Would you like to support me so I can continuously improve?
April 29, 2023
Although most of us believe that the war between Russia and Ukraine is taking place in lands so far away that its ravages cannot reach us, we need to understand that in our era no conflict is restricted to the borders of one or another national territory, but rather that, in some way or another, its main consequences end up affecting every sphere of reality of normal people around the world.
The root of the conflict is something about which there is enough information going around everywhere and it is a fact on which there is, within everything, a relative consensus. We will only say that the problems between the two nations go back to the historical past they share and the interests at stake of both protagonists.
Certainly, it is very crazy to talk about a first phase of a "third world war", but we must not ignore that it is the first significant warlike conflict that occurred in this century and, therefore, it is necessary to understand at least some fundamental aspects of this war.
The part that should concern all "normal" people are the consequences of the conflagration that in our era, believe it or not, have a global reach.
In an era defined by strategic competition between great powers, it is essential to understand, at least superficially, why what happens and how these great conflicts between nations can affect the course of our daily lives.
And this is where it is essential to focus on the actors who, although we do not see them on the battlefield, make important decisions from the outside that, believe it or not, weigh heavily. Not only in the balance of the definition of the war conflict, but in the decisions we make in our daily lives.
These actors have an absolute advantage in this conflict and therefore we must focus our attention on those political decisions that, sooner or later, will end up having an impact on the daily lives of all the people of the world.
The European Union
Relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union have always been complex and full of agreements, treaties, negotiations on whose bases we will always find, if we look carefully, very deep contradictions. Both on the side of the Soviet bloc and the European bloc, what always prevails is the absolute inability to sustain a relationship of harmonious coexistence in the long term, caused above all by the divergence of ideological and geopolitical interests between the two.
We will not go back very far in the past of the relations between these two great actors in the world order, but it is very important to remember the events that occurred towards the end of 2013 that took place in Independence Square in Kiev, Ukraine. We refer to the events known as the “euromaidan”.
These events can be seen as the origin of the war that was triggered by the attempt to bring the Ukrainian State closer to the European Union. It was about a series of demonstrations that took place in Kyiv's Maidan Square, as a result of the refusal of then President Víctor Yanukovych to sign the Association Pact with the European Union. In this way, a process of confrontations began within the Ukrainian society. Yes, exactly, a civil war in the 21st century. The sides in conflict are, on the one hand, the "pro-Russian" forces and, on the other, those who prefer a rapprochement with the European Union.
Although this kind of civil war may seem to us, at first, as an internal matter that does not have major consequences than those that could occur at the local level. The truth is that the victory of any of the factions in dispute would have as a consequence the complete modification of the geopolitical balance in the continent. What very probably leads to the modification of the lifestyles of millions of people within the continent and outside it.
The strategy of the government of Yanukovych, who was president of Ukraine between 2010 and 2014, was much closer to Russia than to the West. His decision to definitively interrupt and reject the negotiation process with the European Union and continue with the process of signing an economic, commercial and energy agreement with Moscow that would facilitate its subsequent entry into the Eurasian Economic Union, made the European community authorities.
Countries like Great Britain, Poland, Lithuania, Romania, Sweden, Bulgaria predetermined the most enthusiastic and active support on the part of the community block towards the opposition forces to the pro-Russian government in Kiev, as well as the imposition of more severe sanctions on Russia from the beginning.
It is a "pro-European" bloc made up mainly of the countries that broke away from the orbit of the old Soviet Union. The old "satellite countries" still are in some way. It’s just that now they do orbit in the space of another empire. These are the countries that formed the first line of the famous "iron curtain" at the end of World War II.
While countries like France and Germany once again demonstrated a conciliatory and mediating position towards Russia, especially at the beginning of the conflict, while maintaining their formal support for the community policy of pressure, diplomatic warnings and even the application of economic sanctions, political and military against the Moscow government. Germany and France were the two community states with which Russia had the most bilateral contacts from the start.
But what is really fundamental for us citizens of the world may be the economic question. To introduce ourselves to this question, we must understand, first, what the signing of the association and free trade agreements with the European Union would have implied. And, secondly, what are the consequences of a prolonged war conflict over time. In short, try to understand how these political decisions affect the lives of European citizens, also Russian citizens. But fundamentally we must understand that the consequences of such decisions will end up affecting the vast majority of the citizens of this global village.
All roads lead to Europe
The so-called "Association Agreement" began on March 30, 2012 in Brussels. Among other issues, the text of the Agreement deals basically with the establishment of a free trade area between the European Union and Ukraine. Both parties will progressively establish a free trade area in which each party will reduce or eliminate the taxes on the originating goods of its counterpart.
This agreement commits Ukraine to an agenda of economic, legal and financial reforms, as well as a gradual approximation of its policies with those in the EU. Ukraine also made a commitment to gradually comply with technical and consumer standards in the EU.
In exchange for these measures, the European Union would provide Ukraine with financial and political support, access to research and knowledge, and preferential access to European markets. The agreement also commits both parties to promote gradual convergence in the area of foreign and security policies, specifically with the Common Security and Defense Policy of the European Union and the policies established by the European Defense Agency.
