Editor's note: Andrew Korybko is a Moscow-based American political analyst. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

It's been around 100 days since the recent Ukrainian crisis started, which makes it a timely moment to reflect on why it started, what has happened thus far, and what might come next. Russia commenced what it regards as a "special military operation" in Ukraine on February 24 in response to what Russian President Vladimir Putin said were national security threats emanating from that country as a result of its formal attempt to join NATO.

He said that NATO might be planning to one day attack Russia from the clandestine military facilities that he claimed it established in Ukraine. The Russian leader hinted that this could follow the planned neutralization of his country's nuclear second-strike capabilities through the regional deployment of "missile defense systems" and strikes weapons in the region. Putin also said that NATO wanted Ukraine to attack Crimea, which he said could spark a larger war.

For its part, Kyiv and its U.S.-led Western allies denied all of Russia's allegations, instead describing its military activities as an unprovoked and therefore illegal "invasion." In response, the U.S. has led the Western effort to arm Ukraine, to which end Congress recently approved over $40 billion in aid. European countries, led by Poland and the Baltic States, are doing their utmost to bolster Ukraine's military capabilities as well while some Western European ones are still reluctant to do the same.

Russia's cross-border military activities, which is the most objective way in which they can be described, initially seemed aimed at enveloping northern, eastern, and southern Ukraine. The advance towards Kyiv was ultimately called off as part of what Russia said was a goodwill gesture during prior peace talks in Turkey while Ukraine celebrated it as a military victory. Meanwhile, Russian forces also withdrew from northeastern Ukraine while keeping the pressure up on the eastern and southern fronts.

Approximately 100 days into the conflict, practically all of Ukraine's Kherson Oblast and over half of Zaporozhye Oblast are controlled by the Russian Armed Forces (RAF). Meanwhile, the center of military gravity lies in Donbass, where the RAF are advancing against the Ukrainian Armed Force (UAF) in Lugansk and Donetsk, approaching what many observers expect to be an inevitable victory unless Kyiv's foreign partners' military aid arrives in time and is effectively used to turn the tide of that battle.

Over the past three months, Russia suddenly found itself to be the most sanctioned country in history, with the U.S.-led West imposing thousands of economic restrictions on the country in general, its leadership, certain industries, and specific individuals. Nevertheless, the ruble hasn't collapsed like many in the U.S.-led West expected. To the contrary, it's actually grown in strength as Russia diversified its resource exports to non-Western countries like China, India, and others.

Meanwhile, the U.S.-led West is sliding deeper into recession and uncertainty, which risks prompting socio-political crises unless the situation is responsibly managed by those countries' leaderships. All the while, the Global South suddenly faces the risk of famine as the Russian and Ukrainian agricultural exports that used to feed many of these people are unexpectedly cut off due to the military situation in the Black Sea as well as the financial-technical complications connected to U.S.-led Western sanctions.

The blame game between Russia and the West over this issue of global humanitarian significance continues, but the Russian Ambassador to the UN, in a speech in late May, compellingly made the case that this is an artificially manufactured crisis. According to Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya, Ukraine's mining of its seaports, the U.S.-led Western sanctions, and preexisting structural risks connected to the COVID-19 pandemic created the current global food crisis, not Russia's “special military operation” in Ukraine.

Regardless of who is to be blamed and to what extent, there’s no doubt that the Global South stands to suffer, which risks the lives of literally billions of people. Turkey, which has taken an impressively neutral position towards the conflict (all things considered), is mediating between Moscow and Kyiv with a view towards playing a role in reopening agricultural maritime trade routes upon an agreement being reached between the conflicting parties. That said, it remains to be seen whether this will bear fruit.

The grand strategic consequence of the Ukrainian conflict is that it's accelerated the global systemic transition towards multipolarity by facilitating the rise of non-Western countries like China and India, though not without the inadvertent consequence of threatening to divide the world back into blocs as well as risking a global famine. It should be remembered that the conflict probably wouldn't have happened had the U.S.-led West agreed to Russia's security guarantee requests from last December.

Although they're largely irrelevant now given how much has changed in the past 100 days, they nevertheless represented the last chance at a peaceful and diplomatic resolution to the decades-long "security dilemma" between Russia and NATO. The larger lesson to be learned is that NATO's consistent encroachment into areas regarded as being of national security importance to others risks provoking crises that could dangerously turn hot if one party, like Russia, resorts to force to defend its interests.

In the global context, this insight is very relevant for the Asia-Pacific since the U.S.' efforts to assemble a so-called Asian NATO through AUKUS threaten to replicate the Ukrainian scenario in that part of the world. It is therefore of the most urgent priority for all responsible regional stakeholders to learn from what has happened in Western Eurasia so as to prevent the same from happening in Eastern Eurasia since the stakes are much higher seeing as how the bulk of the global economy is nowadays located there.

The worst-case scenario for mankind is that the U.S. becomes deluded by the belief in its own self-professed "exceptionalism" into thinking that it can simultaneously risk a hot war with both Russia and China in their respective halves of Eurasia. What is needed more than anything is for American decision makers to sober up, realize that a third world war might actually break out by miscalculation due to the declining unipolar power's irresponsible moves, and thus do what is needed to avert this scenario.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)