A New World Order: Amidst the Russo-Ukrainian War and an Evolving International Order, the United States Must Utilize Multilateralism to Reassert Itself as the Global Leader

Seton Hall University Seton Hall University

eRepository @ Seton Hall eRepository @ Seton Hall

Student Works Seton Hall Law

2023

A New World Order: Amidst the Russo-Ukrainian War and an A New World Order: Amidst the Russo-Ukrainian War and an

Evolving International Order, the United States Must Utilize Evolving International Order, the United States Must Utilize

Multilateralism to Reassert Itself as the Global Leader Multilateralism to Reassert Itself as the Global Leader

Andrew McAlister

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship

Part of the Law Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

McAlister, Andrew, "A New World Order: Amidst the Russo-Ukrainian War and an Evolving International

Order, the United States Must Utilize Multilateralism to Reassert Itself as the Global Leader" (2023).

Student Works

. 1375.

https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/1375



‐2‐

2022

A New World Order: Amidst the Russo-Ukrainian War and an Evolving

International Order, the United States Must Utilize Multilateralism to

Reassert Itself as the Global Leader

Andrew McAlister



‐3‐

Introduction

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, marked the re-emergence of war

on the European continent, and an ultimate attempt to correct the Western-led system

prevailing since the end of the Cold War.”

The world is on the verge of a new international order. The international order that the

U.S. has enjoyed since the end of the Cold War no longer exists.

Challengers to the U.S.’

previous global leadership have emerged on the international stage, and seek the implementation

of a new international order.

Witnessing a weakening Western-led world order, Russia is eager

to capitalize on the opportunity to free itself from the binding Cold War era arrangements and

foster a new, Russian-favorable world order.

Evidence of the Russian desire for a new world

order can be found in acts before the invasion of Ukraine; as Russian President Vladimir Putin

engaged in increased relations with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

In a February meeting, Putin

and Xi united their opposition of NATO, and called for a halt of NATO expansion.

As a result

of this meeting, Putin announced a “new era” of relations in a letter released in China’s state

media.

Following this announcement of a “new era,” Russia invaded Ukraine, marking the first



Interview with Fyodor A. Lukyanov, Ed. in Chief, Russia in Global Aff. (October 13, 2022),

https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/analysis/ukraine-russia-and-new-world-order.

Paul D. Miller, Leading the Free World: How America benefits, Atlantic Counsel (December 20, 2019),

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/leading-the-free-world-how-america-benefits/; See

also Joe Biden, National Security Strategy Address, The White House at 2 (October 12, 2022) (“We are in the midst

of a strategic competition to shape the future of the international order.”).

Jutta Brunnée, Multilateralism in Crisis, American Society of International Law at 337 (2018) (“We are witnessing

the rise of major regional or even global powers outside of the West – China, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and

Turkey…”).

Note 1.

CNN’s Beijing Bureau & Ann Chernova, Putin and Xi call for halt to NATO expansion during show of unity at

Beijing Olympics, CNN (February 4, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/world/china-russia-xi-putin-meeting-

nato-intl/index.html.

Id.



‐4‐

steps towards removing itself from the post-World War II and post-Cold War international

order.

President Trump’s renunciation of multilateralism, coupled with the emergence of new

world powers have shaken the previous global order.

Though not the global superpower that it

once was, the U.S. remains a leading world power; the evolving world order presents the U.S.

with an opportunity to reassert itself as the dominant world power that it became in the post-Cold

War era.

In order to reaffirm itself as a major power in a developing world order, the U.S. must

lead the world in its opposition against Russian aggression through multilateral coordination,

using diplomacy to build the strong international relationships.

The U.S. has a vested interest in becoming a global power capable of directing the

international order. President Biden is aware of the shifting global order.

In his National

Security Strategy address, he outlines the goals and vision of the U.S. moving forward during the

changing global landscape. President Biden commits the U.S. to developing a “world that is free,

open, secure, and prosperous.”

Ensuring U.S. support for the “foundational principles of self-

determination, territorial integrity, and political independence.”

President Biden goes on to

state that the U.S. will strive to see that international institutions are strengthened, and that

universal human rights are defended.

These statements by President Biden form the U.S.’

world vision. Ultimately, through the implementation of the U.S., it will be better suited to



Nectar Gan, Xi and Putin want to create a new world order. Russia’s setback in Ukraine could spoil their plans,

CNN (September 15, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/china/xi-putin-meeting-sco-summit-analysis-intl-hnk.

Joe Biden, National Security Strategy, The White House (“…the U.S. remains the world’s leading power.”).

Note 9, at 2 (“We are now in the early years of a decisive decade for America and the world. The terms of

geopolitical competition between major powers will be set.”).

Note 9, at 2 (“We are in the midst of a strategic competition to shape the future of the international order.”).

Note 9, at 2.

Note 9, at 6.



‐5‐

protect its own interests; the security of the American people and their prosperity, and to defend

and support democracies around the world.

Of course, not every nation will benefit from an international order headed by the U.S.

Nations that are pushing for a change in the current world order, such as Russia, China, Iran, and

North Korea will oppose such leadership. If the U.S. is to return to a level of global leadership it

once enjoyed, it will be able to combat adversarial values that other nations may support.

However, this paper focuses on the interests of the U.S. and what it should do to remain atop the

shifting global order, and not the states that will oppose U.S. global leadership.

This paper will establish that through U.S.-led multilateralism as a response to the Russo-

Ukrainian War, the U.S. will be able to return as a powerful global leader in an evolving

international order. The U.S.-led multilateralism should (1) continue to employ sanctions upon

Russia, and (2) continue to provide military aid to Ukraine.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and

Ukraine’s sustained success in staving off Russia shows that multilateral cooperation is effective

in providing aid and can effectively support a state that is a victim of the aggression of another

state. Part I discusses the foundations of multilateralism and the relevant international law

principles. Part II examines the history of multilateralism in the context of the U.S., and the

departure from multilateral principles by the Trump administration. Part III outlines the timeline

of events that led up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the subsequent multilateral

coordination of Ukrainian support. Lastly, Part IV establishes which actions by the Biden



Note 9, at 7.