Including Ukraine in this rigid regime of reforms was and continues to be the central point of the objectives of the European Union. Basically, make their policies converge with those of the European Union. The entire agreement was designed to facilitate the insertion and adjustment of the Ukrainian economy to the interests of the main economies of the European Union.
In other words, take Ukraine out of the Russian orbit to integrate it into the Western orbit. The agreement demands that Ukraine must become a "western" nation and in exchange for this the European Union offers peace, stability and prosperity.
Western liberalism
“Free trade” zones are generally beneficial for the whole of society but especially for certain highly concentrated economic sectors, such as the business classes.
The opening to international markets brings with it great advantages for this sector, mainly due to the annulment of restrictions, such as high tax rates when importing certain inputs necessary for production.
Ukrainian producers would have access to the largest free trade area in the world. But all this comes at a high price. Local producers must position their products in one of the most competitive markets in the world. It is a market in which monopolies predominate and the concentration of profits within them.
In free trade zones, the most powerful countries, that is, those with an overwhelmingly greater industrial capacity, are the main beneficiaries of the liberalization of markets. Its production ends up flooding the markets of the smallest economies, generating a situation of imbalances that ends up revealing the fallacy of the theory of perfect competition of economic liberalism on which most of the economic models of the member countries of the European community are based.
The initial consequences of this dizzying change would fall on the working class, who will have to face new conditions in the field of production and will see their habitual ways of life transformed. This situation can generate crises and new social outbreaks in the short term. They should also bear the full weight of the substantial increase in their living costs caused by the inflation that is always unleashed at the beginning of the application of the "liberal" measures proposed by the West.
Of course, these conditions imposed by the West, together with the possible reversal in the order of trade relations, were seen by the Kremlin as a serious threat to national security. The application of the "liberal" reforms that the West demanded as part of the association agreement would have meant a great loss, both economic and geopolitical, for the Soviet bloc.
The non-acceptance of the liberal order has been the great insignia of Russian foreign policy.
The start of the economic war
The introduction of the Ukrainian economy to the free trade zone in Europe required a very large initial sacrifice. Yanukovych stated that Ukraine would do "its best" to meet the EU's requirements. However, the president was also engaged in negotiations with Russia to "find the appropriate model" for cooperation with the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia.
Ukraine would resume the preparation of the agreement "when the fall in industrial production and our relations with the CIS countries or "Commonwealth of Independent Countries" are compensated by the European market, otherwise the economy of our country will suffer serious damage".
Basically, Ukraine needed substantial financial support to make up for the losses that would result from abandoning its trading neighbors for good.
If Ukraine signed the agreement, the Belarus-Kazakhstan-Russia Customs Union would have to withdraw from free trade agreements with the country.
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that members of the customs union and Russia could impose what they called "preventive measures" on trade between Ukraine and the European Union. Some examples of these measures by Russia are the closure of its market to Ukrainian chocolate, or after the conflict with Georgia, the importation of wines from that country ended. But with the agreement with the EU, Ukraine will have other options to resist this kind of pressure.
The European Union responded to these actions in kind. Since the beginning of the military intervention, the EU and several of its allies decided to increase the sanctions against the Russian government that began in 2014 in a measure that sought to "paralyze" Russia's ability to "finance its war machine" and make it difficult to manage assets to obtain liquidity through the freezing of Russian assets abroad.
In this sense, one can speak of the beginning of an economic war that manifests itself through this series of sanctions. The sanctions on Russia imposed from the West can be divided into 2 main moments. The first wave of sanctions occurred after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The second wave hit with the outbreak of the war with Ukraine.
An unexpected result
What it has to interest us right now, one year after the outbreak of the conflict, are the real consequences of these "sanctions" that function as weapons in economic warfare.
The sanctions imposed by the West, were they really capable of harming the Soviet giant in any way? In other words, what is being questioned is the effectiveness of these sanctions. The Russian government got tired of repeating that Western sanctions cannot harm Russia. Among the most eloquent statements in this regard is the one issued by Andrei Illiarinov, former economic policy adviser, who said that “in the Kremlin they only laugh about it ... They think it is a joke, nobody takes it seriously. Sanctions are not effective."
Despite the fact that wars have high costs for any nation, they do not seem to affect Russia too much. Contrary to what was expected once the "sanctions" were applied from the West, the Eurasian giant remains firmer than ever.
One year after the outbreak of the war and, therefore, also of said "sanctions", we can conclude that the European sanctions, although they have had some relative effect on its income and have succeeded in diplomatically isolating Moscow, have not been able to comply their main objective, that is, they have not been able to sink the Russian military machine.
Among the explanations offered by the authorities of the European Union is the one that says that Russia has a relatively large sovereign wealth fund and it would be these funds that allow Russia to continue standing after the wave of sanctions.
As the war escalated, the EU pushed through new measures and began targeting the Russian energy sector. Brussels first banned the import of crude oil and introduced a price cap. And later, the import of Russian refined oil products.
At the same time, Europe was working to reduce its dependence on Russian gas. What has made Moscow lose its largest energy customer.
But since both blocs are commercially dependent on one another, the European economies cannot sustain these measures in the long term without resulting in serious problems of energy shortages and high levels of inflation.
To what extent do sanctions harm Europe itself?
The principle that has been used since 2022 when designing sanctions packages is that they do not harm Europeans more than Russia.
