Reversing accelerating advance to World War III

A Third World War may prove well beyond the limits of what civilised society can endure, perhaps even beyond the limits of our continued existence as a human world – Jans Christian Smuts’ speech to the United Nations, May 1, 1945.

THE logic of legitimate wars, validates self-defence in protecting life and property as well as the security and territorial integrity of sovereign nations. Authority for that assertion is established in Article 51 of the UN Charter 1945: “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” Similar provisions are contained within the section 4 of the US Constitution 1789 (as amended), which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.

Article 355 of India’s 1950 Constitution (as amended), establishes that it shall be the duty of the Union “to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance” Equally, the combined effects of section 14 (1) (2) (b) and section 217 (1) (2) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended), provide inter alia that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government; the armed forces comprising the Army, Navy and Air Force et al, shall defend Nigeria from external aggression; maintain its territorial integrity and secure its borders from violation on land, sea or air; and suppressing insurrection. Quite naturally therefore, Ukraine’s constitutional provisions are no different on that theme relative to Article 85 (23), 106 (9), (19) and (20) of the country’s 1996 Constitution (as amended).

Furthermore, Article 5 of the 1949 NATO Treaty is a foundational element of collective defence which enshrines the principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. It establishes that “parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

That point segues into the Russia/Ukraine war, which began on February 24, 2022, when Russian forces launched a war of aggression against its western neighbour, Ukraine. Historically, Ukraine was part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) however the country gained independence in 1991.

The Russian leader, Vladimir Putin’s rationale for launching the war of aggression against Ukraine included: significant Russian concerns that Ukraine was on the cusp of joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) military alliance, co-founded by the United States, UK and Canada; NATO’s expansion to Russian borders; the consequential risks thereof, plus the attendant alteration of the geopolitical balance of power in Russia’s deemed sphere of influence; and, Putin’s asserted “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine, aimed at protecting Russian-speaking citizens of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.

On its part, Ukraine is quite literally fighting for its life and soul, ditto its territorial integrity; which automatically invokes the philosophy of a legitimate resistance war, underpinned by robust international law validation in Article 51of the UN Charter. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, a pivotal Ukrainian geostrategic and geoeconomic arterial peninsula. So far, the war has internally displaced over 7.1 million people within Ukraine and over 6 million Ukrainian refugees have fled to across Europe and beyond.

According to the Wall Street Journal, approximately one million Russians and Ukrainians have either been killed or wounded in the war as at September 2024. The Russo-Ukrainian war which has outlasted 1000 days therefore raises many important posers of strategic import.
Does it logically follow that a rapprochement by serious countries and multilateral institutions is tantamount to Russian appeasement? Is the war really a proxy war between Russia and its North Korean, Iranian, and related allies under the “axis of resistance” banner on the one hand; versus Ukraine and its NATO allies under the “axis of liberty” banner?

From a geostrategic vantagepoint, is the battle for multipolarity, one characterised by three or more powerful states in the global order; as distinguished from unipolarity, predicated upon a United States-led international orthodoxy? Does the probability of World War III increase or recede with Russia’s deployment of North Korean troops in the conflict? And the same poser regarding US President Joe Biden’s recent authorisation of the deployment of American long-range ballistic weapons, Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), with a range of 190 miles; on Russian soil ab initio?

Ditto, the United Kingdom’s greenlighting the activation of British- Storm Shadow cruise missiles, with a range of 155 miles on Russian soil for the first time? How is Putin likely to respond given previous threats to use nuclear weapons in the conflict?

Addressing these issues concurrently, there is a precious little strategic coherence to the notion that a genuine rapprochement to the crisis is tantamount to appeasement. For starters, the conflict continues to destroy, swathes of Ukraine with the attendant loss of lives.

Indeed, Ukraine has the support of the United States and NATO allies. The US alone has committed over $113 billion in military aid and assistance to Ukraine just as European countries have committed $168 billion in military armature and aid. However, and materially, not one of these countries has officially deployed their own forces to support Ukrainian fighters. In other words, Ukraine is having to fight its own battle against a formidable opponent and nuclear superpower in Russia, without its (Ukraine’s) allies’ boots on the ground. That is a formidable challenge.
And yes, Ukraine is securing notable tactical advantages on the ground against Russia notably in Kharkiv, Kiev and Kherson. However, in the overall context of the war, it appears to be on an extremely sticky wicket because neither side can be said to be in a commanding position.
A viewpoint reinforced by the Royal Institute of International Affairs “Chatham House.” Accordingly, seeking rapprochement is an extremely reasonable proposition which could be facilitated by the office of the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, naturally, with the proactive buy-in of the belligerents.

The logic of the argument that the Russian-Ukrainian war is as much a direct conflict between both belligerents, as it is a proxy war between the “axis of resistance” and the “axis of liberty” is persuasive on three counts. One, it is a fact that highly sophisticated US and NATO weapons missile systems, technology, knowhow, and technical assistance continue to be deployed to support Ukraine in defence of the latter’s freedom, Western geostrategic interests and de facto US pre-eminence.

Second, Russia has already deployed North Korean forces to the battlefield against Ukraine and is utilising military armature and assets from “axis of resistance” parties in the prosecution of the war against Ukraine. Third, the rhetoric between Russia against Ukraine and the “axis of liberty” has heightened in recent times raising genuine concerns about dangerous escalation and Russia’s potential deployment of nuclear assets.

For example, in the aftermath of American and British decisions to allow Ukraine to launch multiple rocket attacks within Russia, Putin furiously declared in terms: aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as their joint attack on Russia.

“Russia will also consider the possibility of using nuclear weapons when receiving reliable information about a massive launch of means of aerospace attack and their crossing of our state border. This includes strategic and tactical aircraft, as well as cruise missiles and drones, hypersonic and other delivery vehicles. Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in case of aggression, including if the enemy using conventional weapons poses a critical threat.” This isn’t empty rhetoric either! On November 21, 2024, Russia “experimentally” launched six “Oreshnik” hypersonic intermediate range ballistic missiles on Dnipro, Ukraine 750 miles from its launch site.

Then again, those intricate complexities reveal the prospect of an extremely nasty mutually assured destruction “MAD.” outcome or WWIII scenario. Because, for all Russia’s ratcheting of deploying nuclear assets against Ukraine, and the latter’s NATO allies, Russia, by no means, possesses a monopoly of nuclear assets, nor weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) nor the ability, capacity, readiness, and willingness to deploy same.

In other words, it is a zero game and there will be no winners if nuclear and other non-conventional weapons are utilised in the Russian/Ukrainian war. Nevertheless, the current geopolitical calculus with President-elect Donald Trump’s imminent second term due to commence on January 20 2025 is an interesting dynamic. Trump has already signalled a philosophical goal of ending the war in “24 hours” on pragmatic grounds, unlike the outgoing President Joe Biden’s extremely hawkish stance towards Russia.

The strategic policy challenge is that Biden could present Trump with the poisoned chalice of extensively committing US financial and military assets to Ukraine’s prosecution of its defence, which complicates extrication options for the in-coming Trump. These cascading factors invoke the basis for a sensible reversal from the advance to WWIII.

Ojumu, is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria, and the author of The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development (2023).