Dmitri Trenin, Ask Judy: Can the U.S. Regain Its Global Leadership?, Carnegie Europe (October 15, 2020),

https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/82962 (“In Russia, few people would vote for U.S. global leadership.”).

Note 9, at 1 (“Around the world, the need for American leadership is as great as it has ever been. We are in the

midst of a strategic competition to shape the future of the international order.”).



‐6‐

administration have proved successful in aiding Ukraine, and how the Biden administration

should proceed to support Ukraine with the goal of increasing multilateral coordination in mind.

I. Contemporary Multilateralism and Relevant International Law

“[M]ultilateralism is an institutional form which coordinates relations among three or

more states on the basis of “generalized” principles of conduct—that is, principles

which specify appropriate conduct for a class of actions, without regard to

particularistic interests of parties or the strategic exigencies that may exist in any

specific occurrence.”

The U.S. has enjoyed heavy influence on the international agenda since the end of World

War II.

A driving force in the U.S.’ strategy has been multilateralism as seen in the U.S.’

contribution to the creation of multiple international institutions, like the United Nations (U.N.)

and the North Atlantic Trade Organization (NATO).

Since its inception in 1945, the U.N. has

grown from fifty-one original member states to one hundred ninety-three member states.

While

NATO has grown from its originating twelve member states in 1949, to its current number of

thirty member states, with multiple states awaiting admission.

Former President Donald Trump halted decades of U.S. involvement in international

institutions, treaties, and agreements. The foreign policies implemented during the Trump

presidency threatened the exact multilateralist ideals that the U.S. championed for nearly a

century. President Trump championed an “America first” foreign policy, withdrawing the U.S.



John Ruggie, Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution, 46 Int’l Org. at 562, 572 (1992).

Note 3, at 336 (2018).

See note 9, at 32 (“Since 1945, the U.S. has led the creation of institutions, norms, and standards to govern

international trade and investment, economic policy, and technology. These mechanisms advanced America’s

economic and geopolitical aims and benefited people around the world by shaping how governments and economies

interacted—and did so in ways that aligned with U.S interests and values.”).

About Us, The United Nations (2022), https://www.un.org/en/about-us#:~:text=Member-

,States,members%20of%20the%20General%20Assembly.

Member Countries, NATO (October 4, 2022),

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm#:~:text=At%20present%2C%20NATO%20has%2030,Kingdo

m%20and%20the%20United%20States.



‐7‐

from multiple international treaties and institutions.

Trump’s withdrawals included a number of

multilateral treaties; namely the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Paris Agreement,

and the World Health Organization.

The Trump administration’s rejection of international

cooperation represented an exceptional renunciation of multilateralism in the post-war era.

In response to the isolationism employed by the Trump administration, President Biden

campaigned on the premise of returning to multilateralism and restoring faith in the international

institutions that the U.S. devoted decades of energy and resources to establish.

President Biden

began his presidency by reentering the U.S. in multiple international agreements.

President

Biden stressed the importance of strengthening the alliances the U.S. had built over the previous

decades.

While President Biden had already demonstrated his willingness to recommit the U.S.

to multilateral coordination, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced the issue of recommitment to

multilateralism upon President Biden.

A. Foundations of Multilateralism

Multilateralism can be defined as “the coordination of relations among three or more

states in accordance with certain principles.”

The “principles” specify which conduct is



Oona Hathaway, Reengaging on Treaties and Other International Agreements (Part 1): President Donald

Trump’s Rejection of International Law, Just Security (October 2, 2020),

https://www.justsecurity.org/72656/reengaging-on-treaties-and-other-international-agreements-part-i-president-

donald-trumps-rejection-of-international-law/.

Id.

Lindsay Maizland, Biden’s First Foreign Policy Move: Reentering International Agreements, Council on Foreign

Relations (January 21, 2021), https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/bidens-first-foreign-policy-move-reentering-international-

agreements; See also Biden Administration Reengages with International Institutions and Agreements, 115

American Journal of International Law, 323-329 (2001) (reporting the Biden Administration has rejoined the Paris

Climate Agreement, stopped the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization, and announced the U.S.

participation in the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access Facility).

Note 9, at 1 (“We have reinvigorated America’s unmatched network of alliances and partnerships to uphold and

strengthen the principles and institutions that have enabled so much stability, prosperity, and growth for the last 75

years.”).

Note 18, at 568.



‐8‐

appropriate for a class of actions, regardless of the states involved and their interests, or any

extrinsic circumstances.

During the twentieth-century, multilateralism evolved into what we

know it as today, the world witnessed the rise of “institutions” within the international sphere.

The addition of institutions complicated the relatively simple world order that had

previously existed, creating new problems.

International institutions hold great power as they

possess the ability to impact international agenda-setting; they have created legal and procedural

norms that shape the international conduct of states.

A goal of multilateralism, relevant to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is the promotion

of peace through institutional arrangements that aim to create collective security.

Collective

security promotes peace by discouraging acts of aggression towards members of the collective

security apparatus.

In principle, an act of aggression towards one member state of the collective

security apparatus, constitutes an act of aggression towards all member states, and warrants a

response from all member states of the collective security apparatus.

Due to the expected

collective response from multiple states, the would-be aggressor is deterred; thus, decreasing acts

of aggression and subsequently decreasing wars.

The U.N. and NATO are both collective

security institutions relevant to this case.



Id. at 571.

Akira Iriye, Global Community: The Role of International Organizations in the Making of the Contemporary

World, University of California Press at 157 (2002).

Note 18, at 584.

Note 31, at 42 (explaining the United Nations preamble aims to prevent war, reaffirm human rights, promote

social progress, procure the social and economic advancements for all people).

Note 18, at 569.

Id. at 569.

Roland N. Stromberg, The Idea of Collective Security, University of Pennsylvania Press Vol. 17, No. 2 at 256

(April 1956)

Id. at 256.



