The persistent worsening of the international situation reminded of the ancient mockery of propaganda optimism "we were on the edge of the abyss, and then we took a step forward". United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned half a year ago that "the world is on the brink of an abyss", presenting data on the drastic threat to the health of people and the entire planet. And then, at the end of last month, Vladimir Putin took a "step forward" with a military attack on Ukraine.
With all the mass suffering it produced, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has grown into a phenomenon that unites a hundred global undesirable premiers, an unprecedented drama. To soften the halo of the "modern firstborn" at all costs, something that surpasses everything recorded in recent history, even if it was at the expense of the common good, and even counterproductive for the perpetrator himself.
The list of leaps into the anthology of pioneering leaps from normality is long, on the Ukrainian occasion. First, the largest land invasion in Europe was carried out, which caused the largest emigrant crisis in Europe after the Second World War.
At the same time, it led to the deepest crisis in superpower relations after the Cold War. It also manifested the first direct, local overreach of Russia and America in their efforts to shape the future of the world by reviving their lost or undermined power. Moscow wants to restore the results of the Second World War, and Washington the processes after the Cold War. At the same time, things are pushing in a direction that spreads fears of the third world and the second cold war.
Furthermore, the Russian incursion into Ukraine is the first incursion of an established autocracy into an unfinished democracy, born out of the collapse of the communist empire. And precisely against the neighboring nation that the Kremlin has declared to be the "same nation" as the Russians.
Also, this war was launched in the middle of a pandemic, which is also a first-class premiere. Because the fight against the scourge meant building a united front, or at least making it a common priority, since the infection is raging all over the world.
Russia is to blame for Ukraine's current suffering, but others are also to blame. The West because it did not seriously consider Moscow's security interests, and Kiev because it failed to clearly define itself, which was admittedly difficult in the imposed position between the hammer and the anvil, two antagonistic superpowers.
It has even reached the point of nuclearization, which was unimaginable until recently. Ukraine emerged from denuclearization when in 1994 it agreed to give up such an arsenal (inherited from the USSR) in exchange for guaranteeing its territorial integrity. It is now exposed to territorial atomization, which may fuel a new nuclear arms race as a shield against a major external attack. Russia's indication that it would also use nuclear missiles if the West directly intervenes in the Ukrainian theater also contributes to that course.
Unprecedented harsh sanctions against a superpower are still in circulation. The West believes that this will restrain Russia in the long run, while it promptly perceives them as a measure "similar to a declaration of war". Analysts fear that the "strangulation" of Russia could disintegrate it to the point of incalculable consequences, and the perceptible ones are already acting in record price increases of energy sources and food, which we feel here as well.
A paradox of its own is the fact that Russia flew into Ukraine as the chairman of the UN Security Council, which further confirms that this body, responsible for maintaining world peace, is in disarray. And this is evidenced by the fact that not a single major war in the last few decades has been fought with the consent of the Council.
It is encouraging, however, that the UN General Assembly condemned Russian aggression by a convincing majority, in which Serbia also joined. A resolution that is not binding, but has moral force and serves as a measure of the global mood.
We are going through a time of great upheaval. Almost everything has been gained in the Ukrainian crisis - a big war, a new violation of international law, millions of refugees, sanctions, inflation, a pandemic, energy arrangements, environmental breakdowns, the spread of fake news, hacker attacks, growing distrust towards leaders and between them...
In so many crucifixions, it is perhaps the most fateful thing - if everyone can't deal with everyone - to clarify who will be with whom, to what extent and against whom. China's actions are awaited with the greatest curiosity.
Xi Jinping proclaimed a "no-limits" partnership with Putin, but China did not vote against the condemnation of Russia's aggression against Ukraine at the United Nations, but abstained. And the West was united in its condemnation and won over a large majority of the members of the World Organization.
Putin went to Ukraine counting on the advanced divisions in the West, and it happened that he gave them a reason to unite, even more than what emerges from the layered reality. And what a contrast between Beijing and Moscow.
The only thing that is certain is that all of the above suggests that the global order, which oscillates between longing for the restoration of old glories and feeling out the terrain for getting used to the new balance of power, is about to be rearranged. The transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world increasingly resembles the painful transition from a one-party to a multi-party system.
Let this transition pass as it deserves, so that the tragedy of the former SFRY is not repeated. The Ukrainian case, alas, looks more and more like it. And it differs, unfortunately, in an even worse - and premiere, after the Cuban missile crisis of 60 years ago - just launched nuclear deterrence...
Bonus video:
