Is Russia developing an alternative international system?
Wow, a lot of things happened this week and most of them add to my pessimism from last week. They generally fall into two broad categories. First, there were several events related to the broader geopolitics of the war in Ukraine. The second category relates to elections in former Soviet republics.
The big international news from this week is that Russia hosted a summit of the BRICS group. BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. It has been around for a while and is supposed to represent the interests of “emerging” economies. For Russia and China especially, it is an attempt to create an organization to balance against the U.S. and Europe and to reform the global system away from the U.S.
The most astonishing event from the summit is that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres attended, on United Nations day no less. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not to mention Russia’s actions over the last 20 years, is, to put it kindly, a slap in the face of the UN Charter and the international legal order that the UN stands for. Guterres’ visit weakens the effort over the last several years to isolate Russia from the international community because of its disregard for the norms and laws of that community. It gives Putin the legitimacy and recognition he so desperately craves. Guterres did tell Putin his invasion was illegal, but so what. Putin got to pretend that his summit was a legitimate international summit and a viable alternative to international order that’s been in place since the end of World War II. No matter what Guterres said, his presence validates Putin’s goals.
The BRICS organization is expanding as well. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates were first time attendees and Turkey, a member of NATO, attended and expressed a desire to join. BRICS has up to this point has not had any real influence on international affairs. The diversity of interests of its members has meant that it has difficulty in agreeing on actions. The addition of new members only makes the organization more diverse and less likely to take significant action. However, they did produce a 43-page document, the Kazan Declaration, that outlines the desire to reform institutions, like the UN Security Council and the International Monetary Fund. Much of it is diplomatic speak, general enough that everybody can agree but not specific enough to take action. But it does signal a threat to the existing international order and thirty years from now we may look back and think that Guterres provided the final nail in the coffin.
Guterres had wanted to visit Kyiv after the summit, but Zelensky denied the request. Zelensky has every reason to be upset. Not only did Guterres add legitimacy to Putin, in June of this year he refused to attend the peace summit hosted by Ukraine in Switzerland. If he wants to stay neutral, then stay neutral. But by refusing to attend a peace summit hosted by a country that is the victim of aggression, but attending a summit hosted by the perpetrator of that aggression, Guterres has seemingly sided with the war criminal.
North Korean troops are in Russia, are likely to fight in Kursk, and Russia and North Korea have signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement. The agreement includes a provision that if one of the parties is attacked, the “other will immediately provide it with military and other assistance”. Understandably South Korea is concerned about this development and is likely to send some of its own military personnel to Kyiv as well as increase its assistance to Ukraine. The troops would not be combat troops but intelligence personnel to monitor North Korean actions and interrogate any captured North Korean soldiers. A stronger BRICS and stronger ties between Russia and North Korea are certainly a few ways this war could escalate. But wait, there’s more.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Russia has provided targeting data to the Houthi rebels of Yemen, who are backed by Iran. The Houthis have attacked commercial ships in the Middle East with missiles and drones, and now there is evidence that Russia assisted them. This is yet another example of how Russia has attempted to sabotage and create disruptions for the US and Europe around the globe. It takes attention away from Ukraine and creates a sense of chaos that feeds into arguments for the US and Europe to stay out of global affairs. Speaking of Russian attempts at disruption and misinformation.
Not only has Putin been talking to Trump, but according to another Wall Street Journal report, he has been talking with Elon Musk. One of the big takeaway from the story is that Putin asked Musk to not activate the Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favor to President Xi of China, who Musk has also been friendly with. There are multiple layers to the revelation that Musk and Putin regularly talk. First is that Musk has several contracts with the US defense department and has access to classified information as a result. Not ideal.
Second, it leads to reevaluation of the role that Musk has played in spreading misinformation online and in pushing Putin’s “peace plan”. Perhaps Musk is not doing this simply because he thinks it’s the right thing to do or because he can’t discern what is real and what is fake. Musk has repeatedly retweeted false stories and images, amplified pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian rhetoric as well as promote stories that sow division and discord, which is what Russia wants. Perhaps last year when a Russian tv anchor bragged that Musk is “really our agent”, she was not joking.
It also recalls the quote from Dan Coats, a conservative from Indiana who served as Trump’s Director of National Intelligence. In Bob Woodward’s new book, he quotes Coats as saying, “is this blackmail?” in speculating why Trump’s behavior is so subservient to Putin. Coats is no RINO, never Trump squish. His conservative bona fides are as strong as anyone (as say Mike Pence). If Trump’s former Director of National Intelligence is questioning his relationship with Putin, the revelation that both Trump and Musk have been in communication with Putin is troubling, for Ukraine and the rest of us.
Briefly, on to the two elections. There were elections in Moldova last weekend. Moldova is a former Soviet republic that, like many others, has been the victim of Russian interference. It has its own “breakaway” region called Transnistria. Like others in its situation, many in Moldova would love to look westward and join the EU. One of the key votes last Saturday was whether to enshrine in the constitution a commitment to working toward joining the EU. The change narrowly passed. The other was a vote for president. The pro-western president Maia Sandu was the highest vote getter with around 42% of the vote, but did not receive enough votes to avoid a run-off. The run-off for president will occur today, between Sandu and Alexander Stoianoglo, who opposed the change to the constitution.
Russia interfered in the election in a number of ways. They did so by spreading misinformation and amplifying divisive news stories. They funded pro-Moscow opposition groups and even participated in vote-buying schemes. BBC has a funny video of a woman saying she was told she would be paid for voting no on the referendum but could not find the person who was supposed to pay her. Even though the referendum won, it was closer than it would have been without Russian interference and the closeness of the result allows Russia and its supporters inside of Moldova to spread the fake narrative that the election was rigged and stolen, sowing distrust with the electoral process. Sound familiar?
The country of Georgia, another former Soviet Republic that has “breakaway” regions friendly to Moscow has an election today too. Georgia has long desired to move closer to the west and to join the EU. The current government is led by the Georgian Dream party and a pro-Russian businessman, Bidzina Ivanishvili. Under his government, Georgia has become closer to Russia and has become more authoritarian. There are several smaller parties running in the election and according to the recent polls Georgian Dream has a significant lead. Russia has interfered in the runup to this election in many of the same ways they did in Moldova. It is worth watching what the fall out of the election will be. Will there be obvious electoral fraud that will lead to mass protest or will Georgian Dream’s hold over Georgia be solidified and they will move even further into Russia’s embrace?