‐9‐

Multilateralism is not a new phenomenon, and it is not stagnant. In the hyper-globalized

world that exists today, multilateralism is as robust as ever. Multilateral institutions exist in every

corner of the international arena, it is nearly impossible for states to avoid multilateralism.

B. Relevant International Law

International Law refers to rules of conduct that are binding on states and other

international actors in relations, transactions, and problems that cross national borders or

implicate core human values.

International law aims to establish and maintain order, enhance

reliable expectations, and protect persons and states, their property, and their interests.

Within

the framework of international law exists customary international law. Customary international

law refers to “international customs, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.”

Customary international law establishes the foundation of restrictions that may apply to state

actions.

An important subsection of international law is jus cogens (peremptory norms). Jus

cogens establishes that some customary norms are of a higher legal rank than other norms; in

fact, the norms are so fundamental that derogation from them can never be allowed.

Jus cogens

can be identified as norms that are “accepted and recognized by the international community of

States as a whole.”

A number of the largely agreed upon norms that are considered to be jus

cogens are relevant to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; (a) the prohibition of aggressive use of

force; (b) the right to self-defense; (c) the prohibition of torture; (d) crimes against humanity; and

(e) the prohibition of hostilities directed at civilian populations.



Louis Hengin, International Law: Politics and Value, Springer at 4-5 (1995).

Id. at 4.

I.C.J. Acts & Docs. 38(b)(1).

Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From the Diversification and Expansion

of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law at 361 (2006).

Id. at 375.

Id. at 374.



‐10‐

A common critique of international law is the lack of an effective enforcement

mechanism.

However, means do exist that operate as an enforcement mechanism. Non-forcible

collective action by other states can produce effective enforcement measures. These actions

include an array of sanctions, differing in severity.

Forcible measures also exist, including self-

defense and collective self-defense.

II. Multilateral History in the Context of the U.S.

A. Multilateral Foundations in the U.S.

The U.S. has utilized multilateralism has for decades.

As the world has become

increasingly interconnected, multilateralism has evolved; specifically, since the end of World

War II. Since 1945, multilateralism has exploded through the sheer number of multilateral

arrangements that envelope a wide range of areas.

Currently, the U.S. is member to fourteen

multilateral trade agreements with twenty different countries.

The most relevant multilateral

institutions for the subjects of this paper include the U.N. and the NATO, of which the U.S. is a

key member of both.

In its conception, the U.S. was founded on unilateral principles.

The Founding Fathers

were adamant in establishing unilateralism as the foreign policy of the U.S., aiming to “steer



See Lori Damrosch, Enforcing International Law Through Non-Forcible Measures, Volume 269 at 19-22, 24

(1997) (explaining the difficulties of multilateral enforcement of sanctions).

Id. at 24.

Note 9, at 2 (President Biden acknowledges the alliances and multilateral arrangements the U.S. has been a part of

for seventy-five years).

Note 18, at 584.

Outcomes of Current U.S. Trade Agreements, U.S. Department of State (2022), https://www.state.gov/trade-

agreements/outcomes-of-current-u-s-trade-

agreements/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20has%20implemented,a%20total%20of%2020%20countries.

Maria Kiani, US Unilateralism Versus Post-Cold War Multilateralism, Strategic Studies Vol. 23, No. 3, Autumn

2003 at 103 (2003) (explaining President Thomas Jefferson stated the U.S. should have “no entangling alliances” in

his inaugural address in 1801, setting the foundation for U.S. unilateralism).



‐11‐

clear of permanent alliance[s] with any portion of the foreign world.”

But as technology and

the global economy progressed, America’s involvement in the international community was

inevitable. The First World War thrust America into the international sphere as a global power.

Under President Woodrow Wilson, following World War I, the U.S. began to implement

multilateralism in its foreign policy.

The U.S. spearheaded the establishment of international

organizations for the regulation of international relations; resulting in the League of Nations in

1919.

Despite the U.S.’ increased participation in foreign affairs and the creation of an

international organization, the U.S. remained on the outside of increasing multilateralism and

failed to join the League of Nations.

It was not until the 1940s and World War II that forced

President Franklin Roosevelt to fully commit the U.S. to internationalism.

B. “Post-War” Multilateralism and the U.S.

As the victorious side in World War II, the U.S. was cemented as the world’s most

powerful nation.

The U.S. held over half of the world’s industrial capacity, nearly two-thirds of

the world’s gold reserves, and boasted the world’s largest and strongest military.

With this new

found power, Roosevelt was aware that returning to “fortress America” was not an option.

was time for America to establish a collective security organization, one that could further the

U.S.’ ideal world view.

The U.S. was important to the establishment of the U.N., as it hosted

the signing of the United Nations Charter, and, unlike the League of Nations, the U.S. joined the



Id. at 104 (reporting the farewell address of President George Washington, to which Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed

the unilateral principles in his inaugural address).

Id. at 107.

Id. at 108.

Note 18, at 586.

Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, London at 459 (1989).

Note 18, at 587.

Id. at 587 (the expansion and support of democracy remains an important goal of U.S. foreign policy).



‐12‐

U.N. as a permanent member.

The U.N. was formed as a collective security apparatus in which

the members “vowed to rid the world from the ‘scourge of war.’”

The U.S.-led multilateral surge was not only concerned with security and maintaining

peace; in addition to the U.N., the U.S. was involved in the establishment of a series of economic

centered multilateral initiatives.

In an attempt to stabilize the international capitalist economic

system, the U.S. hosted the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944.

This conference fostered the

establishment of two major economic international organizations still in operation today, the

International Monetary Fund (IMF )and the World Bank.

In the late 1940s, the U.S. again spearheaded the creation of a multilateral institution in

NATO.

European and North American countries created NATO as a collective security system

in response to the growing threat posed by Soviet Russia.

The members of NATO committed to

“share the risks and responsibilities of collective security while upholding their individual rights

as well as their obligations according to the U.N. Charter.”

NATO was founded under Article

51 of the U.N. Charter, which established the inherent right of individual and collective self-

defense.

NATO’s objective is to deter a potential aggressor through the collective action that it

will face from all members of NATO, and not just the single state that is the victim of the act of

aggression.



Note 50, at 108.

Id. at 108.

Id. at 108. See also The IMF and World Bank, International Monetary Fund (2022) (explaining the “IMF and the

World Bank share a common goal of raising living standards in their member countries.”).

Note 50, at 108.

Id. at 108.

NATO Handbook, NATO (2022), www.nato.int/doc/handbook/2001/hb0101.htm.

Note 18, at 589; See also U.N. GAOR, 56

Sess. U.N. Charter, Art. 51, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-

charter/full-text.



‐13‐

The power the U.S. held after World War II enabled it to impose a great deal of influence

on the international order. The U.S. implemented multilateralism in its foreign policy to fulfill its

“vision as to what constitutes a desirable world order.”

C. Cold War Multilateralism

The multilateral dominance enjoyed by the U.S. was shaken in the 1960s as

decolonization surged and more countries entered the world stage.

As the standoff between the

US and the USSR intensified, the U.S. stood by multilateralism as a means to achieve its goals;

establishing the U.N. as an important tool for furthering geo-strategic interest.

Nearly forty years after World War II, the U.S. again found itself at the helm of the

international order after the Cold War.

The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet

Union, and the U.S. was once again in a position to influence the multilateral structure.

In the White House’s “Biden-Harris Administration’s National Security Strategy,”

President Biden announces the end of the post-Cold War era.

The U.S. is in a similar position

as that of the end of the Cold War, as there is an opportunity for the U.S. to establish itself as an

international leader.

President Biden states, “No nation is better positioned to succeed in this

competition than the U.S., as long as we work in common cause with those who share our vision

of a world that is free, open, secure, and prosperous.”

President Biden is aware of the

similarities between multilateralism now and multilateralism at the end of the Cold War; that is



John Ruggie, Third Try at World Order? America and Multilateralism after the Cold War, Political Science

Quarterly Vol 109, No. 4 at 560 (1994).

Note 50, at 110.

Id. at 110-111.

Id. at 103.

Note 9, at 6 (” …the post-Cold War era is definitively over and a competition is underway between the major

powers to shape what comes next.”).

Note 9, at 6.



‐14‐

the opportunity that exists for the U.S. to impose its influence on the world order that is to

come.

D. American Multilateralism Since 2016

President Donald Trump advocated for “America first” policies, and repeatedly spoke ill

of multilateral organizations.

The Trump administration withdrew the U.S. from numerous

multilateral agreements, including the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Paris Agreement, and the

World Health Organization.

The U.S.’ renunciation of multilateralism under the Trump

administration marked the first time since World War II that a major state challenged the

foundations of international rule of law.

Under President Trump, the U.S., once “the primary

architect of a system of norms and rules across global economics, health, and security in the

aftermath of World War II…[was] a disrupter.”

President Biden’s proposed foreign policy agenda was to reengage the U.S. in the

multilateral sphere and to rejoin the multiple multilateral agreements the Trump administration

withdrew America from.

President Biden agreed to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, the

World Health Organization, and the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced

President Biden to make good on his promises and required America to reengage in the

multilateral sphere. The invasion of Ukraine triggered a resurgence of American multilateralism



Note 9, at 6

Note 23 (reporting that Trump’s rhetoric throughout his presidency turned to action as he withdrew the U.S. from

multiple international treaties and organizations and halted any processes for joining new agreements).

Id.

Note 3, at 338.

Rudra Chaudhuri, Judy Asks: Can the U.S. Regain Its Global Leadership?, Carnegie Europe (October 15, 2020),

https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/82962.

Note 9, at 2 (“We have also reinvigorated America’s unmatched network of alliances and partnerships to uphold

and strengthen the principles and institutions that have enabled so much stability, prosperity, and growth for the last

75 years.”).

Note 81.



‐15‐

and a resurgence of multilateralism institutions as a whole.

International aid provided to

Ukraine by the international community has been historic; as of May 17, 2022, Ukraine had

received nearly twenty-five billion dollars worth of foreign aid, of which nearly half has been

provided by the U.S..

III. Timeline of Russian Aggression

A. The Russian Annexation of Crimea

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not Russia’s first act of aggression in recent years. In

2014, Russia annexed Crimea, a peninsula that is internationally recognized as Ukrainian

territory.

Russia’s unlawful annexation constituted the largest taking of land in Europe since

World War II.

The Ukrainian President at the time, Viktor Yanukovich, had been turning

Ukraine away from the European Union, and had increased connections with Russia and its

President, Vladmir Putin.

On February 27, 2014, a group of armed men seized the Crimean

parliament and raised the Russian flag.

Viktor Yanukovich was forced out as president of

Ukraine, and new leadership was implemented in Ukraine.

The new leadership warned

Moscow to keep troops within its own naval base on the peninsula, but on February 28, armed

men overtook two airports in Crimea.

Although not a member of NATO, upon the invasion,

Ukraine immediately called to NATO for help.

Refraining from any immediate and direct



Andrew Cheatham, Rethinking U.S. Engagement with U.N. in Context of Ukraine: Part One, (March 21, 2022),

https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/03/rethinking-us-engagement-un-context-ukraine-part-one.

Adding Up Aid to Ukraine from the U.S. and the Rest of the World, Committee for Responsible Federal Budget

(May 17, 2022), https://www.crfb.org/blogs/adding-aid-ukraine-us-and-rest-world.

Reuters, Timeline: Political Crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s occupation of Crimea, Reuters (March 8, 2014),

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-timeline/timeline-political-crisis-in-ukraine-and-russias-

occupation-of-crimea-idUSBREA270PO20140308.

Steven Pifer, Crimea: Six years after illegal annexation, Brookings (2020),

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/.

Note 86.

Id.



‐16‐

military response, the U.S. publicly condemned Russia, and warned Russia of economic and

political isolation via economic sanctions.

In addition, the E.U. and the U.S. created “Crimean

packages” of sanctions against Russia.

