Clear-cut divisions or alliances many anticipate unlikely

World politics is at a crossroads, throwing the international order born after WWII at stake. The war has proved the fragility of lasting peace. The Russian invasion in Ukraine brings forth a serious concern – what impact will it have on world politics?

Will we have a more polarised world where countries will be forced to take sides? Will Russia and China develop into an axis? Will Nato be withdrawing or increasing its military presence?

All of this depends on the outcome of the war. No party has yet made concessions except Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky saying that Ukraine would not join the Nato.

Throughout history, we have seen multiple powers exist at the same time. Only after the Second World War did we see for the first time a bipolar order. The ideological division of the world – based on the differences between capitalism and communism – is a thing of the past.

In the present, factions and divisions are being borne on the basis of geopolitics – and that too depends much on the economic capabilities and concerns of a state. If the invasion of Ukraine bears any fruit for the Kremlin, then we will face a certain kind of reality, as opposed to the reality we will face if Russia fails to secure victory.

Then there is a possibility of a stalemate, which, however, will be the worst-case scenario for the Ukrainians.

If the invasion pays off, we will see multiplier effects. The only division that exists now is based on the ruling system. The autocratic system will gain the upper hand over the West – a collective term for countries that have democratic governance, rule of law, free-market economy etc.

The conflict in Ukraine has also put the spotlight on Taiwan-China relations. Apprehensions grow among the Taiwanese, and the self-governing island is on high alert.

After the Ukraine invasion, people are making the assumption that the world will be divided into two poles. An apparent division of the world might resurface; it will be much softer than the past ones. But without ideology, it will be a loose one.

But again, one must not overlook the fact that Russia and China are as capitalist as the West. The only significant difference is their ruling pattern – the mechanism through which their leaders are chosen.

If an axis or alliance is to be forged, there needs to be some incentives. The question is, an alliance for what purpose? If the purpose is economic development (not based on any ideology), China would not benefit economically from a relationship with Russia.

Think about the flurry of sanctions and the consequences of those. Even China or the other countries who pose as neutral will hardly dare to break sanctions. The Russian economy is spiralling into a deep crisis. We are watching dark projections, for instance: Russia's imminent default.

Moreover, you have to remember that the Russian economy is not modern; they are essentially based on natural resources – exporting oil and gas.

China is the second-largest economy in the world. They have achieved this position by doing business with the West. The West and China being dependent on each other, the latter would not risk being abandoned by the former.

So, a world of clear-cut divisions or alliances many are anticipating seems unlikely.

There is much discussion going on that the Russian war on Ukraine may provide some incentives for China to launch military action in Taiwan. What to consider here is whether the move will be helpful or harmful for China.

It is highly unlikely that Beijing will adopt brute force. The Chinese are reluctant at direct military confrontation. In addition, China is more connected to the global economy and vice versa.

In my opinion, China will be very careful about the reaction of the international community.

The Kremlin has miscalculated the Western response. The outcome of the Ukraine invasion will decide the matter. Ukraine is a certain loser – in terms of deaths and destruction. But this does not mean that Russia is any closer to victory. Russian will feel the pain.

Nato is a voluntary and defensive organisation. Russia has made its neighbours feel insecure. It is now obvious why the Eastern European countries joined, and the others wanted to join. The Kremlin failed to incentivise its former satellites, and instead threatened them.

Russia has never respected the freedom of its neighbours. Some examples are the Soviet repression of the Hungarian revolution in 1956, Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, Russia attacking Georgia in 2008, and annexing Crimea in 2014 while backing separatists in the Donbas region. The fear is justified among the Eastern European countries.

Before 24 February, whatever the chance was of keeping Kyiv away from NATO is now lost. Now they are more willing than ever to join Nato. In Ukraine, Easterners are mostly Russian-speaking, for example, in Kharkiv. Following the devastation in this region, no love can exist now.

Whether Ukraine will join Nato or not, or is it really possible to go – that's another topic. Even Nato will probably not accept them so as not to provoke Russia. But Ukraine will likely join the European Union, with the process underway.

War has accelerated some more Eastern European countries' Nato membership. Scandinavian countries are pondering about joining Nato. Russia has advanced the process and reignited Nato. That means their policy is backfiring.

But I would not provide any final assessment. We do not know if Russia, the West or Ukraine will compromise or not, and if they do, then to what extent. These are still open questions. But one thing is sure: you cannot control anyone with brute force. Instead, you have to provide incentives – which Nato does.

Humayun Kabir, former ambassador