Tag: Russia

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.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Milestones & Looking to the Future

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

Between August 31st and September 1st, members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) met in the Chinese city of Tianjin for this year’s heads of state summit. Several milestones were arrived at during the event and they matter in two broad respects. The first regards the fact that it was a crowning of what has been an incredible run by Beijing since the country’s ascendency to the rotating presidency last year. Secondly, and most important for our discussion here, are its the implications for international relations.

As the body’s name suggests, one of the outstanding objectives is a strategy of working together by members on areas such as “politics, trade, economy, science and technology, culture, education, energy, transport” among others. And indeed, this was exhibited in Tianjin with over twenty nations coming to attend.

This number is a significant increase from the six nations that signed the Charter of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization back in 2002 when SCO first came into existence there providing a real counterbalance in a world that is increasingly being swept by the winds of nationalism. And President Xi Jinping did not hesitate to point out this in his SCO plus meeting remarks using the words “hegemony”, “protectionism”, and “Cold War mentality” to describe the current moment in global politics.

Furthermore, SCO has embraced what has come to be known as the “Shanghai spirit” and by the look of things, it is proving to be the very thing that the overlooked countries are yarning for. The spirit is what governs the internal dealings of member states and it is composed of six tenets i.e. “mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diversity of civilizations and pursuit of common development.” It is no surprise then that the 2025 conference was the biggest of its kind yet. For nations outside the bracket, the org has embraced “non-alignment, non-targeting at other countries or regions and the principle of openness.”

But it is not only SCO members that appreciate the emerging disturbing dynamics on the international scene. The difference is that the umbrella has shown that it has the capability to respond in ways that not many alliances can. Having worked with different high level associations overtime for example (among them the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), its activities now catch eyes of crucial stakeholders. On this occasion, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres flew in to attend the SCO plus meeting as well as engaging with the new Shanghai Cooperation Organization Secretary General, Nurlan Yermekbayev. Access like this means that policies formulated by the entity are more likely to have impact world over.

It is worth considering too that the countries involved in the SCO are key players in global affairs so their synergy cannot be wished away as was evident at the Tianjin summit. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Putin of Russia (both leaders of countries whose economies are ranked in the world’s top ten) thus, got to engage in a lengthy conversation on its sidelines. The exchange came in handy not least because of the attacks that the Indian Prime Minister had to endure from the white House recently over his resolve to import Russian oil.

For its part, China promised $280 million aid to member states and five times more money in loans a commitment that is crucial since in the end, everything goes back to the economics. Otherwise, there have been many political blocs with very noble causes that have come up in the past but there visions have not been realized simply because they lacked a financial muscle.

Each of the milestones we looked at are remarkable in-and-of themselves but they are even more so when one views them in light of the bold plan that President Xi tabled for a new world order during the summit. Calling it the “Global Governance Initiative”, he pushed for a system that was more equitable and just for all people. Seeing as these very objectives have been achieved to spectacular proportions within SCO, it will be much easier for countries looking on from outside to appreciate things. And of course, SCO nations will be more likely to push through the new step too.

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

 

How Western Hubris Led to the Ukrainian War

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

One of the greatest instruments for waging war are the tools of mass propaganda. The West, i.e., the USA and NATO nations, are armed to the teeth with these. They control international news and feed audiences with anti-Russian/ anti-Putin propaganda dressed as journalism. Thus, they blame the war in Ukraine entirely on Russia. They also portray President Vladimir Putin as a maniac, disgruntled with the collapse of the Soviet empire and seeking its reconstruction. Far from the truth.

A long list of Western diplomats, politicians, great academics, and men of great standing would tell you that the United States and its NATO colleagues (hereinafter the West) take the greatest responsibility/ blame for this needless war.

The main cause of the war is NATO’s expansion into Russia’s orbit. Russian leaders always warned, since the 1990s, that turning a strategic neighbour like Ukraine into a Western outpost on the doorstep of Russia would never be accepted. This is also why Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014. Putin had feared, rightly so, that the peninsula would host a NATO naval base.

