Johannesburg - Seven months since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, empirical evidence shows that far from a peace treaty the world should prepare for the worst turmoil before any truce to silence the guns and tanks occurs.
In the week during which the US president marked Ukraine independence day by announcing whopping military aid to Kyiv to the tune of multimillion dollars, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin signed a decree authorising the expansion of his country’s military from 1.9 million to 2,4 million.
This is the clearest sign that the conflict, initially anticipated to be short-lived, could be prolonged unpredictably.
The compulsory military conscription of people between the ages of 18 and 27 guarantees the much-needed numbers in the Russian army. One interpretation of Putin’s latest decree could be that “forewarned is forearmed”.
Meanwhile, China has recently joined Russia in accusing the US of being behind the unending Ukraine war. If Washington so desired, both Moscow and Beijing argue, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky would have long elected a declaration of peace through direct talks with Moscow.
Instead, his public posture is that of sabre-rattling. Through his regular online address either to his people or the outside world, Zelensky’s war stance has become unmistakably clear. Bring it on, appears to be his motto.
But then again, Zelensky is buoyed by the unprecedented financial and military aid in what some international relations scholars view as America’s proxy war.
As the war enters its seventh month with no end in sight, the Russian economy’s resilience in the wake of unprecedented US-led Western sanctions continues to pose a terrible headache across the Global North.
By now, the US and Nato had thought Russia's economy would be on its knees and rebellion against the Putin administration on the cards.
But that is not so, at least not yet. Conversely, Putin is turning the screws on the West, particularly Europe – through gas.
As the European winter approaches, and the price of gas has rocketed along with dozens of other basic commodities since the Ukraine war broke out in February, the disruption of rarefied lifestyles is causing some ructions within the anti-Russia cohort.
Already, there have been protests against rising prices in places such as Spain, France, UK and Germany.
On top of that, there is a horror show brewing on the sidelines: the deterioration of the bilateral relations between the world’s two biggest economies – China and the US.
At the centre of the simmering tension between Washington and Beijing, of course, is the One China Policy – “with Taiwan as part of it”.
The recent public disregard and undermining of this UN-sanctioned policy by the US Speaker of the Congress, Nancy Pelosi, when she visited Taipei recently against the express wishes of President Xi Jinping of China, has exacerbated the already tense international relations between China and Russia on the one hand and the US, the EU and Nato on the other.
In protecting its sovereignty and national territory, China continues to stage military drills adjacent to Taipei, much to the disapproval of the US and the like-minded G7 bloc.
A bird’s eye-view of the global political instability – caused by self-centred foreign policies of the most powerful economic and military blocs against the weaker and fragmented Global South – points to a growing conflict rather than notable efforts aimed at bringing about world peace.
The UN appears powerless as a possible peace broker. Instead, the US and the EU would only allow the UN secretary-General Antonio Guterres roles such as brokering a deal between Ukraine and Russia on the resumption of the exportation of Ukrainian grain out of the port of Odessa, which remains totally vulnerable to Russia’s authority.
Other than that, the decision as to whether the war stops and continues rests squarely on the shoulders of Washington – the biggest financial and military backers of Kyiv, with the consummate support of the EU and Nato.
It suits Nato and its chief protagonist, the US, quite well that Russia remains sucked in a battle where casualties are guaranteed, and resources placed gradually under strain.
This is the ugly side of geopolitics. National interest and mob psychology rule ahead of global peace and stability.
Hence, in my view, the appetite of the White House to embark on a military confrontation with China, a country that continually preaches multilateralism as a preferred mode of international engagement.
Once China reacts to the US, the Biden administration is banking on the support of Nato and the EU to gang up against Beijing. Predictably, they will unleash a plethora of so-called international economic sanctions against China, a process that would cast aside any meaningful role for the increasingly powerless UN.
To ensure that the world turns against China, the West will threaten particularly the emerging economies with secondary sanctions if they fail to toe the anti-China line.
This is the same strategy currently in use against Russia. Western businesses will disinvest from China in the hope of aiding their regimes’ nefarious political agenda.
The focus on both Russia and China has meant that the US and EU focus their attention on resuscitating the Iran nuclear talks that President Donald Trump single-handedly tore to shreds.
For now, to trigger a military confrontation with Iran, and indeed North Korea, could be too much for the West to chew.
The ballistic missile tests that constantly shake the foundations of peace and stability in the region have become a normal occurrence for Kim Jong-un’s pro-Russia and China regime in North Korea.
Putin’s geopolitical prowess should not be under-estimated. He is already courting disengaged states to come together to form an organisation similar to but opposed to Nato.
In the same vein, speculation is rife that the strategic bloc of emerging powers BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) should be expanded globally.
Notable candidates include Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba and a flurry of African and Asian powerhouses.
This is the predictable reaction to a world order dominated by sectarian interests of a few powerful nations whose “rules-based world order” should be obeyed, or else.
With each passing day, week or month, it remains abundantly clear that the world is led by selfish interests that place the welfare of ordinary masses at the back end of their intellect. Sad, even tragic, but true.