Apparently, this is not the case and the first signs of serious problems within the European economies are already more than evident.
According to analysts, the sky-high gas prices seen in the summer are mainly related to Russian market manipulation and not sanctions. EU authorities deny that Europe suffers the effects more than Russia. Now the European Union is trying to prevent sanctions from being circumvented. In addition, it has been proposed to open a centralized office for sanctions in Brussels.
Sanctions have become the main weapon of the European Union. But their effects seem to be ambiguous in the target towards which they aim and, paradoxically, they have real effects on the economies of the continent itself and on those of the world.
One year after the start of the sanctions, the consequences are concrete and more than evident in Western economies. Rising price levels in Western countries have become an overwhelming reality.
The sanctions became the root of a real energy crisis in the world. Higher energy prices is a real consequence. We feel it all "normal" citizens who have nothing to do with this conflict. Especially the citizens of the continent. Currently, half of the houses in Europe are heated with gas. It is an indispensable resource and a basic right for all citizens of the world.
Western leaders, those who make the important decisions, believe that this situation is necessary and functional because it allows the weakening of the Russian economy. A rival who does not seem to have felt any of these "sanctions". At least not more than we, the citizens. Once again the working class is the one that must pay the highest price for a fight that is alien to their interests.
An inflation that is heading towards its historical levels and the great possibility that it will last until the end of the conflict seem to be two of the main consequences that normal citizens must face in their daily lives.
USA: ¿What it has to do the States on these European trouble?
Since it was fully established as a solid nation, the United States has been involved in almost every major international conflict that has occurred throughout history up to now.
US interventionism is a historical phenomenon and is part of the package of measures that the US State has chosen to use whenever an adverse situation arises in the international arena.
Among the best-known historical examples are the two great meddlings in the First and Second World War. These are the two interventions that positioned this nation as a weighty political, military, and economic force. The United States proved to be one of the States with the greatest capacity to end major conflicts in a short time.
US' interventionism is once again present in this decade and what is essential for us, ordinary civilians, is to understand what are the US interests that lead them to support the war in Ukraine.
The long series of diplomatic relations that the United States has maintained with Russia since the end of the Cold War began a period in which both blocs strove to create an institutional framework in which they could solve the latent problems that remained to be settled.
The event that marked the beginning of the deterioration of relations between the two countries was the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. At that time, Bill Clinton was spending his last years in Washington as president of the United States, and a young Vladimir Putin came to the position of President of the Federal Government of Russia. However, they have not been the only event that has marked a before and after in bilateral relations.
Despite the fact that Russia decided to maintain a diplomatic stance, which allowed it to reinforce its status as a consolidated democratic nation during that period, this fact definitely eclipsed what just a few years ago (the Yeltsin years) was seen as a very close rapprochement. narrow between both blocs.
Another of the borderline situations that precipitated the collapse of the diplomatic relationship between these nations was the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia in 2014. From the West they described the referendum held in this territory that belonged to Ukraine as "illegal".
From that moment everything went downhill in the field of diplomatic relations between the West and the Russian Federation. The "sanctions" did not wait for what the West considered an absolutely undemocratic act and that violated more than one norm of International Law established by the UN.
The chapter "Obama"
The US stance during the Barack Obama administration was markedly hostile towards Russia. His speeches acquired a belligerent and threatening tone against the Russian regime.
President Obama's strategy basically consisted of increasing military training exercises and the presence of US and NATO soldiers in the Eastern European countries bordering Russia, that is, carrying out a strategy that is considered by Russia as a threat directly to their national security.
Since 2014, after the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula to Russia, the United States has maintained 21 military bases in Europe, but what worries Russia the most is that since April this country has stationed more than 600 soldiers in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, on its own northwest border.
The annexation of Crimea, considered illegal by the United States and the European Union, caused the worst crisis in US-Russia relations since the end of the Cold War.
Washington also announced the increase in the participation of its Navy in NATO naval deployments in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, to go to the aid of "close friends", such as Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, countries that are considered by Russia as its area of direct influence.
Finally, the NATO Defense Ministers, meeting in Brussels (June 2014), supported Obama's plan, considering it "another sign of leadership and determination" within NATO.
All this only reinforces the paranoia of the Kremlin and its pathological distrust of the West, which at times becomes logical and well-founded, while reinforcing its nationalist and patriotic discourse within the country to justify its militaristic positions.
The Russian president directly accused the Obama administration of supporting “pro-European” protesters in Kiev's Independence Square in 2014. Whether this is true or not, the West preferred a Ukraine ruled by far-right ultranationalist forces, rather than to accept a government subservient to Russia, as was the case with Yanukovych.
Friend or foe?
As of 2016, this position regarding the Russian situation was radically modified with the coming to power of the forty-fifth president that this country has had, Donald J. Trump. The position of "benevolent neutrality" on foreign policy that his administration assumed has earned him the title of being the first president in US history since 1980 not to start a war in his first term.
During the Trump administration there was a sharp change in the order of international relations. The Trump government shook the foundations of everything that previous presidents had achieved, in regards to trade, to the agreements signed in military matters in NATO, in its relationship with allied countries such as Russia, Iran and China.
