By Alexander Morrow and Nataliia Dikalchuck
When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it became clear that the war’s significance extended far beyond Eastern Europe. The largest military conflict in Europe since the Second World War has reshaped global security thinking, especially in the Indo-Pacific. It is no coincidence that discussions about Taiwan’s security have intensified in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The two situations are often compared, as both nations find themselves on the front lines of resistance from nuclear-armed authoritarian neighbours challenging their sovereignty. The way Western powers respond to aggression in Europe influences calculations in Beijing and affects how Asian partners assess the reliability of their own alliances. Therefore, the war in Ukraine sends a global signal, showing how far the democratic world is willing to go to defend democracy and uphold international law.
As then NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg emphasized, “what happens in Europe today could happen in Asia tomorrow”. This acknowledgement of possible threats has sparked deep reflection in Taiwan. According to research, Taiwanese public discourse has shifted towards emphasizing the necessity of self-reliant defence and the value of early international engagement. The Russian war in Ukraine has undermined Taiwanese confidence in U.S. security commitments while simultaneously highlighting the urgent need for Taiwan to develop its own robust defence capabilities. The Taiwanese population recognizes that they cannot rely solely on American assurances, given that the United States stood by as Russia invaded Ukraine despite its prior commitments made in the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine’s experience shows that external assistance may come to those under attack, but only if the defending state first demonstrates capacity and resolve. Ukraine’s early resilience stems as much from a cultivated sense of national unity as from military support, with civilians and armed forces working together toward a shared defence. In other words, Taiwan cannot rely on external assistance as a substitute for its own defensive strength or gamble on what strings may be attached to that assistance. Moreover, Taipei must uphold a strong democracy to give Western partners greater incentive to support the country, following Ukraine’s example of framing its struggle not merely as a regional conflict, but as part of a broader global fight against authoritarianism.
On the other hand, Beijing closely observes Western responses to the conflict, using them as a benchmark to gauge international resolve and prepare its own potential actions in the region. Chinese strategists are especially attentive to how NATO and allied nations continue to provide military aid to Ukraine, even amidst domestic political pressures. They observe that, despite Russia’s initial expectations that sanctions and Western disunity would cause a rapid collapse, Ukraine has received repeated supplies of weapons, intelligence, and logistical support, which have made a significant difference on the battlefield. This is reflected in published Chinese military commentary and open-source articles analyzing how systems like HIMARS have disrupted Russian logistics, supply depots, and command nodes. Another set of observations focuses on the durability of sanctions. China monitors carefully how Western sanctions have targeted Russian financial systems, key industries, and supply chains. Beijing appears to be using those cases to better understand how sanctions might affect China itself in a cross-Strait crisis, and what counter-measures could mitigate those effects. Regarding Taiwan, Chinese planners are likely adjusting both timeline and tactics. Rather than large conventional invasion, there is increasing emphasis in Chinese commentary on grey-zone coercion: disinformation, economic pressure, cyber-attacks and “non-contact warfare.” The lessons from Ukraine suggest that heavy reliance solely on kinetic force carries risks of overextension in logistics, misjudgment of civilian resistance, or miscalculation of allied resolve.
NATO’s relationships with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, its four formal Indo-Pacific partners, have grown more substantive in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Although primarily a North Atlantic military alliance, NATO has increasingly recognized that North Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security are interconnected. Japan’s provision of non-lethal aid to Ukraine, Australia’s military assistance, and South Korea’s indirect support through munitions sales to NATO members all demonstrate the convergence of democratic interests in deterring authoritarian aggression.
Ukraine’s defence has provided NATO and its global partners with powerful lessons on deterrence, alliance cohesion, and the cost of underestimating authoritarian ambition. One of the clearest takeaways is that deterrence depends not merely on military capabilities but on the credibility of political will and unity.
Before 2022, Russia misjudged NATO’s resolve and Ukraine’s capacity for resistance. Given the relatively underwhelming response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and hybrid war in the Donbass after 2014, Putin was tempted into invading out of the belief that Ukrainian sovereignty was of secondary interest for Western governments compared to continued economic relations with the Kremlin. This perception was bolstered by Western refusal to commit troops to Ukraine’s defence and preparations to support a Ukrainian insurgency that falsely presumed an early Russian victory. As Russian hopes for a fait accompli were dashed by Ukrainian counteroffensives, Ukraine’s allies and partners shifted towards unprecedented levels of cohesion, coordinating sanctions, weapons transfers, and intelligence operations. In East Asia, credible deterrence likewise rests on the clarity of commitments made before any war has started and an understanding that defeat is not inevitable. Any equivocation about the willingness of allies to defend Taiwan only invites further aggression.
The experience of Ukraine also highlights the importance of sustaining societal resilience, ensuring that democratic nations can withstand prolonged hybrid warfare that targets public morale. In addition to the danger of an outright amphibious landing, Taiwan also faces hybrid threats from Beijing, chief among them the potential for a blockade of the island. Given how important maintaining open logistics lines has been for Ukraine’s continued resistance (as well as global food security), it is similarly crucial that any effort to prevent the closing of critical maritime arteries to and from Taiwan. Any effort by Beijing to do so would not only threaten the freedom and self-rule of Taiwan, but the entire global economy that depends on Taiwan’s semiconductor exports.
Ukraine’s struggle for sovereignty has become a defining moment for global security, reaffirming that the defence of one democracy’s freedom strengthens the credibility of all others. The war’s global resonance stems not only from its moral dimension but from its strategic implications: it has reawakened the democratic world to the reality that authoritarian revisionism in one region emboldens aggression elsewhere.
For Indo-Pacific partners, Ukraine’s resistance underscores the necessity of early coordination, supply chain security, and unified deterrence strategies. For NATO, it has reaffirmed that collective defence and international partnerships are mutually reinforcing rather than geographically limited. Canada occupies a particularly meaningful position within this global landscape. As both a founding NATO member and a Pacific nation, Canada bridges the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific spheres. Canada’s continued support for Ukraine and engagement with Indo-Pacific democracies exemplify its dual commitment to defending the liberal order and promoting peace through collective resilience. Ultimately, the lesson of Ukraine is not only about resistance but renewal: that democracies must adapt, cooperate, and uphold their shared values if they are to preserve stability and freedom in an increasingly contested world.
“The exterior of the Yingxi Gate illuminated with blue and yellow lights to pay tribute to the Ukrainian people who stood up to defend their national sovereignty. Photo freely licensed under Government Website Open Information Announcement by Hsinchu City Government. Accessed under Wikimedia Commons.
Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed in articles are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the NATO Association of Canada.
.jpg){kind=link}
