Nihilism or optimism: the global disorder

 The International Disorder: Nihilism or Optimism?

Victor Ângelo

“God is dead,” proclaimed the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche at the close of the nineteenth century. Fundamentally, this phrase signified that religion—particularly Christianity—had ceased to serve as the principal source of traditional values, and that a new era demanded a different moral framework. Nietzsche’s intent was to draw attention to the necessity of transcending the phase of disorientation that invariably accompanies a paradigm shift, and to encourage reflection upon the future.

Were Nietzsche alive today, he might well have his protagonist declare, “the international order is dead.” Such a statement would imply that the global legal and institutional architecture, which fell into a coma in February 2022, has now, at the dawn of this year, finally expired following recent events and proclamations that have shaken the international stage.

Following this line of thought, one might assert that we are presently living through a period of political and moral nihilism. That is to say, the fundamental norms governing relations between states—such as the inviolable sovereignty of all, the prohibition of force in resolving disputes, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of others—are being openly flouted by global powers. As was recently remarked in an interview with the New York Times, the only moral framework that appears to prevail is that defined by those who wield power. This is the essence of nihilism. Institutions and conventions are regarded as obsolete, ineffective, and thus to be disregarded. Such is the case, among others, with the United Nations system, which has been progressively marginalised by the leaders of the major powers.

It is within this confused and uncertain context that this year’s Davos gathering will take place, from 19 to 23 January. Hundreds of leaders from across the globe, representing government, business, and civil society, will convene in the Swiss town in a “spirit of dialogue”—the event’s guiding theme. It is heartening to speak of dialogue at a time when it is so sorely needed. Above all, it is vital to resist fatigue and cynicism in the face of the complexity of new realities. The current challenges demand courage, candour, and greater diplomatic skill. Dialogue, indeed.

For the first time, a large-scale participation from the Global South is anticipated. This reminds us that the future must take into account the interests and concerns of those countries excluded from the old, developed West. The Global South also seeks to remind us of the need to reconstruct the multilateral system, integrate emerging economies into a balanced framework of global trade, and address issues of development, excessive sovereign debt, health, and climate.

The President of the United States will be present in Davos. It is expected that there will be a meeting with President Zelensky and those European leaders willing to support the implementation of the peace plan for Ukraine. This is an important development, although I remain convinced that we are still far from seeing Vladimir Putin accept the plan in its current form. In recent times, Putin has intensified his aggression and war crimes against Ukraine, thereby signalling his reliance above all on war and the violence of force. For him, the international order that has been law for decades is, in fact, dead.

Europeans must prepare to confront the consequences of this new paradigm, and in particular, the threat now emanating from the Kremlin and other sources. Thus, beyond discussing Europe’s contribution to the execution of a possible, albeit distant, peace plan, it is essential to accelerate cooperation among European states and invest in a coordinated manner in the autonomy of defence within our geopolitical space. In doing so, we demonstrate our understanding that the world has changed and is, for now, a perilous place in which to live.

Simultaneously, Europe should, in alliance with the democracies of the Global South, play a more active role in reforming the multilateral system, especially the United Nations. This is a task that will enable us to face the future with renewed optimism and to build bridges with other regions of the globe. The message here is clear: Europe believes in the importance of international law and stands ready to contribute to a fairer rebalancing of relations between states.

The signing of the EU–Mercosur Trade Agreement, which will take place tomorrow in the Paraguayan capital, illustrates the path that ought to be followed. The presence of Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa in Asunción to sign an agreement that has taken decades to reach fruition largely contradicts the thesis that the international order is dead. I hope that Davos will also reveal that, in these uncertain times, there remains space for imagination and the will to approach the future with optimism.

_________________________________________________________

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-desordem-internacional-niilismo-ou-otimismo

A summary of my recommendation about Russia-EU negotiations

 

Summary of Key Points

• US Sanctions on Russian Energy Giants: The United States, under Donald Trump, imposed sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil. The implementation for Lukoil was postponed, allowing time to sell foreign assets and cease activities in Bulgaria, pending US approval. These sanctions threaten the survival of Lukoil and will significantly impact Russia’s public finances, as Rosneft is a major contributor to the Russian budget.

• Effectiveness and Purpose of Sanctions: The main question is whether the resulting financial strain will push the Kremlin towards peace negotiations, which is the US intention. However, the author doubts sanctions alone will quickly change Russian policy. Still, sanctions are justified against regimes violating international law, aiming to weaken Russia’s capacity to continue its aggression against Ukraine and to send a strong message of condemnation.

• International and Humanitarian Considerations: The UN Security Council is unlikely to approve sanctions due to political constraints, so individual states must decide their own measures. Sanctions should respect humanitarian principles, not harm civilians, and aim to resolve the conflict, specifically to end Russia’s unjustified war against Ukraine.

• Kremlin’s Stance and Leadership: The author believes Vladimir Putin is not seeking peace or a ceasefire and expects the war in Ukraine to intensify. Putin is increasingly isolated from diplomatic advice, relying instead on economic and security officials. The choice of Maxim Oreshkin (an economic adviser) to represent Russia at the G20 summit highlights the regime’s focus on economic stability and the importance of economic sanctions.