Since the illegal occupation began, over 140,000 ethnic Ukrainians have fled Crimea.

Currently, there is active work within the international courts to hold Russia accountable for its

act of aggression.

Russia violated multiple international treaties; including the non-intervention

provisions of the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the 1990 Paris Charter,

the 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine, and the 1994

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

Despite the collective international

recognition of Russia’s crimes, Russia continues to illegally occupy Crimea.

The multilateral response from the U.S. and the international community to the Russian

annexation of Crimea was much different than the reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The extent of multilateral intervention during Russia’s annexation of Crimea was the

implementation of a few uncoordinated sanctions. For the most part, the U.S. acted

independently while it aided Ukraine. From the time of annexation of Crimea in February 2014

through December 2019, the U.S. had provided $1.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine.

This aid included military technology, such as lethal weaponry like Javelin antitank missiles.

100



Id.

United Nations, International Response, Crimea Platform (2021), https://crimea-

platform.org/en/news/international-response.

Note 87.

Note 86.

Katya Kruk, The Crimean Factor: How the European Union Reacted to Russia’s Annexation of Crimea, The

Warsaw Institute (May 7, 2019), https://warsawinstitute.org/crimean-factor-european-union-reacted-russias-

annexation-crimea/.

Note 86.

Lucian Kim, How U.S. Military Aid has Helped Ukraine Since 2014, NPR (December 18, 2019),

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/788874844/how-u-s-military-aid-has-helped-ukraine-since-2014.

100

Id.



‐17‐

Through 2019, the U.S. accounted for ninety percent of Ukraine’s foreign military aid.

101

Indicating that prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine earlier this year, support provided to

Ukraine was largely unilateral on behalf of the U.S.

In addition to the aid provided to Ukraine by the U.S., sanctions had also been

implemented on Russia by President Obama and continued under President Trump.

102

However,

the round of sanctions were not very effective. Only fifteen percent of Russians thought that the

U.S. economic sanctions against their country were a critical threat.

103

The Russian public placed

other threats to their country above the threat of U.S. sanctions; including but not limited to

international terrorism, North Korea’s nuclear program, climate change, and Islamic

fundamentalism.

104

The lack of multilateral coordination on the Crimean sanctions rendered

them relatively ineffective.

B. The Russian Invasion of Ukraine

On February 21, 2022, the world witnessed the most severe invasion of a sovereign state

in recent history as Vladmir Putin sent Russian forces into eastern Ukraine.

105

By the next day,

the U.S., Britain, and their allies sanctioned Russian parliament members and banks, and

Germany halted the Norm Stream 2 gas pipeline project.

106

Despite the swift response from the

international community, Putin escalated the invasion. Putin launched a full-scale invasion of

Ukraine and authorized missile and artillery attacks on Kiev and other major Ukrainian cities on



101

Id.

102

Dina Smeltz Et al., American and Russian Opinion at a Standoff on Crimea Sanctions, Chicago Council on

Global Affairs (January 1, 2018).

103

Id at 2.

104

Id. at 2.

105

Reuters, Timeline: The events leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, (March 1, 2022),

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/events-leading-up-russias-invasion-ukraine-2022-02-28/.

106

Id.



‐18‐

February 24

107

Rapid multilateral action was again deployed as new sanctions were announced,

some of which cut off Russian banks from the global payments system.

108

After months of fighting, on October 5, 2022, Putin annexed four more Ukrainian

Regions.

109

Again, the international community responded without hesitation and instituted

additional sanctions on over 1,000 Russian individuals and companies.

110

While the war rages

on, the U.S. and its allies have provided unprecedented amounts of foreign military and

humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Aside from the U.S., Ukraine has received a total of $23.6 billion of

aid from thirty-one foreign countries.

111

IV. How the Biden Administration Must Move Forward with Russia

Russian victory in Ukraine would be a disastrous result for the U.S., NATO, and its

allies. Russian seizure of Ukraine would expand Moscow’s influence in the region and tip power

in Europe towards Russia.

112

Any justifications offered for the invasion by Russia were quickly

exposed; Russia’s cited security concerns were not credible, and instead the war is an attempt to

expand Russian power and influence.

113

The world has reacted with unprecedented levels of multilateral coordination led by the

U.S. Swift and effective action has been taken by dozens of states in efforts to support Ukraine.



107

Id.

108

Id.

109

Madeline Fitzgerald, Russia Invades Ukraine: A Timeline of the Crisis, U.S. News & World Report (October 5,

2022), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/a-timeline-of-the-russia-ukraine-conflict?slide=14.

110

Matthew Lee, et al. Biden Vows Russia Won’t ‘Get Away With’ Ukraine Annexation, Associated Press

(September 30, 2022), https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-09-30/us-hits-russia-with-sanctions-for-

annexing-ukrainian-regions.

111

Note 85.

112

Note 8.

113

James E. Cronin, A New World Order? On the world after Ukraine, Boston College Magazine (Summer 2022),

https://www.bc.edu/content/bc-web/sites/bc-magazine/summer-2022/features/new-world-order-/on-the-world-after-

ukraine.html.



‐19‐

More than fifty countries are actively supporting Ukraine’s defense.

114

As of September 8, 2022,

the Biden administration and the U.S. had provided $15.2 billion in military assistance for

Ukraine.

115

On February 25, 2022, one day after the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. introduced a U.N.

resolution that was cosponsored by eighty fellow U.N. member states.

116

The resolution

demanded an end to the invasion and established that Russia is solely responsible for the

violence.

117

Shortly thereafter, an Emergency Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly was

called for by the Security Council.

118

The Special Session produced historical repudiation of

Russia’s aggression; one hundred forty-one U.N. member states voted in support of condemning

Russia’s aggression and called for an end to the invasion.

119

The international community further

isolated Russia through U.N. Human Rights Council’s establishment of a “Commission of

Inquiry,” which is the highest degree of scrutiny the Council can create.

120

The immediate

response by countless nations to Russia’s invasion is an example of multilateral coordination at

its peak.

The United Nations is not the only multilateral institution that has been galvanized

multilateral coordination in response to Russia’s war. NATO and its allies have been roused by

Russia’s attacks, and have responded with decisive, united, and swift action. NATO allies have



114

Anthony J. Blinken, $2.8 Billion in Additional U.S. Military Assistance for Ukraine and Its Neighbors

(September 8, 2022), https://www.state.gov/2-8-billion-in-additional-u-s-military-assistance-for-ukraine-and-its-

neighbors/#:~:text=These%20announcements%20will%20bring%20the,countries%20to%20support%20Ukraine%2

7s%20defense.

115

Id.

116

Ned Price, U.S. Multilateral Leadership on the Crisis in Ukraine, U.S. Department of State (March 5, 2022),

https://www.state.gov/u-s-multilateral-leadership-on-the-crisis-in-ukraine/.

117

Id.

118

Id.

119

Id.

120

Id.



‐20‐

mobilized tens of thousands of troops and have placed them under direct NATO command.

121

an effort to strengthen its deterrence and defense NATO has fortified Eastern Europe by adding

troops in Germany, Poland, Romania, and the Baltics.

122

A. President Biden must continue to lead the international community in

implementing sanctions on Russia

Multilateral coordination has surged since Russia invaded Ukraine in February. One of

the most important weapons employed by the international community has been the use of

sanctions. Sanctions have been the foreign policy tool of choice of the U.S. throughout the

twenty-first century. Sanctions allow a state to show official displeasure of a certain behavior,

and work to compel the state that has been sanctioned to change its behavior.

123

Sanctions allow

a state to reprimand another state without involving any military action, which is important in the

case of Russia given the nuclear implications involved.

Sanctions are often criticized as an ineffective foreign policy tool.

124

Unilateral sanctions

imposed by the U.S. often times inflict greater costs on American firms and American civilians

than the intended targets.

125

The global economy makes it relatively easy for a state to avoid the

effects of sanctions by finding substitutes sources.

126

However, the sanctions imposed on Russia



121

Lisa Ferdinando, NATO Unified, Resolute in Face of Russia’s ‘Illegal’ Ukraine Invasion, Austin Says, DOD

News (October 13, 2022), https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3188194/nato-unified-

resolute-in-face-of-russias-illegal-ukraine-invasion-austin-says/. See Michael E. O’Hanlon, Strengthening the US

and NATO defense postures in Europe after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Brookings (June 21, 2022) (reporting the

U.S. has sent 20,000 troops to the already 80,000 existing in Europe).

122

Michael E. O’Hanlon, Strengthening the US and NATO defense postures in Europe after Russia’s invasion of

Ukraine, Brookings (June 21, 2022).

123

Richard N. Hass, Economic Sanctions: Too Much of a Bad Thing, Brookings (June 1, 1998),

https://www.brookings.edu/research/economic-sanctions-too-much-of-a-bad-thing/.

124

Id.

125

Id.

126

Id.



‐21‐

have been coordinated multilaterally, and have been imposed on a much greater scale than seen

during the annexation of Crimea.

On February 26, 2022, the U.S., the European Commission, the United Kingdom, and

Canada announced the first multilaterally coordinated sanction imposed on Russia.

127

Select

Russian banks were removed from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial

Telecommunications (SWIFT), one of the strongest financial penalties.

128

SWIFT is imperative

to smooth and rapid financial transactions across borders.

129

SWIFT links 11,000 banks and

institutions in more than two hundred countries.

130

SWIFT coordinated with its international

partners mentioned above, and officially implemented the ban on selected Russian banks on

March 12, 2022.

131

The ban from SWIFT froze the Russian banks’ ability to transact with the rest of the

world.

132

The sanctions immediately impacted the Russian economy, the Ruble dropped roughly

thirty percent, while the central bank doubled interest rates and imposed controls on payments

abroad.

133

The SWIFT sanctions resulted in the largest financial disruption in Russia since

1998.

134

Russian companies have been disrupted as they no longer enjoy the smooth and instant

transactions that SWIFT provides.

135

Russian banks now have to deal directly with each other,



127

Alessandro Rebucci, SWIFT Sanction on Russia: How it Works and Likely Impacts, EconoFact (March 4, 2022),

https://econofact.org/swift-sanction-on-russia-how-it-works-and-likely-impacts.

128

Id.

129

Russel Hotten, Ukraine conflict: What is Swift and why is banning Russia so significant?, BBC (May 4, 2022),

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60521822.

130

Id.

131

Note 127.

132

Id.

133

Id.

134

Id.

135

Note 129.



‐22‐

which has added delays and costs; interrupting payments for Russian energy and agricultural

exports, ultimately cutting off key revenues for the Russian government.

136

President Biden has ensured that the U.S. is leading the implementation of sanctions on

Russia. In addition to the SWIFT sanctions, on March 8, 2022, President Biden announced the

U.S.’ import ban on all Russian oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal.

137

President Biden

highlighted the importance of multilateral coordination in his speech stating, “a united response

to Putin’s aggression has been my overriding focus, to keep NATO and all of the E.U. and our

allies totally united.”

138

President Biden is aware that in order to work, the sanctions must not be

unilateral. Although the U.S. was the only country to fully ban Russian energy imports, President

Biden notes that the ban was implemented in conjunction with the European countries, with the

goal of developing a long-term strategy in which they could also limit their imports of Russian

energy.

139

Accordingly, even though the ban was unilateral on behalf of the U.S., it is important

that the coordination was multilateral with European allies to ensure continued success.

In total, more than thirty countries have imposed sanctions against Russia.

140

And the

coordinated international sanctions are working. There are signs that the Russian fiscal budget is

on the verge of a deficit.

141

Over one-thousand companies have halted operations in Russia,



136

Id.

137

Remarks by President Biden Announcing U.S. Ban on Imports of Russian Oil, Liquefied Natural Gas, and Coal,

The White House (March 8, 2022), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-

remarks/2022/03/08/remarks-by-president-biden-announcing-u-s-ban-on-imports-of-russian-oil-liquefied-natural-

gas-and-coal/.

138

Id.

139

Id.

140

International sanctions are working: Russia feels economic pressure, U.S. Embassy in Georgia (August 16,

2022), https://ge.usembassy.gov/international-sanctions-are-working-russia-feels-economic-pressure/.

141

Alina Selyukh, Are Russian sanctions working? NPR (August 7, 2022),

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/07/1116218347/are-russian-sanctions-working.



‐23‐

imports to Russia are down over fifty percent in 2022, and soon Putin will have to choose

between financing the war or the Russian economy.

142

President Biden has called on the world to punish Russia, and the U.S. must continue to

lead the charge against Russia.

143

The U.S. influenced SWIFT to ban Russian banks.

144

The U.S.

was the first nation that banned all Russian energy imports, and now other nations are following

the lead.

145

The key to the effectiveness of the sanctions is the multilateral coordination that has

occurred between the U.S. and its allies. Unilateral sanctions by the U.S. would not be nearly as

effective, if effective at all.

146

The sanctions are working because of the quantity of nations that

have imposed them on Russia. The more nations that sanction Russia, the fewer avenues there

are for Russia to navigate the sanctions in place. Multilateral coordination is essential to the

effectiveness of the sanctions throughout the course of the Russo-Ukrainian War. In order for the

U.S. to position itself as the global leader, it is imperative that the U.S. continues to foster

multilateral cooperation in the form of the sanctions throughout the war.

The more involved the U.S. is in spearheading the sanctions and multilateral

coordination, the easier it will be for the U.S. to influence the international order in its favor. If

the U.S. is capable of organizing effective sanctions that lead to the end of the Russo-Ukrainian



142

Note 140.

143

Michael Crowley and Edward Wong, Biden Calls on World to Punish Russia for Attempt to Annex Ukrainian

Land, The New York Times (September 30, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/30/us/biden-putin-russia-

ukraine.html (in response to Russia’s latest escalation of annexation Ukrainian territory, President Biden urged all

members of the international community to reject Russia’s illegal annexation).

144

Note 127.

145

What are the sanctions on Russia and are they hurting its economy, BBC (September 30, 2022),

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60125659 (the E.U. has stopped importing any Russian coal and will ban

all imports of refined oil product from Russia in February 2023). See also Western nations promise more weapons to

Ukraine while ban on Russian coal kicks in, Susie Blann, PBS (August 11, 2022),

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/western-nations-promise-more-weapons-to-ukraine-while-ban-on-russian-

coal-kicks-in (reporting the Ukrainian demand for more weapons from other nations, and the complete ban on

Russian coal in European countries, whom are heavily reliant on Russian energy sources).

146

See U.S. Department of State, Iran Sanctions, (2022) (reporting the U.S. has imposed restrictions on Iran since

1979); See also, Michael Paulson, US: History of U.S. Sanctions show most haven’t worked, CorpWatch (May 11,

1999) (reporting that numerous studies show that U.S. sanctions on Iran did not change Iran’s behavior).



‐24‐

War, the international community will be more willing to follow the lead of the U.S. as the new

world order is developed.

B. The U.S. must continue to lead the world in providing military aid to Ukraine

and refrain from engaging in actual military confrontation with Russia

Similar to its push for sanctions, the U.S. must continue to lead the world in financial aid

for Ukraine in order to help exert influence of its “ideal world view.”

147

Ukraine has received

unprecedented amounts of financial aid from the U.S..

148

Since February 24, 2022, the U.S. has

provided $17.6 billion in security assistance to Ukraine.

149

This includes a wide array of weapons

and technology.

150

Nearly fifty allies and partner countries have combined to provide over $13

billion in security assistance, which also includes thousands of ammunitions and missiles and

hundreds of vehicles.

151

What was predicted to be a relatively swift and easy invasion for Russia, has turned into

an eight-month war with no clear end in sight. Ukraine has thus far defended itself from

complete collapse in the face of repeated Russian attacks, which can largely be attributed to the

foreign military aid it has been provided. Military aid totaling $17.6 billion from the world’s

largest military would provide nearly any nation the ability to defend Russian attacks for

months.

152



147

Note 9, at 10 (“Free, open, prosperous, and secure international order.”).

148

Alice Speri, U.S. Military Aid to Ukraine Grows to Historic Proportions – Along with Risks, The Intercept

(September 10, 2022), https://theintercept.com/2022/09/10/ukraine-military-aid-weapons-oversight/ (reporting since

the invasion of Ukraine in February, the U.S. has provided more money and weapons to Ukraine “than it sent in

2020 to Afghanistan, Israel, and Egypt combined.”).

149

U.S. Security Cooperation with Ukraine, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (October 14, 2022),

https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/.

150

See note 148 (reporting Ukraine has received over 1,400 Stinger anti-air systems; over 8,500 Javelin anti-armor

systems; over 32,000 other anti-armor systems; 20 Mi-17 helicopters; protective gear; funding for training,

maintenance, and sustainment).

151

Id.

152

The U.S.’ budget for the military is $1.94 trillion, the largest in the world by a large margin. USA Spending,

Department of Defense, USASpending.com (August 30, 2022), https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-

of-defense?fy=2022.



‐25‐

The amount of aid provided by the U.S. evidences the U.S.’ commitment to Ukraine

long-term. As Secretary of Defense for Public Policy Colin Kahl state, the aid is intended not for

“today’s fight” but “for years to come.”

153

The U.S. aid indicates it is prepared to support

Ukraine for as long as it takes, until Russia is defeated or ends its invasion.

The unwavering commitment by the U.S. is important signaling to the rest of the world

and will help foster multilateral coordination. When a nation witnesses the U.S. commit billions

of dollars to another nation, and state the intentions to support Ukraine for years, they will feel

safer committing their own resources to the Ukrainian cause. By garnering support, and

resources for Ukraine, the U.S. is already placing itself back as a leader of the international

community.

The U.S. has the opportunity similar to those that occurred after World War II and after

the Cold-War. The U.S. is still an undeniable superpower with a massive military. Russia also

has one of the world’s largest militaries and the rest of the world will not want to commit to war

with Russia without the U.S. on its side. This is an opportunity for the U.S. to steer the direction

of international landscape. Once this war ends, Russia could be depleted and again the U.S. will

find itself on the victorious side with the ability to shape the new global order in which it will be

most favorable towards the U.S.

As the U.S. continues to provide military aid to Ukraine, it must be conscious to not

deepen its military involvement beyond this. The U.S. can continue to provide Ukraine with

monetary aid and military technology, but it must not engage in actual military conflict with

Russia. The exception of course is the U.S.’ obligation to the collective security apparatus of



153

Tony Bertuca, DOD details new $3B aid package for Ukraine, Inside Defense (August 24, 2022),

https://insidedefense.com/insider/dod-details-new-3b-aid-package-ukraine.



‐26‐

NATO supersedes its desire to withhold actual military engagement.

154

However, unless Russia

directly attacks the U.S. or a NATO member, the U.S. must refrain from direct military

engagement with Russia. Conflict between NATO and Russia would almost certainly lead to

disastrous consequences.

155

Putin has not been shy in flexing Russia’s nuclear capabilities,

having made multiple explicit nuclear threats.

156

Direct conflict with Russia could very well

result in nuclear war, and the consequences of this is not something that the U.S. should leave to

chance. Putin’s track record of aggression and blatant disregard for international norms, indicates

he would not hesitate to plunge the world into nuclear war. The use of nuclear weapons would

result in instant deaths, environmental destruction, famine, and possibly the end of civilization.

157

This is not to say the U.S. should sit idly by as Putin continues to make nuclear threats, and it has

not. The continuation of military aid from the U.S., with a focus on avoiding direct military

conflict is the best way to avoid World War III and seemingly inevitable use of nuclear

weapons.

158

The ability of the U.S. to lead the resolution of the Russo-Ukrainian War, without the use

of force on Russia and through multilateral coordination, would position the U.S. as an

undeniable world leader with the opportunity to direct the international order with itself at the

helm. The immense amount of aid provided by the U.S. signals to the international community

that the U.S. is willing to work together and lead the charge against Russia. The U.S. has



154

Note 9, at 3 (President Biden addresses the need for American leadership as the world is “…at a significant

inflection point in world history.”).

155

Tom Z. Collina, Why America Should Not Deepen Its Military Involvment in Ukraine, The New York Times

(March 18, 2022) (“Nuclear war is within realm of possibility.”).

156

Note 9.

157

Note 155; See also Kurt L. Becker, Mutually Assured Destruction, Scientific American, Vol. 308, No. 4 at 8

(April 2013) (the doctrine of mutually assured destruction poses that the use of nuclear weapons is avoided because

the use of nuclear weapons would also result in the destruction of the attacking nation).

158

Note 155.



‐27‐

committed more aid to Ukraine than the rest of the world combined, reasserting itself as a

multilateral leader that it once was. This has shifted attitudes of other countries, who increasingly

view the U.S. as a reliable partner.

159

C. Moving beyond the Russo-Ukrainian War: The U.S. must continue to foster

multilateralism beyond the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War

In the midst of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Biden Administration sees an evolving

international order, which presents the U.S. an opportunity to reverse the isolationism of the

Trump Administration and reassert itself as the global leader. If the U.S. is able to facilitate the

end of the war through multilateral means, it must not then retreat from multilateralism. If

successful, the U.S.-led multilateral coordination exhibited during the course of the Russo-

Ukrainian War must continue beyond the context of the war in order for the U.S. to achieve its

vision and combat “shared challenges.”

160

The National Security Strategy specifically states that

the U.S. cannot combat the vast “shared challenges” alone.

161

The success of ending the Russo-

Ukrainian War through U.S.-led multilateralism is evidence that it can work, and must continue

to combat shared challenges; like, climate change, food insecurity, and terrorism. The U.S. must

strengthen international institutions it helped build throughout the twentieth century and increase

partnerships with willing nations.



159

Richard Wike Et al., International Attitudes Towards the U.S., NATO and Russia in a Time of Crisis, Pew

Research Center (June 22, 2022), https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-attitudes-toward-

the-u-s-nato-and-russia-in-a-time-of-crisis/ (reporting the increase in favorable attitudes from certain countries

between 2021 and 2022).

160

See note 9, at 2 (shared challenges are global issues that impact people everywhere); See also note 9 at 6

(examples of shared challenges include climate change, food insecurity, communicable disease, terrorism, energy

shortages, and inflation).

161

Note 9, at 10 (“We must work with other nations to address shared challenges to improve the lives of the

American people and those of the people around the world.”).



‐28‐

V. Conclusion

President Biden is faced with an opportunity to make the U.S. the principle multilateral

coordinator of the world. The opportunity to become the lead multilateral coordinator of the

international sphere gives the U.S. an opportunity to position itself as a dominant world power

for the future.

162

U.S. led multilateralism has surged since the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian

War. The U.S. has led the world in a coordinated effort to oppose Russian aggression; the U.S.

led U.N. resolutions garnered unprecedent support, the U.S. and its allies influenced SWIFT to

ban Russian banks and politicians from its system, the U.S. is the first and only nation to ban

Russian oil, natural gas, and coal imports, and the U.S. leads the world in military aid provided

to Ukraine. The U.S. has re-announced itself as the multilateral leader it had been for the decades

after War World II and the Cold War. U.S. power in the international sphere is more important

than ever, new states are rising as global powers, the U.S. will need the ability to influence the

international sphere.

163

By leading the world’s resistance against Russia, the U.S. can establish

itself once again as the world leader during a changing global order.



162

Note 9, at 1 (“How we respond to the tremendous challenges and unprecedent opportunities we face today will

determine the direction of our world and impact the security and prosperity of the American people for generations

to come.”).

163

See Brunee, supra note 2 at 337 (“[W]e are witnessing the rise of major regional or even global powers outside of

the West—China, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey…”).