Any great power would push back if another power roamed into its backyard, threatening its strategic interests. The West/ USA knows this better. That’s why they wouldn’t allow Soviet missiles in Cuba.

The Western affront against Russia started in the mid-1990s when the Clinton administration began pushing for the enlargement of NATO. They began by bringing the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland into NATO in 1999. They continued in 2004 by adding Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Russia always complained. However, apart from the little Baltic states, none of the admitted new NATO members shared a border with Russia, so it was not threatened much.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and (former) U.S. President Joe Biden shake hands as (former) British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and (former) NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg attend a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine council, in Vilnius, Lithuania, July 12, 2023.

In continuous provocation, the West dug deeper East, considering adding Georgia and Ukraine in 2008. At the time, even France and Germany stood opposed to the move, emphasising it would antagonise Russia. But the USA supported it. NATO members agreed to declare that Georgia and Ukraine “… will become members of NATO.”

In response, Russia’s deputy foreign minister at the time, Alexander Gruhko, warned that “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security.” A Russian newspaper at the time also reported that Putin candidly cautioned George Bush that “… if Ukraine was accepted into NATO, it would cease to exist.”

One cannot find it difficult to comprehend that, for instance, the USA would never allow China to build a military alliance, let alone set up a military base in Canada or Mexico. It wouldn’t even allow Russia to do so 90 miles away in Cuba. Why would they consider it right and rational to form a military alliance with a nation of such strategic importance to Russia? Why would they consider setting up military bases in a country sharing a boarder with Russia?

One of the greatest scholars on USSR-USA relations was the American diplomat and historian George Frost Kennan. As early as 1998, when the West began attempts to expand NATO Eastwards, he warned in an interview that, “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to hurt the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking …I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely to it and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else… It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then (the NATO expanders) will say that ‘we always told you that is how the Russians are,’ but this is just wrong.”

The following year, in 1997, 50 American foreign policy experts, including the former Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton stating that “We, the undersigned, believe that the current US-led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability for the following reasons: In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favour reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanise resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the “ins” and the “outs,” foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included…”

I can go on and on, quoting voices of reason from the West challenging US/NATO expansion towards Russia’s orbit of influence. Why are Western leaders foolhardy about diving headfirst into what could potentially cause World War III?

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

Russia-Ukraine War Vs Israel’s Genocide in Gaza: A Tale of Diplomatic Coverup and Hypocrisy in Western Capitals

Posted on By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

Are Washington and Brussels overreacting toward Russia when it comes to it’s actions in Ukraine? There is a high likelihood that the European Union and the United States are very biased with how they have handled Russia since the escalation of the situation in Ukraine in 2022. At the moment, there are about 57 major Conflicts in the world, for example, the Sudan Civil War that has claimed about 13,000 lives in just 2025, in places like Myanmar, Sahel insurgency, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Somalia, and Eastern DRC, where multiple armed factions are operating. But the Ukraine situation is getting more diplomatic and media attention.

For a moment, let’s take a closer, critical look at the EU and the US’s very contrasting approaches to various conflicts worldwide. Their response to Ukraine and Palestine seems like there is an alternative universe with a rule based order that is applied selectively, on one end, as Russia faces isolation and accountability for its invasion of Ukraine, Israel is enjoying full impunity despite evidence of an active genocide and apartheid.

The two situations have put out the double standards of the West, which in the long run is going to undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the already failing multilateral organizations, as they perpetuate violence against Palestinians or any other race that is not white. When there is no consistent application of international law, screams of justice and human rights are becoming hollow and are setting a blue print of future massacres.

