The bear and the nightingale: The Russo-Ukrainian broken brotherhood

By Ralph Romulus Frondoza, IDSC Research Associate

“It was indeed a war,” set on stone by all the experts in the recently concluded fifth global forum by the International Development and Security Cooperation (IDSC) on the ‘Russia-Ukraine War: Global Security Implications’ through their balanced and in-depth analyses on how Eastern Europe, Northeast, and Southeast Asia observe the on-going conflict between Kyiv and Moscow.

IDSC’s moderator, Zhea Katrina Estrada, delivered a short yet incisive take on Russia’s special military operations in Ukraine and emphasized the distinct ways on viewing the catastrophe― through the eyes of Russian security forces who see it as an active defense in their country. Although, Ukrainians shared by the international community realize Russia’s aggression as an all-out invasion that started in Crimea’s annexation in the winter of 2014.

Palacky University Olomouc’s Dr. Hynek Melichar boldly branded the human-induced conflict as a “war” that has forced thousands of Ukrainian refugees, including women and children, escaping the bloody war-fighting and fleeing to Scandinavian and Eastern European countries. He stalwartly remarked that Russia’s unilateral actions infringed Ukrainians’ sovereignty and directly violated the international law. His arguments were supported by the conflict rooted to the late 90’s breakup of the Soviet Union, bringing national humiliation and loss of influence similar to the Weimar Republic in post-World War 1. The intersection of these events gave birth to the architect of Russia’s newfound aggression, Vladimir Putin.

Prof. Melichar surmised that there is a need to go deeper into understanding the mind of the Russian President and his supporters. Stating the need to move beyond Mearsheimer’s and other neo-realist scholars’ rhetorics, and to focus on Russia’s geopolitical inclination to expand westward. These raison d'être may arise a testament to the insidious aim of the Russian invasion of Ukraine―described as a blitzkrieg to immediately topple the Zelinski administration.

It was also pointed out Putin’s two-pronged miscalculation: Firstly, the overestimation of the Russian military capabilities for a rapid mass invasion. Secondly, the underestimation of average Ukrainians’ will to resist occupation. Consequently, this monumental bungle can now be seen in the brutal battleground of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Reiterating the call for justice for war crimes perpetrated by the onslaught of Russian security forces.

He further warned that Russia is still a nuclear power, and if may illogically provoked, the escalated conflict serves as a wake-up call for Europe, known for a continent of wars in the past to a continent of cooperation at present until Russia’s invasion to its neighbor. However, many spectators have come to realize the European Union’s (EU) “toothless” response to the war.

More so, Dr. Melichar stressed the importance of revisiting the EU’s debate on having its standing army and by increasing its defense spending to respond to a possible continental European war in the 21st century.

Bayartsengel Bartjargal of the National University of Mongolia analyzed the impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in Northeast Asia. His narrative began with the origins of the Mongolian sovereignty in the early 20th century. He linked the 1911 Manchu dynasty collapse to the 1915 abolishment of Mongolian independence to 1921 Bolsheviks and Mongolian communists; and the retaking of the country from China has paved the way to what is now the modern Republic of Mongolia.?

As Mongolia is sandwiched by Russia and China, the historical connection depicted decades of turmoil where Mongolia's neighboring regional power conflict with Moscow and Beijing has influenced the country's fate.

“We were one of the countries that abstained,” said Bayart, on the United Nations General Assembly Special Session to vote for the condemning of Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

He elucidated that almost all oil and petrol come from Russia, while all economic trade of the country goes through China. Putting the country at an impasse both politically and economically as it recovers from the pandemic. Bayart cited an example where the sudden border restriction of China due to its pandemic response, crippled the export of Mongolia’s main product of coal and copper.

Now with current war and eventual sanction that Russia has incurred, Mongolia’s economic recovery lies in jeopardy. In this reality, Bayart deemed that Mongolia and East Asia will have to choose sides in the ongoing conflict, as Japan and South Korea strongly support the economic sanctions given to Russia by the international community.

In the South and Southeast Asian front, IDSC’s Don McLain Gill began his analysis on the effects of the short and long-term impacts of the Russia-Ukraine crisis on the region. The historic increase in fuel prices and inflation rates brought about by the conflict will negatively impact the states in the region in the short term, especially the energy-hungry emerging markets, such as the Philippines.

Gill added, “they (South and Southeast Asian countries) worry that the further exacerbation and aggravation of the situation may come to their detriment, particularly their developmental capabilities,” referring to the likely negative impact on the region's post-pandemic recovery initiatives.

In the longer perspective, China’s supportive stance to a more aggressive Russia creates another dimension of fear in the region. Going as far as to question on the statehood of Ukraine, it further complicated the tension between Southeast Asian nations which China has territorial disputes with.

In the context of a regional organization, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) called for maximum restraint and adherence to international law, and territorial integrity in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Gill also reiterated the necessity of calibrating the political and economic calculus in a more strategic geopolitical view as the dynamics of security and trade between the ASEAN nations vis-à-vis Russia is highly asymmetrical, with only Singapore as has the least linkages militarily and economically.

South Asia’s India-Pakistan-Bangladesh abstaining in the UN General Assembly Resolution has strongly supported the observation of international law as it symbolically showed the region pursues for a more balanced approach in resolving channels through negotiations and concessions.

In the final part of the forum, IDSC’s Joshua Espena shed light on the Philippine-Russia relations in the context of the Ukrainian conflict. He began with the question on the impression of the Filipino people to the ongoing special military operation of Russia in Ukraine and its implication on bilateral relations. He added that the answers to the questions can be found in the three determining factors namely: the PH-US alliance, the “China” challenge, and the 2022 National elections.??

The confluence of the three factors has shown that the Philippines-Russia relations will unlikely fall from heights as Russia’s soft power approach had ineffectively pervaded Philippine society thereby unsuccessfully influencing the opinions of the country’s institutions. He strongly stated that “because of this ongoing war, Russia has burned bridges.” And the fallout will be seen in the further decrease of Russian soft power in the country which was unformidable to begin with.

On the political domestic front, Espena pointed out, “after President Duterte would get out of the presidency by June this year, the relationship would still work…and will still progress, albeit limited and modest, because of the seismic changes in the international system.” He argued that the conflict in Ukraine will not be a major variable in the decline of Russia-Philippines relations, because the gains of the initiatives to transform public perception towards Russia were relatively mediocre.

In the closing remarks, IDSC’s founder and president Dr. Chester Cabalza synthesized the experts’ insights with a simple yet definitive quote, “nobody wins in war.”

He further pointed out that the Russia-Ukrainian war is not just a “conflict of a regional hegemon against Ukraine” calling it “the mother of Russ cities”, emphasizing its significance in global trade and economics. With the country being a major exporter of wheat, rich recoverable deposits of uranium ore, and shale gas, among others―this has resulted in a large-scale humanitarian crisis, effects on oil prices, and the threat of nuclear war―all under the shadow of a world recovering from the impacts of a pandemic that paved a way to the prism of Philippinedization.

Dr. Cabalza has defined Philippinedization as “the process of whereby a weaker state backed by a powerful country goes through great lengths in temporarily refraining from opposing a neighboring great power by resorting to economic and diplomatic reproaches in the strategic level, but strengthening its national security structure in the operational level, with an eye for a potential conflict in a foreseeable future.”

In a crisis as complex and as expansive as the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, it needs think tanks to effectively articulate its basic causes and consequences to the everyday life of an average person. As though this is one of the major conflicts of the 21st century, this certainly will not be the last.??