Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

By Matt Taibbi
Racket News
16 August 2023

On June 1, Harpers published a cover story titled “Why are we in Ukraine?” The authors were Professor Christopher Layne, the Robert Gates chair of National Security at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government, and Benjamin Schwarz, a one-time national and literary editor of The Atlantic and former analyst for the RAND Corporation. Both, at times, have been critical of the projection of American power, but both also have bona solid fides from within the world of American national security policy.

The authors didn’t excuse Vladimir Putin or his invasion of Ukraine, writing that “even if Moscow’s avowals are taken at face value,” the country’s actions could be “condemned as those of an aggressive and illegitimate state.”

Much of the rest of the article, however, is a blistering history of how the United States constructed a radically new foreign policy posture after communism’s fall, obliterating “normal diplomacy among great powers” and replacing it with rapid NATO expansion in all directions, in service of something like a global Monroe Doctrine. The justification for this new unipolar ideal, which was characterized by a cascading series of diplomatic ultimatums and “regime change” invasions for resisters, was best articulated in 1994 by former Senator Richard Lugar, who said, “There can be no lasting security at the center without security at the periphery.”

The Harpers piece doesn’t blame the United States for war in Ukraine but does tell a story about a foreign policy establishment that wriggled free of our more conflict-averse late seventies and eighties and created a new expansionism that eschews diplomacy and generated military confrontation almost by design. “Far from making the world safer by setting it in order,” the authors write, “we have made it all the more dangerous.”

There was a time when avoiding war was a chief priority of American liberalism, which would have taken a story like Harper's piece as a rallying cry. The issue containing the Layne-Schwarz story reportedly made brisk sales but generated little discussion in the media beyond a tweet from Ann Coulter:

No offense to Coulter, but where are the antiwar liberals? They were numerous once. Recent polls about war and military spending show the same bizarre pattern of neatly reversed partisan attitudes we’ve seen with civil liberties and the support of spy agencies.

GUEST EDITORIAL | Here’s why most of the world has decided it wants to keep out of the conflict between Russia and the West

A large part of the global majority sees current events as just another confrontation between white people

Participants, including Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, second from right, attend a plenary session of the Russia-Africa Summit and Economic and Humanitarian Forum in St. Petersburg, Russia, Thursday, July 27, 2023. © Alexander Kazakov / Sputnik / Kremlin Pool Photo via AP

By Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

HomeRussia & FSU
10 August 2023

The recent Russia-Africa summit in St. Petersburg and the consultations in Saudi Arabia last weekend on ending the Ukraine conflict while different events form part of a single phenomenon. Their significance lies in the growing importance on the international stage of states that prefer not to take sides in the confrontation between Russia and the West but are guided by pragmatic interests.

We now refer to this large group of countries as the world's majority. It comprises most of Earth’s population, but the name can be misleading. It’s not some form of united bloc.

However, we can talk about a new structural factor - the emergence of constraints on the great powers, which are used to thinking that everything depends on them. Now, it’s impossible to achieve goals without the support of – and even more so despite – countries that were previously regarded as afterthoughts.

The essence of the majority's approach is the desire to distance itself from the political, economic, and ideological constructs of others. To exaggerate, the view is that certain white gentlemen – who have been at the helm of the world for several centuries – have created a pile of modern problems by constantly fighting each other, and they are getting worse. (Russia, thanks to its Soviet legacy, retains a special ‘get out of jail card’ but is generally perceived as being part of the broader West.)

For the “first world,” there is no reason to help the minority deal with what it has created because the developed community is not ready to change the system that has led things to a dead end, except cosmetically. It makes more sense to use the plight of the Global North to seek benefits for the Global South.

This is a simplified scheme, of course, and it will be adjusted for various circumstances, down to historical likes and dislikes. But it is an auction: who will offer and deliver better? The US and its allies were the first to face such a situation. They were unpleasantly surprised by the firm unwillingness of non-Western countries to join the anti-Russian coalition in 2022. Now Moscow, too, sees the limits of its options. Most of the world accepts Russia's arguments about the causes of the conflict but is not enthusiastic about the ongoing military campaign.

The position of most countries is based on their practical situations, with responsiveness to ideological appeals and proposals to change the world order serving as a garnish.

