Did Russia sway the rest of the world to its side?
Outside the West, criticism of Russia in connection with the conflict in Ukraine is very restrained, writes TNI. Putin hoped to enlist the support of the rest of the world – and in many ways succeeded. And the United States has lost the attractiveness of a "democratic" country and is losing influence.
Charles Ziegler
Moscow's alienation from the West has worsened over the past two decades, and its culmination was a decisive break after the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine. Moscow's claims do not need to be listed: the expansion of NATO to the east; the bombing of Serbia in 1999; the refusal of the George W. Bush administration from the Anti-Missile Defense Treaty and the invasion of Iraq; the "color revolutions" in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine, as well as the "Arab Spring" of 2011 (the Kremlin saw in it American and European attempts to impose democracy). American support for civil society and popular uprisings against despots is presented by Russian politicians as an information war against the usual way of life – and they demand vigorous countermeasures. The prospect of Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO has become a red line for Moscow.
Will the Russian operation in Ukraine change the world order? At least in the short term, the conflict convinced the Europeans of Russia's aggressive intentions towards its neighbors, strengthened the unity of NATO (Finland and Sweden have already applied for membership) and strengthened support for democracy (at least in the West). However, in the rest of the world, criticism of Russia is much more restrained, and this justifies Putin's advertised turn to the East and Russian diplomacy in the Global South. Asia, in particular, is a much more favorable environment, and this accelerates Russia's turn towards the Asia-Pacific region.
Moscow's key strategic partner in the region is China. At a meeting before the start of the Beijing Olympics, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping called the Sino-Russian partnership "limitless." In a long joint statement, they condemned the expansion of NATO and criticized the craving of "some states" for unilateral military advantages – in their opinion, this undermines global security. In this interpretation, Russian security concerns are deeply justified. Chinese support at least indirectly prompted Putin to launch a special operation, although many in Beijing expressed doubts.
However, the interests of Russia and China are closely intertwined. Both countries oppose the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), the new AUKUS alliance and the Indo-Pacific concept as such, they see them, not without reason, as an attempt to attract India to curb Chinese ambitions in the Pacific region and strengthen the liberal world order. Washington considers the Sino-Russian partnership a vital security threat. Biden's visit to South Korea and Japan in May 2022 was intended to revive ties that had been shaken under Trump, rally Asian allies against Chinese aggression and emphasize opposition to Putin's military actions in Ukraine. In Japan, Biden said that the United States is ready to provide military support to Taiwan, although his aides were quick to note that the president does not abandon the policy of "strategic ambiguity." Biden is also promoting the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), a simplified version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that aims to rival China's Comprehensive Regional Economic Partnership and its "One Belt, One Road" initiative.
China and Russia responded to the Quad summit with joint bomber flights in the Japan and East China Seas, demonstrating solidarity and opposition to the "free and open" Indo-Pacific region under the leadership of the United States. The Sino-Russian partnership opposes the unilateral actions of the United States and its international domination, hinders the promotion of American democracy and support for civil society around the world and complicates strategic planning, forcing Washington to face challenges in two theaters of military operations at once. The Russian military has moved troops from Siberia and the Russian Far East to the Ukrainian conflict zone precisely because they are sure that nothing threatens the eastern borders of the country. For the first time in a century, if not more, Moscow is not facing security threats on two different fronts. On the contrary, there is a possibility that the West's concern about the Ukrainian conflict will prompt China to act against Taiwan or even aggression in the South China Sea and along the disputed border with India.
Beijing is pleased that America's attention is focused on Europe and, conversely, distracted from the Indo-Pacific region. However, Chinese leaders are dissatisfied with Russian military actions and blatant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. In this sense, it is significant that the Chinese government is not eager to help Russia circumvent Western sanctions. China is deeply divided over the Ukrainian conflict – both the elite and society.
In addition, international cooperation is much more in China's favor than Russia, so Beijing does not intend to change the status quo - it cannot afford isolation from world markets. And if Russia is determined to play the role of a scoundrel and foment disagreements, then China prefers stability – this will strengthen prosperity within the country and preserve the monopoly of the Communist Party on power. Chinese leaders are probably aware that in the long run, Russia's actions in Ukraine will weaken it. And it is not in China's national interests to fully support the loser.
In other parts of Asia, Russia's support is even less unequivocal. The authoritarian states of Central Asia do not want to condemn Moscow. The weakest of them – Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan – need Russian security guarantees to protect them from the Taliban* and even more radical ISIS militants* in Afghanistan and Pakistan in Afghanistan. In January, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev appealed to the CSTO for help in suppressing riots in Alma-Ata. At the same time, the larger Central Asian states – Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan – have reason to fear Russian neo-imperialism. Kazakhstan, with its 3.5 million ethnic Russians along its northern borders, is particularly vulnerable. At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June 2022, Tokayev, answering a question from RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan, acknowledged the fundamental contradiction between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination of the United Nations (UN) and did not recognize the independence of Lugansk and Donetsk, calling them "quasi-state entities." It was a clear rebuff to Putin, who was sitting next to him.
India plays a crucial role in the US strategy in the Indo-Pacific region, but due to the long-standing policy of non-alignment (an echo of the colonial past) and foreign policy stubbornness, New Delhi resists the persuasions of the West and refuses to criticize Russia. India abstained on all UN resolutions condemning Russia and increased imports of Russian oil (at preferential prices), although it provides humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintains close relations with Putin: India buys modern S-400 weapons systems, and the bulk of its arsenal is Russian and Soviet-made. At the same time, New Delhi values its pivotal role in the American strategy in the Indo-Pacific region, welcomes the United States as a balancer against China and promotes the quadrilateral dialogue as a "constructive" rather than a counterweight to Beijing. In short, New Delhi's national interests dictate an eclectic strategy: it is important for India to develop a global strategic partnership with the United States, defend itself against China and maintain friendly relations with Moscow.
