Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Assessments, Implications, Prospects
On October 26, 2024, the Center for International and Regional Studies (CIRS) at Georgetown University in Qatar (GU-Q) hosted a one-day conference in collaboration with the Gulf Studies Center at Qatar University titled “Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Assessment, Implications, and Prospects.” This conference brought together leading international and regional experts to discuss the Russian invasion of Ukraine, its implications for the existing international order, and various global perspectives on the war.
The first panel, “Consequences of the War: Impact on Key International Players,” shed light on the Ukrainian, Russian, European, and American perspectives. The panelists argued that since the very beginning of its outbreak, this war has turned into an unprecedented humanitarian tragedy. From day one, Russia has been attacking civilian and energy infrastructure. And yet, nearly three years after the invasion started, the spirit of resistance in Ukraine remains strong, and rebuilding efforts have already begun. Meanwhile, the outcome of the war in Ukraine will have an immense impact on the security of Europe and the West. While saying this, the panelists emphasized the important role of NATO as the primary security force in Europe. However, they also acknowledge the existence of heavy resistance among its members against Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty.
Another important topic discussed during the first panel was related to the US foreign policy towards Ukraine, which has had a complicated evolution since Ukraine gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In the 1990s, Kyiv became the third largest recipient of aid from the US, which was largely provided to dismantle the Soviet-era nuclear infrastructure. Yet, in the first years of Ukraine’s independence, the US failed to offer security commitments, even though the Russian threat was omnipresent. Even in the 2000s, when Ukraine contributed forces to US-led military operations, reciprocal security commitments remained elusive. Following the 2022 invasion, it became increasingly clear that the Western powers had overestimated Russia’s military capabilities. Hence, the US strategic objectives focused on deterrence and weakening Russia. While the American politicians repeat the ‘Ukraine must win’ mantra, real US support for Ukraine has still been limited. Moreover, while in Russia’s view, the Western block of Ukraine supporters is led by the US, the US authorities, on the contrary, are trying to disengage from Europe. According to the conference panelist, since before the 2024 presidential elections, the US has been caught between its desire to pivot toward China (seeing the war in Ukraine as a destructing factor) and Europe’s demands for continued engagement (that was bringing the US back to the Ukraine support). The Trump victory in the 2024 Presidential election could be a turning point in the US approach to the conflict.
The first panel also paid attention to the analysis of Russia’s internal dynamics. The participants acknowledged that, despite the initial expectations, Russia’s economic growth in the war years was steady, allowing the Kremlin to fund its military operations in Ukraine. Over the last three years, Moscow succeeded in maintaining a semblance of normalcy, channeling investments into infrastructure and suppressing dissent domestically. However, as the war approaches its fourth year, the situation is becoming more challenging for the Kremlin. Sustaining public and elite support may prove challenging for Putin. Recently, the Kremlin even ramped up efforts to mobilize domestic society more directly. This shift raises questions about whether the general public and the elites will continue backing Putin’s strategy.
The following panel discussion, “Russia’s War in Ukraine and the impact on the Global South,” centered around understanding Central Asian, Chinese, African, and South American responses to the war in Ukraine. The Central Asian societies reacted immediately to support Ukraine, lending social support through public meetings and collecting humanitarian aid. Kazakhstan took an interesting position. Even though the country has a significant ethnic Russian population and has security and economic agreements with Russia, the Kazakh president met with Putin and declared that his country would never support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Other Central Asian countries took a more neutral stance to safeguard their interests, as some of these countries substantially rely on remittances from Russia.
According to the panelists, at the strategic level, China benefits greatly from the current global order as it favors China’s growing economic role. Historically, China’s foreign policy was independent and cautious, but that is starting to shift. While China’s Belt and Road initiative initially aligned with the existing global order, the Chinese approaches might evolve as Beijing seeks a greater role in the international arena. China and Russia share a vision that offers an alternative global order based on development-driven security. However, China’s alignment with Russia is proving to be a burden for Beijing rather than an opportunity, especially with North Korea’s involvement in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Russia is ‘inserting’ itself into relations between Pyongyang and Beijing, disrupting the Chinese sphere of influence, which poses a threat to China.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has drawn varied responses from Sub-Saharan Africa and South America. Russia’s political emphasis on stability over democratization resonates with many African leaders. This has created favorable conditions for Russia in Africa in the short and medium term. However, the long-term outlook remains uncertain as emotional responses primarily drive current support. African nations generally maintain a desire to cooperate with all international parties.
