What will be the results of the Xi-Putin talks? Shall we guess?
If you read the torrent of articles which American foreign affairs experts put out daily with respect to the future course and likely outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war you could be forgiven for thinking that you know something. However, for better or worse, no one really knows the true correlation of forces on the ground in Ukraine at present, nor do they know the strategic merits of the offensive/counteroffensives that the warring parties are planning in secret and will unleash in the coming weeks. So whether the war will continue for years to come or end in a couple of months with the capitulation of one of the sides is anyone’s guess. The only thing that is not guesswork is that the longer the war drags on, the greater the chances of some fatal miscalculation by one or another of the sides leading to escalation and WWIII.
Discussion in the Western media of the visit by Chinese President Xi to Moscow which begins tomorrow is similarly voluble and based on very few objective facts. The overriding issue guiding our experts is hostility to both leaders and to the countries they represent. Since I do not share that hostility and have a few insights that I do not see in play elsewhere, I will depart from my usual practice and step up to the scrimmage line.
*****
What we know about the forthcoming Xi visit to Moscow is that it is his first foreign trip after his reelection as China’s supreme leader and the consolidation of his pre-eminence by the appointment of his close supporters to key government positions. We also know that the timing of this visit was brought forward by several weeks from what had previously been mentioned in Russian media. And we know that it is for three days, which is a substantial block of time, enough to deal with some very thorny issues and not just to sign off on documents prepared by subordinates.
Russian media say that it will be used to conclude a great number of separate agreements for the implementation of the strategic cooperation the countries announced more than a year ago. One can easily imagine that these agreements will focus on the energy sector and on detailed projects to expand Chinese investment both upstream in exploration and production, and downstream in logistical solutions to bring Russian hydrocarbons to the Middle Kingdom. There probably will be further progress to announce in finance, namely in payment systems that will compete globally with SWIFT and in currency exchange solutions that effectively remove the dollar from their mutual trade.
We are also told that the heads of state will discuss one-on-one issues of international relations, and here is where I am predicting an announcement with respect to the Ukraine war, namely formal Russian acceptance Chinese mediation to arrive at a peace settlement built upon the 12 principles laid down by Beijing several weeks ago. After all, who would be a better ‘honest broker’ to facilitate the talks than the Chinese?
The world was thunderstruck a couple of weeks ago by the successful conclusion of an agreement reestablishing diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran thanks to mediation by the People’s Republic of China. The importance of that agreement can hardly be overstated: it potentially puts an end to the Yemen civil war, in which the Saudis and Iran had each been giving military support to their preferred factions in the conflict. That war not only created great human suffering in Yemen but for many years has threatened broader regional stability. The settlement opens the way for implementation of Saudi-Iranian letters of intent on commercial and investment cooperation signed back at the beginning of the millennium. These will go far to normalize the Iranian economy, to cancel the harm done by unilateral Western sanctions, and to promote domestic tranquility within Iran, all of which, in turn, will put legs under Teheran’s decision not to pursue production of nuclear arms.
The outstanding feature of the Saudi Arabia-Islamic Republic agreement was that it was mediated by an ‘interested party.’ Yes, China was not an ‘honest broker’ in the sense of a disinterested party seated high on Olympus. It is the world’s largest importer of oil, while Saudi is the world’s largest exporter, much of it going to China. And Iran is also a major seller to China. Accordingly it was in China’s interests that these two suppliers not force it to take sides in their dispute and resolve their differences amicably. Knowing both sides in-depth, the Chinese were well positioned to suggest compromises that could be acceptable to all.
I suggest that we consider China’s diplomatic feat in the Middle East as a dress rehearsal for the still bigger prize of mediating an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. Here, too, China is an ‘interested party.’
In this regard, we have to put the close strategic cooperation between Beijing and Moscow in the spheres of military exercises, mutual trade and diplomacy in the United Nations and other international institutions up against the trade and rumored military cooperation that China has going with Ukraine in supply of some critical components. Given the looming confrontation with the United States over its defense perimeter in the South China Sea and its plans for reunification with Taiwan, China would like to see an early end to the Ukraine war that leaves both warring parties viable and eliminates any possibility of revanchisme reviving in a few years time.
That leaves us with the question of why Vladimir Putin might be tempted to seek an end to the war right now, when his army has achieved only partial victory in terms of freeing the Donbas oblasts claimed by Russia from Ukrainian occupation. The reason should be seen in the points of China’s position paper on the war dated 24 February 2023 that deal with regional and European security, which were, after all the Realpolitik reasons for Russia opening its Special Military Operation.
The language in the Chinese paper regarding forging “an effective and sustainable European security architecture,” in which no country pursues its security at the expense of others, in which there is no ‘bloc confrontation’ – all of this constitutes the essence of what the Kremlin was pursuing with the United States and NATO in December 2022; it amounts to a rollback of NATO from its post-1997 forward presence in Eastern Europe. It amounts to a neutral Ukraine. This was flatly rejected by Washington, and the Kremlin then moved on to a military response to get what it wanted.
As for the romantic nationalism language that the Russian President used in his speech to the nation on the eve of launching the invasion of Ukraine, that was for public consumption, to sell the SMO to a Russian nation that is not easily moved by Realpolitik arguments. This is the truly negotiable part of the Russian program in Ukraine for which solutions can be found with Ukraine under conditions of professional and empathetic mediation.
Of course, the very first point in the Chinese position paper which emphasizes respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity will be a tough issue in any future negotiations at which the Chinese are mediators. As University of Rhode Island professor of political science Nicolai Petro and I proposed back in June 2022 in The National Interest, one solution would be to put aside sovereignty over the Donbas for resolution by some future referendum after a cooling off period that might run into decades during which each side would govern over the territory it held at the signing of the cease-fire. This idea has most recently been further developed by Paris-based international lawyer John Whitbeck (Counterpunch, 22 February 2023). Surely the highly professional diplomatic service of Beijing will be able to find a solution that satisfies the fox and keeps the chickens safe.
Finally, I point out that by accepting Chinese mediation based on their 12-point position paper, the Russians would be giving the lie to Western assertions that the Kremlin has no interest in peace talks, that Russia is hell-bent on territorial aggrandizement including absorption of Ukraine before moving on to invade the Baltics, Poland, etc. By smashing that propaganda narrative written in Washington and London, Russia will open the way for doubters within NATO and within the EU to find their voices and reject the further pursuit of war through open-ended funding and military supplies to Kiev. And that, friends, will by itself put us on the road to peace.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023