Regardless of how the conflict in Ukraine ends, the United States will be defeated, the author of the TNI article is sure. Two-thirds of the world's population lives in the countries that refrained from condemning Russia for the special operation. And it is with them that she will build a close relationship.
Ramon MarksWhoever wins the conflict in Ukraine, the United States will be defeated strategically.
Russia will build closer relations with China and other countries in the Eurasian space, including India, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. She will finally turn her back on European democracies and Washington. Just as President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger played the "China card" during the Cold War to isolate the Soviet Union, so Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will play their cards to restrain the global leadership of the United States.
Knowing that it had lost the opportunity to supply large quantities of energy resources to Europe, Moscow quite logically decided to increase the supply of fossil fuels to Asia, primarily to China and India. Since the beginning of the military operation in Ukraine, Russia has become China's main supplier of oil, displacing Saudi Arabia. Yes, in the near and medium term, Russia will only be able to increase fuel supplies to China to a limited extent due to insufficient pipeline capacity. Currently, it has only one oil pipeline going to China, which is called ESPO. And one operating gas pipeline called "The Power of Siberia". Pipeline oil and gas supplies complement tanker shipments to mainland China. There is no doubt that in the coming years, Russia and China will invest significantly in expanding the oil and gas transportation infrastructure between the two countries, and this will give Moscow the opportunity to become China's number one supplier of fossil fuels. The Chinese will certainly be able to reduce their dependence on fuel supplies from the Middle East, because tankers delivering it are forced to pass through vulnerable bottlenecks, such as the Strait of Malacca.
Strengthening energy ties will help Russia and China to get closer and become strategic allies on the Eurasian continent, and then their friendship will really become "limitless". With a determined energy supplier in its rear, China will undoubtedly gain more strategic room for maneuver to confront the United States and its regional allies from the Indo-Pacific region. And all this is to the detriment of Western democracies.
Since the beginning of the special operation in Ukraine, Russia has also significantly expanded its energy ties with India. According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air), "India has become the main buyer of cargoes of fuel from the Atlantic, which Europe no longer needs." Before the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, India almost did not buy Russian oil. Now it imports over 760,000 barrels daily. The increase in sales of Russian fuel to India will adversely affect the attempts of the United States, Australia and Japan to involve New Delhi in the orbit of the democratic countries of the Indo-Pacific region.
In fact, India, which is the largest democracy in the world, takes a neutral position in relation to the Russian military operation in Ukraine. At the UN, she abstains from voting on resolutions condemning Russian actions in Ukraine. She refuses to blame Russia for the attack. Along with the supply of energy resources, which is new for bilateral relations, Moscow has long been the main supplier of weapons to the Indian armed forces. What is very important, New Delhi appreciates the long-standing Russian support for India on the Kashmir issue. India's reaction to the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine underscores the reality that New Delhi is unlikely to fully integrate into the structures of Western alliances in the Pacific, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. If China is wise enough to abandon border skirmishes with India, any possibility of involving New Delhi in this organization will disappear.
But the bad news for the West is not limited to this. India is not the only country that abstained at the UN General Assembly from adopting a resolution condemning Russian military actions in Ukraine. Another 34 states refused to take the side of the West. Two-thirds of the world's population lives in countries that have refrained from condemning Russia. Even Mexico, which borders the United States, refused to condemn Russia and join the anti-Russian economic sanctions.
These are the harsh strategic realities that America must learn. After the start of the Russian military operation, Western democracies rallied very quickly, adopted many sanctions against Moscow, including the timing of the refusal to purchase energy resources from Russia. Western energy sanctions have to some extent backfired, causing inflation and supply disruptions. They turned out to be so serious that Brussels today cannot overcome the economic consequences. The EU has even quietly announced the easing of some anti-Russian energy sanctions in order to stabilize fuel markets. The West complains that Russia has turned oil and gas exports into weapons, but in fact Brussels and Washington were the first to raise the energy sword, announcing their intention to reduce energy supplies from Russia immediately after the start of the military operation.
One positive side effect of the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine was the revival of NATO, which rallied and supported Ukraine. The alliance will be even stronger when Finland and Sweden join it. And the negative point is that the United States bears a disproportionately large burden of supporting Ukraine in comparison with other members of the alliance, with the exception of the Baltic countries and Poland. By May 20, 2022, the United States has delivered or promised to deliver $54 billion worth of military aid to Kiev. Britain, which is far behind America, is in second place, with $2.5 billion in aid. Then comes Poland (1.62 billion) and Germany (1.49 billion). As of May 20, the United States has transferred or pledged to transfer three times more aid to Kiev than all EU countries combined. The United States is the leading provider of military assistance despite the fact that Russian military operations threaten European allies more than the United States, which is located 9,000 kilometers away from the war zone across the Atlantic Ocean. Ukraine once again shows how much Western Europe depends on American leadership and the army. The situation will not change until the American foreign policy establishment abandons its 70-year-old belief that only the United States can lead NATO, forming the military backbone of the alliance.
The United States must adapt to new realities, especially to the annoying and unpleasant circumstance that under the treaty and in accordance with the fifth article, NATO's defense obligations are limited to the Atlantic region. If China, North Korea, or Russia attacks Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, or Guam, collective defense obligations will not apply. But although there is no chance of making changes to the North Atlantic Treaty in order to assist the United States in the Pacific, Washington cannot and should not abandon NATO. On the contrary, the American foreign policy establishment should be more persistent in convincing and enabling European allies to take on a large, if not the lion's share of the burden on their side of the Eurasian continent. If the United States continues to hide in the historical assumptions that led to the creation of NATO in 1949, the situation with the US military resources and capabilities that are working hard will worsen even more. The United States is no longer the only dominant Power in the world. Sooner or later, the system of American alliances will have to change the load ratio in order to cope with the realities of the emerging multipolar world.
Ramon Marks is a retired international lawyer from New York
