Conflict and Leadership
Strategic Competition Continues Amid the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has stopped many global processes. The greatest deceleration is experienced by the economy, social, cultural, sports life in most countries. But it does not matter to the international conflicts. War continues to exist and does not change as a phenomenon, writes Valdai Club Programme Director Andrey Sushentsov.

In 2020, the “International Conflict and Political Leadership” research programme of the Valdai Club was aimed at studying the nature of modern international conflicts and the parameters of modern political leadership. It proceeded from the fact that the catastrophic nature of potential damage makes a major war between the great powers in the modern world impossible. Big war is no longer seen as a solution to international crises — in the age of consumption, people want to live long and comfortably.

However, strategic competition continues. Countries are looking for a way to strengthen their positions at the expense of others, including through strengthening military capabilities and the indirect use of force. The nature of modern conflicts puts forward special requirements for leadership. It is still a product of will and determination, as well as a readiness to sacrifice — as it was in past centuries. But the modern technological era requires different qualities from a leader. In a world that, while becoming more anarchic, remains relatively safe and well-fed, the willingness to sacrifice is of a diminishing magnitude of importance.


The COVID-19 pandemic has become a key challenge for political leadership in most countries. To analyse the stresses that the pandemic has placed on social and political stability, a special report was prepared, titled “Legitimacy and Political Leadership in a New Era”, the key author of which was Daniil Parenkov. The report examines the parameters of effective leadership in an environment where the boundaries of legitimate decisions are sharply narrowed under the pressure of a pandemic.

In crisis situations, it is the political leaders who are in the spotlight as main elements of the decision-making system and symbols around which citizens should be united. One of the most important functions of a political leader, especially amid crisis and post-crisis management, is to define and formulate meaning. In crisis situations, the leader is expected to explain the essence of the crisis, its boundaries, consequences and exit trajectories. The leader is called upon to reduce uncertainty, paint a picture of what is happening, name the reasons, and outline a specific plan to respond to the situation.

Unpopular anti-crisis measures test the legitimacy of various governments and the limits of confidence they express. In this regard, for political leadership, a high level of legitimacy provides the necessary reserve of support to make unpopular decisions or implement long-term strategies. The greater the legitimacy of a political power, the more support it can count on in times of crisis and the more flexibility it has in allocating resources. A high level of voluntary agreement with the adopted decisions allows it to avoid spending extra funds on maintaining the proper level of public order and retain the ability to focus on pursuing long-term goals. The latter is especially significant in light of populist calls to throw all the state resources into maintaining the usual standard of living and production.

The pandemic has created a special backdrop for today’s international crises. In 2020, we closely followed the development of the US-China rivalry and Russian-American arms control negotiations. A separate area of international confrontation was the politicisation of vaccination against COVID-19.

The coronavirus pandemic did not become a catastrophic blow that required the unification of the forces of all mankind.

The crisis did not force states to prioritise pandemic response and set aside their national interests. This means that, in general terms, the world remains the same.

The exacerbation of contemporary international conflicts suggests that the leading countries — primarily the United States, Russia and China — are still counting on an early return to “normal”. They see it in the classic inter-state competition, which the world embarked on long before the pandemic.

The fundamental nature of modern conflicts was especially acute during the course of the latest round of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. It updated Russia’s role in its resolution and outlined additional risks associated, not with historic pressure from the West, but with the growing ambitions of various regional players and non-state actors. A series of articles and the Valdai Club report “The Breakdown of the Status Quo and the International Dimension of the Nagorno-Karabakh Crisis”, authored by Sergey Markedonov (Russia), Vali Kaleji (Iran) and Kerim Has (Turkey), were devoted to the analysis of the current situation.

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has ceased to be an exclusively regional confrontation associated with the collapse of the USSR. Now the interests of various external players are focused around the Armenian-Azerbaijani confrontation. Their actions are based not on belonging to a particular bloc or integration structure, but on individual approaches, specific both to the conflicting parties themselves and to the prospects for a peaceful settlement.

Under the new conditions, Moscow was faced with the need to maintain a fragile balance of interests between Armenia and Azerbaijan, two states that are important for Russia, but at the same time were openly hostile towards each other and were not ready to reach acceptable mutual concessions and compromises.

It is no less important that external players are building their own tactical and strategic approaches towards Karabakh, linking it with the events in other regions, be it the Middle East, Mediterranean, Black Sea, or the internal political agenda, which gives the confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan a special political cost.

The COVID-19 pandemic has stopped many global processes. The economy of most countries has decelerated abruptly, with social, cultural and sports functions cancelled or otherwise curtailed. But international conflicts have continued and maintained their pace. War continues to exist and does not change as a phenomenon. Although the likelihood of a major war, comparable to those of the twentieth century, is minimal due to its catastrophic nature and the deep interconnectedness of the modern world, regional and local conflicts continue to flourish, and the defence budgets of countries set new records year after year.

Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.