The Summits’ Results

Not Credible

All experts interviewed by the Carnegie Europe think tank last week have been skeptical about a key decision made by the EU at its June 23 – 24 summit: to grant candidate status to Ukraine, while denying any progress to the non-EU countries of Southeastern Europe, which are also seeking EU accession.[1] According to one of the statements, the sentiment in Southeastern Europe is summarized in a June 24 headline of a newspaper: “To Ukraine, Everything; To the Western Balkan Countries, Nothing.”[2] The EU’s promise to admit the countries of Southeastern Europe is “far from credible,” another statement notes. To regain credibility, the EU must undertake “a radical shift,” another expert concludes. The shock caused by the Ukraine War could have been the stimulus, but the EU missed its chance. As far as the EU’s accession promise to Moldova and Ukraine, “many observers doubt that it is a credible or even a realistic promise.”

Bad Checks

Various skepticism was also expressed regarding the June 29 – 30 NATO summit. The summit’s decision to massively militarize the alliance’s eastern flank was particularly hailed. There was talk of increasing the number of high readiness forces from 40,000 to well over 300,000 already next year. How this should be accomplished is unclear, of course. In view of the increased focus by Germany’s naval forces on the northern flank and particularly on the Baltic Sea, aimed at Russia, Inspector of the Navy Jan Christian Kaack had already called at the beginning of last week for “reassessing the deployments in the Mediterranean” and their necessary “flexibilization or termination.”[3] On Wednesday, a journalist of the Financial Times reported that he had spoken to representatives of various major member states, in the wings of NATO’s summit, about their announcement to increase high readiness forces to 300,000: “They know nothing of these promises and have no idea, how on earth” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg came up with that number.[4]

Transition to Diplomacy

Criticism has also been voiced about NATO and its member countries’ continued focus on arming Ukraine, which was reflected during the summit in new supply commitments. Parallel to the summit, Charles A. Kupchan from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the USA, pointed out that the transatlantic alliance must finally “take up the hard part,” and clarify how one can transition “to a diplomatic strategy,” aimed at producing a cease-fire and peace negotiations. This is not only necessary to end the “death and destruction,” but because the continuation of the war could also “threaten the Atlantic alliance from within.” Even with additional weaponry, Ukraine cannot win the war, but it may well mean more loss of life and territory, warns Kupchan.[5] In the USA, the war is leading to a dramatic hike in the price of gas, food, and other essential items and drives inflation to record heights. In Europe “persistent inflation and the prospect of energy shortages next winter” could also weaken Europe’s resolve in its support for Ukraine. This could well produce a “political backlash” on the home front.

Only Symbolism Politics

Lastly, the G7 Summit’s appraisals are not very flattering. It remains unclear how the maximum price for Russian oil, which was decided at the meeting, is supposed to be enforced. Some specialists, for example the energy expert, Norbert Rücker, at the Julius Bär Bank, considers that it is mere symbolism politics; the western governments want to suggest: “We’re doing something.”[6] Regarding the announcement that in the next five years, US $600 bn will be made available particularly for the development of the infrastructure in developing countries, the reaction was that this is merely a “pipedream.” The resources for the project that is meant to compete with China’s new silk road, is, to a large extent, supposed to come from private investors; whether the G7 will contribute new funds, or will merely redirect already existing budget resources, is unknown.[7] The attempt to convince the five guest nations at the summit – India, Indonesia; South Africa, Senegal and Argentina – to join the West’s sanctions polices against Russia was a failure. It was declared that “no other partners against Russia” were found.[8] This was not least of all demonstrated by the fact that just a few days after the G7 Summit, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed the global energy market with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as well as an expansion of their bilateral trade relations.

“The West Loses Out”

Just prior to the G7 Summit, Modi and Putin had participated in the online summit of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). One of the important topics of the meeting was the discussion of suitable measures for counteracting the increasingly extensive sanctions being imposed by western powers on Russia. Even an alternative to the US dollar, as the world’s reserve currency, was discussed. One of the key issues discussed at the summit from June 23 – 24, was the intention to expand the BRICS-format with new members. Particularly Argentina is in discussion. Iran would like to join and Saudi Arabia has already shown interest. Recently the Canadian futurologist and geostrategist Abishur Prakash noted in reference to Saudi Arabia, that in BRICS, not only Russia and China have joined together as rivals of the United States. The US leadership and its global footprint have eroded, Prakash notes, and to such an extent that some of America’s closest partners, like Saudi Arabia, “are looking for alternatives.” If BRICS does take on new members, this would mean that “for the first time since World War II, the US would not be the center of a group driving geopolitics.”[9] If the development continues along this path, the previously unthinkable could happen – “the West loses out.”

For more information on this subject see: The West Against the Rest.

[1] Bosnia-Herzegovina has been waiting for years for the status of an accession candidate, Albania and North Macedonia have still not been allowed to begin accession negotiations, Kosovo still has not been granted visa facilitation. See also The EU’s Credibility and Die Glaubwürdigkeit der EU (II).

[2] Judy Dempsey: Judy Asks: Are the EU’s Enlargement Promises Credible? carnegieeurope.eu 30.06.2022.

[3] Inspekteur der Marine Vizeadmiral Jan Christian Kaack: 100 Tage im Amt: „Kursbestimmung 2022”. In See, 27. Juni 2022.

[4] Press conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg following the meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of Heads of State and Government with Partners (2022 NATO Summit). nato.int 29.06.2022.

[5] Charles A. Kupchan: NATO’s Hard Road Ahead. foreignaffairs.com 29.06.2022.

[6] Gerald Hosp: Die verführerische Idee eines Preisdeckels für Erdöl. Neue Zürcher Zeitung 27.06.2022.

[7] Julia Löhr, Manfred Schäfers: Das 600-Milliarden-Luftschloss. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 28.06.2022.

[8] G-7-Staaten finden keine weiteren Partner gegen Russland. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 29.06.2022.

[9] Abishur Prakash: How an expanded BRICS could lead the world instead of the waning West. scmp.com 28.06.2022.