Ta stran je na voljo le v angleškem jeziku.

Spor med Ukrajino in Rusijo: ali globalizacija spodbuja ali ovira odzivanje?

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
  • Ukrajina in Zahod: v slogi je moč?