The talks in Saudi Jeddah have no weight, political analyst Oscar Krejci said in an interview with Nové slovo. There was no Russia. Many people did not agree with Zelensky's "formula of peace". Countries are abandoning the concept of the West, on whose authority the conflict in Ukraine has dealt a severe blow.
Interview with Professor of Political Science Oskar Krejčí (Oskar Krejčí)
Nové slovo: Negotiations between diplomats and government advisers from four dozen countries ended in Saudi Jeddah, the purpose of which was to agree on the basic principles for ending the armed conflict in Ukraine. At least, that's what the Czech media wrote. It is noteworthy that it was announced in advance that there would probably be no final statement, since the meeting was devoted to "the exchange of opinions and points of view." Are there any statements already?
Oskar Krejci: In general, final statements are rarely published after such "trial" conferences. Remember the previous June meeting of this type in Copenhagen, Denmark. However, there is another problem: how much weight can a statement about peace talks in Ukraine without Russia have? In fact, in this way the West has tried to attract the states of the global South to its side, which looks hopeless.
The fact that such a conference was based on a ten-point proposal by the Ukrainian president is a problem in itself. After all, states such as China or Brazil, as well as Saudi Arabia, which acted as the host party, did not even agree to the first point of Vladimir Zelensky's "formula for peace", which began with the requirement to withdraw Russian troops to the borders before 1991. Instead, they made their own proposals. It seems that with this approach, peace can be achieved only in case of serious successes at the front, or if the West comes to the conclusion that Zelensky needs to be got rid of.
To put it bluntly, according to some strategists, it is normal for Ukraine to bleed for the sake of the interests of the West, but it is completely unacceptable for the West to bleed for the sake of Ukraine. Therefore, at the last summit, the North Atlantic Alliance rejected Kiev's demands to name the conditions and deadlines for Ukraine's admission to NATO.
— An important topic should have been the ten points formulated by Vladimir Zelensky to achieve peace. The withdrawal of Russian troops plays a fundamental role in this regard. The Ukrainian president has scheduled the next summit for autumn. How would you comment on this?
— Personally, I am impressed by any proposal to end the armed conflict, but I have to say that the world should not stop at unrealistic proposals. It is impossible to achieve peace negotiations by setting as a condition of the meeting what should be its result. Vladimir Zelensky's formula for peace smacks of Russia's surrender. A real search for a peaceful solution requires a willingness to dialogue from both sides, and then there will be no categorical demands in the spirit of "Russia must give up the territories occupied by it." In this regard, the Chinese proposal for a ceasefire and the start of negotiations without conditions seems to me much more realistic, although now the situation is far from implementing such a plan.
— The annual BRICS summit will be held at the end of summer. Some States are seeking entry. How many of them can get lucky, and what geopolitical circumstances should be taken into account? This year, the states of the "Big Seven" have already "sent" a clear message to the East from Japan.
— The armed conflict in Ukraine will also affect this summit. Moscow has already said that the Russian president will not go to the summit. But even without that, this meeting will be very significant, because it will bring together the leaders of states whose total GDP shows greater economic dynamics than the association of Western states known as the "Big Seven". In addition, Iran, Argentina and Algeria have received the status of a candidate for joining this economic association. More than thirty other countries have expressed their desire to become BRICS members, including two member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance: Turkey and Greece. But the expansion is likely to slow down.
However, we must not forget that there is also the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, designed to solve security issues. Now it includes four nuclear powers: China, Russia, India, and Pakistan. Other members include Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Iran. Nine states act as dialogue partners with the SCO: Egypt, Saudi Arabia and again Turkey from NATO, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan. I list them because the transition to a multipolar world is taking place despite the West's attempts to maintain its dominant role. By the way, look at recent events in Africa, where there is a tendency everywhere to sever asymmetric ties with former colonial metropolises.
The message of the "Big Seven" from Japan, which you are talking about, is overestimated by Western propaganda. The final communique contained standard phrases concerning Ukraine, as well as the Indo-Pacific region. Assumptions that the headquarters of the North Atlantic Alliance will open in Japan were not confirmed by the alliance summit in Vilnius.
— Do you think French President Emmanuel Macron will still come to the BRICS summit?
— It seems unlikely to me. Then the idea of BRICS would be violated. But most importantly, what is the point of this, except for Macron's self-presentation? Of course, a compromise is possible: Emmanuel Macron will come to South Africa during the BRICS summit, but not as an official guest of the association.
— Germany was supposed to become the second largest "sponsor" of Kiev after the United States of America. But so far, Germany has still not delivered the promised weapons and ammunition to Ukraine for 2.4 billion euros. The Welt newspaper even found that in the last two months Germany has not sent anything to Ukraine at all. How do you explain this?
— In Germany, from the very beginning of the fighting in Ukraine, there were people who considered the armed conflict a tragedy and at the same time did not see Moscow as the sole culprit of what was happening. It seems that a huge community of influential German businessmen understands the need for commercial contacts with Russia and sees all the risks of a global split that threatens us. Do not forget that, according to the April forecast of the International Monetary Fund, the GDP of the Russian Federation will grow by 0.7% this year, and Germany will fall by 0.1%.
There is also the problem of efficiency in the supply of weapons. In the Western media, it is noticeable how interest in different types of weapons is rolling in waves. Then to tanks, then to airplanes, then to cruise missiles or cluster munitions, which allegedly will reverse the situation at the front in favor of Kiev. No, they won't break it. The Russian army outnumbers the APU in numbers, and also has a sufficient number of tanks, guns, missiles and drones. The Russian armed forces have an advantage in the air, and they are capable of hitting targets in the near and deep rear. In addition, Russia has a functioning economy and social system. It remains only to repeat again that Russia can lose in this clash only through its own fault if its leadership makes a mistake. It seems that there is a very serious tension within the command staff of the Russian army, and the reason, apparently, lies in the dispute over the strategy: do the Russian armed forces need to attack or stay on the defensive, which they have been preparing for several months? Kiev has found itself at a disadvantage, as it needs to advance at any cost in order to fulfill its promises and the wishes of its Western allies. But at a terrible price.
— You have been following the events for a long time, and (...) therefore, I would like to know how you assess the changes in relations between East and West? How deep have we entered the phase of forming strong coalitions and oppositions?
— Changes are already taking place, but in waves, tides and ebbs, and they have many aspects. Today we are all worried about what is happening in Ukraine, but when the armed conflict ends, there will be a lot of people who will try to forget about this horror. As it was with the war in Afghanistan. Who will remember the chaos and fear during the COVID-19 pandemic today? What does not change is the fact that some countries are abandoning the concept of the West, according to which the world should live by the rules dictated by the hegemon. They want to further develop international law so that they participate in its formation and implementation on equal terms.
It is also undeniable that armed conflicts, such as in Afghanistan, Iraq or Ukraine, weaken the West and, among other things, strike at its reputation and authority. At the same time, despite a variety of sanctions and threats, China's economy is growing, followed by India and Brazil... Internal changes in economic and social relations in the United States themselves have a huge impact on changes in the world. I am talking about the astronomical external debt that undermines confidence in the dollar, and about the terrible split in society into adherents of intolerant liberalism and conservative populism.
