The illusion of security: Why Ukraine matters to us all

As a small nation, survival is always a critical priority. In this sense, the recent three-day parliamentary debate on the financial policies for the new fiscal year was rather disappointing.

A lot of valuable time was spent on trivial matters. How to divide the pie? How to slice the pie? Who gets a bigger piece, and who gets a smaller one? But when it came to how to make the pie bigger, there was little discussion. Some harped on the long-debated issue of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) without adding any fresh insights.

This year, the government introduced various measures to alleviate the financial burden of rising living costs, and distributed some “goodies” in line with Singapore’s 60 years of independence. However, these measures were met with criticism and complaints. The impression is that nothing sits right with people.

All sorts of misleading arguments have blurred the public’s proper understanding of the overall budget, including how the government can continue to maintain a balanced budget — or even generate a surplus — while addressing present needs and preparing for the future. While domestic bread-and-butter issues must not be ignored, we cannot also turn a blind eye to external turmoil and dangers.

But this is the nature of party politics — endless debates that create confusion, amplified by the internet, leading to a divided public and making it difficult to reach a consensus on any policy. With strong partisan divides and conflict between ruling and opposition parties, varying opinions on every issue have led to a confrontational situation that could gradually entrench social divisions. This is exactly what is happening in Western democracies such as the US and Europe; in Asia, places that have adopted American-style political systems, such as Taiwan and the Philippines, are no exception. Hopefully, when it comes to our political scene, we can learn from others and avoid repeating their mistakes.

Right before us is a most tragic disaster: Ukraine. On 28 February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy flew to Washington specifically to meet with US President Donald Trump. It was anticipated that they would sign a mineral resource development agreement. However, in an unexpected turn of events, the last ten minutes of the roughly 50-minute press conference devolved into a heated argument between the two leaders. The mineral agreement fell through, and both sides parted on unhappy terms.

Although Zelenskyy appears to be vulnerable, he dared to confront Trump and US Vice-President JD Vance in a jaw-dropping verbal spat — his staunch refusal to be forced into signing a humiliating treaty certainly showed courage. But the harsh reality is that this is not some show or act; it is raw power politics. It is a reminder that the “might makes right” principle still applies today, as major powers attempt to carve up weaker nations in a manner reminiscent of imperialism.

Trump is eager to reach a ceasefire agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, Zelenskyy’s confrontation revealed that what America truly wants is Ukraine’s mineral resources — the agreement does not provide security guarantees for Ukraine. Had Zelenskyy signed the agreement without resisting, he would have gone down in history as a leader who betrayed his nation.

Zelenskyy’s refusal to comply and his public embarrassment of Trump was certainly unexpected. But can Trump, who constantly talks about “deals”, swallow such an insult? What will Ukraine do next? Will it continue relying on Europe to manoeuvre against Russia? Or will it ultimately bow to the White House? Ukraine’s tragic situation seems destined to end in further tragedy. Alas, Ukraine!

As we lament Ukraine’s plight, it is hard — as citizens of a small nation — not to think about our own country’s survival. The biggest lesson from the tragedy in Ukraine is this: a nation must take the path of self-reliance and independence, without oscillating between different sides. Post-independence Ukraine was divided because two internal factions vied for power — one side leaning toward Russia, the other toward the US. With each administration, allegiances shifted back and forth between the US and Russia. Neither administration made an effort to gain autonomy and strength, which caused it to lose more than it bargained for.

Zelenskyy belongs to the pro-Western faction. He wants to join NATO, and has been soldiering on for three years with guns and bullets from Europe and the US. Now, with the US changing its policy — no longer wanting to fight and seeking to exploit the situation — Zelenskyy must be filled with deep resentment, but what else can he do? After all, he cannot bite the hand that feeds him. 

Many Ukrainians today may also be bitterly regretting their government’s decision to dismantle its nuclear arsenal in 1994 — one-third of the Soviet Union’s arsenal — in exchange for economic aid and security guarantees, following independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. In hindsight, this was a shortsighted misstep.

The second lesson the tragedy in Ukraine teaches us is that a country will inevitably neglect diplomacy or find it difficult to engage in rational diplomacy if it is divided and mired in internal strife. The diplomatic path a country should take depends on many domestic and international factors, and national leaders must have a clear understanding of reality and international relations before they can formulate a foreign policy that best serves the nation’s long-term survival and development.

In Ukraine’s case, having political factions with different inclinations, along with constant changes in power, provided openings for foreign powers to step in. As various political forces sought external support, Ukraine became a pawn in the struggle between major powers, losing autonomy in its foreign policy.

Third, the tragedy in Ukraine also teaches us that a country cannot place its defence and security entirely in the hands of any major power; establishing one’s own defence capabilities is crucial. Zelenskyy placed all his bets on the Biden administration, perhaps assuming that Trump would never return to the White House. However, after three years of bitter fighting, it turns out that Trump’s resurgence is precisely what he has to face. This painful lesson shows that major powers can change their policies at any time, due to their own interests, domestic political changes, or leadership transitions. It is very unwise to put all of one’s eggs in one basket.

Fourth, the tragedy in Ukraine highlights the importance of geopolitics. Geographical factors often determine a country’s fate. While an individual who dislikes their living environment may choose to emigrate, a country has no such option — it can only adapt. Furthermore, most people do not have the means to emigrate, meaning their fate lies in the hands of their government and leaders.

For a country’s leadership to ensure their country’s survival and improve the lives of its people, it must have a deep understanding of its geopolitical environment and devise appropriate strategies. We are fortunate that ASEAN leaders recognised this, and set aside differences and the past to form this regional grouping with a shared destiny.

Fifth, the tragedy in Ukraine lays bare the fact that the human world is fundamentally similar to the animal world. Despite having international law and organisations like the United Nations, it does not change the fact that the law of the jungle still exists. In forests and African savannahs, the basic reality is survival of the fittest. Zelenskyy trying to reason with Trump and Vance at the White House was like a lamb talking to wolves — except in real life. “You don’t have the cards,” Trump told him bluntly.  

This harsh reality of international relations is a warning to all of us. We have enjoyed 60 years of peace, but that does not mean the world has become truly peaceful. Nor does it guarantee that peace will last forever. The tragedy in Ukraine is a wake-up call: it is dangerous to be lulled into a false sense of security.

Long-term stability and prosperity can easily dilute the strong sense of crisis that prevailed during the nation’s founding period. As an ancient saying goes, “life in adversity, death in complacency” (生于忧患，死于安乐). The global situation has evolved a lot since Singapore’s independence, with changes in US policies being particularly noteworthy.

On 15 February, speaking on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Singapore’s Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said America’s image since World War II has changed. These changes will undoubtedly bring unpredictable consequences for Asia and the world at large over the next four years. In the face of such upheaval, small nations like Singapore must carefully find ways to adapt — there is no room for complacency or internal strife.

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “国人不能有虚假的安全感”.

Related: How a ceasefire in Ukraine could affect Asian security | Three years on: Winners and losers of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war