The West Must Stop Protecting Russia from the Consequences of its Actions

While relentlessly pursuing its genocidal policy to destroy Ukraine as a nation and Ukrainians as a distinct national and ethnic group, Moscow has been pushing an international agenda of a 'new world order’ to replace the Western-led, rules-based system of international relations.

The West’s weak response to Russia’s threat to international peace has catalysed an imploding of the global security order. We are facing an emboldened Sino-Russian alliance which strongly believes there is a window of opportunity to gain the power to set the rules for a new, unfree world, ruled by force.

Russia’s large-scale destruction of Ukraine is tangible evidence of how international peace can crumble in front of our eyes when rogue actors who seek to detonate it demonstrate more determination and resolve than those who purport to defend it. The free world’s demonstrable lack of resolute will to uphold international law is a major factor in the current global crisis and invites further chaos and violence.

This historic moment calls for urgent revision of the current Western course of conspicuously inadequate actions to remove the threat of Russia as the linchpin of the anti-Western, anti-democratic axis. If the world is to avoid a new global conflict, Western policy must be refocused on a full commitment to defending the principles of the liberal rules-based order that is designed to make the world safer.

The Russian Threat

Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not just an existential threat to Ukraine. Russia's aggressive, revanchist regime is the origin point of the international anti-Western axis. Just as at other critical moments in its history, Russia is once again redefining itself through confrontation with the West. Moscow is challenging Western primacy in international relations in order to reclaim its status of global power. For the Kremlin, the freedom to act above and outside the limits and restrictions of international law is the symbol of such supremacy.

For the past two decades, the world has been observing an escalating 'Russia crisis' – the critical threat posed by a criminal, militarised, totalitarian, aggressive, revanchist and genocidal regime to international peace. Rather than countering the growing threat, Western policy has relied on the 'too big to fail’ approach in dealing with Moscow. Consequently, Russia has largely enjoyed protection from the consequences of its criminal actions, and has been able to continue pursuing its nefarious strategic course.

Moscow’s goal is to replace the current liberal, rules-based international system with a ‘new world order’, where the role of the West is notably reduced. This was Vladimir Putin’s message in speeches given in 2014, 2023 and 2024.

In 2014, Putin made a threatening warning which made clear that Russia will have no limits in pursuing this goal:

‘... changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by, if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts.’

Russia’s hostile ambitions were spelled out formally when, in 2021, Moscow issued an ultimatum to NATO, publicly outlining its far-reaching demands for a dangerous level of influence over the eastern flank of the alliance.

Moscow’s determination to defy the West has been severely underestimated. The quest for a ‘new world order’, driven by the Sino-Russian alliance, is changing global dynamics. In essence, the new Eastern-led order is based on taking advantage of the globalised economy while destroying the liberal rules-based international order. Rogue regimes in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Belarus are being legitimised. The expanding BRICS group is building an alternative economic system of the 'global majority’ to provide shelter from Western sanctions and ensure global political dominance.

To claim domination, the Sino-Russian alliance is committed to:

• Advancing an international agenda of creating spheres of influence by instigating conflicts and chaos to fracture global solidarity.
• Displacing the universal rules-based order through special bilateral arrangements that advance a global power alignment tilted towards their alliance, with Beijing being the biggest beneficiary.
• Reversing humanity’s progress by challenging the universal nature of human rights and political freedoms.
• Reducing the global domain of freedom by subverting democracies and by corrupting political and economic establishments to foment authoritarianism.
• Diminishing the influence of Western democracies in international relations by subverting international organisations.

The objective of the Sino-Russian strategy is a return to an inherently dangerous and divisive 'might makes right’ reality in international relations. While disguised as a universal order of sovereign and equal states, such a system defies the equal application of international law to exempt the great powers from any restrictions imposed by universal rules.

The new Eastern-led order will privilege major international actors with influence and power to coerce smaller countries. While talking about ‘multipolarity’ and ‘multilateralism’, both Moscow and Beijing share the position of denying smaller countries equal standing in international relations. This essence of the ‘new order’ is illustrated perfectly by the policy of the anti-Western axis towards Ukraine, which promotes and serves Russian interests.

The West’s Self-Defeating Russia Policy

At its core, Western Russia policy – especially since Vladimir Putin’s revanchist speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference – has been mostly focused on global strategic stability.

The US’s reset of relations with Russia after the latter’s 2008 war on Georgia ushered in a period of a doomed appeasement strategy. Instead of taming Moscow’s aggression by firmly upholding international law, Putin’s quest to satisfy revanchist ‘grievances’ was tolerated. This policy resulted in destructive consequences for the world. An emboldened Kremlin unleashed disinformation, interference, corruption, subversion and violence on a scale which affects the entire trajectory of global affairs.

Russia’s war on Ukraine has been the main point of its attack on international peace and security in its efforts to re-establish global dominance.

From the beginning of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war of aggression on Ukraine in 2014, the West misdefined this interstate war as a ‘Ukraine crisis’ to diminish the international threat of an aggressive Russia. The horrific images of Moscow’s 2022 large-scale offensive and consequent massacres of Ukrainian civilians forced Western leaders to face the grim reality of the actual ‘Russia crisis’. Now, in 2024, there is finally a growing understanding that Moscow is using its war against Ukraine as a system-changing conflict within a global confrontation driven by the Sino-Russian alliance to bring down the Western-led rules based order.

Despite committing grave violations of international law and undermining world peace, Russia has largely enjoyed protection from the consequences of its criminal actions. At the same time, Ukraine – the victim of Russia’s unprovoked and illegal aggression – has been bound hand and foot in exercising its legal right to self-defence.