The latter resonates with the mood of many but is not an urgent priority. As in the twentieth century, there is neither a desire to borrow development models nor a demand for ideology. Our proposals for developing an attractive ideological narrative to win the hearts and minds of the global majority are based on experience, but the international landscape is very different now. Everyone is on their own. This is, in fact, the multipolar world that people sought when they wanted to defeat hegemony.

Unlike the Western powers, Russia has no colonial legacy in the Global South. Furthermore, Moscow possesses many assets that these countries need. Under the totality of objective circumstances, the opportunities for interaction with the world majority are favorable. Their implementation requires detailed work, where the competitors are not so much Western opponents as the desire of partners to achieve more favorable conditions for themselves.

Pathos may be present, but it is secondary.

GUEST EDITORIAL | False dawn or real deal: What should Russia expect from Saudi Arabia’s Ukraine ‘peace summit’?

Experts discuss the goals and possible consequences of the upcoming Jeddah event

FILE PHOTO: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov © Sputnik/Russian Foreign Ministry

RT HomeWorld News
5 August 2023

Brussels, Washington, and Kyiv are strengthening efforts to consolidate international support for a Ukrainian plan for hypothetical peace talks with Russia. Last Sunday, it was announced that a major international meeting of around 30 states will be held in Jeddah this weekend, 5-6 August, to discuss the process.

In addition to countries such as Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Chile, and Zambia, the most significant states of the 'global South' – India and Brazil – are expected to attend.

The fact that this is the second such meeting on a Ukrainian settlement (the first meeting in a similar format was held in Copenhagen at the end of June) shows that there isn’t unconditional support for the Ukrainian plan in the international community, and Kyiv will have to compromise. On the other hand, Russia was not invited. This means that a common global position could be formed without Moscow’s participation and could face the consequences.

Russian experts speculate on what this could mean.

Ivan Timofeev, Programme Director of the Valdai Club and Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council:

I am skeptical about this Saudi initiative because any peace plan discussed without Russia is unlikely to be accepted by Russia. It seems that this is an attempt by the West to create a situation in which non-Western countries do not speak from a position of neutrality and impartiality but instead directly or indirectly aligned with the West’s work.

If we look at the situation from the point of view of non-Western states, it could be a means for them to diversify their foreign policy status. They can show that they are playing from both Western and non-Western platforms and still have room for maneuver.

The Ukrainian crisis was caused not only by Russian-Ukrainian relations and contradictions but also by security contradictions between Moscow and the collective West. And without resolving these contradictions, it is challenging to expect a sustainable solution.

But several problems in Ukraine are perceived critically in Russia. In particular, one of these now is the rights of Christians and the attempt to split the Orthodox Church, which is gaining momentum and is accompanied by the seizure of church property and the persecution of believers, and so on. Last week, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepared a rather detailed report.

The problems associated with the Ukrainian crisis are not limited to the peaceful resolution of the conflict. It is a broader picture of relations between Russia and the West, the human rights situation in Ukraine itself, and the problems that Moscow is drawing attention to.

Dr. Aleksey Gromyko, Director of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
I assume that the format of the negotiations in Saudi Arabia did not envisage Russia's participation or an invitation to Moscow.

The point is twofold: to work on consolidating the global South's peacemaking efforts with the Ukrainian crisis and, secondly, to work specifically with Ukraine and its sponsors. In principle, it is clear that Kyiv, not Moscow, is fundamental to any ceasefire and eventual settlement.

Everyone knows that the Ukrainians, not the Russians, withdrew from the [peace] negotiations in April 2022. And since then, Russia has repeatedly signaled its openness to pragmatic negotiations, while Kyiv has fantasized about the return of all its former territories, including Crimea.

If this work bears fruit, Russia could probably get involved later. But a condition for Saudi Arabia's chances of success in this endeavor is 'quiet diplomacy' and complete confidentiality.

If it turns out that Kyiv and the West are just using it for another political show, then there will be no benefit.

Political expert Andrey Dubnov:
The conference's goal is not to formulate "agreements acceptable to all parties." Russia has not been invited to this event, which makes sense because otherwise, the meeting would have failed. It is obvious that Moscow's position has been articulated; the last time it was expressed was at the Russia-Africa summit.

