top of page

The Russia–Ukraine War: Impacts on European Security, NATO, and the Global Order

Updated: Aug 5

Reevaluation of global resilience, security architecture, and the limitations

of existing international institutions


This article explores the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war through the lens of European security, NATO cohesion, and the shifting global order. Beginning with Ukraine's historical relationship with Russia and the geopolitical fallout from events such as the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution and the 2022 full-scale invasion, the article examines the war's impact on EU stability, refugee flows, and energy dependency. It further analyzes NATO's revitalization, internal tensions, and expansion to include Finland and Sweden. At the global level, the war is assessed in terms of food security, energy crises, nuclear instability, and the weakening of international governance frameworks. Ultimately, the conflict is presented as both a challenge and an inflection point—urging a reevaluation of global resilience, security architecture, and the limitations of existing international institutions.



Understanding Ukraine Through Its History


To understand the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, it's important to look back at the history shared between these two nations. This helps us see why Ukraine holds such importance, why Russia is waging war on it, and why this conflict has significant effects on European countries—even though Ukraine itself lies in the middle, between Europe and Russia. In the 9th century, the region now known as Kyiv was called Kievan Rus, which is considered the cultural origin of modern-day Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. Later, in the 13th century, during the Mongol invasion, Kyiv collapsed, and the region was divided. Over time, much of modern Ukraine came under the control of the Russian Empire.


From 1922 to 1991, Ukraine became one of the republics of the Soviet Union, and during this period, one of the most significant and tragic events in Ukrainian history took place—the Holodomor Famine. This famine affected large parts of Ukraine’s grain-producing regions. While some scholars believe it was deliberately caused by Joseph Stalin to suppress the Ukrainian independence movement, others suggest it may have been the result of rapid Soviet industrialization and agricultural collectivization. A joint statement by the United Nations and 25 countries acknowledged that 7 to 10 million people lost their lives during this time.


In 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine had its independence and inherited including Crimea the boarder of Soviet Union. One of the key moments that followed was in 1994, when Ukraine signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Budapest Memorandum, through which the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France and Germany assured Ukraine’s sovereignty and security. Because Ukraine inherited a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons—the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world—with around 1,900 strategic warheads and 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles stationed in its territory after the cold war. Even though Ukraine had physical control of these weapons, Russia still

maintained operational command. Ukraine eventually agreed to surrender the weapons, mainly because of economic challenges and international pressure. It raises a difficult question: would the course of Ukraine’s history have changed if it had kept those weapons? But at the time, disarmament seemed to be the most practical and responsible decision.


Later, in 2013, the Euromaidan Revolution took place in Kyiv. This was a turning point. The protests started when then-President Viktor Yanukovych decided not to sign the association agreement with the European Union. Due to heavy pressure from Russia, he instead moved closer to forming ties with Moscow. This disappointed and angered many Ukrainians, especially the youth and pro-European citizens. The protests turned into a national movement sooner. More than 100 people lost their lives, and they are now remembered as the “Heavenly Hundred.” Eventually, Yanukovych fled the country, and a pro-European interim government was installed in 2014. In response to this shift, Russia viewed Ukraine’s possible alignment with NATO as a threat and reacted by annexing Crimea and supporting armed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donbas region. That marked the beginning of what has now become a long and ongoing war—a conflict that continues to affect not just Ukraine and Russia, but the broader international community.



An Overview of the Russia–Ukraine War


The invasion of Ukraine in full -scale by Russia began in February 2022, significantly escalating a conflict which initially started with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Currently, Russia occupies approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory, amounting to over 4,000 square kilometers. As Russian forces continue their assaults on Ukrainian cities via land, air, and sea, President Vladimir Putin has justified the military operation with claims of seeking to "denazify" Ukraine and to stop what he described as a "genocide" against Russian-speaking populations—allegations widely dismissed by the international community as baseless.


In response, U.S. President Joe Biden called Russia’s justifications unsubstantiated, and on March 2, 2022, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution demanding the immediate cessation of hostilities by Russia. This resolution—adopted in the forum where all 193 UN member states have a voice—garnered support from 141 countries, strongly affirming Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. To date, Ukraine has received approximately $407 billion in total aid, with over $118 billion contributed by the United States alone.


