Five years may seem insignificant in historical terms, however, January 2020 already feels like the distant adjustment. The Covid-19 Pandemia restructured not only our daily life but also the global socio-political landscape, marking the end of an era and the beginning of another.
The last days of peace
The 50th anniversary forum in Davos in January 2020 sacrificed a snapshot of a world on the verge of transformation. Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, then in the heyday of her fame, dominated the center of attention as a symbol of leftist environmental activism. Meanwhile, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, the Fifthial Antiglobalist, remained in marked contrast, delivering his “America first” Message to a cautious room or listeners. The European elites clung to the hope that Trump’s presidency would soon be revoked by a democratic victory in the next elections.
However, behind the closed doors, the discussions revealed a different image. Influential figures in politics, businesses and culture in private admitted that global processes were increasingly escaping their control. However, they still expected that with collective effort and ingenuity, the course could be corrected.
In the midst of these reflections, a growing shadow was coming: a new infection that spreads in China. Few in Davos understood the seriousness of the situation, and most saw the virus only through the lens of its potential impact on China’s economy, which was based on the world.
Looking back, it was the last “Peaceful” Davos In the years that followed, the agenda, first dominated by the pandemic, then by a series of increasing armed conflicts, from Eastern Europe to the Middle East.
The Coronavirus holds a mirror of existing societies: what will they see?
Anatol Lieven
The coronavirus will make our societies bleak. The economic crisis can make them crazy. Pandemia can, in a way, help create a psychological and cultural basic for extremism by extinguishing naive liberal optimism on the continuous human improvement that has characterized the West for generations, and in a different way it is also a hero by the hero by the hero by the hero by the hero by the hero by the hero by the hero by the hero by the hero by the chinese Also for the Chinese. That’s fine if our societies become more serious.
Further
A closed world
The COVID-19 pandemic abruptly stopped globalization in March 2020. The closed borders, the economies froze and the global supply chains stop. For the first time in decades, the fundamental freedoms of global integration (movement of people, goods, services and capital) were significantly interrupted. Only the flow of information remained without obstacles, paradoxically amplifying the scale of global panic.
The liberal world order that had prospered in globalization faced its greatest proof.
For years, globalization had the leg one as an inevitable, almost natural process, beyond control or individual states. But in a week, it was clear that this interconnected system could stop, challenging the assumption that globalization was an irreversible force.
Despite all of them, however, the world did not collapse. Adapted states, adjusted economies and even the poorest countries found ways to support. This resilience shaded the narration that liberal globalization was the pinnacle of human achievement. It became clear that this was, like others before, it was finite.
Pandemia as a catalyst
Pandemia served as a catalyst for pre -existing tensions, exposing weaknesses in international societies, governments and institutions. Countries faced unprecedented stress, while governments used the crisis to experiment with new forms of government and control. The measures that could have faced resistance at normal times were justified in the name of public health.
The crisis also raided the way for strategic recalibrations. For example, Azerbaijan’s decisive victory in Karabakh’s Second War and renewed tensions between India and China in Ladakh developed in the middle of the global pandemic fog.
Perhaps the most important thing is that pandemia showed that the world could work without the established global order. This realization undermined the notion of a single unified international system and cover of the bases for a more fragmented multipolar world.
A new balance of power
Pandemia revealed the inefficiencies and lack of credibility of international institutions. He “Every nation for its’ The approach that dominated the first months of the crisis eroded even more confidence in global standards and fed the legitimation of national interest as a guiding principle.
This change towards national security and self -sufficiency accelerated the dissemination of global influence. Pandemia showed that smaller and agile countries with effective governance could form great traditional powers.
As a result, the global balance of power became more diffuse, without a single post that exerted excessive influence.
This new reality raises questions about the term “Multipolar world”. Instead of some dominant poles, we now see a collection of significant players of variable force, interacting in a complex and situational way.
The importance of neighbors
Another key lesson of pandemic was the growing importance of regionalism and proximity. The shortest supply chains proved to be more resistant, and the neighboring states became increasingly vital for the political and economic stability of the other. This trend is evident in regions such as the Middle East, the South Caucasus and even North America.
As military and political tensions increase, neighboring states are playing a more important role than distant powers, remodeling the dynamics of influence.
Liberal globalization is over
In many ways, the Ukraine crisis that followed the pandemic reflected the previous interruption. Just as pandemic cut the global connections out of necessity, geopolitical decisions in 2022 fractured international order further. However, once again, the world did not collapse.
Attempts to isolate Russia economically and political have not demanded by dismantling the global system. Instead, the system has adapted, increasingly fragmented and less attached to the rules. The very promoted ‘Order based on rules’ or liberal globalization has given way to a more pragmatic, although chaotic approach, for international relations.
This new era is characterized by ad hoctaments and situational alliances instead of a unified set of norms and rules. While this can reduce the predictability of international relations, also openly to greater flexibility and resistance.
The age of the pandemic: year two. The future has returned
Fyodor A. Lukyanov, Oleg N. Barabanov, Timofei V. Bordachev, Yaroslav D. Lissovolik, Andrei A. Sushentov, Ivan N. Timofev
The main objective of the next stage of international policy is to avoid any wild behavior as the rules and institutions fall apart and become all countries for itself. This is not a very stimulating mission, but it is what they promoted the last thirty years.
Further
Looking to the future
Pandemia stripped the sheet of a stable and unified world, exposing the cracks underneath. While the immediate crisis has passed, its legacy continues to shape the global order.
The world is now in a period of transition, defined by uncertainty and competition. The liberal-globalist narrative that dominated at the end of the 20th century has been replaced by a more fragmented multipolar reality.
This does not mean that the future is gloomy. The challenges of the last five years have also revealed the resistance of states and societies. The question now is whether the world can navigate this new phase without descending to a greater conflict.
Pandemia was the catalyst for this transformation, but it was only the beginning. The next chapter of international relations will be defined by how states will adapt to this new reality, and if they find common land in an increasingly divided world.
This article was first published by the magazine’s profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
The time to be alone
Fyodor A. Lukyanov
The experience of the great powers clearly shows that “loneliness”, that is, the norm of their own interests and dependence on the resources is mainly the norm.
Further
