Contours of the New World Order: “Diplomatic Variable Geometry”

The contours of the new world order are becoming more and more clear. It seems that the West has found a non-linear response to the increasingly complex global challenges

Volodymyr Shevchenko
Andrii Savarets

Exclusively by “Borysfen Intel”

The Global Transformation Manifesto is literally two months ahead of the global mainstream in its political assessment of several trends that were being practically implemented:

• a clear deep crisis of international institutions;
• political rather than economic factors are beginning to have a decisive influence on world processes;
• political factors, in turn, are determined by ideological values;
• there is a rapid consolidation of openly despotic (and now terrorist) regimes;
• widespread awareness that the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war will determine the future of the world for the next 80 years;
• the world security system that the West is building will be networked, multi-contour and multi-level.

***

The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine and the continuation of the war of aggression have not only exposed the ineffectiveness of international institutions that have emerged since 1945, but have also given rise to a paradox: a state that has challenged the entire global security system is a member of a body designed to ensure this security.

On September 19, 2023, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said at the General Assembly that many international institutions, such as the UN Security Council and the Bretton Woods system, are outdated, they reflect the realities of the colonial world.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly, US President Joe Biden also said that reform of the UN Security Council is necessary.

“We must demand more of the permanent members, including constraints on the use of the veto… Russia mocks the UN every day as it continues its illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine”, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong echoed the idea a few days later.

***

But here the international community faces three major challenges.

First — any attempts to reform the UN Security Council will be opposed by Russia and China.

Russia’s propaganda campaign of “pobedobesie” (“victory madness”, “victory mania” — Transl.) over the past few years is designed to prevent the revision of already ineffective international institutions, which allows the aggressor to sit on the UN Security Council, have the right of veto and influence world politics.

Second — the UN Security Council cannot be reformed, it can only be re-established. In other words, a new basic document is needed — in 1945 it was the UN Charter.

But it can be re-established only as a result of a powerful blow to the established system. Then it was World War II, now it is the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Third — newly created or reformed international institutions will suffer the fate of their predecessors if effective executive mechanisms are not implemented. Not only the UN Security Council is in a crisis, but also the UN as a whole and its structures (UNESCO, OCHA, etc.), as well as the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Trade Organization, the OSCE, etc.

The entire system of international cooperation is subject to revision.

***

In September-October 2023, three program materials were released, which largely echo the Manifesto:

– On September 13, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered a lecture at the George Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies;

– On October 19, US President Joe Biden addressed the nation, commenting on the events in Israel and Ukraine;

– On October 24, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s article “The Sources of American Power. A Foreign Policy for a Changed World” was published.

“What we’re experiencing now is more than a test of the post-Cold War order. It’s the end of it”, Antony Blinken said.

The US Secretary of State quite delicately singled out a period that covers only the last 30 years. In fact, the world order built as a result of World War II, which at least lasted for 80 years, collapsed.

And in this context, just like 80 years ago, the United States of America has taken the lead in reformatting the world order and the institutions that will embody it.

At the same time, a special role and functionality will be assigned to partners and allies.

The US Secretary of State added that “the United States is leading in this pivotal period from a position of strength… because we face challenges that no one country can address alone”.

On the other hand, as Jake Sullivan put it in his article: “…They (alliances) meant that Washington never had to go it alone”.

US President Joe Biden said, “American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances are what keep us, America, safe. American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with”.

In particular, America’s leadership is manifested in the fact that the United States has taken the lead in creating a new network (multi-contour and multi-level) global security system.

Antony Blinken called this diversity “diplomatic variable geometry” and explained how it works: “We start with the problem that we need to solve and we work back from there — assembling the group of partners that’s the right size and the right shape to address it. We’re intentional about determining the combination that’s truly fit for purpose… And the more coalitions we build, the more we can find new synergies between and among them — including in ways that we may not have fully anticipated”.

***

The authors of this article in the Global Transformation Manifesto pointed out that the new network international security system will have several contours (but not be limited to them):

• NATO;
• the European Union;
• Group of Seven;
• Group of Twenty;
• the Ramstein Coalition;
• regional unions;
• bilateral treaties;
• a coordinated situational response of several countries to a specific event.

