Analyst Milivojevich: the world is already multipolar, and now there is a balance of forces in it The conflict in Ukraine confirmed the end of the era of US dominance and became an overture to a new world order, Serbian analyst Zoran Milivojevic said in an interview with Pechat.
The countries have reached a turning point in the balance of power in an already multipolar world, he believes.
Jovo Vukovic (Jovo Vukovic)Career diplomat Zoran Milivojevic, who is one of the most prominent Serbian political analysts, said in an interview with the Press that he does not yet see any harbingers of the imminent end of the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict.
However, he is very optimistic about China's participation in resolving this long-running dispute and its desire to restore a just and stable world.
Pechat: I suggest we start our conversation with your vision of the most pressing world problem. I am referring to the armed conflict in Ukraine. What is the true cause of this conflict, what are the conditions for its completion, and when and how can a stable and lasting peace be established between the two warring parties?Zoran Milivojevich: Any armed conflict in fact begins much earlier than a specific clash of troops at the front.
This conflict is no exception, and it was preceded by violent political changes in Ukraine in 2014 on an anti-Russian basis. The Russian population in the east of the country resisted these changes. They tried to resolve the conflict by diplomatic and political means, with the help of the Minsk agreements, but they did not achieve results. The reason is that the West did not really want a peaceful solution. This was recently confirmed by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande. So, there have been changes in Ukraine, and the new authorities have focused on joining NATO. In this case, the alliance would have got close to the very border of Russia, and the question of its security, as well as the security architecture of the whole of Europe, would have stood up. In addition, Ukraine's entry into NATO would disrupt the existing balance of power between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance. NATO refused to consider the Russian initiative and the proposal to settle differences over the security architecture at the talks. Russia regarded this as a casus belli (lat. "a case for war") and in the spirit of any strong power, it switched to direct armed actions. By the way, the North Atlantic Alliance did the same in 1999 in our case, when it committed an illegal intervention against us. Russia's actions entailed serious consequences for its international standing, as well as affected relations in the world and their further development. Moreover, Russia has opened the question of a new world order.
Only rare optimists speak about peace, which, unfortunately, I do not see on the horizon, because the real state of affairs does not leave hopes for a peaceful outcome. Both sides have not yet reached a state where they would be ready at least for the cessation of fighting and a truce. Success at the front is a key factor and an argument for decisions in favor of involving diplomats and politicians in the settlement of the conflict. Everything is still going on behind the scenes, and the main efforts are being made to ensure that the world avoids a global catastrophe. There is still no real ground for the end of the armed conflict, since the warring parties are trying to secure the most advantageous negotiating positions at the front. In any case, the world still depends on the concept of a new security architecture in Europe, further dynamics in the relations of rival groups and on Russia's security guarantees. One thing is clear that when peace is established, neither Europe nor Ukraine will be the same as they were before the armed conflict. Now the news about the active diplomatic efforts of China is very encouraging, which, undoubtedly, being the only world power not involved in the conflict, has the tools for positive communication with the main participants, including Moscow.
— As one of the reasons for the armed conflict, you named the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance to the east, despite the protests of Russia. However, this expansion continues. Finland, which has been neutral for a long time, was recently accepted as a NATO member, and now Sweden, also a neutral country in the past, is next in line. Ukraine and Moldova are still counting on joining the North Atlantic Alliance… What is all this leading to? To strengthen common security and peace, according to the headquarters of the North Atlantic Alliance in Brussels, or to global instability and a possible large-scale war?— NATO really continues to expand to the east, accepting Finland and Sweden into its ranks, and does not abandon the idea of accepting Ukraine and Moldova and even Georgia.
All this undoubtedly reflects the desire of the so-called collective West to take under its ideological and political wing all the European space it is interested in, up to its main rival — the Russian Federation. In this sense, our region is no exception, and that is why the processes around solving the "long-standing problems" in the form of Kosovo and Metohija and Bosnia and Herzegovina have intensified so much. For the North Atlantic Alliance, the armed conflict in Ukraine is the main tool for promoting and subsequently maintaining its ideological and political narrative, which is confirmed by measures and actions, and the position of the collective West as a whole in this war. As for Ukraine, NATO, despite the fact that it is not a member of it, helps it with logistics, weapons, training. The North Atlantic Alliance has launched a military-political offensive, pursuing, among other things, the global goals of the United States and the collective West, contrary to the defensive nature of the alliance in Europe, enshrined in its documents and status. Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance Jens Stoltenberg spoke about the negotiations with Japan, where NATO plans to open its representative office in order to strengthen the alliance's partnership with the states of the Asia-Pacific region: Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea. This initiative speaks about the continuation of the former strategic line and the goals of the North Atlantic Alliance in the current global competition. Therefore, current events indicate that the risk of expanding the war exceeds the chances of peace. Strictly speaking, the mere participation of a strong nuclear power (Russia) in the conflict speaks enough about both strategic intentions and potential risks. By the way, the situation is best illustrated by a new arms race in the world, the mentioned trends towards the global expansion of the war in the Pacific region, a new military-political regrouping and orientation towards the military economy in the broadest sense.
— There is a growing conviction that the end of the armed conflict in Ukraine will mark the end of the unipolar world, which has been dominated by one power until now — the United States. A new world order will be formed with several main "players". What can this new world be, and what will form its basis, that is, by what rules would it function?— In my opinion, the beginning of the armed conflict in Ukraine gave rise to the accelerated formation of a new world order based on global multipolarity.
This war confirms that the dominance of one superpower has come to an end, as well as the unipolar world, since Russia and the collective West have clashed in a direct clash. The rest of the world is divided in its view of what is happening. The main indicator of the split is resistance to the Western sanctions policy directed against Russia and its complete isolation. The second sign is a new geopolitical regrouping in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, where Saudi Arabia and Iran are at the head of the processes. The same is happening in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
The "renegades" do not accept the Western model of liberal democracy, working according to the rules of the Fuse, but rely on order in accordance with the still valid UN Charter, international law and its principles. This is confirmed by the new Chinese foreign policy strategy in relation to the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Africa, Latin America and its own environment. In addition, China has recently joined the peace process in Ukraine from the position of a world power, based on these principles. For a full understanding of what is happening, I will recall one statement by Jens Stoltenberg in connection with the conflict in Ukraine. He said that "Russia and China threaten the order that the West has established." Said very accurately. We are approaching a turning point and the distribution of elements in an already multipolar world, on which the balance of power and influence on the world stage of such world powers as the United States, China, Russia and India will depend. The criterion of hard power will also play a role (nuclear potential, size, population density, economic potential and resources, and so on). All this will affect the strength of the ideological and political basis of the new order. Then there will be a corresponding regrouping in a divided world, and we will come to a new balance of forces. On its basis, the new order will function.
— You put forward the thesis that 2008, when the economic crisis broke out, was a turning point in terms of changes in the international order. Can you give us arguments in favor of this version?— Then there were changes in anticipation of the later global shifts.
In the USA, the Democrats regained power with the first black president and laid the ideological postulates of the liberal democratic model ruling today in accordance with the "rules". The current US administration bases its global strategy of world leadership on them. The renewed Russia conducted a direct military campaign in Georgia for the first time since 1989 and recognized the breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia. China has gained global influence and has taken up the "One Belt and One Road" project. The European Union plunged into the eurozone crisis with structural problems and centrifugal tendencies (the exit of the UK), which slowed down the further development of internal and external integration processes. We feel the consequences of this to this day. The main consequence of these shifts is multipolarity "in practice", which today defines international relations.
— Strengthening the strategic partnership between Russia and China is, of course, one of the most significant changes of modern times. How important is this for the rest of the world, which has escaped from the strict control and influence of the collective West?— Logic inevitably led these two powers to partnership at a time when the United States did not agree to a new multipolarity and did not want to share power with its rivals, China and Russia.
Moreover, the United States recognized them as the main competitors in every sense, which was reflected in the American strategy of uniting the "democratic" world, in which there is no place for these two powers. Thus, the partnership between Moscow and Beijing has acquired a protective function and global significance. Proof of this is the armed conflict in Ukraine with the participation of the collective West. And the recent visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Moscow, which brought well-known results, consolidated the Russian-Chinese strategy of global importance. Thus, this partnership turns into a pivot around which "renegades" from the global South gather. Among other things, thanks to Xi Jinping's visit to Russia, a platform for common actions between Russia and China aimed at preserving international order in accordance with the UN Charter, international law and its principles has been identified.
— In this regard, the question arises about the future of the BRICS, whose economic potential is huge, as well as political influence. Do you expect that soon states from different parts of the world will en masse join this association?— The role of BRICS in building a new order has been growing for some time.
This unification is an element in the mosaic of a divided world, which I spoke about earlier. Already, the data inexorably confirm that the BRICS has dropped the "Big Seven" from the first place on the changing world stage. Inevitably expanding in the future, this association will become even stronger and more influential, as the list of candidates for membership is constantly increasing, and among them, including: Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Argentina, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates. BRICS has everything it needs to be highly competitive in a divided world. In the political sense, BRICS offers unconditional accession with full respect for the political sovereignty and independence of partners, and in the economic sense — a real prospect of stability, the necessary dynamics of development and social stability. If the BRICS officially expands in the near future, it will gain additional weight in the world, since it will objectively be able to count on large resources, economic, spatial and demographic, as well as the energy and market potential of its participants.