Relations between Putin and Trump began since the Republican tycoon defeated Hillary Clinton in the presidential elections on November 8, 2016. The 2016 United States presidential elections were marked on the calendar by Moscow.
The arrival of Hillary Clinton would have meant a continuation of Obama's foreign policy with respect to the bilateral relationship with Russia. According to the Intelligence Community of the United States, Putin would have ordered a campaign to influence these elections, with the aim of Donald Trump being elected as president.
Surrounded by a bunch of consultants with interests in Russia, Donald Trump came to power to establish a foreign policy marked by a closer rapprochement with the Eurasian giant. Or at least this was what was glimpsed at the beginning.
During the first term of the Trump administration, we highlighted his willingness to ignore certain acts by Russia such as the annexation of Crimea, the armed intervention in eastern Ukraine, and support for the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Trump called Putin "a stronger leader" than President Barack Obama, praised him for "doing a great job" and hoped he would be "my new best friend."
“But you know what, the people of Crimea, from what I hear, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And this must also be taken into account."
-Donald Trump on Russia's annexation of Crimea
In fact, Trump's devotion to his Russian counterpart was so close that in several statements he preferred to blame former President Barack Obama for the increase in tensions between Russia and Ukraine.
After a long first presidential term, characterized by a close relationship with Russia and by scandals surrounding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, the "friendly" relationship between the two leaders began to decline.
The break began on April 7, 2017, after Trump ordered a missile attack on Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons against civilians, the US Secretary of State arrived in Moscow with the strong warning that Russia had to stop supporting Assad.
Russia's response to the Syrian issue was clear. Putin compared Trump's action in Syria to President George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev suggested that Trump was not like the person he had been during last year's campaign.
The rapid breakdown of ties between Putin and Trump responds to the very foundations of the Republican party. The abrupt turn in US foreign policy had a limit and was given by the interests of the most traditional sectors of the party, the hawks of the cold war. This sector was not willing to tolerate the Kremlin's arbitrary and authoritarian ways of proceeding.
But foremost what is surprising is how quickly foreign policy returned to the state it was in at the end of the Obama administration. The appointment of Mike Pompeo, former Director of the CIA and a member of the hard wing of the Republican Party, seems to signal a return to Cold War-style geopolitics.
It is important to remember that international politics can modify the identity of States. This was what happened with the arrival of the Trump administration. Although this modification was very ephemeral and only partially materialized when they were functional to the interests of the Republican sector closest to Trump.
The policy of sanctions against Russia did not change in the Trump era. In addition to warnings regarding the situation in Syria, in August 2017 Trump enacted the Law Against Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia.
"Russia should join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization"
-Expressions of Donald Trump during a controversial speech in Warsaw, Poland.
In this way, we can include Trump in the list of American presidents who tried to restart the relationship with Moscow. An ambition that none has been able to fulfill.
The definitive breakout
The protagonist of the last chapter of the series on relations between the United States and Russia, is the current president-elect in 2021, Joe Biden. He is a true veteran in the field of relations between these two blocs. Biden's experience with Russian affairs spans more than 38 of his years in federal public office.
Although the current president of the United States has an extensive political resume, most of us remember him, mainly, for having been Obama's vice president.
Despite the fact that the situation is not the same and the foreign policy of the United States has undergone some partial modifications, its foundations keep the main objectives of the nation intact.
The reiterated interests of the United States, regardless of who holds the country's presidency, are primarily security cooperation with its allies, combating international terrorism, ensuring the continued hegemony of the United States on the international stage, and supporting the sovereignty and independence of the partner nations.
An initial statement of strategic intent by the Biden Administration promised to implement a new role for the US in the world to match the changes. With the slogan "America is back", the Democratic leader began the turn of American foreign policy.
The first important event that allowed us to see clearly the imprint that Biden's foreign policy would have was the chaotic withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. Undoubtedly a historical fact. It was the first sign of the implementation of a new foreign policy marked by the reduction of the US military presence in the world, progressively limiting its security commitments at the international level.
Joe Biden arrived at the White House ready to address the "solvency" crisis of US foreign policy and, therefore, with the idea of not incurring external obligations that exceeded the State budget. Because in the competition between great powers that the world is now immersed in, with China and Russia as the main competitors, the insolvency problems may be even greater for the United States.
His speech about the need to cut government spending, increase taxes on large private companies and maintain a restrictive monetary and fiscal policy, are part of the typical package of measures that the Democratic party has used throughout history.
“This vision is a fundamental break with the economic theory that has failed the American middle class for decades. It's called trickle economics, fundamental economics, trickle down. The idea was… the belief that we should cut taxes for the rich and big corporations… I want them to do well, but I… am tired of waiting for the trickle down. It doesn't come very fast. Not much dripped onto my dad's kitchen table growing up."
“My friends, let me say this as clearly as possible: The trickle down effect has failed the middle class. He failed the United States. The deficit exploded. Inequity increased. And it weakened our infrastructure. He stripped the dignity, pride and hope of the communities of this great nation."
- President's State of the Union Address on June 28, 2023
Biden came to power at a time of utter foreign policy crisis. In other words, the growing rejection by US citizens of the interventionist strategy of the State.
The so-called “endless wars”, the unfinished wars, imply a large deployment of US forces in conflicts without a clear strategic objective and it was clear that the American people decided years ago that these wars are not worth it.