When Russia matched into Ukraine, Western powers right away started providing weapons, intelligence and security guarantees to Kiev, NATO swung into a logistical mode to ensure the resistance of Russia’s campaign was armed to the teeth. After October 7th 2023 when Hamas mounted a major resistance campaign against the Israeli blockade of Gaza, Israel was given the greenlight to kill everything living in what Tony Blair the former British Prime Minister referred to as an open air prison and many experts have referred to as a concentration camp.

Russia has faced sanctions that now number in tens of thousands for being an aggressor while in the case of Palestine, the Western powers led by Washington decided to defund UNRWA a vital aid agency in Gaza, Israel has not even for a single day faced any arms embargo or conditions, but instead the United States has rewarded them with United Nations Security Council vetoes to avoid Ceasefire opportunities.

Every aspect of the Russian society has been sanctioned, from its massive oil sector, to its financial system and trade cutting it off from the rest of the world. Russia was even suspended from international forums like cultural events and sports organizations while Israel is sending singers to the Eurovision and it’s football clubs tour Europe week in week out. When South Africa was still under apartheid they were suspended from the Olympics, in the case of Israel, they are getting more sports events invitations.

US President Joe Biden (right) holds a bilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the sidelines of the 78th United Nations General Assembly in New York City, the US, September 20, 2023

Every Western capital has ordinary people protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza and the occupied territories of Palestine, but their governments have decided to pay no attention to them. In the United Kingdom organizations that stage protest events are being labeled terrorists organizations. When Russian drones strike civilians infrastructure in Ukraine, every EU member will put out a condemnation statement, but Israel in Gaza has bombed all Universities, all schools, and all hospitals with weapons being provided by the West.

When the ICC put out an arrest Warrant for the Russian President, the United States and European Union welcomed it, and fully supported the move, the then President of US Mr. Biden called it “justified.” When the same court put out the arrest Warrant for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Same powers rejected it and went ahead to call it “outrageous” and denying the courts’ jurisdiction. The United States has gone ahead to retaliate against the ICC by sanctioning key members of the court and through Congress they have even invoked the Hague Invasion Act to protect Israeli officials.

The United States has even decided to make enemies of countries like South Africa that took Israel to the ICJ that ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and found plausible evidence of genocide. President Trump has decided to hike trade Tariffs on South Africa and gone ahead with a counter accusations of genocide of whites.

As the European Union and the United States have resolved to be steadfast with a comprehensive diplomatic condemnation of Russia and rapid military aid for Ukraine, when it comes to Israel’s “apocalyptic” actions according to the UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese the reaction has been completely different in the two similar situations. She has even accused Israel of using Gaza as a testing ground for new weapons without restraint as she has recommended for an arms embargo that the West has ignored and instead slapped her with Sanctions.

Western backed main stream media has put forward a narrative of Ukraine being a democracy that is resisting Russian Tyranny with the whole population suffering against Moscow’s atrocities. On the other end Palestinian causalities that are in 60,000+ are being decontextualized as collateral damage for self defense to justify the Israeli genocide and all this is being done while echoing Israel’s mage world wide web of propaganda that paints Palestinians as collectively guilty.

One thing is profound out of all this, the hypothetical stance on global conflicts in the face of Washington and Brussels is clear and the Russian, Ukrainian situation with the Israeli genocide in Gaza makes the writing on the wall clear, as one side is dealt with condemnations, massive sanctions and functional legal mechanism the other catastrophe of our time is being greenlighted with active diplomatic cover never seen before. There are double standards and they are very much based on race as certain lives are given more value than others.

The writer is a 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

 

 

 

 

Price of Sovereignty: Nations Face Punitive Action for Seeking Alternatives

Posted on By Musiime George

Development is to humans a breaking free from natural necessity as it is to nations breaking free from control by others. Likewise, for nations, the pursuit of development is a national interest as it improves their standing in the international arena and guarantees the attainment of other  aspirations as a result. This notwithstanding, unilateralism under the current global order often puts the interests of powerful nations ahead of those of the smaller nations. Oftentimes, actions taken by powerful countries  in the name of protecting their interests are a direct challenge to interests of other nations. These interests sometimes encroach on their legitimate right to development.

