Ukraine-Russia conflict: has globalisation helped or hindered responses?

Countries have increased their links in a smaller, globalised world. But reactions to Russia's actions in Ukraine mean that a brake has to be put on some of this interlinking. Has globalisation made it easier or more difficult to react? Has it made it impossible to punish Russia without suffering pain at home? And where next for the sanctions and counter-sanctions?

Full video transcript

Ukraine-Russia conflict:

has globalisation

helped or hindered responses?

Globalisation has made all of our lives

more dependent on each other.

As barriers fall and unions are built,

the idea is

that all of us stand to lose more

in conflicts in a globalised world.

But will this idea prove true

in dealing

with Russia’s activities in Ukraine?

The great upside

of globalisation should be

that greater interdependence

economically,

and should make countries

less willing to be aggressive,

but it is of course based

on the fundamental premise

that all countries are equally rational.

- Europe is opening borders

and giving the opportunities

to build bridges.

As we see,

the Russian Federation is trying

to build new fences,

new barbed wires on our territory.

It is time to build bridges

and to forget about the fences.

But globalisation does

not automatically lead to peace,

either today or in previous

examples of close relationships.

The first age of globalisation

was the 19th century.

Even at that late date before the

outbreak of World War I, many said:

We are not going to war

because we’re too interdependent.

Globalisation is going on for decades.

It’s not something new.

No, what is new,

is the shift

in balance of power in the world

and the shifting centre of gravity,

the economic

shifting centre of gravity,

and consequently

the political centre of gravity,

which is shifting to the East.

What’s happening

at the Crimea is very comparable

to what’s happening right now

in the South-China Sea.

So, globalisation has spawned

its own conflicts, not got rid of them.

And security

has become even more important

for the economic development

that globalisation should bring.

In recent years the South-China Sea

has become a hot spot.

The security, you know,

should be two sides of one coin:

one economy, another is security.

It’s not just conflicts, which highlight

the changing landscape.

Where security forces are positioned

is also part of the shifting sands.

I think China is

the largest contributor among P5

in peacekeeping troops in Africa.

Using economics as a weapon

can hurt in a globalised world,

but this is no guarantee

that it will have the desired effect.

Yes, economic sanctions,

economic penalties,

costs rather than benefits

for inappropriate action...

They are calculated

as part of the broad remit

of choices that a state makes.

But if a state becomes sufficiently

committed to a cause of action

for reasons that may

not be immediately apparent

to those outside of that state,

then no amount of economic sanction

will actually work

if that state believes

it’s fundamental to its very survival.

And finally,

it’s ironically probably the national,

not the international,

globalised audiences

that matter most in the recent moves

by President Putin.

We somehow forgot

that there is a huge domestic angle

to all these things.

It is about Putin’s new legitimacy.

Yes, he’s officially president,

but he’s in fact a national leader

who does not just

ensure economic stability.

That’s probably not as important

as it was in his first term,

but more about him

giving Russia a new face,

a new spring in Russia’s step

and a new image for himself.

Ukraine-Russia conflict:

has globalisation

helped or hindered responses?

Globalisation has made all of our lives

more dependent on each other.

As barriers fall and unions are built,

the idea is

that all of us stand to lose more

in conflicts in a globalised world.

But will this idea prove true

in dealing

with Russia’s activities in Ukraine?

The great upside

of globalisation should be

that greater interdependence

economically,

and should make countries

less willing to be aggressive,

but it is of course based

on the fundamental premise

that all countries are equally rational.

- Europe is opening borders

and giving the opportunities

to build bridges.

As we see,

the Russian Federation is trying

to build new fences,

new barbed wires on our territory.

It is time to build bridges

and to forget about the fences.

But globalisation does

not automatically lead to peace,

either today or in previous

examples of close relationships.

The first age of globalisation

was the 19th century.

Even at that late date before the

outbreak of World War I, many said:

We are not going to war

because we’re too interdependent.

Globalisation is going on for decades.

It’s not something new.

No, what is new,

is the shift

in balance of power in the world

and the shifting centre of gravity,

the economic

shifting centre of gravity,

and consequently

the political centre of gravity,

which is shifting to the East.

What’s happening

at the Crimea is very comparable

to what’s happening right now

in the South-China Sea.

So, globalisation has spawned

its own conflicts, not got rid of them.

And security

has become even more important

for the economic development

that globalisation should bring.

In recent years the South-China Sea

has become a hot spot.

The security, you know,

should be two sides of one coin:

one economy, another is security.

It’s not just conflicts, which highlight

the changing landscape.

Where security forces are positioned

is also part of the shifting sands.

I think China is

the largest contributor among P5

in peacekeeping troops in Africa.

Using economics as a weapon

can hurt in a globalised world,

but this is no guarantee

that it will have the desired effect.