Avoiding unnecessary interventions abroad also meant respecting what a majority of Americans have long expected and requested, which is to focus on domestic problems and the needs of the country's citizens.
The outbreak of the war completely destroyed the expectations of a new foreign policy that some expected as "revolutionary." Rising inflation, mass layoffs in the country's manufacturing sector, and the closure of American factories abroad have jeopardized the plans of the Biden administration.
"My friends, inflation has been a global problem because the pandemic disrupted our supply chains and Putin's brutal and unfair war in Ukraine disrupted energy and food supplies by blocking all grain from Ukraine."
-President's State of the Union Address on February 9, 2023
Washington's dream of making the relationship with Russia more predictable through a narrow strategic stability agenda appears to be fading.
The summit between Biden and Putin in June 2021 was held with the main objective of seeing if Moscow was willing to compromise. Biden stated that one of the goals of the summit is to see if Putin is willing to accept a more stable and predictable relationship with the United States.
The summit basically wanted Moscow to completely change the course of its iron defense policy. That is, to abandon strategic pressure in its former sphere of influence, including Ukraine.
Now Moscow has made clear what the price of predictability in relations is, and it is clearly one the United States is not willing to pay.
Since the beginning of the war, relations between the two powers have progressively deteriorated. The Russian president repeatedly accused the United States and NATO nations of placing offensive weapons near Russia's borders, endangering the country's security.
The Biden administration, while staying within the bounds of its policy of cutting state spending, has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Ukrainian military to finance what it characterizes as purely defensive weapons, including anti-tank missiles to repel an invasion threat. Russian.
Russia has called such weapons "offensive" that threaten its own forces.
Biden has tried to maintain diplomacy, seeking to deter Russia with specific warnings about imposing a series of sanctions that would go far beyond what the West agreed to in 2014, after Russia's annexation of Crimea.
Putin warned that any tough new sanctions would be a mistake.
"Any country that tried to hinder their forces should know that the Russian response will be immediate and will have consequences never seen in history"
-Statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the beginning of the Russian invasion, in February of last year.
Relations between the two countries are approaching a situation close to that of the cold war. The world is once again bipolar and the start of a new arms race has been a reality for a long time. The bilateral nuclear disarmament policy maintained with Russia since the end of the Cold War seems to have been forgotten and international cooperation loses ground in the face of competition.
Currently, Russian-American relations are at a historic tipping point. President Biden's latest decisions to send more sophisticated and powerful war material to Ukraine to face the bloody invasion, only exacerbate tensions with the Eurasian giant to the limit.
Although the Biden government has stated that it neither allows nor encourages Ukrainian attacks inside Russia, from Moscow they view these actions as a direct threat.
“Putin has already lost the war. Putin has a real problem. How does he move from here? What does he do?” Biden said. “What agreement is ultimately reached depends upon Putin, and what he decides to do. But there is no possibility of him winning the war in Ukraine. He’s already lost that war.”
-Statements by the President of the United States, Joe Biden during a speech in Helsinki on Thursday, July 13.
The Biden administration's attempts to maintain a more stable relationship with Russia seem to be a long way from coming to fruition, in a context in which the latest decisions made by the US president are not aimed at pacifying tensions.
The integration of Finland into the Alliance of North Atlantic Countries (NATO) is a move that paves the way for the absolute break in relations between Washington and Moscow and, ultimately, is a clear warning signal for Russia. The strengthening of the Western bloc, led by the United States, represents a direct threat to the national security of the Russian Federation which, since the signing of integration, has been preparing for a defensive rearmament of the border between Finland and the Eurasian giant.
CHINA
Now it is necessary that we put on glasses to look closely at one of the protagonists who is still behind the curtain. It is one of the emerging nations that in a very short time became a power capable of competing with the great nations of the first world.
The "Chinese miracle" is the name used to describe the impressive takeoff of the Chinese economy towards the end of the last century. In just a few decades, China became the main trading partner and rival of the United States.
At present, China finds itself in a very complex situation in the face of the war in Ukraine. Chinese leaders want to preserve stability within the country while avoiding further damage to their economy from the deteriorating trade relationship with the United States.
The war in Ukraine has added one more concern to the Asian giant, due to the implications it has in the relationship with Russia, and the position of the United States and its allies who are trying to create similarities between the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
Since the outbreak of the war, China has decided to adopt a neutral position on it, despite pressure from the West for the Chinese giant to break with its principle of non-interference and take a decisive position with respect to its fellow bloc.
China and Russia have strengthened their diplomatic and trade relations over the past decade, growing even closer since the invasion of Ukraine, despite Beijing's insistence that it is neutral in that conflict. Long before the invasion, the Chinese authorities declared their support for Moscow's “reasonable concerns” about Ukraine. Well, from China, they also viewed the expansionist policies of the United States and NATO with suspicion.
The sanctions applied to Russia in 2014 for the annexation of Crimea, followed by those imposed by the United States on China since 2018 in the framework of its trade war, have cemented a relationship that advocates the search for greater economic and financial autonomy against western countries.
The sanctions applied from the West had an unexpected effect. Instead of causing the total isolation of Moscow, what ended up happening was a closer rapprochement between these old regional partners. In other words, faced with the sanctions, China, Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkey appeared, which began to act as bridges or substitutes for Western nations.