For instance, earlier this month, BRICS leaders reaffirmed their commitments to the group’s values of mutual respect, sovereign equality, and solidarity among others as cornerstones of meaningful multilateralism at the group’s 17th summit in Rio. While this was perceived as the common interest of member states, the declaration was met with threats from Washington ranging from of 10% additional tariff on all nations that  align with the group. At the same time, Brazil another member of the group joined the likes of China, receiving a special punitive package of 50% tariffs effective August 1st besides being investigated for so called unfair trade dealings.

As a platform for cooperation initially championed by the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, BRICS has added 6 new members since 2015 including Indonesia,  Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Egypt. Despite representing close to half the global population, the group  does not seek to replace the traditional multilateral system but rather to offer an alternative model of multilateral cooperation. Other than responding with opposition,  such efforts must be welcomed as they exemplify what is possible under a reformed multilateral system.

By addressing legacy shortcomings of the current multilateral setup faulted for a lack of equality and representation, BRICS must provide motivation for the requisite reforms; the absence of which  have for over half a century kept the global south on the sidelines of global governance. More so, the platform only aims to prioritize the southern agenda, giving it a collective voice in global governance. Therefore, to call BRICS anti-America is the equivalent of saying to be pro-America is to ignore the interests of the billions it represents.

As long as it remains difficult to delink international cooperation and development, targeting nations with punitive action on the basis of who they cooperate with or what group they  are aligned with is akin to dictating what interests nations are allowed to have, or the path to development they must follow. Of course, this is not practical where, due to different national realities, development challenges and capabilities are so diverse. When a 10% extra tariff is declared against any nation that aligns itself with what Washington calls “the anti-America BRICS,” it is an obvious threat to immediately reverse any gains nations might have sought in such a collaborative arrangement. A choice, conscious or otherwise  to perpetuate the unfair international political landscape that made BRICS possible in the first place.

Incidentally, following years of calling for reforms in the existing multilateral system, it should not come as a surprise when BRICS comes up as a brainchild of the global south. Likewise, neither should the alignment of other countries in the region with the platform be. Instead it should be surprising that nations whose interests haven’t mattered must be punished for seeking an alternative. For one, the framework is by nations from the global south and two, it promises sovereign equality, mutual respect; a shift from the status quo under legacy institutions. The same status quo that is at the foundation of  the calls for reforms.

Whereas it is understandable why proponents might argue for the right of Washington to protect its interest, this also raises a question on what must become of the interests of the  other nations. More importantly though, there is the question on whether  there can be sovereign equality where the interests of one supersede those of many. As this scenario unfolds, because Washington believes BRICS to be anti-American, all other nations must rally behind Washington’s interests -ignoring their own, or get crushed in a fete of punitive diplomacy. Meanwhile, apart from the inherent risks that come with being added to the hit list of powerful nations, the real risk is in what nations must give up in this trade off…their own national interests, even their development goals that are entwined with these interests.

The choice of partners and forums for cooperation should be a sovereign discretion. In the same way, the kind of threats levelled against any country that aligns with BRICS does nothing short of underscore the dire urgency for an more equitable global order – an order that respects sovereign equality, mutual respect and understanding among nations. While the choice to impose tariffs would fall perfectly within the purview of those imposing them, tethering them to alignment or non-alignment with anyone highlights the fractured state of international order and the importance of platforms like BRICS.

Unless the current multilateral system is designed to act in the interests of the powerful nations, it ought to have heeded the global-south’s call for reforms. Alternatively,  there is still time to act on unilateralism to keep it from suffocating  the interests of smaller nations. But as long as non of these is possible, the ensuing global challenges will necessitate new perspectives on current global problems like the one offered by BRICS, and resorting to punitive action only exacerbates the original challenges.

The author is a research fellow at the Centre for BRICS Studies, Uganda.

