US to blame for its loss of leadership credibility

The Russian special military operation in Ukraine began 16 months ago. As often happens with prolonged large-scale events, the conflict has slowly but steadily lost its prominence in the news.

Nonetheless, this is a kind of hyper history. There is the conflict itself, which is of enormous geopolitical significance. But there are also the conflict's origins and consequences, which are vital to understand. Why has it happened, and how will it change global geopolitics, the balance of power and the paradigm of current and future relations between nations?

One result has been that the United States has failed to retain its moral leadership. Paradoxically, the undermining of this leadership was not provoked by outside forces. The US has destroyed it through its own actions.

US military interventions, which have caused numerous casualties in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places, were based on unsubstantiated facts and the ignoring of international law. This has created the image of an arrogant state that ignores and violates the legitimate interests of others.

The man-made financial crisis of 2008-09, created by greedy bankers and flawed internal legislation, the chaotic and unpredictable governance of the administration of former president Donald Trump, and the humiliating withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan under President Joe Biden have further undermined the credibility of the nation's moral leadership.

The polar positions of the main competing forces in US domestic politics, the Democratic and Republican parties — under which one government's long-term efforts and commitments are instantly nullified by a subsequent one of a different stripe — have further undermined US authority, as the country is viewed as a reactive and unpredictable partner.

Some people in developing countries share the view of a few Western analysts that Russia was provoked or pushed into conflict with Ukraine by the US and NATO's expansion. Many are outraged by the freezing and confiscation of Russian assets in Western financial institutions, the use of the US dollar as a weapon, and Washington's punitive application of economic sanctions. They point out that no one pushed for sanctions against the US when it invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, although they opposed US intervention, so why should they act now?

Some countries seek to reduce the US role in their regions and exert more influence in world affairs. These countries no longer want to be called Third World countries.

A significant restructuring likely awaits relationships within the collective West as well. Better sooner than later, to adapt to new global challenges and realities, the European Union should develop a new foreign policy. This process will lead to greater cohesion. Despite different approaches to global processes in the EU, its members must find a complex consensus.

This will not be easy, given the ever-increasing role of the "new "EU member states and the reliance on NATO for defense. Due to the Ukraine crisis and the accession of Finland and proposed accession of Sweden, NATO has become the mainstay of the European security architecture. Europe is returning to complete dependence on the military power of Washington.

But this year, for the first time, we have heard a resounding "no" to US dominance and witnessed the desire to build a world without a hegemon. New security principles and political and economic systems will no longer be formed exclusively by one country, and reformatting the world order will be required. Trust in the international principles developed since World War II under the leadership of the US has been undermined.

The author is former prime minister of the Kyrgyz Republic, a distinguished professor at the Belt and Road School of Beijing Normal University, and author of Central Asia's Economic Rebirth in the Shadow of the New Great Game.