Russia – a country with nuclear capabilities and an army, territory and economy many times larger than that of Ukraine – continues to be shielded from concerted international action to counteract its genocidal war of aggression, while Ukraine – a country which gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security – has been struggling to receive sufficient international support to defend itself against genocide and safeguard international principles that benefit all.

The inept international response to Russia’s war against Ukraine exposes the grotesque design of the international security system. Eight decades on from the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, the peace and security of humanity is still at the mercy of the two totalitarian, genocidal regimes in Moscow and Beijing, and critically depends on the political resolve in three Western capitals – Washington, London and Paris. In Ukraine’s case, the political position in Berlin also bears influence, considering Germany’s important role in the EU and NATO.

Western powers continue to treat Russia as a pillar of the strategic global balance. It is as a direct consequence of this radically flawed approach that Western policy towards Russian aggression has been ultimately premised on Kyiv making concessions to Moscow.

From 2014, Russian interests were accommodated by ever-shifting Western red lines on the invasion; by the position of there being 'no military solution’ to the conflict which invited bolder Russian aggression; by Washington’s ‘leading from behind’ to avoid a more active role in fulfilling its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum; by symbolic sanctions incommensurate with Moscow’s transgressions; by the Berlin- and Paris-mediated ‘peace process’ which implied concessions from Ukraine by design; and by the policy of ‘de-escalation’ which denied military assistance for Ukraine to mount an effective defence.

While Western support for Ukraine has dramatically increased since 2022, when Russia’s role as the aggressor was finally recognised by the UN, the policy approach has remained stuck in the logic that ‘Russia is too big to fail’.

All the major points of Western policy, such as the refusal to deploy NATO troops in Ukraine; the limitations on the use of Western-supplied weapons to strike military targets in Russian territory (and for some, even in Ukraine’s Crimea); and statements like 'Russia cannot win in Ukraine’, ‘we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes’, ‘we must help Ukraine to strengthen its position at the negotiating table’ or ‘Ukraine will be able to join NATO after winning the war’ reflect the underlying reality that Russia’s interests, however illegitimate, play a weighty role in Western decision-making.

Instead of fully committing to helping Kyiv repel Russian aggression, the West chose to pursue 'escalation management’, enabling Moscow to wreak havoc in Ukraine and largely protecting Russia from the war.

The limited support for Ukraine makes clear that the West never truly had a strategy for Russia’s defeat – which would entail complete unconditional withdrawal of Russian military formations from all of Ukraine, the renunciation of Moscow’s territorial claims, justice for war criminals, and reparations. Without Russia’s defeat, there cannot be a Ukrainian victory, only de facto or de jure concessions by Kyiv.

A defeated Russia is an infinitely lesser threat than an undefeated Russia. Sacrificing Ukraine will not solve the problem of the aggressive, revanchist, totalitarian Russian state. If the black hole of Putin’s Russia swallows Ukraine, it will increase its gravitational pull. The West will face the consequences of the new global power re-alignment, consisting first and foremost of Sino-Russian domination in Europe.

In fact, by refusing to shoot down Russian missiles and drones in NATO airspace; by refusing to implement a humanitarian military mission to protect Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, especially its nuclear power plants; by drip-feeding military aid to Kyiv, withholding critically needed weapons and imposing restrictions on Ukrainian strikes against Russia; by stalling on NATO membership for Ukraine; and by accepting China’s say on the security of Europe, the West – and the US in particular – has already manifestly relinquished its leadership role in international relations.

The self-defeating policy of risk aversion has also severely damaged the credibility of NATO’s own deterrence. NATO is projecting the image of a panic room, not that of an actionable force capable of providing security – even for its own members.

The Cost of Inertia is Rapidly Rising

The alarming lack of resolute political will in Western capitals to uphold the fundamental rules of global security is giving oxygen to Russia’s and its anti-Western allies’ ambition to reshape our world according to their oppressive vision. 

The West cannot isolate itself from the outcome of Russia’s war. This is no longer about ‘helping Ukraine’, but about the responsibility of Western governments to their own citizens to ensure a peaceful future. 

The West’s obsessive and unjustifiable avoidance of confrontation with Russia in fact increases the risk of direct engagement becoming the only option. For now, while the Ukrainian army maintains high combat readiness, NATO countries can still avoid a direct face-off with Russia by deploying their troops away from the frontline to help Ukraine protect civilian areas and critical infrastructure and deter invasion from Belarus or, potentially, Russia-occupied Transnistria in Moldova if Russia succeeds in subverting the pro-Western course of Chișinău.

With North Korea sending troops to fight Ukraine, the West’s response to Russia’s war is a watershed moment for the future of humanity. Ukrainians shouldn’t be fighting alone to defend the rules-based order. Not fighting alongside Ukraine means helping Russia to achieve its nefarious goals.

If the West fails to defend the universality of the values of freedom and justice in Ukraine, it will eventually find itself in the role of the global ‘minority', while the Sino-Russian alliance will be legitimised as the voice of the ‘global majority’ and proceed to impose its will over the entirety of the international system.

The free world urgently needs leadership from both sides of the Atlantic to safeguard the vision of the rules-based order, where countries are protected from spheres of influence and oppressive domination. Rogue states breaking the foundational rules of global security and peace must face a commensurate response. The world needs united and devoted action to save Ukraine in order to save the world.

The views expressed in this Commentary are the authors’, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.

Have an idea for a Commentary you’d like to write for us? Send a short pitch to commentaries@rusi.org and we’ll get back to you if it fits into our research interests. Full guidelines for contributors can be found here.