Georgemusiime@dwcug.org

 

BRICS Foreign Ministers Brazil Meeting: What is Uganda’s Status?

Posted on By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

On Monday 28th of April, BRICS foreign affairs ministers met in Brazil and they were hosted by Mauro Vieira, their counterpart, they gathered in Rio de Janeiro to discuss the group’s role in addressing global and regional crises and their common response to the trade war with the United States. Uganda’s foreign affairs minister did not make the trip.

On January 1st 2025 Uganda became a partner state of BRICS, as part of its journey to join the organisation. While there was excitement both in Uganda and across the continent, it’s very vital to go about this development with realism and pragmatism. There is a new process in place to become a member of the BRICS. Since the 3rd BRICS summit when South Africa joined in 2010, there were no additions to that formation until 2024 when the Arab Republic of Egypt, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, United Arab Emirates, Republic of Indonesia and Islamic Republic of Iran joined something that spurred the global South as a multilateral world was being birthed.

During the 16th BRICS summit in Kazan Russia, a framework was put in place to ensure those sovereign countries that found it logical to join were able to. At the moment a state must first be an observer state and fortunately Uganda never underwent this phase because it was prior to the Kazan developments, instead it acquired the partner states status and then the final stage will be member state. Uganda’s journey to join BRICS started on 11th November 2024 when the foreign minister Jeje Odongo Abubakher met his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov who extended a formal invitation for BRICS partner state status along with 13 other countries.

By January 1st 2025 Kampala had met the criteria that was put in place in the Kazan Summit in 2024. This implied that Uganda had proved herself as a partner and was ready to start the integration phase as a member state. The criteria has aspects like economic stability, geopolitical alignment, institutional reforms and consensus approval from the existing member states. The 10th member to be admitted, Indonesia was averaging an annual economic growth of about 5% before it proved itself for membership status. Geopolitically a partner state should commit to the organisation’s tenants like equal sovereignty. Countries should comply with the forum’s financial and governance standards like anti-corruption measures and in the past Brazil was able to veto Venezuela’s bid over electoral disputes. Most likely Uganda’s magic bullet will be its strategic location in East Africa as a trade gateway for the other members of BRICS and its historical role in the global South.

There are incentives that will motivate Uganda along with the other 8 countries that attained partner state status in January 2025 to strive for Member state status. BRICS is not anti-West but instead it’s an outfit that is taking up the gap of the post West dominated world. For Uganda to move from partner state to a Member of the BRICS, a number of strategic wins are on the horizon, from economic outlook to geopolitical and development space. Uganda, will have access to the New Development Banks (NDB), the famous BRICS bank. The financial institution offers alternative funding to specific infrastructure projects with better loan repayment as opposed to the IMF and World Bank.

Members of BRICS have direct access to the markets of other members which offer economic diversification. Uganda can look up to growth of its agriculture and mineral export with an already boom in coffee output and expected Petroleum production. On the economic front, BRICS is also trying to come up with a framework that is Western sanction-proof with lower dependency on the US dollar, something that can also stabilize the Ugandan Shilling if membership status is attained.

Member states of BRICS also have the opportunity to work together on technology transfer, on renewable energy for example under the new Environmental working group that was put in place during the Kazan Summit in 2024. Collaborations on such aspects can bring about a robust industrial phase that the global South needs to undergo. Geopolitically, BRICS membership offers huge leverage diplomatically especially when it comes to the United Nations setup and the need for reform including more African representatives especially on the sticking issue of the security council and the unjust veto power factor.

For Uganda to be more pivotal and influential in East Africa, BRICS membership would go a long way to facilitate its position as a regional power house, which is already a key player in Somalia’s rebuilding and the establishment of the sovereignty of South Sudan as a new country in the world. BRICS has proved itself an a balancing force that has seen China and India considered to be global rivals work together, this can give a chance to Uganda to widen it’s foreign policy beyond the established world hegemony and former colonial masters.

