A panel discussion on the domino effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, organised by The University of the West Indies (UWI) last Friday (June 10), has examined the geopolitical and geostrategic implications of the conflict, which has dragged on for nearly four months. 

The symposium, the second in a series of UWI analyses of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict since March 2022, sought to answer several questions sparked internationally and across the Caribbean Basin. 

Among them:

1.  What prompted the war?  
2. Is it justified?  
3. Is it a “naked grab” for power? 
4. Does the invasion contravene international law and fundamental human rights? 
5. Would it trigger a third World War, with the bandwagoning of states alongside one camp or the other? 
6. Would it prompt the birth of other geopolitical and geostrategic alliances as in the last two World Wars and the Cold War? 
7. What is the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)? 
8. What are the implications for international trade and commerce? 
9. What are the implications for geostrategic interests and international politics? 
10. And finally, what are the geopolitical and geostrategic implications for the Caribbean?

According to Harriet Cross, British High Commissioner to Trinidad and Tobago, many of the ‘answers’ are blatantly obvious, as the crisis unfolding in Ukraine is Russia’s doing and was a premeditated act on an independent nation.

“Russia is entirely to blame for the bloodshed not only in Ukraine but for the waves of economic uncertainty [and] insecurity that are now washing across the world, including the Caribbean,” asserted the British envoy.

“Yes, Russia has committed war crimes. Yes, this is something for which they will be held responsible. That’s my starting point for this, that the global impact lays entirely at the door of Russia, and actually, that’s not only a position that the UK holds but there’s an enormous amount of international unity on this,” she said.

According to Cross, the March 2 resolution passed at the United Nations General Assembly was just one of several votes taken to condemn Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine, including the imposition of economic sanctions. 

Additionally, the Vladimir Putin-led superpower was stripped of its membership in the European Council and the UN Human Rights Council. Russian diplomats also have been expelled en masse throughout Europe, with the country being referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

She admitted that there were “some divisions” within the Caribbean, as Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua remain close allies to Putin, but most countries regionally have agreed that Russia was wrong to invade.

Cross further disclosed that Britain and other richer countries have been outright funding Ukraine’s fight against the invasion, which she maintained was necessary. 

“We are taking a hard-headed approach to this…yes, we are supplying military equipment to Ukraine. They need it really; Russia cannot be allowed to win this war. So the UK, for example, has provided multiple-launch rocket systems, but this is important,” indicated the high commissioner to Trinidad and Tobago.

Dr Theodor Tudoroiu, a senior lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the St Augustine campus, argued that with the invasion dragging on, Russia’s low-cost military strategy has failed in Ukraine. 

In the Romanian-born academic’s reasoning, it is a bitter pill for Russia to swallow as this tactic had previously worked well in other conflicts in the Middle East and the separatist regions of Crimea and Donbas. 

“You can even argue that the current war is an error, it’s a miscalculation. The war was not conceived as [such], it was inspired by what Russia has been doing in Georgia, Crimea and Donbas and elsewhere in Syria, Libya, Mali…using a low-cost intervention. That, until now, has been effective,” he contended.

“It has failed, everybody is aware of it now; the firm Ukrainian opposition which was not expected. But also, there is what [Carl von] Clausewitz called ‘interplay of chance and probability’, in other words bad luck. The Russian commandos were minutes away from capturing the Ukrainian president and his family, and we all agree that deprived of [Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s] leadership Ukraine would be unable to pose the firm resistance we have seen. So in a way, that was the interplay of chance and probability,” added Tudoroiu.

Tudoroiu further noted that the conflict has shifted three times since the failed surprise attack, as a manoeuvre war and war of attrition have raged. He warned, however, that as the invasion continually evolves, “the end of the war cannot be anticipated”.

On the matter of causes, Tudoroiu contended that with the world heading to an ‘inevitable’ Sino-American cold war, systemically, Russia is slighted by the shifting perceptions of power and influence.

“The point is Russia feels marginalised. It’s China’s junior partner and is watching as some other superpowers are turning the world into a bipolar system. This war can be very well understood as an effort from Russia to shift the attention of the general audiences worldwide from the rise of China to the might of Russia,” he mused.

“By attacking pro-Western Ukraine, it’s challenging the United States in hope to bring about a multipolar world, instead of a bipolar [one], which we are witnessing evolve,” asserted Tudoroiu.

Per the senior St Augustine lecturer, there are also State- and individual-level benefits for Russia some of which include intimidating neighbouring countries to remain pro-Russian in foreign policy, reaffirming political hegemony and, for Putin himself, a ‘legitimisation’ of an authoritarian regime.

The panel also included contributions from Dr Indira Rampersad, senior research fellow, SALISES at The UWI’s St Augustine campus; Shante Moore, Charge D’affairs at United States Embassy in Trinidad and Tobago; Dr Michal Pawinski, lecturer at the Institute of International Relations at St Augustine; and Peter Cavendish, European Union Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago.