Tag: Putin

Inside the Russian Energy Week 2025

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

From 15 to 17 October, Russia held the 8th Russian Energy Week International Forum. The event convened over 7,000 participants from 100 countries, including government officials, heads of leading global energy companies, and experts from the scientific community. They gathered in Moscow to engage in a substantive and meaningful dialogue on the development of the fuel and energy complex.

The world needed to have that conversation due to the fundamental changes happening in the global energy market. During the forum, President Vladimir Putin presented Russia’s view on the challenges facing the global and Russian fuel and energy industry.

The first challenge is the reconfiguration of global energy ties. With the emergence of new centers of economic development, new consumption patterns are developing. Putin also noted the artificial breakdown of the energy architecture, caused by the aggressive actions of some Western elites. Many European countries are losing their economic and industrial potential because of political pressure that is restraining them from purchasing Russian energy resources. The result has been a decline in industrial output, rising prices due to more expensive overseas oil and gas, and a decrease in the competitiveness of European goods and the economy as a whole.

The global energy market as a whole is also experiencing a reformatting of supply chains through the redirection of energy resource logistics toward the Global South. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, and Latin America are now taking on more reliable routes, new hubs, and ports that take into account the current and prospective needs of buyers. According to estimates, the global demand for oil in the current year will amount to 104.5 million barrels per day, which is more than one million higher than last year.

Russia remains one of the leading oil producers, despite the use of unfair competition mechanisms against it. It provides about 10% of global production. Putin revealed that the Russian oil sector is operating steadily and drafting plans for the future. It is taking into account the difficult situation in the external environment and thus demonstrating flexibility, having managed to build new channels for supply and payments. Whereas previously, Russian exports of oil and petroleum products were directed mainly to the European Union, now it has broadened.

Whereas the demand for gas in Europe is still below the level of 2019, gas consumption is steadily growing in the Asia-Pacific region, in the Middle East, and in Latin America.

The reason for the low demand for a primary energy source in Europe is that industrial production there is declining. The refusal of some European countries to use Russian gas and the sabotage of the Nord Stream cut Russia off from traditional markets and gas exports initially decreased, but then recovered. Russian suppliers are now shifting toward more promising and responsible buyers, states that know their interests and act rationally, based precisely on these national interests. Russian gas companies are providing these markets with reliable supplies. Russia also possesses unique gas reserves and has now undertaken the development of hard-to-recover reserves.

Another energy sector in which Russia is a big player is the coal complex. Whereas Western markets are reducing their demand for coal, Asian countries are increasing their consumption. Putin noted that the issue lies primarily in the economic efficiency of coal generation. But, taking into account the shift of global business activity toward the Asia-Pacific region, it can be expected that the coal market will remain significant and large for decades to come.

The second most important global trend lies in the increasing role of the electric power industry. Estimates project that in the next 25 years, electricity generation in the world will double. Moreover, about 85 percent of the additional demand will be formed outside the so-called developed economies, in the countries of the Global South. Putin highlighted that the Russian energy system is one of the largest in the world. Russia’s generation facilities have a total installed capacity of about 270 gigawatts, and this vast complex operates steadily and efficiently.

Russia is now looking at the Development of Competitive Retail Electricity and Capacity Markets. Putin’s prediction is that where there is accessible energy, modern industries will appear, sectors of the new economy will develop, and capital, technology, and qualified personnel will flow there.

The Russian energy balance is also one of the “greenest” in the world, i.e., the overwhelming share of electricity in Russia, namely 87 percent, is generated with minimal or zero carbon footprint. This includes gas-based, nuclear generation, renewable energy sources, and hydropower. Russian companies are implementing projects of “green,” long-lasting generation not only in Russia but also abroad. Already, more than 400 hydropower projects have been carried out in 55 countries around the world. “RusHydro”, Russia’s leading company in hydroelectricity, builds hydroelectric power plants and water infrastructure while adhering to environmental safety standards and practising careful, efficient water use.

Another high-tech leader is “Rosatom”, which accounts for about 90 percent of the global market for the construction of nuclear power plants. Around the world, 110 power units of domestic, Russian design have been built. Russia is the only country in the world that possesses competencies across the entire nuclear energy chain. Putin emphasised that by building abroad, Moscow is not simply constructing facilities, but together with its partners, it is creating the future of the energy sector and related industries, forming a strong national personnel, scientific, and technological foundation for the development of entire states.

The writer is a senior research fellow, Development Watch Center.

 

How the West sacrificed Ukraine for the so-called Liberal Ideals

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the apparent issues involved, and what partly explains the cause of the Ukrainian war, is the difference in approach to international politics between Western leaders and the Russians. NATO nations and the American foreign policy elites seem to adhere, sincerely or hypocritically, to liberal ideals about the exercise of international politics. On the other hand, the elites in Moscow and Putin himself seem to hold a realist approach. The effect of this is that Moscow is more pragmatic about resolving the conflict, whereas its Western counterparts are dogmatic.

The final losers in this war will definitely be the people of Ukraine, whose myopic leaders have sacrificed their country as a battleground for big-power rivalry.

Let us begin by remembering the words of American leaders on the issue of expanding NATO eastwards.

When former US President Joe Biden was still a senator, serving on the Foreign Relations Committee in 1997, he stated that the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short term, in terms of US-Russian and NATO-Russian relations, would be the admission of the Baltic states into NATO. He warned that that would tip the balance and induce a vigorous and hostile reaction from Russia. That was in 1997! It was 25 years later, in 2022, that the Ukrainian war broke out. Is it, therefore, right to describe Russia as an unprovoked aggressor?

When, at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO members proposed to integrate Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, the former CIA director, William J. Burns, and former U.S. ambassador to Moscow warned Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state then, that the entry of Ukraine into NATO was the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite, not just Putin. In the secret cable he sent her, he noted that: “In my more than two-and-a-half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russia’s interests … Today’s Russia will respond.”

In 2014, when consideration was made to add Georgia and Ukraine to NATO, Jack Matlock, America’s last ambassador to the Soviet Union, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He stated, “I consider the administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War. Far from improving the security of the United States, its Allies, and the nations that wish to enter the Alliance, it could well encourage a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.”

Henry Kissinger, arguably one of the greatest scholars on international relations the world will ever know, opined in The Washington Post in March 2014 that for Ukraine to survive, it should function as a bridge rather than an outpost of either NATO or Russia. He discouraged Ukraine from joining NATO.  He noted that: “Putin is a serious strategist on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology is not his strong suit. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers. Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing.”

Contrary to Kissinger’s wise advice, American and European leaders have instead deployed their media to manufacture the narrative that portrays Putin as a devil, and themselves as saviours. In his own words, Kissinger humorously made a solemn aphorism that “the demonisation of Putin is not a policy, it’s an alibi for not having one.”

In one of the longest, agonising diplomatic negotiations in history, Russia appealed to NATO members not to expand eastwards. President Boris Yeltsin wrote to Bill Clinton in 1993, arguing that the expansion of NATO breached the spirit of the 1990 Two Plus Four Treaty on German reunification. Even as Yeltsin initially conceded to Poland’s campaign to join NATO at the time, he later retracted in the face of domestic pressure. It was 29 years later, in 2022, that the war in Ukraine broke out. So, how can it be reduced to the character of Putin?

In the end, Ukraine will be unable to defeat Russia without American support. Yet America is least likely to invade a nuclear-armed power, as that would spell Mutual Assured Destruction. In the face of that uphill battle, it’s Ukraine that stands to lose. Russia will bleed to the last corporal, but will never surrender to Ukraine. It would be better for the Ukrainian leadership to abandon NATO membership and seek neutrality.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Trump-Putin Alaska Summit; Moscow’s Concerns are Legitimate 

Posted on By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

The latest meeting between President Donald Trump of the United States of America and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, in what is now known as the Alaska summit, was costly because of the security logistical setup and the backstage diplomatic efforts that saw the event through, but didn’t yield much. The 2025 Alaska summit could be the start of a series of efforts that finally bring a freeze to the situation in Ukraine.

To understand why in the first place Russia initiated its special military operation in Ukraine we have to go back in time, we can even go back a thousand years, but today we shall dwell much on the last three decades, after the break up of the USSR in 1991. The USSR was a formation of a multiple ethnic states, that were called Republics, and Ukraine was one of them. It’s end is considered to be a geopolitical tragedy, and that is the view of the current Russian President.

Russia didn’t wake up and just decide to invade Ukraine in 2022, with no reason. For Moscow the move was very much about offensive realism which is basically the amassing of power and regional dominance because of the prevailing uncertainty and threats of an anarchic international system where survival of a given country is the most important thing. Russia is compelled to seek regional hegemony to ensure it’s safety, according to John Mearsheimer this is supposed to be a constant endvour of strategic miscalculations that will bring about conflict and war at certain points especially when great powers are involved. In this case it’s Russia on one side and the USA and it’s allies on the other.

Since the end of the Cold War three decades ago, Moscow views NATO’s eastward expansion as a real threat to its security, in the last decade and half, the political power centers in Kiev along with Washington and Brussels have been flirting about Ukraine joining the security organization which was a clear Red line for Russia, and they were not going to stand by as their core security interests were being teased. The provocation was an encroachment to Russia’s sphere of influence. It was uncalled for because after the end of the Cold war there is a promise in place that NATO never expands “one inch eastward.”

Russia is in Ukraine to protect the Russian speaking population, its no secret that there are neo-Nazi activities, during the conflict military units have come out with Nazi insignia and flags fighting on the side of Kiev. Russia accuses these groups of persecuting the Russian speaking population in the Donbas regions. The international community which is made up of the West took clear sides when it came to internal divisions within Ukraine, Washington supported Ukrainian speaking people and sidelined the other side an act that exacerbated the situation prompting Russia to come in and take its side.

According to Professor Jeffery Sachs Washington’s disdain for historical and cultural claims of the European plain made it clear that only a military act would make Russia’s point. For example Russia’s ties to Crimea which had been a Russian territory since 1783 and only transferred to the Ukraine Republic under the USSR as a symbolic move aimed at nation building in 1954. These historical nuances that were stubbornly ignored only fired up Russia for war.

For Russia, going to Ukraine is an act of resistance against Western unilateralism and Washington’s blunt imperialism. It’s one of the reasons even those that have taken a neutral position have a soft spot for Moscow. The West has consistently violated international norms from the far East in the case of China and Taiwan, to the Middle East when it comes to Iran, Iraq among others states. Washington thrives in overthrowing governments and while expanding military alliances at the same point ignoring regional powers like Russia, of course any country would react in a self interest manner.

The situation in Ukraine goes back years, it goes beyond 2014, when Russia decided to take back the home of its Black Sea fleet in Crimea, it’s strategic base for its naval power and the adjacent water ways that connects it to global trade. It goes beyond the 3 years of the full scale military operation, even the fall of the Soviet Union was just a flash point of previous centuries. It’s geopolitical and geoeconomic and that’s why it has led to several global shock waves that are being felt even as far here in Uganda. From February of 2022 the world has experienced shifts in alliances, here in Africa there is pressure to align with the West at a time when neutrality is very vital for peace.

Since Ukraine was a major global food basket, the war meant they had to halt agriculture and this has affected the world food security bring about shortages and price hikes, Western sanctions on Russia have had a ripple effect on the world energy markets taking that has resulted into higher fuel prices across the planet. Like any conflict there is a humanitarian and migration issue in Europe and because it’s affecting people with white skin, they have taken priority over others in conflict across the world.

Before this escalation Europe had not faced war at this scale since 1945, a disaster that had engulfed the whole world, that bit had ended and just like then, even this episode can end. If the West was pragmatic they could have avoided this all together. Professor Yanis Varoufakis has always suggested a Good Friday Agreement like mode for the Donbas with shared sovereignty and guarantees for both Russian and Ukraine speakers, he also in the past advocated for a neutral Ukraine under a UN backed treaty that may see peace keepers from countries like the UK and China maintain the agreed Red Lines.

Before 2014 if only the West was wise to halt the NATO expansion which is about buying American weapons, Respecting the Minsk Agreement that promoted the autonomy of the Danbas, if only the Washington through the CIA had avoided overthrowing Yanukovych which was a hostile move towards Russia. If only the West has seriously respected the diplomatic path to address Moscow’s legitimate grievances, the world would have never seen this disaster happening. In the event President Trump in his quest for a Nobel Peace prize managed to get a deal with his Russian counterpart it will be only on the grounds of Russia’s original Reasons for the escalation.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre

 

 

 

 

President XI Jinping’s Russia Trip is Crucial for Global Stability

Posted on By Admin

By Moshi Israel

On Monday, the 20th of this month the Leader of China President Xi Jinping landed in Moscow on his first trip out of China since his re-election for a third term as President. Choosing Moscow as his first foreign trip re-affirms the close friendship between Russia and Beijing. President Xi’s long-awaited visit to Moscow inspired a lot of background noise around major capitals of the world. A close partnership between Moscow and Beijing is not in the geopolitical interests of most western countries. However, many other regions of the world that are eager for a new era of global politics in which multi-polarity is the norm, anticipated and hoped for the best outcomes from the meeting.