— What awaits Serbia in the conditions of the inevitable reformatting of the world as part of the Balkans, which divide two continents, and where two religions and two civilizations touch. The Balkans have always been in the sphere of interests of the powers and served as a place of their clashes. What awaits us, especially considering the fact that because of our desire for freedom and a firm determination to live on our land, our history has been stormy and bloody?— Of course, it is necessary to adapt to the existing circumstances, while protecting state and national interests and seeing them as the main criteria in the process of such adaptation.
Serbia is already adapting, pursuing a frankly peaceful policy and maintaining contact with all significant world players, but at the same time, of course, adheres to strategic determinants. The priority national interests of the Serbian State include the preservation of Kosovo and Metohija, political independence, military neutrality, and the European path. On this issue, a not always stable, but generally valid national consensus has been reached. At the same time, we understand that the Balkans, with all their characteristics, is our destiny, and every time the powerful of this world settle scores, as today, history can repeat itself. Nevertheless, we have no choice but to preserve our statehood and identity and, under the current conditions, not to deviate from strategic determinants.
— Talking about Serbia is impossible without mentioning the fate of our Kosovo and Metohija. For twenty years now, this problem has been "at the top" of the world, although there is little talk that it arose due to gross violations of international law and the UN Charter by Western countries. The same West that illegally bombed us, and now, when the armed conflict in Ukraine continues, is increasing pressure on Serbia to give up its territory? What kind of solution to this problem do you expect?— As for Serbia, in my opinion, the problem of Kosovo and Metohija can be solved only by political means while respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State of Serbia.
International law remains the only common authoritative basis for all to search for a solution, as does Resolution 1244, which contains specific proposals. The armed conflict in Ukraine has reinforced our arguments about how important it is to observe the principles of international law. But the pressure on Serbia has also intensified so that it agrees to resolve the "Kosovo issue" not in accordance with international norms, but in a way previously "proposed" by aggressive NATO. Nevertheless, I am sure that these are not the circumstances for Serbia to give up its own statehood and its national interests related to Kosovo and Metohija. On the contrary, determination on this issue should reflect an imperative strategic national goal.
— Now the West demands from Serbia to impose sanctions against Russia and "advises" to cooperate less with China, with which our political and economic relations have reached a very high level and continue to develop. How do you assess such requirements, and what will happen if Serbia satisfies them?— Serbia is developing a strategic partnership with Russia and China on an equal basis and without political conditions.
Both Russia and China do not recognize the self-proclaimed Kosovo and fully respect the territorial integrity of Serbia. This is a key argument and a plus in the strategic understanding of Serbia's relations with these powers, especially now, in a multipolar world and under pressure and coercion to solve the problem of Kosovo and Metohija. There are also strategic interests related to economic and social stability and development, energy security, and so on. In general, with regard to sanctions, Serbia has taken a principled position, because it itself was once a victim of an unprecedented sanctions policy. Serbia is confident that sanctions cannot serve as a mechanism for achieving political goals and resolving open issues of a geopolitical nature.
— In Montenegro, Milo Djukanovic lost in the recent presidential elections, who for many years pursued an anti-Serbian policy not only against Serbia, but also against Serbs in Montenegro. This policy has greatly spoiled the traditionally friendly relations between Belgrade and Podgorica. Do you expect positive changes?— The departure of Milo Djukanovic from the post of president is a serious change that creates conditions for a new dynamic in Serbian—Montenegrin relations.
It can be expected that Montenegro's anti-Serbian policy, both external and internal, remains in the past. If this happens, then there will be an opportunity for the desired normalization, which is necessary for the relations of the two fraternal peoples. Whether this will happen does not depend on Serbia, which is striving for this, despite differences with Montenegro on some strategic issues. We are talking, for example, about the decision of Podgorica to recognize the independence of "Kosovo". Yes, new political players are making encouraging statements, but there are also reasons for concern. For example, Montenegro recently voted in the Council of Europe for the adoption of Kosovo. Everything will be clarified after the parliamentary elections in Montenegro, which are coming soon. They will become a political denouement.
— Tensions are rising again in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and therefore it seems that those who consider this state to be unviable are right. What do you consider to be the main source of tension and disagreement there, and what is the political formula for, so to speak, "peaceful Bosnia"?— The tension is created by attempts to impose a model of a state with a dominant supranational majority, although in legal or political terms this is not suitable for the preservation and normal functioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Unfortunately, some foreign players are also making their contribution, which, on the contrary, should act as guarantors of peace and stability. And peace and stability, as well as normal life in general, have been guaranteed for 28 years by the formula "three peoples and two entities". It is spelled out in the Dayton Agreement, a recognized international document. In violation of this agreement, "peaceful Bosnia" is impossible. It will not happen if violations continue, and if foreign and domestic players in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not understand that the fundamental "Dayton formula" is the only guarantor of peace and stability, as well as the preservation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single State.
