Tag: Russia

Russia’s Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin’s visit to China Sets a Stage for an Ideal World

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

Franked by senior officials including his two deputies and several ministers, the Prime Minister of Russia Mikhail Mishustin visited the People’s Republic of China (PRC) between 3rd and 4th November to attend this year’s China-Russia regular meeting. Having gone on annually since 1996, the consistence of this practice is significant enough on a bilateral level to merit its own deep-dive but for this occasion, we will delve into its implications for the present global tides.

It is not controversial at all to posit that the west is troubled by the China-Russia alliance. In fact, President Trump openly vowed to do everything he could to break the bond as early as during his 2024 presidential campaign. Many more political commentators have gone on to marshal intellectual resources towards the cause including the Center for Naval Analyses and Domestic Challenges which has suggested counting on India’s relationship with the two countries as the thing that will wedge a war between them. When the reality on ground continues to act against these wishes therefore, the US could not be more displeased.

The bone in the meat of the solidarity that continues to flourish between the PRC and the Russian Federation (RF) as exemplified by the recent high delegation event lies in the joint communique that the premiers of either state appended their signatures to on Tuesday. Its terms make clear for instance, the fact that the signatories will work together to oppose “unilateral coercive” measures placed on any of them. This is a big deal considering that we are looking at two world economic giants.

Further, it is noteworthy that the communique is not an ambiguous statement as is common to see in instances where political players find themselves having to say something even when they really do not want to. In this case however, China is explicit about what they are bringing on the table as is Russia. The former thus committed to supporting its counterpart’s territorial integrity while the latter country expressed its full support for the one-China principle. If there were any doubts left, President Xi could not have cleared the air in a better way when he later met with the visiting statesman in saying that cooperation was of mutual benefit.

The breadth of the results that the Hangzhou deliberations between the representatives of the Communist Party of China and those of RF gave off is equally something to watch with raised eyebrows for anyone in Washington as it shows the degree of seriousness with which Beijing and Moscow are taking their partnership. The fields of agreed collaboration include; agriculture, improving navigation compatibility, humanitarian cooperation, academic exchanges, streamlining customs related activities, finance etc. This then will only add to the progress that close-ties over the years have yielded. China is already the biggest oil purchaser of Russian Oil for example.

Another point on this continuum regards the long-term and ambitious nature of the projects Russia and China have agreed to pursue. Take the roadmap towards establishing an international body to monitor developments in artificial intelligence that was given the timeline of 2026-2030 . Given that it is much more difficult to walk away from something to which one has invested vast sums of money, endeavors like this are only poised to create more and more room for the super powers to work together.

With all that said though, the biggest message that the regular meeting sent may very well be best understood if viewed in the light of the unprecedented comradely that has sprung up between China and Russia this year even for nations that have had strong ties going back several decades. Already, the heads of states of each country have visited the other in their homeland making it three consecutive years that the tradition has been going on. President Xi graced the Victory of the Great Patriotic War celebrations in the Red Square back in May before President Putin returned the courtesy during China’s commemoration of seventy six years of World War II triumph over Japan four months later. Couple that with remarks such as the object to jointly elect a nuclear plant on the moon also announced in early 2025 and you see what I am getting at.

When on October 31st the Russian spokesman told local media that his country viewed the trip that PM Mishustin was slated to embark on in a few days as a “very important” one hence, he meant every sentence of the words he uttered. And no one understood him better than those that have long borne the consequences of similar efforts in the past.

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

Analysing Putin’s Stance on U.S. Sanctions and Escalation

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

Dear Editor, last month on October 22, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he had cancelled his planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which was scheduled to take place in the next two weeks in Budapest, Hungary. He told reporters at the White House that “It just didn’t feel right to me,” and that he did not want a “wasted meeting.” Almost simultaneously, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned Russia’s two largest oil companies, Open Joint Stock Company Rosneft Oil Company (Rosneft) and Lukoil OAO (Lukoil). Soon afterwards, the European Union also imposed another round of anti-Russian sanctions on items such as toilets, motorised toys, puzzles, and tricycles.