China, with President Xi at the helm, has taken up the mantle of peacemaker. After successfully brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, China is increasingly being seen as a credible global power capable of prioritizing cooperation over confrontation. This comes as no surprise since the CPC has always championed win-win partnerships and diplomacy around the world. The evidence of this is embedded within China’s Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI), and Global Security Initiative (GSI) concept paper that encourages the Chinese tradition of peace above everything else.

China’s peace plan for Ukraine closely follows the core concepts and principles of its GSI. These concepts include but are not limited to, respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, commitment to taking the legitimate security concerns of countries seriously, and abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN charter. These principles are crucial in maintaining global stability. Therefore, President Xi’s visit to Moscow can be seen as an extension of these principles and China’s role as a peace broker. China has proposed to Moscow a twelve-point peace plan that seeks to end hostilities in Ukraine. President Putin has welcomed China’s efforts to solve the crisis in Ukraine and proclaimed that Russia is ready for peace when Ukraine and its western backers are. Most of the world cannot wait for this conflict to be over with and welcomes common sense solutions to the conflict.

Washington for so long has proclaimed that the decision to negotiate for peace and end the war is for Ukraine to make. However, it did not come as a surprise when the White House through its national security spokesperson John Kirby rejected any idea of a cease-fire. The white house anticipated that China might seek to broker a cease-fire in Ukraine and rejected it two weeks ahead of Xi’s visit to Moscow on grounds that it would allow Russia to consolidate its gains in the Donbas. The International Criminal Court (ICC) even went further and indicted President Putin for war crimes in Ukraine ahead of President Xi’s visit. This move by the court has been interpreted by many as largely symbolic and an attempt to murky the waters and complicate Xi’s visit to Moscow.

China has a very large presence around the world, economically, diplomatically, and technologically and has used this power to support peace. This should be applauded by all responsible citizens of the world. World leaders should oppose any attempt to escalate conflicts by nefarious actors on the global stage. President Xi has insisted that the conflict in Ukraine should end at the negotiating table and that the concerns of the conflicting parties be addressed.

At a time when the world is under serious economic and political strain, China is standing up to be counted as the global power that has a practical plan to lead the world into a new era. China’s neutrality on the Ukrainian conflict despite deep ties with Moscow, and its goal of peace are testament to the country’s genuine desire for a functional multi-polar and anti-war world. The global south, itself a victim of proxy wars should support China’s efforts in the framework of the United Nations to promote peace in Ukraine and around the world. The years of lacking a coherent and independent foreign policy in the global south should be forgotten and dumped in the dustbin of history. China under the CPC has managed to uplift itself from a century of humiliation to a global power worth taking seriously. The same can be replicated in the global south and particularly here in Africa.

The writer is a Senior Research Fellow with DWC

BRICS should focus on big issues to build ideal world

Posted on By Admin

The highly anticipated meeting between president of China Xi Jinping and the Russian President Vladmir Putin at the Shanghai Cooperation Summit (SCO) took place in Uzbekistan on the backdrop of deteriorating relations between the two leaders and the collective west. President Xi and Putin generally showed support for each other and encouraged further cooperation in trade. Moscow is very much in need of a new market for its energy and China welcomes the opportunity to acquire cheap gas. An oil and gas pipeline deal were discussed between Russia, China and Mongolia and it is supported by the president of Mongolia.  Important on the agenda were security concerns for the two nations and their allies. President Putin was more interested in addressing what he considers the unwarranted dominance of the collective west in the international arena and it is no surprise that he is actively seeking for challengers to the status quo.

This meeting, however, is especially vital for a whole other reason since three of the five core members of BRICS were present. It is significant for the future of BRICS, a coalition of five states, namely; Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. In the last BRICS summit hosted virtually by China, BRICS members committed to expanding the bloc and being more inclusive. Notably, countries like Iran, Argentina and other African nations signaled interest to join the bloc. At the moment the future of the bloc seems assertive enough to challenge the dominance of the western coalition led by the United States in global politics. BRICS members have wide and ambitious objectives that surmise into restructuring the current global political and economic order. However, the vital task at hand is that the bloc should not morph into a mere anti-western hegemony coalition and according to the stated objectives of BRICS, the alliance is well poised to aim beyond that.