The multi-contour nature of the new global security system gives a wide and deep choice of tools to resolve specific problems.

At the same time, at some stage, these contours will be institutionalized into more stable formats, but they are unlikely to merge into one organization like the UN.

As Jake Sullivan wrote about the institutions created after 1945: “…These alliances were built for a different era”.

It is not surprising that the new security system is being built in response to Russia’s aggression, which has finally destroyed the existing world security system.

Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi wrote in an article for The Economist: “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 provoked a global security crisis… The failure of multilateral bodies such as the UN and Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe to maintain order means that Ukraine can only restore its territorial integrity by military force”.

A new system will be built not instead of the old one, but “on top” of it.

There will be a flurry of activity of old international institutions until they finally wither away.

***

Institutionalization of New Formats.

At the NATO Vilnius Summit in July 2023, the G7 countries agreed on a framework document on security commitments for Ukraine.

To date, 30 countries have already joined the G7 declaration on long-term security commitments for Ukraine. Besides, Ukraine has begun negotiations on “security guarantees” with the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, France and Japan.

On November 8, 2023, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during the G7 ministerial meeting in Tokyo: “To put Ukraine on a solid foundation for next year, we must help Ukraine do four things at once:

• to keep fighting to win back Ukraine’s;
• to build a world-class military force;
• to kick-start economic recovery and growth;
• to accelerate the reform process to speed Ukraine’s path to the European Union and to attract investment”.

Within the Ramstein framework, the participating countries agreed the initiative to establish Capability Coalition. The main goal is to prepare the Ukraine’s Future Defense Forces. To this end, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine has identified 5 priority attention clusters:

• Air Defense;
• Artillery;
• Aviation;
• Navy;
• Armored vehicles.

Also within the Ramstein framework, Ukraine, Estonia and Luxembourg have launched an IT Coalition. Partner countries will be focused on delivering support to Ukraine’s Defense Forces in the area of IT, communications, and cyber security.

On October 28–29, 2023, Malta hosted the third meeting on Ukraine’s Peace Formula, which focused on issues of nuclear, food and energy security, as well as the release of prisoners of war and deportees and the restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

This is a continuation of the meetings in Copenhagen (15 countries participated) and Jeddah (43 countries). In Malta, the number of participants was 66, and it became known that Armenia participated in the meeting for the first time.

Despite the fact that China and Egypt did not participate in this meeting, in general, it is a very effective platform for involving the countries of the Global South in Ukraine’s Peace Formula.

As part of the institutionalization of new formats, the following instruments have already been created:

– European Peace Facility;

On March 22, 2021, the European Council adopted a decision establishing the European Peace Facility (EPF), an off-budget fund worth approximately €5 billion for the period 2021–2027. The stated goal of the EPF is to enhance the EU’s ability to prevent conflicts, build peace and strengthen international security.

– Defense Industries Alliance;

It was created following the results of the First International Forum of Defense Industries (DFNC1), which on September 29, 2023, brought together 252 companies from more than 30 countries producing a full range of weapons, military equipment, and defense systems. At the moment, 38 companies from 19 countries had joined the Defense Industries Alliance.

The only state that will participate in all the contours is the United States of America.

According to Jake Sullivan, “The United States’ alliances and partnerships with other democracies have been its greatest international advantage”.

Antony Blinken said: “At the core of our strategy is re-engaging, revitalizing, and reimagining our greatest strategic asset: America’s alliances and partnerships”.

There are several ideas in the new security system:

1. In most cases, it is the victim of aggression who must repulse aggression in the first place.

The task of partners and guarantors is to provide the defending country with everything necessary to repulse aggression, as well as to inflict maximum economic and political damage on the aggressor through collective efforts.

That is, to make the unleashed aggression a losing battle.

2. In some cases specified in multilateral and bilateral treaties, to take a direct part in repulsing the aggression.

3. Countries at high risk of becoming victims of aggression should be helped to preventively develop military capabilities that make the potential aggression pointless.

***

Economic Aspect of Global Changes.

