The Profound Impact of the Russia–Ukraine War on the Global Order

The Russia–Ukraine war, now in its third year, has had far-reaching consequences well beyond the European battlefield. It has profoundly reshaped the global security landscape and the dynamics of geopolitics. One stark reality has emerged: in major international conflicts, the United Nations and the UN Security Council have played little to no decisive role. As a result, more and more countries no longer place their hopes for security in international organizations, but instead turn to the United States for protection and mediation.

1. The Decline of International Organizations and the Rise of U.S. Influence

During the Russia–Ukraine war, the UN proved ineffective in both mediation and enforcement, while the Security Council was paralyzed by great-power rivalry. This inefficiency has led many smaller and weaker nations to bypass international bodies and directly seek U.S. intervention. The United States is seen as the preferred choice not only because it is the world’s most powerful country, but also because it lacks the “since ancient times” territorial claims characteristic of traditional empires. Unlike neighboring great powers, Washington does not justify interventions based on historical spheres of influence or cultural-bloodline ties, making it appear more neutral and trustworthy in the eyes of smaller states.

2. The “Americanization” of Regional Conflict Resolution

In recent years, from the Caucasus to the Middle East, from South Asia to Southeast Asia, many local disputes have been resolved under U.S. leadership:

.Cambodia–Thailand conflict: Both sides invited U.S. mediation, and afterward each nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

.Israel–Arab disputes: The Israeli prime minister also nominated Trump for the Nobel Prize, recognizing his role in easing tensions.

.Armenia–Azerbaijan tensions: Facing mistrust over the Zangezur Corridor, both countries agreed to place it under U.S. military control. Without firing a single shot, U.S. forces entered the heart of the Caucasus, while both nations moved to curtail the influence of neighboring great powers in the region.

3. The “Security-for-Resources” Strategy of Smaller Nations

Since the Russia–Ukraine war began, weaker states have increasingly exchanged resources, funding, and even strategic facilities for U.S. security guarantees:

.Investment for protection: Japan, the EU, South Korea, and several Middle Eastern states have made large-scale investments in the U.S. to strengthen their security ties.

.Resource cooperation: Pakistan, Ukraine, Myanmar, and Mongolia have engaged in joint resource development projects with the U.S., binding their security interests to Washington.

.Military basing rights: The Philippines has invited U.S. forces into strategic bases as a deterrent against regional threats.

4. Conclusion: The Reinforcement of America’s “World Policeman” Role

The Russia–Ukraine war has made it clear to small and weak nations alike: international organizations are increasingly ineffective in resolving disputes, while neighboring traditional great powers still cling to imperial-era concepts of “spheres of influence,” posing potential threats. Against this backdrop, the U.S. not only has the capability and credibility to mediate conflicts but is also often perceived as a relatively fair actor. The lavish, “royal-level” receptions for the U.S. president in the Middle East, and the willingness of many countries to cede strategic resources, funding, and cooperation opportunities to Washington, illustrate this reality.

In short, the Russia–Ukraine war, along with subsequent regional crises, has cemented America’s position as the world’s only widely accepted and capable “global policeman.”

Peter Lee In Toronto