The war has led to more than 40,000 civilian deaths, the internal displacement of about 3.7 million people, and the forced migration of roughly 6.9 million Ukrainians across borders. Furthermore, around 12.7 million people are currently in dire need of humanitarian assistance. As the conflict enters its second decade, efforts to negotiate a peaceful resolution continue, though they remain fraught with setbacks. Recent political developments in the United States have further complicated diplomacy. The legacy of the Trump administration—marked by a transactional view of alliances and a relatively ambiguous stance toward Russian aggression—has introduced enduring strain in U.S.–Ukraine relations and raised concerns among NATO allies. And despite numerous diplomatic attempts, negotiations have failed, with both sides maintaining rigid, uncompromising positions.



The War’s Influence on the European Union


The foremost concern for the European Union is its security vulnerability, as Ukraine shares borders with several EU member states, including Poland, Hungary, and Romania. A Russian victory would place a hostile power directly at the EU's doorstep, posing a significant long-term strategic threat. While this represents a post-war risk, the ongoing conflict has already triggered a massive humanitarian crisis. Over 6.9 million Ukrainians have sought refuge in EU countries, with Poland, Germany, and the Czech Republic shouldering a substantial share of the humanitarian burden.


In addition to its extensive support for Ukraine, the European Union is grappling with growing economic strain. The bloc has collectively allocated over $158 billion in military, financial, humanitarian, and refugee aid—65% of which has been provided as grants, while the remaining 35% consists of in-kind contributions and concessional loans. Looking ahead, EU leaders have pledged an additional $54 billion in financial assistance through 2027. However, this long standing commitment has also begun to generate internal friction. Several member states are showing signs of war fatigue, while others maintain longstanding economic or political ties with Russia. These divergent perspectives pose challenges to maintaining unity and consistent cooperation within the EU, complicating its collective response to the ongoing conflict. Another key consequence has been rising inflation within the EU, driven largely by energy price spikes and disruptions in agricultural exports—particularly grain—from Ukraine. These factors have affected not only internal markets but also global food security.


Perhaps the most visible and immediate challenge for the EU has been the energy crisis, largely triggered by sanctions on Russia. While these sanctions aim to undermine Russia’s capacity to fund the war and increase political and economic pressure on the Kremlin, they have also exposed the EU’s strategic vulnerability. Russia had long been a major supplier of natural gas and oil to Europe, and the loss of this supply has prompted widespread shortages and price hikes. In response, the EU has accelerated efforts to transition to renewable energy, but the short-term pain has been significant. As Josep Borrell, the EU’s former High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, emphasized: "To handle the wider impact of the war against Ukraine, we need to bolster European economic resilience, end our energy dependence on Russia and further strengthen European defense." This statement reflects the EU’s evolving strategic priorities, which now focus on enhancing military capabilities, deepening internal cohesion, and asserting greater economic and geopolitical influence in a rapidly changing world order.



Strains and Strengths: NATO Cohesion Amid the War


The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established in 1949, during the early years of the Cold War, as a collective defense alliance aimed at countering the growing threat posed by the Soviet Union. While its relevance had been questioned in the post-Cold War era, the Russia–Ukraine war has reaffirmed NATO’s strategic importance, breathing new life into the alliance. One of the most visible outcomes of the conflict is the expansion of NATO, with formerly neutral countries—Finland and Sweden—seeking protection under its security umbrella. Finland officially joined NATO in 2023, followed by Sweden in 2024, marking a significant shift in their historical military neutrality. This expansion is a direct consequence of heightened security concerns triggered by Russia's aggression.


