SEPTEMBER 15 — Wars have always been difficult to start but even harder to end. Once launched, they take on a logic of their own, pulling leaders, nations, and even whole regions into their vortex. 

The war in Ukraine is the latest and most dangerous example. What began as a calculated invasion by Russia in February 2022 has morphed into a grinding conflict that shows no sign of resolution.

Even as US President Donald Trump signals his desire to push for a peace settlement, Russian President Vladimir Putin has little reason to stop. 

Too much political capital has been invested, too many ideological claims have been made, and too many symbolic battles have been fought for him to step back. 

For Putin, the war is not merely about Ukraine’s status. It is about reshaping the balance of power in Europe, breaking the West’s will, and challenging the endurance of Nato itself.

In this sense, the Kremlin’s goals are maximalist. Just as the Warsaw Pact withered away with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia now dreams of seeing Nato suffer the same fate. 

This is no small ambition; it is a project to overturn the post–Cold War order and construct a world aligned more closely to Moscow’s terms. So long as this vision animates Russia’s war, peace will remain elusive.

Putin has also found external reinforcement. North Korea’s willingness to provide support, whether through arms, political sympathy, or broader partnership, emboldens the Kremlin. 

Each sign of solidarity allows Russia to sustain the illusion that it is not isolated, that the West can be taunted, and that Nato is far from omnipotent. In this calculus, retreat is synonymous with humiliation, and compromise with weakness.

This is why wars of such intensity rarely end quickly. They evolve into struggles not only for territory but for legitimacy and survival. Leaders like Putin bind their reputations to battlefield outcomes. To lose is to invite political ruin, perhaps even regime collapse. Thus, continuing the war, however costly, appears to them safer than stopping.

Sanctions and ultimatums from the West, no matter how severe, have so far failed to alter this trajectory. 

Russia has adapted to economic pressure, finding new trading partners and exploiting cracks in global enforcement. Threats of additional measures do not carry the same weight as they did in the early years of the war. Instead, the Kremlin frames the conflict as an existential struggle against the “collective West,” reinforcing the sense that victory — or at least endurance — is the only acceptable path.

What should worry Asean is the broader lesson: the world is no longer one where conflicts are easily contained or quickly negotiated. Wars can become endemic, dragging on for years, reshaping regional orders, and disrupting global systems. 

This matters deeply to South-east Asia. The economic reverberations alone are immense — from volatile energy prices to disrupted food supplies, from unstable currency flows to reduced investor confidence. When Europe burns, Asia feels the heat.

Equally important, such wars set dangerous precedents. They normalise the use of violence as a political instrument. 

They weaken the rules-based international system that Asean has long relied on to secure peace and stability. And they expose the limitations of global institutions, from the United Nations Security Council to the International Criminal Court, in constraining the behavior of powerful states.

For Asean, the implications are sobering. Our region is not immune to disputes. Myanmar remains locked in a brutal internal conflict, producing waves of refugees and humanitarian crises that reverberate across borders. 

The Thai-Cambodian border, still scarred by historic rivalries, recently flared up in a way that reminded everyone of how quickly tensions can escalate. These are not abstract issues; they threaten the lives of ordinary people and the credibility of Asean itself.

The lesson from Ukraine is clear: when disputes are allowed to fester, when leaders see their legitimacy tied to escalation, peace becomes a distant dream. Asean must therefore redouble its efforts in preventive diplomacy. It must invest in Track II dialogues that bring together scholars, civil society, and policymakers to generate creative solutions before crises spiral. 

It must also strengthen mechanisms for conflict management, including the Defense Attaches Monitoring system under the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), which has remained largely dormant.

Above all, Asean must resist the temptation of passivity. The world is now defined by conflicts that refuse to die. 

To stay relevant, Asean must not wait for external powers to dictate solutions but instead step forward with its own initiatives, however modest they may seem. The credibility of the association rests on its ability to show that wars can be averted, that peace can be nurtured, and that regional solidarity has meaning.

The war in Ukraine reminds us that once unleashed, violence does not easily retreat. It feeds on pride, fear, ideology, and survival instincts. Putin’s refusal to end the war, despite pressure from outside, is not an anomaly; it is a warning. Leaders who gamble their futures on conflicts cannot simply walk away. They will drag their nations deeper into confrontation, regardless of the cost.

Asean must take heed. The global order is shifting, and the comfort of past decades is gone. In a world where wars have no easy endings, neutrality without preparation, or centrality without action, is insufficient. 

The association must adapt, or it will find itself sidelined in a world where the rules are written not by treaties but by the victors of wars that refuse to end. In this vein, it was not entirely wrong for Asean to be paired up with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and BRICS to have more summits. Asean cannot rely solely on anyone but itself to make it the best regional organization that is most compliant to the values of the UN and Asean Charter. 

A feat that Prime Minister Datuk Seri  Anwar Ibrahim seeks to pull off. Invariably, by encouraging all sides to have serious and systematic dialogues. Indeed, the types of Chatham House exchange that are not prone to failing with every sudden perturbation.

* Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.