The G20 Summit this week showed that many countries don’t want to take sides, and some can be enticed to help end the war.
This year’s
G20 Summit reaffirmed two concepts many Western policymakers continue to deny: non-Western countries do not wish to isolate Russia and that they prefer immediate peace talks to end the fighting in Ukraine.
While the Biden administration is
reportedly taking more action on the diplomatic front, the West and its allies — merely 14 percent of the world’s population — remain steadfastly committed to economic warfare but have failed to play a constructive role in ending actual warfare.
Meanwhile, other world leaders have positioned themselves in neutral positions that enable them to function as mediators between Russia and Ukraine as well as, more crucially, between Russia and the West.
Turkey’s active engagement, starting
before the Russian invasion in February, has reduced the risk of a global famine thanks to a
grain deal it helped realize. Meanwhile, the West has not merely just failed to offer Ankara any rewards for this achievement but in effect continued to punish it.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed
shock at Israel’s unwillingness to provide Ukraine with Iron Dome but it’s entirely logical from Tel Aviv’s point of view. The Israeli security state has an incentive to see a militarily robust Russia, which has the capacity to restrain Iranian influence in Syria.
Arguably the countries with the most potential influence, namely China and India — both of which support a ceasefire and negotiations — have been given few reasons to get involved. Continued
U.S. antagonism of China on the issue of Taiwan and a
stubborn refusal to accept India’s pursuit of an independent policy has resulted in neither country wanting to be caught on the wrong side of Western sanctions while at the same time refusing to adopt their own.
For both countries, diplomatic involvement runs the risk of potentially alienating both Russia and the United States/West with little direct benefit. Without guarantees of short or medium-term benefits, neither country is likely to budge.
Some G20 governments may be able to play complementary roles. Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has advanced and hosted talks to resolve the
Venezuelan crisis and recently launched a
peace initiative for Ukraine.
Brazil’s reelected Lula da Silva balanced friendly relations with both the
United States and Iran as an interlocutor and can potentially do the same for the United States and Russia.
Mediation contributions can enhance both countries’ aspiration for middle power status, transcending their regional positions.
Instead of obsessing with the preservation of hemispherical hegemony, Washington should encourage bold initiatives that enhance the prestige of such states.
American sanctions are rarely temporary. The Kremlin likely assumes that Western sanctions on Russia are permanent, regardless of the conflict’s outcome.
Washington’s desire to incapacitate Russia means Moscow sees little economic value in negotiations beyond the financial cost of military expenditure.
According to chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, “
there’s an opportunity to negotiate” that should be seized. Now may be the moment to do so.