However, the war has also revealed internal strains within the alliance. Hungary and Turkey have shown reluctance in aligning fully with NATO’s unified stance. Hungary continues to maintain relatively close ties with Vladimir Putin and remains heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas, which affects its willingness to support sanctions or NATO aid efforts. Turkey, on the other hand, has pursued a balancing act between Russia and the West. Despite being a NATO member, it has deepened its economic and military ties with Moscow—including the controversial purchase of the Russian S-400 missile system—raising concerns about its strategic alignment. The conflict has also intensified long-standing tensions within NATO, particularly around burden-sharing. Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s criticism of NATO allies for not contributing adequately to the alliance’s defense budget has resurfaced. The United States continues to be the largest financial and military contributor to NATO, and Trump’s “America First” stance has pressured European nations to take on a greater share of the collective security burden. This shift in U.S. posture has led some European powers, especially France, to call for reduced dependency on the U.S. and to enhance strategic autonomy within Europe. These discussions have gained urgency considering Trump’s potential re-election and the unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy.


In essence, the Russia–Ukraine war has served as a catalyst for NATO’s reformation. It has renewed focus on the alliance’s original purpose—collective defense—and pushed several neutral countries to join. At the same time, internal disagreements and diverging national interests, especially among key members like Hungary and Turkey, continue to challenge NATO’s cohesion. Still, the overall effect has been a more mobilized and responsive NATO, adapting to new security realities in Europe.



Reshaping the Global Order: Consequences of the War


The Russia–Ukraine war has significantly altered the trajectory of the global order, marking a visible shift from a long-standing unipolar system—dominated by the United States—to an emerging multipolar world where countries like China, India, and Turkey are asserting greater influence. For decades, global power dynamics had remained relatively stable in terms of war and peace, but this conflict has exposed deep vulnerabilities in the existing structure of international relations.


One of the most immediate and widespread effects has been on global food security. Russia and Ukraine export nearly one third of the world’s wheat, barley, sunflower oil, and corn. As of 2022, nearly 20 million tons of Ukrainian grain were stuck due to the war, unable to reach key regions like the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia—regions already grappling with food insecurity. An estimate of 400 million people globally depend on Ukrainian agricultural exports. Since the war began, Ukraine has only been able to export around 1.5 to 2 million tons of grain. “Now you have to go all the way around Europe to come back into the Mediterranean. It really has added an incredible amount of cost to Ukrainian grain,” explained Joseph Glauber, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. Another major impact is the global energy crisis—what the International Energy Agency (IEA) has described as “the first truly global energy crisis.” Prior to the war, Russia provided about 40% of Europe's natural gas and was also a key supplier of oil and coal. Sanctions imposed by Europe and the West have forced a shift toward alternative energy sources, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S., Qatar, and Norway. However, this transition has led to severe price spikes, disproportionately affecting developing nations. The crisis has also accelerated the global transition to renewable energy, highlighting the risks of over dependence on a single energy supplier.


The war has also raised difficult questions about the effectiveness of international institutions. Bodies like the UN and others, while vocal in their condemnations, have struggled to enact meaningful change or prevent escalation—casting doubt on the current frameworks of global governance. We are also witnessing a realignment of global diplomatic blocs. The war has deepened divisions between Western democracies and emerging powers, both within and outside of those democratic spaces. This shift is accompanied by serious discussions around de-dollarization and the creation of alternate payment systems, which challenge U.S. financial dominance and signal broader economic transformations. Perhaps the most dangerous consequence lies in nuclear instability.


Russia, a major nuclear power, engaging in prolonged warfare has deeply unsettled global disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. This undermines long-standing frameworks meant to ensure global security and increases the risk of nuclear brinkmanship.



Conclusion


This war, now in its second decade, raises more questions than answers. Despite the presence of global powers and major international institutions, their actions have often fallen short of what is required. Political agendas, economic interests, and shifting alliances continue to shape how the conflict unfolds. At the heart of it, the Russia–Ukraine war is a wake-up call. It has exposed vulnerabilities in global food systems, energy markets, and security structures. For many countries, particularly in Europe, it has prompted a serious reassessment of military readiness, economic resilience, and strategic independence.


While complete detachment from global interdependence is unrealistic, this crisis offers a vital opportunity: to build stronger internal capacities so that nations are less exposed to the external shocks of future geopolitical upheavals.



Disclaimer:

The opinions, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the SIGA Centre, its Advisory Board, partners, or affiliates. SIGA Centre bears no responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for the consequences arising from the use of the information contained herein.


REFERENCES



Comments

bottom of page