CIDOB, the Barcelona Center for International Affairs, recently released in Barcelona its 2023 perspective on the war in Ukraine and its consequences. The analysis, led by Pol Morillas, examines how this conflict has reshaped the current international order and what that means for global governance.
They describe the crisis as part of a pattern they call a permanent crisis. What does that phrase imply?
It signals that crises unfold in sequences. Often there are structural drivers behind international crises. Crises carry a spark of destruction, they ignite, develop, and push the world through the aftermath. Crises connect over time, recur, and affect highly interconnected systems that cannot be treated in isolation. When the war is viewed alongside the food crisis in Ukraine, the link is clear. When climate change intersects with the Covid era, the interdependence is evident, as ecosystems degrade and pressures mount. This accumulation creates a sense that crises have become a normal state, fueling anxiety and a perception that global life is precarious.
Is the world truly deadly?
Death and danger exist, yes. Yet when concrete measures are examined, many indicators have improved compared with a century ago. Life expectancy has risen, infant mortality has fallen, and millions have escaped extreme poverty. That is the macro picture. On the ground, however, inequalities rise, security feels unsettled, prices climb, and the risk of escalation remains. The long view shows a dangerous horizon shaped by climate risks and gaps in global governance. Existing frameworks respond slowly, or not at all, to urgent needs on hand.
What about climate change and the future of energy—could there be a retreat to coal or nuclear power?
Transitions reveal tensions. The path to emissions neutrality requires several steps, and there is broad agreement on the trajectory, even as urgency grows. The immediate priority is to secure warmth in winter and keep industry running. The question is what energy sources can fill the gap. Renewables are not yet sufficient. Germany’s past choice to rely on Russian gas was an economic decision aimed at boosting competitiveness, yet it carried strategic risks. If power dips, and renewables are unavailable, coal plants return online. Russia understood Europe was in transition but now wields greater leverage. The energy puzzle remains a central constraint in policy choices.
And as Europe bears the brunt, Russia appears to weather sanctions more than initially anticipated.
In the short term, sanctions have dampened economic activity and constrained Russian influence, but they have not forced a fundamental shift in Moscow. Sanctions function as coercive tools, yet a single actor can adapt through alternatives, especially with global trade routes and partners willing to absorb or reinterpret the effects. The broader remedy lies in geopolitics and a careful reconsideration of the international order, not simply in punitive measures. The answer involves a complex mix of state strategies, interdependence, and structural reform across the system.
How has Ukraine affected the international order itself?
Historically, the conflict is as much about the order as it is about the battlefield. It unfolds at a moment when powers hold divergent views on the rules, norms, and institutions that govern global relations. The transatlantic axis—led by the United States and Europe—seeks a stable order with them as central actors and influencers, a posture reinforced by NATO. Russia is openly revisionist and uses force to challenge structures it deems unfair. China aims to protect its interests and benefit from global value chains, seeking influence without shattering the system entirely. Other players—Turkey, Brazil, Japan, and the European Union—also want a voice in a multipolar world and a say in how the order evolves.
Some speak of a return to Cold War dynamics. Is that accurate?
That framing misses nuance. The United States and China are increasingly interconnected, making a binary split unlikely. The era is not a straightforward U.S.–Soviet standoff. Technology, climate challenges, and supply chains tie powers together in ways that discourage total separation. The future order will likely feature contestation and collaboration in tandem rather than a clean divide.
Will Russia become a pariah on the world stage?
When Moscow lacks open support from partners like China, it risks greater isolation. Russia remains disruptive and dangerous to the stability of the system, but countries including China weigh their own strategic interests. While Moscow and Beijing may share an interest in revising the order, a unified shift that harms other big players is not guaranteed. China has not fully aligned with Russia, and its position in any widening conflict remains strategic and calibrated.
Could China play a decisive role?
China’s potential influence is significant. The Kremlin’s narrative has tied Western actions to a broader conflict, yet NATO did not seek direct involvement by alliance members in the war. Neither the West nor China sought an escalated confrontation that could draw additional powers in. China remains a key party in any future negotiation, and Europe will be watching closely how new dialogues unfold. Minsk-style arrangements may be outdated, and new forums will be needed to incorporate a wider set of actors and interests.
Is the Ukraine war a test of unity for the United States and Europe?
In the near term, consensus persisted: sanctions and arms shipments were coordinated, and Western structures were reinforced. Whether this unity becomes structural remains uncertain. Europe remains somewhat dependent on American security guarantees more than before, and the line between pro-Atlantic and pro-European security approaches has widened. The coming months will reveal how durable this alliance proves to be under shifting political leadership and changing strategic priorities.
What scenarios are likely if the focus remains on Ukraine?
The United States appears committed to supporting Ukraine’s counteroffensive and regaining momentum. Zelensky aims to press forward, while Russia seeks to consolidate some gains and avoid a decisive settlement. In this standstill, the appetite for negotiated peace is limited among key actors, making a quick peace unlikely. External leverage to force a settlement is constrained, and the trajectory suggests a continued struggle that could widen unless major shifts occur in strategy or circumstance. [Citation: CIDOB, 2023 Ukraine War Perspective]