As of February of 2022, continually growing tensions between Russia and Ukraine have gathered global attention. Despite preemptive economic punishments from the international community, Russia continued to make threatening advances on Ukraine. Early Thursday morning on the 24th, Russia moved forward to invade Ukraine, effectively declaring war. The international community swiftly responded by strengthening the sanctions on Russian financial institutions and corporations, as well as imposing sanctions on Belarus for supporting Russia. These have devastated the Russian economy in the short period of time they have been in place, but it doesn’t seem to be stopping Russian advances.
The escalating conflict in Ukraine has caused nations and their leaders to take sides on the issue, contributing to public panic and the pressing question: is this the start of World War Three? With countries running to take sides, it may feel like it: but the short answer is no, probably not. Because Ukraine is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the rest of the organization does not have to invoke the collective defense clause known as Article 5. This Article states that an armed attack against any NATO member will be treated as an attack against ALL 30 members- a quick path to a world war.
Many democracies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, India, and other members of NATO are siding with Ukraine, while the countries siding with Russia tend to be much more authoritarian. They tentatively include China, Myanmar, Venezuela, and others- although most nations that lean towards supporting Russia are hesitant to do so blatantly. They tend to blame NATO for allowing this to happen. It is a tricky balance for many of Russia’s allies to decide whether to join many of the western powers in fighting against the war or to face international consequences for defending an ally- hence many of the nations remaining on the fence.
This is a war of ideas. This is an attack not just on Ukraine, but on democracy. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has slowly but surely been moving towards a more liberal democracy structured government, while Russia has run rampant with corruption in its so-called “democratic” practices.
Some might argue that this attack was a violation of Democratic Peace Theory (DPT). This theory predicts that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other democracies. It typically holds true for a number of reasons, but the most prominent reason is that it tends to be more beneficial for the involved administrations to negotiate than to obtain support from the population and the rest of the government. Democratic institutions are a balancing act, while an authoritarian’s power is unchecked. Russia and Ukraine both identify themselves as democracies, so why did the institutions of democracy not prevent this attack from occurring?
The truth is that neither country is a full democracy, and therefore the social pressures of the theory do not apply. Ukraine did not conduct elections in many of their territories in 2020 and has also been criticized for cases of vote-buying. Yet as a whole, the country largely functions under democratic principles, which Russia has a blatant disregard for. Russia’s constitution declares itself to be a democratic republic, but in practice, it is quite the opposite. Russia performs a charade of the democratic process under the careful watch of its authoritarian figurehead. Freedom House awarded Russia 0 out of 12 points in the “Electoral Process.” category in their 2021 evaluation of political rights and civil liberties. In contrast, Ukraine earned 9 of 12 Electoral Process points.
So, what is the likelihood of a third world war happening because of this? Some think it is likely: US Representative Michael McCaul and the former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko have expressed that it is a possibility. But ultimately, the chances of this conflict going global are low. Unless Russia makes a direct attack against NATO, World War 3 is unlikely.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence will play a large role in the declaration, or lack thereof, of a world war. Although the previously mentioned Article 5 of NATO has been invoked, it has never been invoked on a nuclear power before. Nuclear weapons were just beginning to be understood during World War 2; now having a handful of nuclear states changes the global dynamic. Nuclear weapons act as not only a deterrent to use other nuclear weapons, but they sometimes act as a deterrent to declaring war. Declaring war on a nuclear state such as Russia opens the door for the possibility of a nuclear strike, almost surely leading to nuclear retaliation. Putin has threatened that any country that interferes will face “consequences greater than any you have faced in history,” raising concern about nuclear weapons. But ultimately, as a rule of thumb, using nuclear weapons comes with stakes so high that the chances of going through with the strike tend to be extremely low. Nuclear deterrence may be democracy’s saving grace.
Hi Julia! Great post. I do agree with your opinion, and hopefully it ends up being true. I think the Russia-Ukrainian war poses a bigger threat to democracy’s institutions, rather than militarily. Putin’s attempt to destroy Ukraine’s democracy is essentially a fear tactic in response to the established post World War Two international order. He fears that if democracy can prevail in a state of Russian descent then his autocratic regime is jeopardized, thus his irrational attacks.
Like you’ve also mentioned, Ukraine is still a fairly new democracy with unstable institutions to efficiently reinforce democratic growth. Therefore, in the case that Ukraine becomes annexed, it would show that authoritarianism still has a place in the 21st century, potentially jeopardizing the U.S.’s position in the international hierarchy with two rising authoritarian powers now vastly mobilizing. This war truly shows the persistent struggle between democracy and autocracy. However, it’s also encouraging to see the rallying support for Ukraine, especially by other states in Europe. The international arena’s commitment to democracy is more important and apparent now than ever to halt the chip in Russia’s shoulder and reclaim the spread of democracy. However, as the war ravages on, I think the question still waiting to be answered is: how much farther will Russia go to deter and destroy the expansion of democracy?
The collapse of the Russian invasion is somewhat indicative of the overall state of Russian politics in general. Most notably here is the idea of “negative selection”, the thesis of which is that authoritarians, constantly feeling a sense of insecurity from even their own subordinates, tend to favor incompetent people in choosing who they might fill their ranks. Constantly fearing their own deposition above all else, the leader chose those people based on perceived threat than they do actual competency. This tends to have a knock on effect in hierarchies of power: the despot feels insecure towards his henchmen, the henchmen feel insecure about their subordinates, who in turn feel insecure about those below as well. Over time this has the effect of severely deteriorating the organization’s effectiveness. Here we can see this in the Russian military, with soldiers deserting their ranks, officers losing equipment, and generals making ill conceived advances that leave their men stranded without equipment or resources. War, the realist may contend, is the strongest tool a state may utilize in pursuance of their goals. Failure to effectively wield war however, especially in autocracies built and maintained by violence, may see it’s will to power come in to question by its constituents. Moving forward I am particularly interested in seeing how the Russian population’s popular response to the war evolves as Russian soldiers continue to die in a war promulgated by a despot.