When a journalist asked Putin to comment on the fact that the EU had cancelled the purchase of Russian toilets, he jokingly retorted that that would cost them dearly. He advised that they would generally “actually need them in today’s situation if they continue to pursue the same policy toward the Russian Federation.” While this sounds both like a joke but also a stern warning to Europe, I think EU leaders had better heed his word. Better to err on the side of caution.

We should remember that Putin and Trump held talks on August 15, 2025, at the Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, to discuss the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War. Although the summit ended without an agreement being announced, Trump later called on Ukraine to take responsibility for the next steps of ending the war by ceding territory. Both the Alaska meeting itself and the place where it was to be held were proposed by the American side. Moreover, in an undiplomatic act of intimidation against Putin, as the two leaders walked to the platform where the meeting was to commence, the United States Air Force fighters and a B-2 bomber flew overhead. However, Putin gentlemanly never made a fuss of it.

Speaking about Trump’s decision to cancel or postpone the Hungary meeting, Putin rightly said that dialogue is always better than any confrontation or, all the more so, than war. Russia has never shied away from holding any dialogues. The ball has often been in America’s court to determine when and where.

As for the sanctions that have been further imposed against Russia, this is the same old game, nothing new. Just like it was in the past, whereas the sanctions will certainly affect Russia in some way, they have proved to be incapable of significantly denting its economy. In his first term, Trump introduced the largest number of sanctions that had ever been imposed against the Russian Federation up to that time. The sanctions have both a political and an economic aspect. Politically, the West uses sanctions to try to pressure Russia to negotiate out of weakness. However, Putin’s stance is gritty. He asserts that “No self-respecting country and no self-respecting people ever make any decisions under pressure.” Undoubtedly, if anyone has read European history, they would know that Russia towers through history as one of the most self-respecting countries and peoples.

It is also misguided for America to continue economic sanctions toward Russia, as it weakens the Russian-American relations, which have only just begun to recover.

The sanctions are also likely to puncture America’s economy itself, so they are shooting themselves in the foot. Today, the United States produces about 13.5 million barrels per day, ranking first. In second place is Saudi Arabia, producing around 10 million, and the Russian Federation is in third, with about 9.5 million barrels per day. However, the United States consumes 20 million. They sell some of their oil and then buy even more, mainly from Canada. So, producing 13.5 and consuming 20 million barrels is not a very good position to be in, and worse, sanctioning one of your key trade partners. On the other hand, Russia and Saudi Arabia sell more oil and petroleum products. Saudi Arabia sells about 9 million tons of oil and petroleum products to foreign markets, while the Russian Federation sells 7.5 million tons. That means Russia’s contribution to the global energy balance is very significant.

Therefore, Trump’s move to break the balance that Russia brings to the global energy market is a very reckless task, which will most certainly affect American interests too. To replace the contribution of Russian oil and petroleum products on the world market is harder than Trump may comprehend, since it takes time and requires large investments.

The consequences of the sanctions are now bare, and can be seen in how the International Energy Agency is even proposing and encouraging participants in economic activity to invest in hydrocarbon energy, contrary to the contemporary acclamations for going green. Additionally, Trump seems not to understand or outrightly ignore the fact that the world economy is growing, and energy consumption is increasing. So, it is not possible to sharply increase production at once, at whim.

Economic principles also make it obvious that if the amount of oil and petroleum products on the world market sharply decreases, prices will rise. Putin minced no words in cautioning Trump about the sensitivity of such a downward spiral of things and the political consequences it would have on the United States electoral calendar.

It is commonplace to conclude now that it is in the interest of Trump and everybody to break the escalation of this conflict; otherwise, in the end, we shall all lose.

