Editorial: Mohammed Iqbal
Monday, 4 March 2025
The war in Ukraine has reached a critical juncture, not only for Kyiv but for the world. What began as a regional conflict has become a litmus test for international law, U.S. global leadership, and the security of smaller nations caught between rising global powers. If the United States pressures Ukraine into a peace deal that cements Russian territorial gains, the consequences will stretch far beyond Eastern Europe. Such a move would undermine the very foundation of sovereignty and embolden authoritarian regimes elsewhere, setting a precedent that military aggression can succeed if pursued with enough force and patience.
The implications for U.S. credibility would be severe. The West has long positioned itself as the defender of international norms, but if it forces Ukraine into an unjust settlement, it would signal a retreat from its principles, raising doubts among allies about America’s reliability. Washington’s leadership has always rested on its ability to project strength—not just militarily but diplomatically. A forced Ukrainian settlement would confirm the suspicions of adversaries and allies alike: the U.S. is no longer willing to stand firm in the face of aggression, and global power is shifting eastward, toward Moscow and Beijing.
It is a shift that would upend alliances, fracture NATO, weaken deterrence in Asia, and leave smaller nations vulnerable to coercion. If Russia is rewarded for its invasion, the West will face a cascade of crises in Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, and the Middle East. The very fabric of global security, carefully woven since 1945, risks unraveling before our eyes.
A retreat from principles, an invitation for future invasions
The lessons from Ukraine will be studied in Beijing, Pyongyang, and Tehran. If Russia is allowed to keep Ukrainian land, China will see an opportunity to accelerate its ambitions in Taiwan, betting that the West will hesitate to intervene. North Korea could take bolder steps against South Korea, testing the limits of American resolve in the Pacific. The Middle East, already in turmoil, could become a battleground of unchecked power plays, as Iran, Israel, and Turkey reassess their military strategies in a world where force trumps diplomacy.
In Europe, the ramifications would be immediate. NATO’s deterrence strategy depends on unity, yet an American-backed settlement that favors Russia would fracture the alliance and raise existential concerns for Poland, the Baltic states, and other frontline nations. The security umbrella that has kept Europe stable for decades would suddenly look fragile, and with Washington increasingly disengaged, the continent may be forced to seek alternative defense arrangements, even if that means negotiating with Russia itself.
The belief that a forced peace deal will bring stability is a dangerous illusion. It will not prevent future wars; it will encourage them. Russia’s success in Ukraine would send an unmistakable message: aggression works. The world will no longer be governed by diplomatic norms but by who is willing to use force, no matter the cost.
The decline of U.S. leadership and the rise of new global powers
For more than seven decades, U.S. leadership has been the cornerstone of international stability. Its influence has rested not only on military strength but on its ability to maintain a global order based on law, alliances, and economic power. A forced settlement in Ukraine would erode all three.
Allies who depend on the U.S. security umbrella would begin questioning Washington’s reliability. European nations, once steadfast in their transatlantic ties, may drift toward China and Russia, negotiating their own security arrangements rather than relying on an increasingly unpredictable United States.
Asian partners like Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines would reassess their dependence on American military guarantees, exploring alternatives that might include new regional defense pacts—or even nuclear deterrence. If Washington is unwilling to stand up for Ukraine, why should it be trusted to defend its Pacific allies from Chinese expansionism?
The economic consequences would be equally profound. The dollar’s dominance, long taken for granted, would come under renewed threat as more nations seek alternatives. The BRICS alliance—led by China, Russia, India, Brazil, and South Africa—has already been laying the groundwork for a financial system that bypasses U.S. control. A diminished Washington would accelerate that shift, reducing America’s ability to use sanctions as a tool of diplomacy.
Saudi Arabia and other oil producers have already begun trading energy in Chinese yuan rather than U.S. dollars. If confidence in American leadership falters further, the momentum toward de-dollarization would only grow, shaking the financial markets that underpin U.S. economic strength. A world in which trade and energy are no longer dependent on the dollar is a world where America’s influence shrinks dramatically.
The impact on Bangladesh and South Asia: A region caught in the crossfire
The repercussions of Ukraine’s fate will not be confined to Europe and the Pacific. South Asia, where global power struggles are already playing out, will face new uncertainties. For Bangladesh, a forced peace deal in Ukraine could mark the beginning of a far more unstable regional order—one where India, China, and other powers feel emboldened to assert greater control over weaker neighbors.
India, which has historically played a dominant role in Bangladesh’s economy and politics, could feel emboldened to exert stronger pressure on Dhaka. This may not take the form of military aggression, but rather economic coercion and political interference.
India controls the flow of key rivers into Bangladesh, including the Teesta and Ganges, which are vital for the country’s agriculture and economy. If international norms deteriorate, India may use water as leverage, withholding access to force political and economic concessions. Border tensions, already a source of occasional conflict, could escalate further as New Delhi seeks to tighten its grip on regional security.
Bangladesh’s response may be to strengthen ties with China as a counterweight, much as Ukraine sought closer ties with NATO to balance against Russia. But this would place Bangladesh at the center of a growing geopolitical struggle, turning it into a battleground for influence between India and China—an unsettling parallel to what is happening in Ukraine today.
A world where borders can be changed by force is a world where small nations are no longer secure. Bangladesh, like many other nations, would face a future where sovereignty is increasingly dictated by the ambitions of its larger neighbors.
The world at a crossroads
This is not just about Ukraine. This is about the future of the global order. If Russia is allowed to keep Ukrainian land, it will set in motion a dangerous shift—one where diplomacy is sidelined and military might becomes the final arbiter of power.
For the U.S., the risks are clear. A retreat from Ukraine would not bring peace—it would invite further wars. It would weaken alliances, fracture NATO, embolden China, and accelerate the decline of American economic influence. It would leave smaller nations at the mercy of regional powers, without the protection of an international system that once guaranteed their sovereignty.
This is the moment when the West must decide: is it willing to defend the principles it has championed for decades, or will it surrender them for the sake of short-term political expedience?
The cost of a weak settlement will not just be measured in lost land, but in the collapse of the international system itself. The rules-based order that has kept the world stable since World War II is at stake.
Ukraine’s fight is not just about Ukraine. It is about whether the world still stands for sovereignty, democracy, and the rule of law—or whether we are entering a new era where force alone determines the fate of nations.