The beauty is that the partner status phase of the BRICS gives Kampala the flexibility to maintain its western alliances with Washington and Brussels but at the same time being watchful of over reliance on any side which is the essence of multipolarity. The stage is also a time to align with the BRICS core principles while safeguarding national and Pan-African interests on the way to Member status.

For now, the path is set and clear in the Kazan Summit declaration of 2024 on how Uganda can attain full member status of BRICS and the work should be cut out for the respective government department, agencies and ministries to cross the line. Membership Status will bring about academic cooperation and research which is vital for innovation, there a global South common interests, a promising acceleration of nuclear power output to change the energy sector, BRICS members have demographics that transition to a market for what could take up Uganda’s potential agricultural output and most importantly membership status will provide equality among the sovereign nations for starters in the formation and in the long run at the United Nation.

The writer is a research fellow at Development Watch Centre.

 

Policy Volte-Face In Washington as The U.S Validates China’s Position on the Ukraine Conflict

Posted on By Musiime George

The principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, common development and political settlement of conflicts have always been a hallmark feature of Chinese diplomacy. For China, this position meant more than just rhetoric; extending  into policy implementation with the principles built into all of China’s partnerships. China resolutely chose to uphold these principles when it declared the “friendship with no limits” with Russia in 2022 which some western commentators argue is behind China’s stance on the conflict in Ukraine. China and Russia however, maintain that this friendship was not intended as  a direct challenge to the current global order but those that governed for always using it for their own geopolitical gains. Nevertheless, some commentators always  paint this friendship as an Anti-West alliance. Coming out of the Biden Administration which only  purposed to replenished Ukraine’s capacity to fight on not withstanding of the gravity of the crisis, China advocated for a negotiated end to the conflict from the start. This is why a policy volte-face on Ukraine in the US  is such a significant development in the global effort to restore peace in Eastern Europe.

The NATO alliance; a rigid anti-Russia stance and the brightest of all red lines. Russia has maintained, its interests in this conflict were purely self-defense unlike the West describing it as aggression or invasion. Albeit the different points of view, this essay is not dedicated to delving in the technicalities of this nomenclature. However, it is worth mentioning here that the push of NATO towards Russia’s doorstep has been highlighted as a strategic threat both from within Russian and the west alike. The expansion has been criticized in the West,  among others by,  Biden CIA director Bill Burns who referred to it as “…needlessly provocative at worst during the Clinton administration in 1998. He also went ahead to describe NATO Expansion in a 2005 letter to Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice as “the brightest of red lines.” Moreover, French president Francois Mitterrand, had earlier in the 1990s proposed dismantling the alliance after it had served its purpose following the end of the cold war. While different scholars have faulted this sustained expansion of the Alliance as a key factor in this conflict, the Validation of China’s position on the conflict could imply fresh hope for the region.

During a period when the world is dealing with a diversity of security concern, China is proposing The Global initiative is built on the principal pillar of security of all nations regardless. Therefore, with Trump’s reversal of Biden era policy on Ukraine, the world can expect to see progress in efforts to find a solution to this conflict. Indeed, were are at that point where a world weary of the prolonged conflict can expect to see some progress in as far as bringing the conflict and its associated negative impact on the world to an end. Additionally, president Trump has been moving first in this direction having already had a high level meeting involving secretary of state Rubio and Russian PM Sergei Lavrov in Riyadh, coinciding with restoration of diplomatic relations between the two nations. On the other hand,  parallel meetings with the Ukrainian have happened, putting together the conditions for a peace deal. The holding of parallel meetings also signifies a commitment to reaching a deal as the absence of both Ukraine and the EU in Riyadh might be interpreted as a move seeking to avoid stalemates characteristic of having NATO members-some of whom might still harbor the rigid anti Russia sentiments. Critics of this approach, have thus been,  those outspoken about the wanting to see the conflict going until Ukraine attains Victory, something Trump clearly does not see as a viable outcome, at least not in the short or medium term.

