MARATHON OF SUMMITS

The end of June went down in history by a real marathon of global summits that significantly influenced the global politics amid the Russia-Ukraine war. It is these summits that shape the agenda of world players for the near future. Despite extreme uncertainty, this makes it possible to at least predict the basic contours of the emerging new geopolitical reality.

BRICS+: talks about everything

The first in a series of summits was the meeting of the leaders of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) on June 23-24. This time it was expanded to include 16 participants, hence the abbreviation of BRICS+. It was the 14th BRICS summit, which was chaired by China via videoconference. The participants of the event and its stated objectives left no doubt about the intention to develop a sustainable platform for cooperation between the countries that oppose Western influence to support a multipolar world.

Most of the member states follow an independent foreign policy course. However, economically they are highly dependent on the global situation, which is shaped by the policies of the most developed countries, including the US, EU states, Japan, South Korea and so on. In general, these countries want to get rid of the dictates of the world's leading economies and establish their own economic platform for cooperation based on the absence of artificial and politically motivated barriers for the movement of goods and services. Russia, Iran and, to a certain extent, China are under sanctions and other restrictive pressure from the world's leading economies. At the same time, the mechanisms of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) do not make it possible to contain such restrictions. Therefore, the leaders called on all WTO members, particularly Western countries, to avoid unilateral and protectionist measures that run counter to the spirit and rules of the organisation. During the summit, the parties agreed to work towards "long overdue WTO reform" to build an open world economy "that supports trade and development, maintains the WTO's central role in establishing global trade rules and governance, supporting inclusive development and promoting the rights and interests of all members, including developing and least developed countries.”

At the same time, the BRICS countries recognise the importance and exceptional role of mechanisms for the global regulation of market processes, such as the IMF, but insist on greater representation of developing countries in this structure. At the same time, they also see prospects in the creation of new global banking structures that stimulate economic cooperation, in particular the New Development Bank (NDB). They also supported the membership of more participants from developing countries.

Notably, the BRICS leaders have for the first time openly stated that they believed in the urgency to reform the UN Security Council to make it more representative. Given that Moscow and Beijing, two permanent members of the UNSC, had previously been sceptical about the idea, we can assume that recent developments, particularly the adoption of resolutions condemning Russia over its actions towards Ukraine, have forced Moscow to reconsider its initial views.

Regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, the BRICS leaders expressed their position as follows: "We reiterate the positions of our countries voiced on the relevant platforms, namely the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly. We support negotiations between Russia and Ukraine”.

One key outcome of the summit was the applications submitted by Argentina and Iran to join the format as full members. The BRICS states made it clear that they were not against expanding the membership, but were not yet ready to consider such applications. This could have a significant impact on the format itself, leading to its transformation and affecting its effectiveness.

EU: between gas and Ukraine

The EU summit was held in Brussels on June 23-24—at the same time as the BRICS summit. It differed from the summit of the P5+1 leaders in that it was held in a face-to-face format and brought together top officials who demonstrated their commitment to a common line of conduct on the key themes of the European and global agendas.

At each of the previous summits, the EU adopted new sanctions against Russia. The last one was an exception, giving rise to speculations that the sanctions limit was reached. It is believed that the seventh package will be extremely burdensome and will have a greater negative effect on European states themselves than on Russia. Later, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz admitted that the countries that imposed the sanctions had always said that the restrictions had to hurt Russia and its leadership to make the latter stop military action in Ukraine. But, he said, "at the same time they would have consequences" for countries that impose these sanctions.

The last EU summit was to develop a strategy to minimise the negative effect of sanctions. The main current challenge for the European economy is replacing Russian gas with alternative sources. This is being done on three fronts: finding other gas suppliers, energy savings and renewable energy. According to the President of the European Commission, thanks to negotiations it has been possible to increase the supply of pipeline gas from Norway by 15% and from Azerbaijan by 90%, while the liquefied natural gas supplies are 75% higher than last year.

Experts believe that European buyers are incurring significant costs by rejecting cheaper Russian oil and gas, which are now diverted to Asian markets and sold at a much cheaper price. As a result, the competitiveness of European producers suffers.

Another potential stumbling block for the region's economy is the possibility of a complete embargo on Russian gas supplies. This is something that already worries European politicians, as the eurozone economy could then face a sharp slowdown and make Germany's growth rate negative.

The EU summit not only granted Ukraine and Moldova candidate status for EU membership, but also tasked the member states with boosting military support for Kiev. EU leaders also approved Croatia's accession to the eurozone.

The summit was the last during the French presidency of the EU. For Emmanuel Macron, the presidency of his country was an opportunity to implement his global initiatives, which makes the French leader different from his colleagues. For example, EU countries supported the French president's proposal to create a European political community for interaction with European states outside the union, including the Eastern Partnership countries. At the same time, the EU made it clear that they did not see Russia in this format. Thus, the idea of Macron’s great predecessor Charles de Gaulle to see Europe united from Brest to Vladivostok has been truncated in the current version due to the concept of "excluding Russia from world politics and economics".