Paradoxically, the sanctions led to the strengthening of an emerging Euro-Asian regional bloc. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is an intergovernmental organization that was founded in Shanghai on June 15, 2001. It currently consists of eight member states (China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), four observer States interested in joining as full members (Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran and Mongolia) and six “Dialogue Partners” (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Turkey).
Both Russia and China have seen this Organization as a counterweight to the Organization of the North Atlantic Countries (NATO).
Indeed, the Western "sanctions" caused the exacerbation of the differences between blocks, the West on the one hand and a closeness between non-Western countries that converge on certain interests and ideological positions.
The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, had stated several times the objective of "re-bringing Russia closer to Europe", in order to correct the policy of recent years that had pushed Russia towards China.
Western policies have placed the former Soviet Union in the hands of "convenience" allies such as China.
In short, the Russian-Chinese partnership offers Moscow an important safety valve for its exports in the medium term, but it does not give it the means to quickly replace European customers with Asian ones.
As early as 2014, the two countries signed a $24.5 billion Central Bank swap agreement to facilitate trade transactions in yuan or rubles.
China became Russia's first customer in the energy sector last year and kept Russian gas exports from collapsing, despite Western sanctions imposed on Moscow in the wake of the war in Ukraine.
In general, Russian-Chinese financial cooperation is laying the foundations for an alternative international financial system, less dominated by the dollar.
The US response was clear. He accused Moscow and Beijing of making common cause to create a “deeply illiberal” new world order.
In fact, many sources say that the rapprochement of these two nations was the one that provoked the Western offensive to rush to include Ukraine as an official member of NATO. That is to say, to extend the line that divides the western region from the Asian one as a security mechanism. The old "iron curtain" of the cold war.
Russia and China, although they have marked cultural divergences, continue to represent, in part, the socialist bloc within the world order.
In addition, they share common ideological interests. Putin and Xi Jingping, two authoritarian leaders, have a very similar vision of how the world should be. But above all, these nations share important economic interests. Both countries are part of the BRICS and are constantly struggling to establish an alternative economic order, free from the hegemony of the dollar.
For China and Russia, the key is to keep the United States at a distance from their respective areas of interest.
“The leaders of both countries are more united by common grievances and insecurities than by shared goals. Both are resent and feel threatened by Western leadership in the international system”.
-Declared Ryan Hass, a researcher at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former White House official.
Several diplomats in the West think that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine could benefit the Asian country, and this would explain the reasons for an ambiguous position towards Russia.
According to the West, the Asian power serves several purposes. In the first place, the military weakening of Russia, which is consuming men, weapons and ammunition at a very rapid rate. The weaker Russia is, the better for China because the relationship will be increasingly lopsided in favor of Beijing.
The indefinite prolongation of the armed conflict leads Russia to become increasingly dependent on China and, in this way, Beijing will be able to obtain concessions from Moscow that would have been unthinkable before the war.
But, in addition, the Asian country also sees how the Europeans, sending massive arms and ammunition to Ukraine, are weakening militarily.
From the West they believe that China learns from this war: "They follow it closely, they see what Russia does and how the West reacts"
Although this Western hypothesis sounds quite plausible, the reality is that the main reason for the Chinese giant's neutrality is more related to Beijing's foreign policy and its regional interests.
A Chinese condemnation of Russia, it's only ally against the Atlantic bloc, would be the beginning of the breakup of the alternative Eurasian regional bloc, but also, it would be an almost mortal blow for Moscow.
China is aware of the fragile cohesion of this bloc, and for this reason it has shown a more than prudent position, abstaining from the vote condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine in March 2022 and the Russian annexations of the Ukrainian provinces in October 2022 at the United Nations General Assembly.
The fall of Moscow would have as its main consequence a historical modification of the geopolitical landscape. China would see how the geopolitical balance tilts towards the West and the Atlantic Alliance and would find itself lacking relevant allies on the international scene.
“(China) is determined to become the most important nation in the world. He (Xi) and others, autocrats, think that democracy cannot compete in the 21st century with autocracies"
-US President Joe Biden in a speech in Washington.
For Beijing, the alliance with Russia is not an impediment to the realization of some form of coexistence with the United States. At the center of concerns is preventing relations with the West from deteriorating further because of its position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Although the Chinese giant is interested in continuing to strengthen the Eurasian bloc, it seems that for the moment it is shying away from participating in an explicitly anti-Western alliance.
The foreign policy of the United States has been characterized in recent years by adopting a more hostile position towards the Chinese nation, both economically and militarily.
Among the main objectives of US foreign policy is the strengthening of the US military presence in the Pacific and promoting technological development and trade. In short, for Washington, China is a "major strategic challenge".
"China and other countries are fast approaching us. We have to develop and master the products and technologies of the future"
-Expressions of President Biden in a speech at the White House.
For China today, relations with the United States and Europe are more important than those with Russia. Commercial preference, which is an inescapable strategic requirement, is forceful.
Between 2015 and 2020, Chinese investment in Russia fell from nearly $3 billion to just $500 million. At the same time, and despite a serious decline due to the approval of laws designed to stop it, in Europe it continues to approach 10,000 million euros, that is, 20 times more.
In 2021, trade between the United States and China amounted to almost $700 billion, while trade with Russia, despite a rapid increase since 2020, is limited to $140 billion annually, most of which consists of Chinese oil and gas imports.
These figures are the reasons that make the Asian giant maintain a neutral position in the face of the war.
Beijing strives to convey an image of neutrality by engaging in dialogue with the main parties to the conflict and making itself available to the international community to seek an evolution of the war towards the prompt return of peace.
This is, basically, a show of independence that also excludes choosing sides, despite the pressures that come mainly from Washington.
The Ukraine issue also represents a test for China of the US determination to defend Taiwan. The China-Taiwan conflict shares several similarities with the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
In recent months, the increase in tension between China and the United States, characterized by visits by US officials to the island of Taiwan, responded by China with maneuvers on the mainland and approaches to the security line of the territory, have led to the limit of the relations between both powers.
China says Taiwan is an "internal" problem and has made it clear that the US must respect China's legitimate rights and interests in managing international affairs.
China has been on its guard against the continuous statements by US politicians who, despite their great concern about the situation in Europe, continue with their attacks on China and stimulate the conflict with Taiwan, encouraging the island's leaders to continue with their defiant attitudes towards the Chinese regime.
The Chinese position is consistent in the sense that Taiwan is a Chinese province and the conflict an internal matter in which foreign agents should not intervene.
“The one who does not stop supplying weapons to the battlefield is the United States, not China. The United States is in no position to make demands of China and we will never accept them dictating or imposing how Sino-Russian relations should be."
-Statements by the Foreign Affairs spokesman, Wang Wenbin, in February this year.
The attitudes that world leaders are taking are leading to the hasty deterioration of relations of peace and harmony in the international order. All these signs indicate that we may be very close to the outbreak of a "third world war."
In short, an active participation of Beijing in the war in Ukraine would lead to a world war.
OTAN
As of October 2013, Ukraine has become the priority of Russia's foreign policy and the reason for a serious diplomatic, commercial and economic confrontation with the United States and Europe.
Moscow's main concern was the "threatening" expansion of NATO into territories of its former area of influence, the post-Soviet countries, which it considers vulnerable for the security of the nation.
For the Kremlin, the attempts to include Ukraine as an official member was a clear violation of the supposed verbal agreement of non-expansion towards the East.
According to Moscow, the United States promised the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not advance "an inch" to the east if a unified Germany remained in the Atlantic Alliance.
From the Kremlin thoughts, NATO should have dissolved when the Soviet Union fell thirty years ago, since with it the Warsaw Pact disappeared and there was no longer a real threat to the West.
This is not the first time that the Kremlin has used this argument to support its policies. On March 18, 2014, in his speech justifying the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, President Putin also expressed the same concern about Western expansionism.
NATO and the United States are Russia's main threats to its contemporary geopolitical ambitions. The deployment of its troops in countries close to the Russian and Ukrainian borders, Poland, Romania and the Baltic countries, have set off alarms in Moscow.
From the Russian point of view, the expansion of the Alliance is nothing more than an attempt to dominate the Mediterranean and the Balkans.
NATO's strategy of advancing towards the Balkans is seen as a direct threat to Moscow. Russia views with great discomfort how former Soviet countries join the Alliance and sees this step as behavior against Russia and its vital national interests. With the enlargement of NATO, the Russians are more closely encircled within the international order.
Ukraine has always been a key target for NATO, having the second largest army in Europe (after Russia) and having the longest European border with Russia.
In the past, Russia reluctantly agreed to the military bloc's membership of the former socialist countries of Europe, including the Baltic states. But when the possible entry of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova was announced in October 2008, Russia successfully negotiated with Germany and France not to support this NATO entry process.
The negotiations were stalled until 2013, when the signing of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine was announced. From that moment on, Ukraine became the point of interest for both blocs.
At the end of 2013, the most stable post-Soviet republic from the political, economic and social point of view during the 1990s, became an unstable area, plagued by armed conflicts and nationalist resentments expressed in the formation of neo-fascist paramilitary groups.
In December 2021 Russia submitted two draft treaties containing requests for what it called "security guarantees", including a legally binding promise that Ukraine would not join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and a reduction in NATO troops and military equipment stationed in Eastern Europe, and threatened an unspecified military response if those demands were not fully met.
The Russian government also demanded Ukraine's neutrality, recognition of Crimea's accession to Russia, and recognition of the self-proclaimed breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states.
NATO rejected these requests and the United States warned Russia of "swift and severe" economic sanctions should it continue to push into Ukraine.
Since the start of the conflict, the European Union and the United States have supported the Ukrainian government, claiming that Russia is solely responsible for separatist tensions.
Considering the above information, perhaps the most important challenge for the European Union is to determine what should be the role of the United States with respect to the defense of Europe, and, in particular, the relationship with Russia.
Indeed, leading up to the current war there have been so many disagreements between the United States, France and Germany about the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Europe.
European nations, given their geographic proximity to Russia, have naturally been more sensitive to Russian interests and sensibilities than the United States, which is thousands of miles away.
The divergence in interests between the United States and its European allies has given rise to strong questions about the ambiguous position that Washington has adopted in recent years.
We must understand that it is not a friendship or a supportive community, but a society where interests are not always aligned.
