Exactly 100 days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we thought a lot about the effects and meaning of this crisis. In this column, we’ve already made some balances earlier, such as when the conflict completes a week, then a month, 50 days, and two months.

Some results seem increasingly clear, then, although there is more room for doubt than certainty. Them:

1) The “multipolar world” is an indisputable fact of the 21st century: the United States is now alone status quoand several other leaders have emerged, not only concerned with gaining power and international prowess, but with the intent to reconsider the rules of the game and dominant narratives.

2) Heterogeneous values ​​between powers will mark the conflicts of this age: differences between countries are not limited to material aspects, calculations of their capacities or geopolitical ambitions, but an attempt to guarantee the legitimacy of their own models. political organization, beliefs and worldviews. There is room for debate as to what this means and what it qualifies, including democratic and autocratic regimes.

3) In addition to the nuclear threat, hybrid and “proxy” wars are a growing trend. We will increasingly live with diverse and multidimensional coping mechanisms, including new transnational actors who are increasingly important and decisive in conflicts on planet Earth, capable of penetrating societies in different ways and inflicting massive impact systemic damage.

4) The rivalry between the United States and China represents the greatest vulnerability of the contemporary international system. Recognizing China as a “responsible stakeholder“It seems to be an increasingly distant reality, as is the intention of North America. Gradually, China takes on more prominent positions that challenge the international order, and with that, makes room for a strategy marked by competition and confrontation.

5) There are concrete limits to accomplishing this task, but Putin’s Russia can be considered a revolutionary force that wants to break the structure of the current international system.

6) There is room for incentives for the restructuring of Europe’s military strategy and the restructuring of security alliances in the Indo-Pacific. These are new moves that have become urgent for many countries only after the renewed risk perception of the crisis in Ukraine.

7) Globalization and its flows are brutal, but its effects paradoxically encourage the consolidation of nationalism, protectionism, and populism in various parts of the planet.

8) Energy security and food security are pressing issues when analyzing the framework of the vital interests of countries and therefore they need to be part of any political risk analysis.

9) It is necessary to find ways to expand support networks for people in vulnerable situations. The world is still a complex and unprepared place to deal with asylum and migration.

10) The multilateral system and global governance structures, whose response capacity is slow and not very assertive, definitely need to be renewed.

In short: The 100-day crisis in Eastern Europe reminds us that instability, uncertainty and insecurity are the keywords of our time.