CWA # 2093
NIAS Global Politics, Young Voices (GPYV)
The Russia–Ukraine War and the Rise of Parallel Strategic Systems: A Critique of Raghavan’s Strategic Framework
Remembering Amb PS Raghavan and his legacy
Amb Raghavan's call for a "multipolar" world reflects India’s long-standing view that the world is safer when power is shared, is a practical approach.
|
Glynnis Winona B
12 May 2026
|
As the Russia–Ukraine war enters its fifth year, it is often discussed through military, humanitarian, and diplomatic perspectives. Amb PS Raghavan described the Ukraine crisis as “a point of inflection in the emerging world order.” This offered a broader framework for understanding the conflict and exposed the underlying issues in the post-Cold War system. In March 2025, he further stated that the conflict is not about Russia and Ukraine as much as between Russia and NATO, which highlighted the wider geopolitical root cause behind the war. According to Amb Raghavan’s analysis, the crisis has pushed international systems such as finance, trade, and technology to be used as tools of geopolitical weaponisation. In response, countries have begun developing alternative options to reduce their dependence on dominant Western networks and protect their strategic autonomy.
The Global Shift since 2022
The world witnessed a profound shift in global finance post-2022. When the G7 decided to freeze approximately USD 280 billion in Russian sovereign reserves and to expel major Russian banks from the SWIFT banking system, it changed the general assumption that shared international systems would be politically neutral. It stressed the fact that access to Western-controlled financial infrastructure is a conditional privilege rather than a neutral utility. The post-Cold War era seemed very optimistic. It is believed that if nations shared a similar trade system, the cost of war would be too high to bear. Previously, systems like SWIFT, WTO, and the use of dollar-denominated finance were considered neutral utilities. Once that assumption collapsed in February 2022, countries shifted from prioritising efficiency to prioritising security. They realized international finance is not a neutral utility but a tool governed by specific political agendas.
In response, countries began building alternatives. This can be considered a trend derived from Amb Raghavan’s analysis of structural shifts in the current international order. China rapidly expanded its Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, leading to increased participation and volume. To safeguard a major portion of its internal financial activity from Western interference, Russia strengthened its domestic SPFS network. Trade settlements between Russia and China shifted towards the yuan and ruble. Following the 2024 Kazan Summit, the expanded BRICS pushed for greater use of local currencies in trade and discussed the creation of unified payment structures. Moreover, the mBridge digital currency project, which connects China, Thailand, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, has successfully settled over USD 55 billion in cross-border transactions by 2025, which functions outside the Western financial framework. Changes are also visible in energy markets. A large shadow fleet of oil tankers now operates outside G7 regulatory systems to transport Russian crude. New insurance systems have been created to support these shipments. India has increased imports of discounted Russian oil to keep its energy costs cheaper and to maintain strategic autonomy. This argues that national economic needs continue to shape policy decisions despite geopolitical pressure. At the same time, disruptions to Black Sea grain exports in 2022 caused a spike in food prices across parts of Africa and Asia, underscoring the interconnectedness of global trade.
In technology, the rise of American export controls on high-end chips has permanently divided global supply chains. What began as targeted measures to block Russia and China from obtaining cutting-edge semiconductors has effectively built walls between two competing tech worlds. Even under massive pressure from the United States, Huawei has continued to grow, and China has rapidly accelerated its domestic chip production. This points to a future where two separate tech systems can operate in parallel with minimal interaction. Once stabilised, these controls reshape business investments, research partnerships, and supply chain setups in ways that cannot easily be undone, even if the political environment changes. At the institutional level, organisations are failing to manage global cooperation. The UN Security Council remains divided on Ukraine, and the WTO dispute system has weakened. In this environment, informal groups like the expanded BRICS are becoming more active in offering economic cooperation and strategic coordination without strict political conditions.
Amb Raghavan's Framework: A Critique
Amb Raghavan argues that the war is less about Russia and Ukraine and more about a clash between Russia and NATO. This idea focuses on how NATO’s move eastward created deep security tension with the West. However, many experts disagree and believe the war was driven more by Russia’s need to satisfy its own interests. This shows that the crisis is too complex to be blamed on just one cause. His call for a "multipolar" world reflects India’s long-standing view that the world is safer when power is shared. The goal is to ensure no single country dominates others and that every nation’s security is respected. This is a practical approach today, as many growing countries seek power. It also aligns with India’s goal of maintaining independence and balance in its foreign policy. One major limitation is that it appears to ignore the power of private companies. The Ukraine war has shown that big businesses can change the outcome of a conflict. For example, SpaceX’s Starlink became vital for Ukraine’s military communication and drone strikes. Because a private company decided who could use the network, they ended up playing an influential role in the war. This proves that governments no longer have total control over global technology. Even with these gaps, Ambassador Raghavan’s main point is strong. The war has exposed how weak the old global system has become and how countries are seeking new ways to manage the economy and technology. More than fixing the old global system, it is a need to build a new stable global system.
About the author
Glynnis Winona B is an undergraduate student at the Department of International Relations, Peace Studies and Public Policy, St Joseph's University, Bengaluru.