The fundamental question is whether the countries with the greatest weight within the Alliance, such as France and Germany, will build their own defense mechanisms to increase European "strategic autonomy", or to what degree they will continue to depend on US protection.
The objectives of the United States are clear. The need to maintain favorable regional balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, Middle East, and Western Hemisphere and defend allies from aggression, as well as share responsibilities for common defense with allies.
European leaders share some of these interests with the American nation, but to what extent they only dedicate themselves to complying with the demands of the former, is the question that is perceived as the beginning of a possible breakdown of the Western alliance.
The ambiguous position of the United States within the Atlantic Alliance is beginning to cause some discomfort among some European leaders. From Washington they assure that they are absolutely committed to the organization, but their affirmations are far from reality.
The most recent proof of the ambivalence of its foreign policy is the signing of the agreement called AUKUS.
This is an agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the US with which Washington facilitated the sale of British nuclear-powered submarines to Australia. The United States hoped that it would demonstrate a commitment to building stronger partnerships in the Asia-Pacific.
The diplomatic fallout it produced in France, whose own submarine manufacturing industry was suddenly deprived of millions of dollars in contracts with Australia, created a new point of contention between the United States and one of its main European partners.
The AUKUS agreement is above all an example of a new way of conducting foreign policy. It is a kind of “minilateralism”. These types of alliances basically consist of coalitions between democracies with real power that provide a form of deterrence and a sure defense for intermediate powers.
The main problem with what we might call this “loose multilateralism” is that it is creating some insecurity and may create some competition among America's closest friends.
For the United States, it is about building a network of alliances and associations in an international system profoundly different from the more formal diplomatic architecture of years ago.
According to Jack Sullivan, President Biden's National Security adviser, it is a "less satisfactory framework, it is not built and it stays there, as if not moving, for decades or centuries... it is constantly changing, and it is a mixture of different structures and substances. And, in a way, it will have less permanence because of the world we live in now."
In this regard, we are in front of a renewed way to treat diplomatic affairs. It is a new vision of how alliances between nations should be in a much more complex and dynamic world.
These days, the European capitals are once again talking about isolationism, unilateralism, they wonder if they can continue to count on the indispensable presence of the United States in Europe.
From Washington, they reaffirmed the unconditional preference for international commitment and cooperation with partners and allies, but without renouncing any national prerogative if necessary.
The outbreak of the armed conflict at the beginning of 2022 made it possible to put aside the "relaxation" of US policy regarding European security and return definitively to its interventionist position.
About 900 US servicemen are currently in Poland as part of efforts to ease the anxieties of NATO members in Eastern Europe.
The military presence abroad remains strong, from Japan and Korea to Poland and Germany, passing through the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Pacific.
The most recent proof of North American commitment is the commitment to strengthen its military presence in Europe, announced by President Biden in Helsinki with his European counterparts in celebration of Finland's accession to the Atlantic Alliance.
“Defend our people and our territory, beyond — beyond all the rest, bound by democratic values to make us strong and by our sacred oath that an attack against — it is a sacred oath — attack against one is an attack against all. Because each member of NATO knows that the strength of our people and the power of our unity cannot be denied”.
-US President Joe Biden in a speech in Helsinki.
This is, without a doubt, a great display of strength and power at a time when the very cohesion of the Western bloc was being questioned.
Although from Moscow they were quite calm with the news, it is likely that a whole new armed escalation will begin, now on the western border of the Eurasian giant.
“There is nothing to worry about when Finland and Sweden join NATO. If they want to [join NATO], go ahead, but now they must understand clearly and precisely [...], that in the case of deployment there of military contingents and infrastructure, we will be forced to respond reciprocally and create the same threats to those territories from where the threats to us are created. They are obvious things"
-Expressions of Russian President Vladimir Putin about the inclusion of Finland in the Transatlantic Alliance.
The attitude with which they received the news in Moscow is consistent with the situation in Finland now. Moscow must treat the matter with more caution, it cannot act in the same way as with Ukraine.
Let us recall Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which enshrines the principle of collective defense, which establishes that an attack against one of the members of the alliance will be assumed as if it were an attack against all.
This is certainly a setback for Russia, although we should not underestimate the former Soviet Union, which has historically demonstrated its great military capacity.
A critical moment for humanity
The decisions of the big players on the world stage are heading towards a dead end.
Today, we are witnessing the most critical moment in international relations since the end of the Cold War. World leaders are primarily responsible for the course that conflicts are taking and, we can be sure, they are not very interested in resolving them.
The increasingly forceful presence of the United States in Europe and Asia-Pacific can be seen as the wick of a bomb waiting for the slightest spark to explode. We must understand that these are spaces that some nations consider to be of their absolute interest and that they are willing to defend. We cannot blame them, these nations have the absolute right to defend their territorial sovereignty, their independence and their freedom.
When there are too many interests at stake and when they are so divergent from each other, it is impossible to ensure peace in the world. Unfortunately, we live in a world dominated by leaders who have forgotten the values of democracy necessary to maintain a peaceful coexistence in the international community.
And the worst part is that, in the midst of their selfish struggle for the satisfaction of their particular interests, they have forgotten to listen to the people, the original source of their power.
It may also interest you
