“The world order is changing: why the old laws no longer work and how Ukraine can maintain subjectivity in the new era of global power politics.”, — write: www.pravda.com.ua
It is the Westphalian model of the world, where sovereignty equals territory and borders are sacred and inviolable, that has been the foundation of our civilization for nearly four centuries.
We are used to believing in axioms. For example, one territory is one state, where the state has an exclusive monopoly on violence. Or, international recognition is binary – that is, you are either on the world map or you are not.
Advertising:
At one time, the United Nations became an institutional embodiment of this logic, where the list of “real” states actually coincided with the list of UN members. But today this foundation is not just cracking – it is crumbling before our eyes.
We will have to admit that the Westphalian world has died, and the UN is increasingly resembling a majestic, but completely helpless monument to an era that has gone into oblivion. We are entering an era where formal recognition weighs less than real subjectivity.
Anatomy of a crisis The modern political map of the world has long been out of line with school textbooks. Officially, we have 193 members of the UN, but the objective reality is much more complicated. The world has long been filled with “gray zones” and entities that exist outside the classical binary system. So, for example:
- The Vatican and Palestine are recognized states that are not members of the United Nations.
- Kosovo and Taiwan are partially recognized entities that have all the hallmarks of statehood, but lack full diplomatic status.
- Somaliland and Northern Cyprus are de facto states that legally “do not exist” but have been functioning for years.
The state, as a historical institution, is losing its monopoly on status. In addition to 193 “official” players, dozens of quasi-states, autonomous territories with constitutional autonomy appeared on the chessboard. And this is not to mention transnational corporations, whose influence on world events in some places seriously outweighs the influence of an average country.
In this new, complex world, the old rules of the game don’t just stop working, they become dangerous for those who continue to believe in them.
The Venezuelan precedent: the new legitimacy of force The case of Venezuela is not just another local conflict in Latin America. This is a tectonic shift in how the big players understand “legitimacy” from now on. We have witnessed the birth of a new form of global power politics, where traditional norms of international law are replaced by “targeted expediency”, often created in agreement with certain goals and strategies.
The main innovation of this form of global power politics is the combination of a kind of criminal law with justified military intervention. When state leaders are accused of drug trafficking or other crimes, it becomes a common tool for “criminal legitimization” of violent actions.
Now it doesn’t matter if the UN recognizes you as a sovereign ruler. It is important whether you are considered a “criminal element” by the world’s key power centers. This radically undermines the very essence of sovereignty as understood in the UN system.
Forceful intervention becomes the “correct tool” of politics, and international law is only a convenient – or inconvenient – decoration. The world is really divided and while the West itself partially approves such precedents as a way of establishing order, authoritarian regimes seem to receive a signal from it about the end of law as such.
The Great Polarization: Right vs. Power The case of Venezuela finally divided the world into three camps, and this division is not based on geographical borders, but on the attitude to the very essence of the international order:
- Western democratic world, which is in a difficult polar state – from partial approval of “regulating” to criticism of violation of procedures. For him, this is an attempt to find a way out of the impasse, when the old tools of diplomacy no longer stop dictators.
- Center-left forces, who strongly protest and see in this a return to the era of neo-colonialism and the “right of the strong”.
- Authoritarian regimes, who openly condemn the intervention, but not out of love for international law, but out of animal fear that the “Venezuelan scenario” (criminalization of the leader + forceful removal) could be applied to them tomorrow as well.
We are witnessing a dangerous “normalization” of forceful interventions as a standard policy tool. In a world where major powers (the US versus the bloc of China, Russia and Iran) are increasingly ignoring the UN Charter, escalation is only a matter of time.
Therefore, the fate of Venezuela becomes a symbol of a new era, where justice is determined not in courtrooms, but through the effectiveness of missile strikes and special operations.
Iran, Denmark (Greenland), Mexico, Colombia, Panama are such different countries, but becoming the object of interest of a strong player, they may lose their subjectivity, part of their sovereignty, or even more – become the object of direct aggression.
What does this mean for Ukraine? For us, this geopolitical crisis is not just a theory. It is a matter of survival. The key lessons of the Venezuelan precedent for Ukraine are as follows:
Lesson #1: Internationally recognized borders are not a shield. For years, we appealed to the Budapest Memorandum and the UN Charter. But in the “post-Westphalian” world, a piece of paper with a seal weighs only as much as the power behind its protection.
If borders are no longer sacred to the big players in Latin America, they will not be so in Central Europe.
Lesson #2: Sovereignty as subjectivity. In the 21st century, sovereignty is not a right that is given to you, but an ability that you prove. We have to stop being a helpless object on whose territory others “negotiate”.
Ukraine must build its own subjectivity through technological superiority, military power and integration into new security alliances that have “teeth”.
Lesson #3: New alliances instead of old illusions. The UN is under enormous pressure and will probably not survive this transformation in its current form. We need to look not just for “deep concern”, but for concrete security agreements with countries that are ready to operate under the conditions of a new force policy.
Sovereignty 2.0 We stand on the ruins of the old world. The Westphalian system, which had held the balance for more than 350 years, had exhausted itself. Today, the state is not only a flag, an anthem and a place in the UN. This is primarily the ability to protect one’s physical and digital space, one’s economy and one’s human capital in conditions where the rules of the game change kaleidoscopically.
Ukraine cannot afford to simply wait for the “big players” to agree on a new world order. Especially since the new world order may turn out to be the “New Yalta” in the format of Core5 (USA, China, Japan, India, Russia). We have the right – and must now choose this role – to be among those who write the new rules. Our experience of war, survival, and adaptability in an era of collapsing international institutions is not just unique—it is cor existing in today’s conditions for many states.
A new system is becoming a reality, where security is not guaranteed by declarations, but by the ability to quickly repel an aggressor and technological solidarity.
Ukraine can become the Next Big Thing – a new opportunity for the democratic world, as the only country capable of resisting, defending Western civilization and its values. Stability should be expected in “Rotten Deal” type scenarios. Peace in the conditions of the global law of force is the ability to make war unreasonably expensive for the aggressor.
Andriy Dligach, Doctor of Economics, head of Advanter Group, head of Kyiv Foresight Foundation, global ambassador of Singularity University, professor at Taras Shevchenko KNU
A column is a type of material that reflects exclusively the point of view of the author. It does not claim objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic in question. The point of view of the editors of “Economic Pravda” and “Ukrainian Pravda” may not coincide with the author’s point of view. The editors are not responsible for the reliability and interpretation of the given information and perform exclusively the role of a carrier.