• Putin’s Geopolitical Ambitions: Putin seeks a legacy as a great Russian leader and only values negotiations with major powers like the US and China, dismissing European leaders as less significant.

• Recommended EU Response: The EU should act on three fronts: continue supporting Ukraine, rigorously enforce existing sanctions, and be ready to engage in serious talks with Russian leaders.

• Role for António Costa and the EU: The author suggests that António Costa, as President of the European Council, should be given a mandate to open direct communication with Putin, aiming to start a dialogue that could benefit both sides and promote peace in Europe.

• Urgency for European Action: There is a pressing need for the EU to act before the US and Russia reach an agreement that sidelines European interests. The EU must be persistent and realistic, recognising that Putin sees negotiations as a means to assert his ambitions, not to seek compromise. The EU should not be discouraged and must assert itself as a major geopolitical player.

Russia and the European Union: dialogue is one of three key dimensions

Russia Must Listen to the European Union
Victor Ângelo

Today, 21 November, was meant to be the day when American sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, two giant Russian conglomerates in the oil and gas sectors, would come into effect. This decision by President Donald Trump, taken a month ago, was recently amended with respect to Lukoil. The company now has until 13 December to sell its foreign assets and until April next year to cease all activities in Bulgaria. Several firms are interested in purchasing the assets in question, but transactions can only be finalised once approved by the Trump administration.

Lukoil, a privately owned company listed on stock exchanges, is a global colossus. Most of its operations take place outside Russia. The profits and dividends it generates weigh heavily on the Russian economy. The decision taken by Washington puts Lukoil’s survival in jeopardy.

For its part, Rosneft, a company controlled by the Kremlin, is the largest contributor to the budget of the Russian Federation. Should the sanctions become effective, they will have a significant impact on the country’s public finances.

The question that remains unanswered, for now, is clear: will the loss of revenue and the resulting budgetary imbalances be enough to convince the Kremlin that there is an urgent need for peace negotiations? That is Trump’s intention. My experience tells me that such an outcome is unlikely. Sanctions, by themselves, tend to have a slow impact on the policies they aim to change.

Nevertheless, I support the application of sanctions against regimes that act outside international law. In this particular case, it is about significantly reducing the financial base and other means that enable Russia to continue its unacceptable aggression against Ukraine. It is also about sending a strong political message of absolute condemnation.

There are no conditions for the United Nations Security Council to approve any package of sanctions targeting Russia. That would, in principle, be the appropriate process. Since it is not possible, each State must decide on the restrictions and pressure it is prepared to exert. However, it must respect humanitarian principles – sanctions must not endanger the lives of citizens in the targeted country – and the sovereignty of third States. They should also aim to contribute to resolving the crisis or conflict, and in this case, to stopping the unjustifiable war for which Russia is responsible.

In my view, neither a ceasefire nor peace are part of Vladimir Putin’s immediate plans. On the contrary, it seems we will continue to witness the intensification of destruction and death in Ukraine, sanctioned by Russia. The Kremlin is betting on war and is convinced it will eventually subjugate Ukraine. The information coming from Moscow indicates that Putin listens less and less to diplomats, including Sergey Lavrov. His main advisers come from the political police apparatus and the economic sphere. Consider who will represent him at the G20 summit this weekend in South Africa: not the Foreign Minister, Lavrov, but the Deputy Chief of the Presidential Executive Office, Maxim Oreshkin. He is an apparatchik with a background entirely linked to the management of the national economy. Concern for economic stability is a priority for Putin. This confirms the importance of sanctions in the economic and financial sectors.

Putin dreams of a victory that will see his name included in the history books of “great and holy” Russia, as he likes to say. His statements, endlessly repeated by the group that controls power and the media in Moscow, reveal a leader who only accepts negotiations with the great powers of the world – Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. The others are seen as minor players, of no value in the international geopolitical chess game. Putin does not wish to waste time in dialogue with European leaders.

The EU must respond on three fronts: maintain aid to Ukraine, rigorously apply the sanctions already approved, and show readiness to begin a serious process of talks with Russian leaders.

With regard to negotiations, my suggestion is simple: António Costa, as President of the European Council, must receive a mandate from the Member States granting the necessary authority to make contact with Putin. His office would then seek to establish lines of communication with the Kremlin, in order to convince the Russians that a cycle of talks between Putin and Costa could be beneficial for both parties and vital for the internal interests of the Russian Federation, as well as for peace in Europe.

There is urgency in moving forward on this front, before the US and Russia reach an agreement over the heads and interests of Europeans. Some will say this scenario is increasingly plausible.

All this must be done without illusions and with great perseverance on the European side. The messages coming from the Kremlin show that Putin sees any possible negotiation as an exercise in asserting his views and ambitions. For him, flexibility, concessions, the search for balance – all these are seen as weakness and admission of mistakes, whether his own or others’. This attitude must not discourage the European side. The EU must put on its boots and enter the geopolitical game, in the only arena that is truly its own, the championship of the great powers. Here lies both an opportunity and a historic obligation.