Therefore, the expansion of BRICS should be strategically based on a careful review of a potential member’s profile. Being hostile to western hegemony should never become the only qualifying quality for any potential member. It is a fact that unilateral decisions by USA with the often-expected assistance from her allies have caused havoc and crippled entire regions, from the Middle East, Eentral and Southern America, Eastern Europe to Northern and sub-Saharan Africa.

These unilateral and sometimes short-sighted actions have earned the United States a fair number of aggrieved enemies seeking to settle scores and they might view BRICS as a stepping stone to that goal. However, this fact may render BRICS a home to less-than-ideal candidates that may not have the long-term interests of the bloc in mind. Neutral states like India are a necessary ingredient for the bloc long-term even though they might seem like a risky partner in the coalition. This is due to India’s close partnership with the collective west.  However, the risk that India poses to the bloc does not lie in her close partnership with the west but in her belligerent and rocky relationship with China. And this relationship is an important chapter in the bloc’s evolution story.

Though leaders of China and India have proven their capacity to address grievances of the two by meeting and talking, a lasting solution to issues of each side’s concern is much needed and will boast the cooperation and trust of the two largest members of the BRICS. Once such differences are sorted, which is not an easy task but it is one task that must be accomplished, then the bloc will have skipped a major hurdle that stifles many promising partnerships in their infancy.

BRICS should make as priority the political and social integration of all its members, moving past the limiting economic partnerships if it is to challenge the west in any meaningful manner. It takes one look across the aisle to notice that most countries in the western coalition, share almost similar socio-political and economic values despites being geographically and ethnically diverse. Avoiding the trap of being merely anti-west is important because, some western allies can be lured into joining the bloc if the latter has a recognizable and meaningful positive impact on global politics. A meaningful impact on the world ranges from having a comprehensive global security framework that ensures world peace, an economic system that is balanced and beneficial to all encompassing detailed and practical solutions to protecting the environment and tackling the crisis of climate change.

Many challenges lie ahead for BRICS in different pockets of the world and members of BRICS+ will need institutions both financial and political to guide in the implementation of the bloc’s policy goals and objectives. This must be done with expected resistance form the western coalition and her institutions. Observing current statements and ambitions of BRICS member states, it is quite clear that in the long-run the bloc must create a separate financial system form the current western one and this involves convincing potential members and the rest of the world that the BRICS alternative is much better. New Development Bank (BRICS bank) can help in selling this agenda by offering financial assistance to different sectors than its current focus of infrastructure and energy.

This is where developing countries in Africa, South America and Asia can play an important role. China has already made significant in-roads on the African continent economically, Russia is making in-roads militarily in places like Mali, Sudan, Central African Republic and in other west African countries.

One key recipe missing is media presence to foster people-to people diplomacy and strengthen cultural ties, an area where the west has excelled. The west has managed to endear herself to Africa despite all their past atrocities on the continent during and after colonialism. The west has achieved this by opening up opportunities within western borders for talented and ambitious individuals from the African continent and overtime this number of western educated and influenced Africans has significantly increased.

When it comes to presence of media from BRICS member states on the continent, there is no competition because the west dominates this area. Though gaining, still China’s CGTN is yet to be felt on ground. For Russia’s RT, arguably, very few know it exist. Advanced Television.com found that in 2020, BBC news in Africa increased its reach to 132 million people a week.

BRICS alliance mechanism aims to promote peace, security, development and cooperation and the surest way to this is through adopting new, unique and innovative approaches to developing alliances and solving problems around the world. This to be felt on ground, as a group or individual member countries, BRICS must invest more in media and sell their ideas of their ideal world they aspire to bring.

BRICS still has an open advantage to expand strategically and create a whole different world, it is made up of emerging economies, a trait that gives its founding members relatability to other developing nations. The alliance, accounts for over 3 billion people which is over 40% of the world’s population and just over a quarter of the global GDP. Therefore, on face value, the alliance has immense potential and this potential has to be realized through strategic expansion. Most importantly, this expansion should not be solely fueled by grievances against the collective west but by a genuine concern for global affairs and a resolute desire to challenge and change the status quo.

By Moshi Israel.

The Writer is a Research Fellow at Development Watch Centre