In addition of the crisis of the international security institutions, the world trade system is experiencing a very serious crisis.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) began to stagnate even before Russia’s full-scale invasion, and the reason for this was a number of factors:

• Reduction of international trade barriers has begun to play into the hands of China, as a result of which the United States is increasingly resorting to protectionist measures;
• Free trade does not take into account the factor of values, in particular, the observance of what Antony Blinken called “universal human rights”. The global turn from the primacy of economics to the primacy of rational governance cancels the previously dominant classical approach of Adam Smith and Karl Marx;
• The WTO cannot prevent the proliferation of regional trade agreements. The quest to lead the world to global trade agreements that encompass all countries has proved to be an impossible goal.

Based on these factors, it can be assumed that the international trade architecture will also be multi-contour and multi-level.

The head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell, told The Guardian that “In 20 years, at the current trend, there will be three big countries in the world, China, India and the US. Each of these powers will be a $50tn economy, and the EU will be much less, about $30tn”.

These economies will represent the top level of international trade — macro-regional clusters:

• Conditional Western — a most high-tech, which will include the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, some European countries that are not members of the EU, as well as Japan and South Korea.

As the authors pointed out in the Global Transformation Manifesto, such categories as “unfriendly states”, “totalitarian despotic regimes”, “proxy countries”, etc., are beginning to determine international economic relations.

While in the case of global security the factor of values is taken as a criterion, in the case of trade this criterion will be supplemented by the technological effectiveness and environmental friendliness of the way of life.

Thus, the “conditionally Western” macro-cluster will get tools for protectionism of the internal contour, imposing duties on goods from macro-clusters where goods are produced using “dirty energy”, or human rights are not respected, or it is generally an unfriendly country.

“The coming era of competition will be unlike anything experienced before… We will make no apology in pushing back on unfair trade practices that harm American workers”, Jake Sullivan wrote in his article.

The reindustrialization of the USA and the EU does not mean the return of conventional “tyazhmash” (“heavy engineering” — Transl.) or mass production of consumer goods, but on the contrary, the construction of the high-tech enterprises with a minimum amount of harmful emissions.

In turn, the production capacities of the current technological order will be moved outside the cluster. This is an opportunity that Ukraine can seize.

• Chinese — a contender trying to catch up with the Western” cluster, which the latter will try to prevent in every possible way.
• Indian — most likely will revive and lead the “non-aligned movement” in political terms to any of the above-mentioned clusters, but will try to make money on trade with both and on the contradictions between them.

For objective reasons, it will gravitate towards closer cooperation with the “Western” cluster.

The middle level — regional trade and economic unions: the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the European Union, etc.

The lowest level — bilateral trade agreements.

***

Russia’s Aggression Against Ukraine — a Trigger for Radical Changes.

As Jake Sullivan wrote in his article: “…The United States was not committed by treaty to Ukraine’s defense, but if Russia’s aggression went unanswered, a sovereign state would be extinguished, and a message will be sent to autocrats around the world that might makes right”.

It should be noted that in case of Russia’s “non-defeat” in the war against Ukraine, a “despotic-terrorist” cluster will inevitably be formalized, to which all dictatorial and terrorist regimes and organizations are already gravitating. And the center of this “rogue cluster” will be Russia, which is what its current behavior on the world stage, including its economic and diplomatic efforts, is openly aimed at.

Again, due to objective trends, the “despotic-terrorist” cluster will act as a proxy force for the “Chinese” cluster, and will be used by the latter as a means of fighting competitors on the world stage.

Every and each day of delay in providing military aid to Ukraine gives despotic and terrorist regimes the necessary head start. United by common goals, objectives, methods of resolving them, and professed “values”, they already act as a single structure (not yet clearly formalizing themselves, but this is a matter of time).

The authors of this article have prepared a Petition to the US Congress asking the world community to support President Biden’s urgent budget request to fund America’s national security needs, to support its critical partners, including Israel and Ukraine.

Failure to understand that Russia’s aggression is not a local conflict, but an event that determines the direction of world history, will inevitably lead to the defeat of democracy around the world and to the irreversible loss of the leadership by the United States and the West (in the broadest sense) as a force directing the development of human civilization.

As Joe Biden’s said, “petty, partisan, angry politics” around the issue of aid to Ukraine could undermine American leadership in the face of existential threat.

About the Authors:
	Volodymyr Shevchenko, the former aide to the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Doctor of Philosophy
	Andrii Savarets, Chairman of the Center for Digital Economy Development