Yes, economic sanctions,

economic penalties,

costs rather than benefits

for inappropriate action...

They are calculated

as part of the broad remit

of choices that a state makes.

But if a state becomes sufficiently

committed to a cause of action

for reasons that may

not be immediately apparent

to those outside of that state,

then no amount of economic sanction

will actually work

if that state believes

it’s fundamental to its very survival.

And finally,

it’s ironically probably the national,

not the international,

globalised audiences

that matter most in the recent moves

by President Putin.

We somehow forgot

that there is a huge domestic angle

to all these things.

It is about Putin’s new legitimacy.

Yes, he’s officially president,

but he’s in fact a national leader

who does not just

ensure economic stability.

That’s probably not as important

as it was in his first term,

but more about him

giving Russia a new face,

a new spring in Russia’s step

and a new image for himself.

Related videos
|
  • Mladic, Srebrenica and justice
  • Ukraine: where are all the fascists?
  • NATO - EU : Getting closer ?
  • Football and changing defences
  • Franco Frattini: It's the economy, stupid
  • Helicopters - and why they’re important
  • Smart Defence Ministers?
  • Cyber attacks: how can they hurt us?
  • Cyberwar - does it exist?
  • Cyber attacks, NATO - and angry birds
  • The changing Arctic: how involved should NATO be?
  • Women in security: a work in progress?
  • Libya's 2011 revolution ... in 2 minutes
  • Fuel for thought
  • Energy and the environment: the good, the bad and the worrying
  • Nature's forces and the armed forces
  • Water or WARter?
  • Homegrown terrorism: how the EU sees it
  • Smart Defence for Greece and Turkey?
  • Smart Defence: the analyst's view
  • Smart Defence: the parliamentary angle
  • Smart Defence: what does it mean?
  • Smart Defence: the political angle
  • Interview: Paddy Ashdown
  • Jamie Shea interview: Kosovo - then and now
  • Bosnia police reform: mission incomplete or mission impossible?
  • Bosnia: a new model army?
  • Karadzic: from Sarajevo to the Hague
  • Bosnia: a new model army? (Aug 2008)
  • Karadzic: from Sarajevo to the Hague (Aug 2008)
  • Double vision - an Afghan-American view
  • 2014: New Afghanistan's year zero?
  • NATO and Russia today: interview with Dmitri Trenin
  • UNSCR 1325: a happy 10th birthday?
  • Green issues – red alert?
  • The Changing face of Maritime Security
  • Safety in numbers? NATO and its partners
  • Enduring Partnerships: is corruption now Afghanistan's main battlefield?
  • Partnership or membership for Finland?
  • Come together: Why getting comprehensive matters
  • NATO's New Strategic Concept: a successful balancing act?
  • Social media: can it hurt democracy too?
  • Arab spring = Facebook revolution #1?
  • Political change: what social media can- and can't do
  • Public understanding - simplicity is genius (part 2) - dec 2009
  • Optimism - or realism?
  • Dying to eat
  • Rare earths: the new oil?
  • Lisbon: the perfect birthplace for NATO's new Strategic Concept?
  • The Tea Party: Home, alone?
  • Obama, elections and foreign policy: the bucks stop here?
  • Why should we be concerned about Yemen?
  • Yemen: 10 reasons to worry
  • Football: divider or uniter?
  • The God's eye view: Operation Active Endeavour
  • Defence and attack - how the forces see football
  • How do nuclear changes look to NATO?
  • The IAEA: the world's most important agency?
  • The Non-Proliferation Treaty: the world's most important treaty?
  • Nuclear chess: what's Iran's next move?
  • 2010: year zero for nuclear zero?
  • Obama's nuclear dream: Yes, he can?
  • 20 days at sea
  • Shipping and piracy: A view from the top
  • China and the West: keyboard conflicts?
  • General Klaus Naumann, Former Chair, NATO Military Committee
  • Madeleine K. Albright, Chair, NATO Strategic Concept Expert Group
  • Admiral James G. Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
  • New age, new threats, new responses
  • NATO HQ - time for a makeover?
  • Under the ice of the world...
  • History: what shaped the strategic concept?
  • Piracy, ports and failed states, crime's frontlines ?
  • Organised crime and terrorist groups: comrades or chameleons?
  • Why the financial crisis matters for security
  • The financial crisis: ask the experts
  • From finance to defence
  • Interview of the Afghan Governor Amin
  • Interview of the Afghan Governor Sarabi
  • Two questions, three locations
  • A first video update on the Summit
  • Third video update: Obama Meeting
  • Interview Jonas Gahr Store
  • Interview Soren Gade
  • Taliban, television, telephones - and terror
  • Video interview with Ahmed Rashid
  • Video interview
  • Video debate: the new media - a help or hindrance in conflict situations?