More so, the presidents view is not one shared by everyone of uncle Sam’s partners as expressed by frustration of some white house staff. Amid these frustration, Ukraine and some EU presidents have been faulted for attempts to denigrate President Trump’s peace efforts. However, his resolve to find a solution to this conflict at any cost has been demonstrated by his implied proposal that saving the lives of innocent civilians might even be so important to justify Ukraine ceding some territory. Additionally, Trumps earlier expressed position on the implications of  the “NATO burden” on the United States economy could be another factor informing his policy reversal. This with the fact that The US has been Ukraine’s biggest backer in the war also signal how room little President Zelensky might have to wiggle out of the deal especially that the US is considering scaling back its European deployment which would directly affect NATO deployment as well.

Obviously, one cannot deny the fact that ‘war fatigue’ started setting in as early as the second half of 2024 with Poland and Czechia among the first professed EU supporters of Ukraine to want out. Despite promises to support the war effort for as long as it took, the withdrawal of significant US backing would most like dent and eventually dwindle European interest in the war even further- making continued fighting unsustainable. Moreover, a poll by the Council on Foreign Relations in Feb 2024, indicated most Europeans anticipating the conflict ending in a compromise. In addition, the same poll also put at 10% the chance that Ukraine might emerge triumphant. Consequently, this dynamic will have a direct bearing on the outcome of the new US led peace efforts. Conversely, for those that might be against the concessions by the US regarding its military presence in Europe, NATO and consequently the war in Ukraine, this might be a start of a possible reorientation of Europe’s security strategies. However, this development is also likely to relax tensions on the continent and Russia’s urgency to develop security capabilities against the threat from NATO.

When president Xi Jinping first proposed the Global Security Initiative in April 2022, he envisioned global security in the sense of a balanced security landscape, one where the security of one does not threaten that of another. This is what makes US validation of China’s initial position on the Ukraine conflict, a huge prospect for peace in the region. Therefore, a peace deal in Ukraine, should it go through would be a right step in the direction a stable Europe, and here is why. In what seemed like giving a nod to the propositions of President Mitterrand and Bill Burns from decades ago, Trumps defense secretary Pete Hegseth told NATO allies that it was unrealistic for Ukraine to join the alliance. Albeit not being a direct support for the GIS, this position gives props to the cardinal principle of the GIS that advises against promoting one’s security by threatening another. Hence halting NATO expansion keeps the threat to Russia at a safe distance and, just this is a positive move towards not just US-Russia relations but also global peace.

Georgemusiime@dwcug.org

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

2024 BRICS Summit: Geopolitics, Geoeconomics and Supply Chains; the Group to Set New World Order

Posted on By Musanjufu Benjamin Kavubu

Many experts have reduced BRICS to a mood, Economists are even saying dollarisation is a myth for left sympathisers and a new enchantment for the global South. Those who take it seriously see it as a threat to the World Bank and the IMF, the former dealing with short-term development plans across the world and the latter dealing with long term fiscal policies, this sets the dollar as the global leading currency and a tool for Western hegemony.

The USA’s economy is based on their military might and NATO. As the world changes there have been many developments and to counter Western led multilateral groups the global South has BRICS, which as of 2023  expanded to 10 countries.

The current BRICS Summit is today 22nd to the 24th of October 2024. For starters it’s reported that 34 countries in one form or another have applied to join the group. The is being viewed as a counter to the G7 and it’s taking even a grander shape on the security front which is a key pillar of its founding.

From the 10th of September to the 12th 2024 the Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted a meeting of National Security Advisors of all the members of the BRICS and that meeting was under the organization’s Political and Security Pillar of Cooperation. There are about 53 conflicts raging in the world today, the Russia-Ukraine and the Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine are the most outstanding causing seismic Geopolitical shockwaves world over. These conflicts disrupt global supply chains that are very vital to globalization in terms of trade especially amongst BRICS and the global South.