Most Asian countries, like India, do not want to take sides in the Indo-Pacific rivalry, even despite China's aggression in the Pacific. At the ASEAN leaders' summit in Washington in May, Biden tried to convince his colleagues from Southeast Asia of Washington's interest in solving regional problems. All ASEAN member states, with the exception of Laos and Vietnam, have condemned Russia at the UN, but they are all closely linked to the Chinese economy and believe that the United States is gradually losing influence in trade and investment. ASEAN's long-standing principles of neutrality and openness explain why countries participate both in the Chinese One Belt, One Road program and in the American Indo-Pacific Economic Structure. For example, Indonesia is sending humanitarian aid to Ukraine (but not weapons), and Indonesian President Joko Widodo invited both Ukraine and Russia to the G20 summit in Bali in November this year, rejecting the Biden administration's request not to invite Moscow.
Will the Ukrainian conflict aggravate the tendency to split the world into democratic and authoritarian camps? President Biden seems intent on building a "community of democracies" based on free and fair elections, respect for human rights, media freedom and the rule of law. At the Summit of Democracies in December 2021, Biden said that the United States would update its own system and set an example to the whole world, and called for collective action to counter the global decline of democracy, calling it "the main challenge of our time." The threat is real. In a report for 2022, the non-governmental organization Freedom House reported on the sixteen-year decline of democracy and warned that "the global order is approaching a turning point, and if the defenders of democracy do not unite to defend freedom for all, authoritarianism will prevail."
Russian and Chinese autocracies support authoritarian regimes and offer directly opposite models to imperfect democracies around the world. Their example encourages the illiberal public to abandon democratic processes in favor of authoritarian solutions – supposedly more "fast" or more "effective". Among the most susceptible were the states of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, various parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa (where mercenaries from the Russian PMCs Wagner openly support authoritarian regimes). Leaders and the public, especially those on the right, admire Putin's policies and Xi's economy.
Even Western Europe and the United States are not immune from the appeal of autocracy and the lure of anti-liberalism. Of particular concern is the democratic decline in the United States. A survey in 2017 by the Pew Research Center in 38 countries showed that autocracy (in the interpretation of "a strong and unbound leader") was called a good system by as many as 27% of American conservatives, 14% of liberals and 23% of moderates. At the same time, 20% of conservatives and 12% of liberals said they would support a military dictatorship. Of course, this is much better than, for example, in India and South Africa, where about half of the respondents called the dictatorship system acceptable or even good. But it's still very disturbing.
America's departure from democracy creates real obstacles to its soft power and global influence. The United States suffers from political violence and intimidation (in this parameter, they are even lower than Romania and India, Freedom House claims), discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities (here the United States ranks below Uruguay and Portugal) and illegal attempts to cancel executive elections (here the United States was below South Korea and Chile). In a Pew Center survey of sixteen countries in 2021, a significant part of US allies and partners said that American democracy "has ceased to serve as an excellent example," this opinion was supported by 54% of respondents in Germany to 73% in South Korea. At the same time, most of them had a positive attitude towards the United States, and the vast majority were glad that Biden replaced Trump, but political paralysis tarnished America's image.
It is significant that the majority of Americans agree with them. In another Pew Center poll for 2021, 65% of Americans said the country's political system needs "complete reform" or "major changes." A little more said that the majority of politicians are "corrupt", 43% do not trust the government and only 9% are satisfied with the general state of democracy. According to all these indicators, Americans scored lower than the French, British and Germans. This is not surprising, given the extreme party split, attacks on free media, murky financing of election campaigns, the inability of the authorities to stop street shootings, attempts to manipulate elections and disregard for the rule of law. In the annual Freedom House report "Freedom in the World", America is still listed among the "free" countries, but already on the verge: its overall score is only 83 out of 100, only slightly higher than Poland and far behind European democracies.
Are Putin and Xi guilty of this? Not in everything, but the conflict in Ukraine has exacerbated inflation and disrupted the supply of essential food to vulnerable countries. Brutal authoritarian dictators Putin and Xi support their own kind, foster intolerance and violence and encourage mass migration, which, in turn, feeds nationalism, tribalism, xenophobia and pours water into the mill of undemocratic and illiberal movements. Although American and European nationalists have little in common with Xi Jinping, many admire Putin, seeing in him a white Christian nationalist who defends traditional values, and turn a blind eye to his despotism.
In the fight against the West, Putin hoped to enlist the support of the rest of the world – and in many ways succeeded. However, in the long run, the conflict in Ukraine will isolate Russia even more, exacerbate poverty and undermine its global influence. Putin wanted to return Russia to greatness, but achieved the exact opposite. Even China's closest partner has doubts, and many countries that resisted the imposition of sanctions against Russia in 2014 have completely sided with the United States. The global South and Asia are trying not to take sides for various reasons, but the violation of sovereignty, blatant disregard for international law and brutality in Ukraine have undoubtedly undermined Moscow's international standing. Another question is whether the US will be able to benefit from this colossal miscalculation.
Charles Ziegler – Professor of Political Science and researcher at the University of Louisville
____________________________________
* Terrorist movements/organizations banned in Russia and their representatives – Approx. InoSMI