South America’s response has been shaped by the region’s strong commitment to peace, though the overall response is largely fragmented. The prevalence of center-left governments has led to some reluctance to fully align with the US global agenda (i.e., to support Ukraine). However, this does not necessarily translate to support for Russia. The region’s approach to the war is shaped by its opposition to territorial integrity violations, unilateral sanctions (viewed as harming populations rather than states), transfer of weapons, and military involvement.
The third and final panel was titled “Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine from the Middle Eastern and Gulf Perspective(s).” The conflict has amplified pre-existing regional trends, with Arab states viewing it as an opportunity to expand their relations with various global powers. This stance is also hard to call pro-Russian. While the Arab League has maintained a neutral position in this war, individual Arab states have consistently voted against Russia in United Nations resolutions. Notably, the Arab states have managed to insulate their bilateral relationships with the US and Russia, ensuring the conflict did not damage their ties with either, allowing them to benefit from their position within the emerging shadow order. However, the conflict has also exposed significant socio-economic vulnerabilities in the region, particularly regarding food security. Interestingly, this war has allowed countries in the Middle East to assume a mediating role in Europe, marking a significant shift in the global order. However, military alignment with the US continues to impose certain limitations on their approach.
The conflict has accelerated Gulf states’ pre-existing moves toward economic self-reliance and diversification. The Gulf states have substantially increased their exports to the European Union, especially in oil, food, and various other products, while maintaining and even growing their hydrocarbon trade relationships with Russia post-2022. The region has emerged as a key intermediary in global trade flows, with some European countries routing their Russian trade through intermediaries.
The normative impact of the war has been particularly significant in the Arab world. While the US framed the Ukraine conflict as a litmus test for the Western global order, Middle Eastern countries viewed it more as a European regional security issue. As the events in Ukraine and Gaza unfold simultaneously, many in the region view this as international double standards in responding to similar situations. Principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity have been the basis for condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, the same standards are not applied to Israel as it continues to expand its illegal settlements and kill Palestinian civilians. Hence, the region’s neutrality in Russia’s war on Ukraine highlights a broader desire to shift away from a Western and Euro-centric global power structure.
Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine has become the catalyst for a qualitative change of tone in the Russian-Iranian dialogue, bringing the two states closer together. This step-change in Russian-Iranian relations was not solely prompted by the war in Ukraine. Various factors prepared the ground for this change, including Russia’s unprecedentedly high level of confrontation with the West, the pressure of sanctions on both the Russian and Iranian economies, Putin’s ‘turn to the east’ strategy, the dim prospects of the JCPOA, the rise of conservatives in Iran, and the growing chemistry between the power circles of the two countries. The war in Ukraine has forced Russia into a position of dependence on Iran for arms. This puts Tehran on a more equal footing in their relationship, and nudges the bilateral dialogue closer to becoming an axis than before. However, the long-term ‘durability’ of this change is still in question due to a considerable number of issues that the two countries need to settle.
Considering Turkey’s geo-strategic location, it has emerged as a critical actor. While it has condemned Russian aggression and deepened military cooperation with Ukraine even during the time of the conflict, it continues to maintain ties with Russia in other areas, which puts stress on its relations with Western partners.
When addressing the issue of the end-game scenario in Ukraine, there was an emerging consensus among the panelists that a purely military victory for Ukraine may be unrealistic. The focus has shifted toward leveraging diplomatic tools, including discussions of Ukraine joining NATO and negotiations over long-range weapons. Though this war is situated in Europe, it has had global consequences. From a security perspective, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has revealed that the post-Cold War security order is collapsing. This transition to a new security order, one that is more multipolar, is marked by the US’s declining unilateral hegemony and a change in Europe’s role in the world.
To watch full panel videos please visit our YouTube channel
Article written by CIRS Research Assistant, Maheen Elahi (Class of ’25)