Let’s understand what Supply Chains and Geopolitics are first. A supply chain is the network of organizations, people, activities, information, and resources involved in the creation and delivery of a product or service from the supplier of raw materials to the end customer. It encompasses all the processes involved in sourcing raw materials, manufacturing, logistics, distribution, and retail, including the management of these activities to ensure efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and customer satisfaction. Basically the definition of Supply Chains can be swapped for the essence of the Belt and Road Initiative by China that is now a decade and has facilitate development of the world in general.

On the other hand Geopolitics that refers to  how geographical factors, such as location, natural resources, and physical terrain, influence the political power, decisions, and relationships between countries basically international relations. Geopolitics is how nations use their geographical advantages and go about challenges to pursue economic, military, and strategic goals on the global stage. If you look at the foundation of BRICS, you will notice how geography affects global politics and international relations.

Security situations throughout history have proven far and wide effects across the world, effects on every aspect of life, from social to economic. And in the last about 24 months there have been military drills amongst BRICS members aimed at safe guarding trade routes and ensure smooth flow of supply chains that are vital for humans civilization. In 2023 the Russian and South African Navies got together for a drill, in the Second quarter of 2024 the Russian Navy conducted drills with Cuba a vital global South country and very recently the Chinese Navy joined Russia for the Ocean 2024 drill. These drills are aimed to prepare for eventualities that may affect sea trade routes, that’s why they were conducted in the Arctic, Mediterranean, Pacific, Caspian and Baltic water ways.

The world geography has these areas that are prone to military and naval blockages during times of conflicts. Areas like the Strait of Hormuz controlled Largely by Iran and BRICS member in the Middle East, connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea vital for global oil supply a lot of it ending China. It one the reasons China had to bring Saudi Arabia and Iran together through its Global Security Initiative GSI for normalizing diplomatic relations. The Strait of Malacca connecting the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea, essential for trade between Asia and Europe. The Suez Canal that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea helping to bypass the longer route around Africa. The Bab el-Mandeb Strait  between Yemen and Djibouti, connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, vital for shipping between Europe and Asia, has almost all major Navies operating in the area.

The Panama Canal that Connects the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits in Turkey a member of NATO but also seeking BRICS membership bridges the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, vital for Russian and Eastern European exports. The Cape of Good Hope on the South African coast serves as an alternative route if the Suez Canal is blocked, crucial for global trade. The Lombok Strait in Indonesia which is an alternative to the Strait of Malacca. All are Geopolitical chock points that are pivotal to global supply chains.

As the new world order faces off with the Western hegemony and developments like the BRICS bank being formed to counter the Bretton Woods another aspect is brought into play. Which is Geoeconomics that is basically about how countries use economic tools, policies, and strategies to advance their geopolitical goals. These tools range from trade agreements and investments for example the $ 50 Billion announced at FOCAC 9 in Beijing, to control over vital resources, like energy or rare earth metals.

Economic strength is a powerful asset in shaping global political power and achieving strategic ambitions. Sadly the West led by the USA and the whole EU see sanctions as the best tool to further this endvour. Today USA sanctions are used to disrupt global South supply chains which hinders development. It’s through embargoes that supply chains have taken the hit affecting even the most basic of traders in your local market to all kinds of consumers.

Supply Chains controls and disruptions even take extreme measures for example the latest case of Israeli operations in Lebanon, when a whole supply chains was compromised to plant explosives across the country.

The cross roads of supply chains, geopolitics, and geoeconomics is going  to shape the Multipolar world order, and the BRICS formation as a counterbalance to Western hegemony. It’s going to take everything for example naval drills and economic partnerships. Multipolarity is going to redefine everything. The current situations, mostly driven by the West, show how supply chains are no longer just about movement of goods but affect every aspect of modern human civilization.

Benjamin is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.