The concept of a failed state in literature is associated with the so-called global south, with African and Asian nations predominantly labeled as third-world states. However, the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine brings the country into the scope of the failed state discourse.

One of the key arguments for attaching the failed state label to Ukraine is that it meets the criteria of being colonized by another sovereign state. Some of the core determinants of failed states are territorial control issues, the presence of rebel groups, the absence of domestic order, foreign interventions, civil war and a lack of essential political goods and public services. However, the absence of a legitimate executive body to prevent violence, maintain territorial control and provide public services is the principal determinant of state failures. Therefore, while Ukraine demonstrates most of the indicators of a failed state, it still has a legitimate executive body, thus it cannot yet be classified as a failed state. Nonetheless, it is of the utmost importance to understand the implications failed or failing states have on regional and global countries in terms of human safety and security.

The failed states share a chain of commonalities that fall under the classification of third-world states. The invasion of Ukraine in the 21st century is a testimony to the so-called first-world states' hypocrisy when it comes to their engagement in matters of human security and justifications for the war on terrorism. The human, economic and political catastrophes of war have been largely ignored until an influx of potential issues neared Europe's periphery.

The Afghanistan case

Among the failed states, Afghanistan is a prime example that shares two critical aspects with Ukraine. First, both are victims of superpowers (the United States and Russia) that are/were destined to serve as buffers. Second, both hold geopolitical importance for said superpowers. However, what distinguishes them is that one is labeled as an uncivilized, third-world terrorism hub, while the other is perceived as a modern, civilized European nation-state. Another interesting separating factor is the heads of state.

Post 9/11, Afghanistan received the bulk of political and financial support. However, 20 years of military and economic support for Afghanistan can not be compared to what Ukraine has received within 10 days. Despite the two decades of tremendous funding and state-building projects, the Afghanistan government failed to hold out against the Taliban militants who were considerably weaker than the state army. On the contrary, the Ukrainian government has surprised the world with its resistance against a superpower with a remarkable military advantage.

Nevertheless, the amount of scholarly attention given to the situation in Ukraine within a short period is shocking when compared to the developments experienced globally since the 90s. Influxes of refugees, mass killings, genocides, human rights abuses, disdain and despair clouded non-European countries for decades. However, the world appeared to be doing just fine, with Europe, the United Nations and its Security Council remaining wonderfully observant. The only fanatic argument that perhaps remained/remains is that of religious and racial differences, them versus us, Eastern versus Western.

Two lessons to learn

There are two critical lessons to be learned from the invasion of Ukraine. Firstly, while the concept of the failed state could be a fabrication by Western powers to justify their invasion of the rest of Africa and Asia, it has severe regional and global consequences that may potentially harm international peace. Secondly, the head of the legitimate executive authority of the state in question is a determinant factor to the survival of failure of a nation-state. The latter lesson has been overlooked in the extensive literature on failed states and is glaringly clear when comparing the treatment of Afghanistan and Ukraine.