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

Inside the Russian Energy Week 2025 (Part II)

Posted on By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

Putin revealed Russia’s move to deepen cooperation in the nuclear industry with countries of the Global South, within the BRICS framework, while speaking at the Russian Energy Week. This is a good development for us in the Global South, since it is apparent that nuclear energy will become one of the key structural pillars of the future global energy balance. Russia is the only country in the world that is currently planning in the next 15 years to commission more than 29 gigawatts of nuclear power plant capacity. So, it is a great energy partner for any developing country.

The forum also contemplated the growing demand for electricity, which is being driven by the digital economy, including tools of artificial intelligence, blockchain, and facilities for data storage and processing. It is estimated that the energy consumption of data centers worldwide is already comparable to that of the entire heavy industry (Heavy industry is an industry that involves one or more characteristics such as large and heavy products; large and heavy equipment and facilities; or complex or numerous processes).

The third feature of modern energy which Putin talked about is the challenge facing participants of this global market. It concerns the technological sovereignty of countries that produce oil, gas, and other energy resources. Elites of the Occident arbitrarily refused to service the equipment for the fuel and energy complex supplied to Russia. They officially declared that they would not fulfill their obligations, proving that they are unreliable partners.

It is obvious that Western businesses and industries were forced to act this way under the pressure of their ruling political elites. This exposes the fact that Western technologies and equipment for the fuel and energy complex can become unavailable at any moment for geopolitical reasons. This is the reality of today that all our countries must consider.

President Putin advised that the smart and necessary thing to do now is to actively change the status of energy-producing countries from that of equipment buyers to technological leaders, to form at the national level a full-fledged energy sovereignty, from resource extraction and processing to the transportation of finished products.

On the sidelines of the Energy Week, a meeting of the Coordinating Council on import substitution of equipment in the oil and gas sector also took place. Some Russian companies had initially engaged in reverse engineering (of equipment) but improved quite quickly. The production of equipment by European companies is now becoming unprofitable, making them reduce their workforces, and they are beginning to lose technologies. On the flipside, Russian specialists are expanding, and becoming technological leaders, because their domestic market allows them to produce products at a good, profitable level. And now partners are appearing all over the world who today are purchasing this equipment already from Russian companies. Putin jibed at Europe for mishandling this issue, remarking that they… “Bought a ticket and didn’t take the trip just to spite the conductor. It’s nonsense, you see, utter nonsense.”

Russia’s production of extraction equipment and field chemistry is also growing. Domestic technological solutions are being implemented in the maintenance of fields and infrastructure. Russia possesses enormous engineering potential and serious scientific and practical groundwork in the fuel and energy complex, which has stood the test of time and proven its effectiveness in harsh natural and climatic conditions.

It has further harnessed the competencies, experience, and developments to advance even in complex segments of the energy sector, to extract hard-to-recover reserves, which is especially relevant for the oil industry. And it is committed to do this not only independently but also together with friendly states which perfectly understand the geopolitical risks.

Russia offers comprehensive technological cooperation among energy-producing countries that is not dependent on sanctions or external pressure, but rather genuine partnership based on the exchange of knowledge, experience, and the creation of industrial alliances.

As far as nuclear energy is concerned, Russia is truly an absolute leader with no dependence on anyone. Everything that is done in the nuclear sector is done in Russia. Putin’s promise is that this will absolutely be replicated in all types of the energy industry, and the same applies to oil and gas equipment.

A new term has now been coined in the business and expert circles to say that the world is entering an era of “energy realism”. The irresponsible actions of certain Western elites have led to a situation where the main focus is no longer on the parameters of the energy transition or on comparing emission volumes from different types of fuel. The determining factor has become access to fuel and energy itself, the presence of networks and pipelines, and the installed capacity of energy systems. Putin’s caution under these conditions is that it is especially important to manage resource extraction and reserves effectively, to ensure the technological and environmental development of the industry so as to supply the domestic market, achieve national development goals, and also fulfill Russia’s external commitments.

Certainly, the Russian Energy Week revealed that Russia is strengthening its position as a global energy leader, and developing partnerships aimed at building a fair and sustainable model of global energy in the interests of future generations.

Nnanda is a senior research fellow, Development Watch Center.

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