Moscow's primary position is essentially an arrangement that can be called a ceasefire, based on Russia's retention of the Ukrainian territories now organized as four Russian regions. It is difficult to imagine that Moscow will abandon this as its central negotiating position.

On the other hand, Kyiv's stance on peace is possible only if Russia withdraws its troops from the 1991 borders. With such positions of the parties, a general meeting would be pointless.

What is the purpose of the summit in Saudi Arabia? Since this initiative comes mainly from Kyiv and is backed by the US, it is now about consolidating the wider world – not just the West, but the big South, including the BRICS member countries (India, Brazil, and South Africa). It attempts to find a consolidated expression of support for the Ukrainian peace plan. Within this "formula of support," there are some limits regarding the flexibility of Kyiv's negotiating position: under what conditions is it ready to give up its categorical demand to return to the 1991 borders and to compromise with Russia? Clarifying this kind of flexibility may be one of the ulterior goals of this conference.

But practice shows that such diplomatic conferences look, first and foremost, like big, big PR. Diplomacy needs silence and confidentiality. The Saudi initiative does not yet provide for this silence and privacy, so it is still more of a political meeting than a search for a diplomatic solution to the problem.

President Vladimir Zelensky's peace plan will be at the center of the Saudi initiative. Within this framework, an attempt will be made to find acceptable windows in which Kyiv, I repeat, will be prepared to make further compromises with Moscow. But at the end of the day, everything will depend on the outcome of the military operations on the ground, which are being actively pursued.

No peace plan for Ukraine can become a reality without China's participation. The meeting in Saudi Arabia could be a precursor to a financial and economic assistance plan to rebuild Ukraine. This is how the project to help Afghanistan began at the Bonn conference many years ago.

Andrey Suzdaltsev, Political expert, Associate Professor of the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics of the Higher School of Economics:
The Saudi initiative is the second attempt at such negotiations to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. The first occurred in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, early summer. It did not go well, as the organizers could not attract high-level representatives, particularly from the BRICS countries; deputy foreign ministers and others attended the session.

They want a conference with higher-level representation, especially among the Indian representatives. They chose Saudi Arabia, which cooperates strongly with New Delhi. They are using the existing experience of these big countries.

All this is happening because it has been discovered that there are several factions of power on the planet and that the world is multipolar. The previous unipolar world was somewhat incomplete, but it still existed. Now, however, it has begun to fall apart.

A vivid example is the 2008 Ossetian-Georgian war, where the West intervened when it was too late. French President Nicolas Sarkozy arrived, the situation was stopped, and Russia was not even seriously sanctioned.

In 2014, when Crimea returned to Russia, the West could do nothing about it and showed that the unipolar world was beginning to fail. The system started to collapse.

When the system of international relations collapses, it manifests itself in three aspects. The first aspect is the loss of various contacts, traditions of communications, and traditions of discussions at the expert and diplomatic levels. This can be seen in relations between Russia and the West, China, and the US concerning Taiwan, and the fraught relations of most African countries with the US and Western Europe. Contacts and links built up over decades have begun to disintegrate.

The second aspect is that international organizations are becoming dysfunctional, losing respect, and being ignored. In the 1950s and 1960s, United Nations decisions were viewed almost as law in a bipolar world. However, when the world became unipolar, the largest international organizations became unnecessary as Washington made all the decisions.

The third aspect is that international law is canceled. Many agreements lose their force, though not all.

These three aspects show that the world system is changing. The US and the European Union want to stop this process. The Russian military operation in Ukraine was the turning point. The unipolar world has to make the other poles of global power – including China and India – support the West and stand firmly on the Western positions and the side of Ukraine. There is no equality in this. The proposed negotiations are a conversation in the traditional unipolar world, which can only offer coalitions, and of the feudal vassal type.

This conference will force Africa and India to side with the West against Russia.

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

Our Friday News Analysis | 'What the World Reads Now!,' 11 August 2023.

Our Wednesday News Analysis | 'Opinion | For Decades, I Defended Israel From Claims of Apartheid. I No Longer Can,' 16 August 2023.

The Evangelical Pope| 'You Are the Treasure …,' 14 August 2023.

_________________________

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of the Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague.