Does the war in Ukraine mark the end of globalization as we know it? | Experts’ Opinions

The war in Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia are disrupting supply and production chains, spanning across multiple countries. After two years of coronavirus-related lockdowns, these challenges have further impacted interlinked economies, causing significant price increases, shifts in logistics, and the re-shaping of entire sectors. Over the past few decades, the global economy has grown rapidly and relied on rapid liberalization and integration but the latest events could very well mark the end of a cycle in economic history which economists call globalization. So does the war in Ukraine mark the beginning of the end of globalization? Check out some of the opinions we’ve collected from international experts below.

Does the war in Ukraine mark the end of globalization?

“Putin’s war does mark the end of globalization, but not for the world though, only for Russian people who have been isolated from the West. Many Russians seem to realize that this war has disrupted their modern lifestyles and has become the biggest obstacle to their craving for all the modern necessities. Putin has isolated Russia economically, but he cannot isolate the dreams of the Russian people. ”

“Anti-globalization movements are active in various parts of the world. The growing resentment against foreign traders profiting at the expense of local people is not new to globalization. In the late 9th century, foreign merchants in Guangzhou, China were targeted, with tens of thousands of Arabs and Persians massacred. In 996, Cairo residents rioted in protest against Italian traders, a phenomenon repeated in Constantinople with the “massacre of the Latins” (Italians) in 1182. The evidence is clear that the new European global outreach that began in the early 16th century was not the beginning of globalization but novel in the development of capitalism with stock markets as the key indicator of the emerging global trade and commerce across a large expanse of territories. Other variables that made this version of globalization unique, distinct, and novel were the types of technology (caravels with navigation instruments, canons, muskets, huge hauls, etc.) and philosophical justifications (Humanism, Christianity, and modernity) used. The use of technological and philosophical sophistries to justify the banality of evil that manifested in genocides, brutal conquests, the appropriation of foreign lands as colonial possessions, and the expropriation of indigenous labor of the peoples of Asia, Americas, and Africa to build huge empires are similar to Putin’s war aims, objectives, and justifications in Ukraine. Putin’s war is thus neither unique, distinct, novel nor anti-globalization. Putin’s use of Orthodox Christianity to justify his war against Ukraine and other unfounded claims to justify cyberwarfare, high-tech warfare, genocide, the destruction of cities, and his affront to the New World Order will not lead to the end of globalization but rather the opposite will occur. After Putin’s killing machine falls silent, globalization will march forward with new winners and losers. The fallout from Putin’s war, like Hitler’s, will not be the end of globalization but rather a new kind of globalization as has happened over and over through time and space in history.”

“The COVID-19 pandemic has already exposed the weaknesses of the global market, especially in countries where economic activities have been replaced by financial markets and which struggled to get enough supplies to cover the very basic needs of the people. The war being fought on the EU’s very doorstep has further shown how autarchy, either at EU or member states’ level, in some areas can improve resilience, including that of the economy. A lesser dependence on the global market could even help better reach some sustainability goals starting with climate change mitigation by progressively substituting centralized fossil fuel power plants with diffuse renewables installations. Greening the food system involves relying less and less on chemicals that are generally imported from third countries in the form of finite products or just raw materials. The war does pose concerns for EU agri-food systems that rely on the use of nitrogen (i.e., some 50% of nitrogen-based fertilizers used in the EU come from Russia), potash, and phosphate-based fertilizers, whose prices had already skyrocketed because of the energy costs. Supporting sustainable agriculture practices and local food markets would increase the resilience of the EU food system, reduce its environmental footprint, and could provide healthier food.”

“No one clear-headed can justify war. But, great wars are usually rooted in substantial socio-economic distress, as it is evident from the Great Depression and WWII that followed. If we imagine that the Russian-Ukrainian war does not exist, there is still multiple evidence of ongoing global economic destruction. To mention a few: the global environmental degradation caused by human economic activity; global supply chain disruption causing localization of business activities; the devaluation of the US dollar, as one of the reasons causing the increase in prices for key commodities such as grain and petroleum; elevating militarization of national economies among others. No one can anticipate the whole spectrum of harsh socio-economic and humanitarian consequences that will accompany the ongoing de-globalization. Instead of changing “the color of the economic facade”, which most governments have been pursuing to cope with the current distresses, the new global building, integrating societies on a solid economic, environmental and social basis should be constructed. The wide-ranging renovation could start from Ukraine, as one of the countries suffering the most. Global brainstorming would be the better alternative to the arms race. Being both a Russian and Ukrainian professor, I have attempted to propose to politicians from both countries my peaceful proposals. And no reaction…”

“Globalization isn’t all about a war, it’s about open trade and commerce. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has abruptly transformed the world order. Millions of people had fled their homes. It’s very sad we have to talk about this in 2022. On the other hand, a new Iron Curtain is grinding, as the military conflict escalates, civilian casualties rise, and evidence of horrific war crimes mounts. An economic war deepens. It’s NATO vs Russia which are redefining their interests, diplomatic boundaries, and ultimately the world order. There is a great emphasis on Europe and its role in the Ukraine war. Multiple bans and trade restrictions with Russia and Russian companies have made a dent in globalization. But the conflict is very West and Euro-centric, which doesn’t seem to be the end of globalization as such. It’s actually the sovereignty of Ukraine which has been hampered badly. Although this is grossly unacceptable, it doesn’t change the world order and seems more to raise questions about the world system. But the biggest question which will hit us soon is about the climate change impacts. Kudos globalization isn’t going anywhere soon.”

“Since the first wave of globalization in the early 19th century, the world has seen many ups and downs attributed to the revolutions in industry, society, politics, and economy while facing downhill from three major wars, the First and the Second World War and the Gulf War. Other disruptions like the Great Depression of 1929-39, the OPEC oil price shock in 1973, the Asian Crisis in 1997, the financial crisis of 2007-2008 caused economic tsunamis which affected largely the financial discipline of the world economies. These devastating political and economic crises undoubtedly caused a halt to globalization but never caused a situation to stop it. The war in Ukraine is no exception to this theory. It has slowed down economic growth and caused inflation to surge. However, the war has paved the way to reshape globalization by re-assessing the geo-political and security risks and alerting firms to have more agility to respond to trade-related risks and to make changes in the supply chain structure. Furthermore, reshaping globalization has now become easier as the world is now into globalization 4.0 being driven by technology, digital, and information which do not require much physical movement. Globalization may be vulnerable but no war, including the Russia-Ukrainee war, can mark the end of globalization.”

See also: The impact of the EU’s sixth package of sanctions on Russia’s economy and the Union | Experts’ Opinions

Check out more than 50 job opportunities in the trade sector here.