Brussels states that this format does not replace or transform the EU, but views it as a condition for strengthening the European political and economic space through intensified dialogue with all the states of the continent except Russia.

G7: Russia? We actually mean China!

The June 26-27 G7 summit followed the EU summit in the same vein with the discussions of measures against Russia and to support Ukraine. In contrast to EU members, the G7 leaders decided to tighten anti-Russian sanctions, such as an embargo on Russian gold exports. It is believed that Moscow earns $15.4bn annually from the export of gold. That’s why restricting the gold sales can affect Russia's military budget cuts. Meanwhile, Germany, France and Italy have not made a final decision on the issue. President of the European Commission Charles Michel said Brussels was "ready to discuss details and see if it is possible to hit gold in a way that hits the Russian economy without hitting ourselves.”

The same happened to President Joe Biden's proposal to impose a price ceiling on Russia's rising oil prices in order to deprive Moscow of the super profits to be redirected later for military purposes. Perhaps the G7 leaders have discussed only a mechanism that would not literally be a price ceiling yet would limit the prices. In particular, there could be a limitation or a ban on insuring Russian oil exports.

The summit showed that despite strong support for Ukraine, Germany and France would welcome an early end to military action, which is causing significant damage to their economies due to harsh sanctions. On the other hand, Britain and the US vote for the increased military support for Kiev, as they consider it unacceptable to end hostilities by losing part of Ukraine's territory. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, who joined the G7 leaders via a video link, also requested the acceleration delivery of weapons to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, in the final statement everyone agreed that only Ukraine itself could decide when and on what terms to end the war.

Interestingly, the heads of India, South Africa and Argentina, who were at the BRICS summit a few days before, participated in the extended format of the summit. They particularly discussed issues related to condemnation of Russia's actions in Ukraine and containment of China. This suggests certain political contradictions existing between the BRICS participants, which they do not publicise at high-level meetings.

In particular, the G7 leaders had rather lengthy discussions on the plan to raise $600bn to finance developing countries to counter the Chinese One Belt, One Road initiative. The US has pledged to raise $200bn of the total amount through grants, federal funds and private investment, while the EU has announced an additional $300bn. The plan provides funding to launch infrastructure projects in middle- and low-income countries. India is a potential, if not preferential, participant in this plan.

A day after the G7 summit, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said that the population of G7 countries is only part of the global community. He published a picture showing the population of the BRICS countries being approximately 3.2 billion people, while the number of people living in the G7 countries is far less, at just 777 million.

"Next time you talk about the 'world community', keep in mind what you actually mean," Zhao Lijian said.

NATO: Ending Old World Order

The NATO summit held on June 28-30 in Madrid ended the unprecedented marathon of global summits with the adoption of the new Strategic Concept. The difference with the previous one was that Russia's status was changed from "strategic partner" to "most significant and direct threat".

The summit participants also decided to admit Sweden and Finland as the new members of NATO. Russia regarded this move as creating a new 'iron curtain' between it and the West.

Turkey had earlier opposed the full membership of these countries in the alliance, demanding that the applicants extradite Kurdish extremists to Turkey. However, through the mediation of NATO leaders, personally Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, with the participation of Washington and probably London, the sides came to an agreement. As a result, Ankara lifted its veto on the participation of Stockholm and Helsinki in the alliance.

We can assume that Sweden and Finland have agreed to meet the conditions of the Turkish leadership, although their officials refuse to publicly acknowledge this. Turkish President R. T. Erdogan has partially shed light on the agreement, saying Sweden would hand over 73 terrorists to Turkey. He added that Sweden had so far extradited several of them, but that this was not enough. "The Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Intelligence are on top of the issue," Mr. Erdogan said.

The NATO summit also ended with a decision on the long-term support for Ukraine. As expected, Kiev was not granted candidate status for NATO membership. However, the Ukrainian authorities seem to have come to terms with this approach and in the current situation are focusing on increasing deliveries of striking equipment.

Kiev continues to say that Ukraine needs more support and a clearer perspective. Kiev is seen as a buffer between NATO and its strategic adversary, Russia. And a buffer with an active function to contain Moscow.

On the other hand, Moscow views Ukraine as a tool against Russia, a tool actively used by NATO. The Kremlin believes that the weapons dispatched to Kiev are designed not only to support Ukraine, but also to cause maximum damage to Russia's military potential. So that it loses its advantage as one of the leading global military and political actors.

NATO makes no secret of the fact that overwhelming military-technical and political-military superiority of member states is one of its main goals. Further increases in military spending and the creation of a $1 billion fund for investment in innovation are important steps towards this goal.

During the Cold War, this decision led to an arms race, as the two opposing camps—NATO with the US and the Warsaw Pact with Russia in the lead - embarked on an arms build-up, enhancing their military potentials in the main, strategic lines of confrontation.

There is no Warsaw Pact today, and Russia is far behind the West both technically and materially. So in the present circumstances an arms race is virtually impossible. NATO is quite satisfied with this, while Russia's position is of little interest to anyone.