
already said, one of the likely outcomes of this war is the very redefinition
of the current world order, which has been in effect, at least since the
collapse of the Soviet Union over three decades ago.
Indeed, there is a growing sense that a new global agenda is
forthcoming, one that could unite Russia and China and, to a degree, India and maybe
Brasil and others, under the same banner. This is evident, not only by the
succession of the earth-shattering events underway, but, equally important, the
language employed to describe these events.
Due to Washington’s aggressive intervention within Ukraine through Azov
and other militias and its approach to Finland and Sweden in order to convince
them to join NATO , the Russian position on Ukraine has morphed throughout the
war from merely wanting to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine to a much bigger regional and
global agenda, to eventually, per the words of Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, “put an end to the
unabashed expansion” of NATO, and the “unabashed drive towards full domination
by the US and its Western subjects on the world stage.”
On April 30, Lavrov went further, stating in an interview with the official Chinese news agency, Xinhua,
that Russia’s war “contributes to the process of freeing the world from the
West’s neocolonial oppression,” predicated on “racism and an exceptionality.”
But Russia is not the only country that feels this way. China, too, India,
and many others. The meeting between Lavrov and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on March 30,
served as a foundation of this truly new global language. Statements made by
the two countries’ top diplomats were more concerned about challenging US
hegemony than the specifics of the Ukraine war.
Those following the evolution of the Russia-China political discourse,
even before the start of the Russia-Ukraine war on February 24, will notice that the
language employed supersedes that of a regional conflict, into the desire to
bring about the reordering of world affairs altogether.
But is this new world order possible? If yes, what would it look like?
These questions, and others, remain unanswered, at least for now. What we know,
however, is that the Russian quest for global transformation exceeds Ukraine by
far, and that China, too, is on board.
While Russia and China remain the foundation of this new world order,
many other countries, especially in the Global South, are eager to join. This
should not come as a surprise as frustration with the unilateral US-led world
order has been brewing for many years, and has come at a great cost. Even the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, though timid at
times, has warned against this unilaterality, calling instead on the international community to commit itself to
“the values of multilateralism and diplomacy for peace.”
However, the pro-Russian stances in the South – as indicated by
the refusal of many governments to join western sanctions on Moscow, and the
many displays of popular support through protests, rallies and statements – for
the moment, lack a cohesive narrative because of the absence of a leader, such as
Brasil. Unlike the Soviet Union of yesteryears, Russia of today does not
champion a global ideology, like socialism, and its current attempt at
articulating a relatable global discourse remains, for now, limited.
It is obviously too early to examine any kind of superstructure – language, political institutions, religion, philosophy, etc –
resulting from the Russia-NATO global conflict, Russia-Ukraine war and the
growing Russia-China affinity.
Though much discussion has been dedicated to the establishing of an
alternative monetary system, in the case of Lavrov’s and Yi’s new world order,
a fully-fledged substructure is yet to be developed.
New substructures will only start forming once the national currency of
countries like Russia and China replace the US dollar, alternative money
transfer systems, like CIPS, are put into effect, new trade routes are open,
and eventually new modes of production replace the old ones. Only then,
superstructures will follow, including new political discourses, historical
narratives, everyday language, culture, art and even symbols.
The thousands of US-western sanctions slapped on Russia were largely
meant to weaken the country’s ability to navigate outside the current
US-dominated global economic system. Without this maneuverability, the West
believes, Moscow would not be able to create and sustain an alternative
economic model that is centered around Russia.
US previous unlawful sanctions on Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran,
Venezuela and others have failed to produce the coveted ‘regime change’, but
they have succeeded in weakening the substructures of these societies, denying
them the chance to be relevant economic actors at a regional and international
stage. They were merely allowed to subsist, and barely so.
Russia, on the other hand, is a global power, with a large economy,
international networks of allies, trade partners and supporters. That in mind,
surely a regime change will not take place in Moscow any time soon, unless there
is a military putsch to push the war further. The latter’s challenge, however,
is whether it will be able to orchestrate a sustainable paradigm shift under
current USA’s pressures and sanctions.
The Kremlin believes so.
Time will tell.
For now, it is certain that some kind of a global transformation is taking place, along with the potential of a ‘new world order’, a term, ironically employed by the US government more than any other…
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário