Deadlocked Wars Reveal Great-Power Misreading of Ukraine and Iran, With Consequences for Global Order

Recent scholarly assessments have concluded, with an air of sober inevitability, that the great powers of Russia and the United States, in their recent confrontations with Ukraine and the Islamic Republic of Iran respectively, have each projected a monolithic, centralized perception upon regions whose internal dynamics they have scarcely mastered. The resulting deadlocked wars, described by seasoned analysts as a tragic illustration of strategic myopia, have inexorably entrapped both the initiators and the ostensibly peripheral states in a costly confrontation that threatens to outlast the political cycles that birthed it.

In the case of the Ukrainian theatre, Moscow has repeatedly invoked the language of protecting compatriots and preserving a historic sphere of influence, yet it has consistently ignored the covenant of the Budapest Memorandum, which, though ceremonial, pledged respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for the relinquishment of nuclear arsenals. The Kremlin’s strategic calculus, predicated upon a belief that rapid kinetic victories would precipitate a swift political settlement, has instead engendered a protracted stalemate in which Western aid, epitomised by the United States and European Union, finds itself inexorably drawn into a vortex of logistical, diplomatic, and fiscal complications.

Concurrently, Washington, invoking the twin pillars of non‑proliferation and regional stability, has pursued a policy of maximum pressure against Tehran, notwithstanding the intricate stipulations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, whose partial revival was nevertheless contingent upon reciprocal concessions that have remained stubbornly unfulfilled. The United States’ diplomatic overtures, couched in the language of restoring the 2015 accord, have nonetheless been accompanied by unilateral sanctions that, by their very design, inflict collateral suffering upon Iranian civilians, thereby exposing a disquieting disjunction between proclaimed humanitarian concern and the harsh reality of economic coercion.

The cumulative effect of these misapprehensions has forced not only the principal antagonists but also a constellation of smaller states, ranging from the Baltic republics to the Gulf monarchies, to navigate an increasingly treacherous geopolitical landscape in which security guarantees are rendered ambiguous and economic interdependencies are weaponised. For the Republic of India, whose energy imports are acutely sensitive to fluctuations in Russian oil supplies and whose diaspora in both Ukraine and Iran monitors the unfolding crises with familial apprehension, the reverberations of this deadlock materialise in heightened strategic calculations regarding maritime security, energy diversification, and the credibility of multilateral institutions that claim to arbitrate disputes.

The discordant narratives advanced by Moscow and Washington reveal a broader systemic flaw wherein the veneer of treaty compliance is routinely supplanted by unilateral interpretations that privilege immediate geopolitical advantage over the long‑term integrity of international legal frameworks. In the case of Ukraine, the ostensible respect for the 1994 Budapest Memorandum is undermined by a de‑facto annexation, while in the Iranian context the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, though formally revived, is subject to extrajudicial sanctions that contravene the very spirit of the agreement’s verification mechanisms. Such contradictions not only erode the credibility of the United Nations Security Council, whose veto power is exercised with partisan selectivity, but also illuminate the paradox whereby states profess commitment to collective security while simultaneously exploiting institutional loopholes to further nationalistic objectives.

Given the evident disparity between the rhetorical commitments articulated in the Budapest Memorandum and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the subsequent actions of the signatory powers, one must ask whether the existing framework for enforcing treaty obligations possesses any substantive remedial mechanisms capable of compelling compliance beyond symbolic condemnation. Furthermore, in light of the United Nations Security Council’s repeated abstentions and vetoes that appear to privilege great‑power interests over the collective security doctrine, does the Council retain any legitimate authority to arbitrate disputes without descending into a showcase of geopolitical brinkmanship? Lastly, considering the humanitarian toll exacted upon civilian populations by sanctions and military incursions ostensibly justified as instruments of deterrence, should international law evolve to impose quantifiable accountability upon states that deploy economic coercion as a substitute for direct military engagement? In addition, the persistent opacity surrounding the verification procedures of both the Budapest Memorandum and the JCPOA raises the question of whether independent international monitoring bodies should be endowed with binding authority to audit compliance and to sanction breaches irrespective of the political affiliations of the offending parties.

If the prevailing paradigm that great powers may unilaterally reinterpret treaty language persists, how can smaller nations, whose security apparatuses rely upon the predictability of international law, be assured that their sovereign rights will not be subordinated to the capricious strategic calculus of distant hegemonic actors? Moreover, does the apparent willingness of the United States to deploy sanctions as a proxy for kinetic action, while simultaneously demanding adherence to non‑proliferation norms, constitute a coherent policy framework or rather betray an inherent inconsistency that undermines the credibility of its own diplomatic pronouncements? Finally, in an era where economic interdependence is wielded as a tool of coercion, should the international community consider codifying explicit limits on the use of financial sanctions against civilian economies, thereby establishing a legal safeguard that reconciles the pursuit of security objectives with the imperatives of humanitarian protection? Such a statutory instrument, if fashioned with transparent oversight and adjudicative mechanisms insulated from unilateral political interference, might offer a modest but tangible remedy to the persistent disconnect between proclaimed humanitarian principles and the stark realities of economic warfare.

Published: June 14, 2026