Briefing Note: Russia’s Policies and Implications for APEC

Purpose

To inform APEC leaders of the strategic risks posed by Russia’s current foreign and economic policies and their potential impact on regional stability and economic cooperation.

---

Key Observations

1. Militarisation and Geopolitical Assertiveness

   • Russia prioritises hard power over diplomacy, using the Ukraine conflict as leverage for global influence.
   • Increased military presence in the Arctic and Asia-Pacific signals readiness to escalate tensions, undermining regional security.

2. Economic Weaponisation

   • Energy exports remain a geopolitical tool, with infrastructure projects used to divide allies.
   • Despite extensive sanctions, Russia sustains its war economy through alternative trade networks, deepening global fragmentation.

3. Strategic Dependence

   • Russia’s “pivot to Asia” has led to structural reliance on China, limiting autonomy and raising long-term viability concerns.

---

Implications for APEC

• Trade Disruption: Russia’s stance on sanctions and WTO mechanisms introduces friction into APEC’s consensus-driven model.
• Security Spillover: Militarisation risks transforming economic forums into arenas of strategic rivalry.
• Normative Erosion: Push for “multipolarity” challenges rules-based governance, creating uncertainty for smaller economies.

---

Recommended Actions

• Reaffirm APEC’s Core Principles: Emphasise rules-based trade and economic cooperation.
• Strengthen Collective Resilience: Diversify supply chains and enhance energy security to reduce vulnerability.
• Engage with Caution: Maintain dialogue on economic issues while countering destabilising tactics through coordinated responses.

---

Bottom Line:
Russia’s policies combine revisionist geopolitics, economic opportunism, and strategic dependency. APEC must navigate engagement carefully to safeguard stability and uphold its mission of inclusive, sustainable growth.

The dangerous game between the US and China

The ongoing conflict between the US and China is reaching new levels of danger. It would be a mistake to see it as just a trade dispute. This is about rivalry on all fronts. The US President and his circle have a clear objective: make sure China does not become a menacing strategic challenger. Their strategy is based on two premises. First, if they manage to slow down the economic power of China that will have an impact on the country’s internal stability, making it more difficult for the Chinese to be a major world power. Second, they are convinced that the Beijing leaders will blink first and yield to the American interests. In the famous game of chicken President Trump seems to be playing, the one who gives up first loses.

In my opinion, both American premises have shaky foundations. China is on course to be a be a global power and they will keep that ambition on a steady road. The economic growth is strong enough – over 6% per annum – to ensure it will happen. They will be able to fully challenge any other country, including the US, by 2030, at the latest. Secondly, the game of chicken is always a disaster. It will certainly be a disaster if the other player is China. Its leaders cannot yield to the Americans. They will play with prudence, but the end game, on their side, is to respond to confrontation with their own type of confrontations. That is disaster in the making. That is the reason we should not take the current crisis lightly. And that is why I think we need a third-party mediation as soon as possible. The only problem is that I can’t see any actor or institution being able to play such role.

When the generals write open letters

Over 120 US flag officers – generals and admirals – wrote an open letter yesterday to remind the key leaders of Congress and the top people in the Trump administration in charge of foreign affairs, defence and security that national security is a complex issue. It calls for a comprehensive approach that goes well beyond the military means and the armed response.

In today´s world, national security and the protection of key strategic interests are above all done through means of healthy diplomatic relations, efficient development cooperation and other external programmes that combat poverty, exclusion, disease and bad governance.

As such, these top commanders urge the Administration and the representatives of the American people to keep the investment of public resources on those programmes that fall under the State Department and have been designed and improved over time in order to more effectively prevent conflict in other parts of the globe.

This is a position that calls for wide support. It is the modern way of looking at international relations and of promoting peace and stability. Its relevance is even greater because it is stated by people that know about matters of war and peace. They understand the limitations of the use of armed forces. They are also people who have seen the world. They know what they are talking about.

The link to the letter is the following: 

http://www.usglc.org/2017/02/27/over-120-retired-generals-admirals-on-state-and-usaid-budget-now-is-not-the-time-to-retreat/

Brief note on the EU Global Strategy

In the future, the EU development cooperation policy cannot just be focused on governance, security and human rights. These three domains are certainly crucial. We need to see improvements in all of them. But we cannot ignore the food security challenges, the health needs, education, gender equality, energy and some critical infrastructure. They still required massive foreign aid. They are also essential to lift people out of poverty, including the future mothers of tomorrow. And to make sure people feel encouraged to remain in their native lands. A comprehensive view of development cannot just be reduced to one size fits all.