The G20 summit without recognizing Russia as an aggressor: analysis

The annual summit of the leaders of 19 countries with the strongest economies in the world and the European Union was held in the capital of India, New Delhi.

As reported by Reuters journalists, the participants of the summit reached a broad agreement on such issues as cryptocurrencies and reforms of the multilateral development of banks, but not on Ukraine.

For several days, the leaders of the G20 countries tried to agree on the wording of the war that Russia started against Ukraine. In particular, US President Joseph Biden insisted on the support of Ukraine by the world’s largest economies, and the G7 countries insisted on a clear condemnation of the war.

However, as Bloomberg journalists note, during the work on the joint statement, Russia, which is part of the G-20, and the countries that show support for it, objected to any negative comments or sought to achieve a more moderate tone.

In the end, the joint declaration stated the need to respect the sovereignty of all countries but did not call the Russian Federation an aggressor state.

In the statement, the leaders of the countries also emphasize the negative consequences of the war in Ukraine for global food and energy security, supply chains, macro-financial stability, and inflation, and call for diplomacy and support for initiatives that seek to establish a “just and durable peace.”

Ukraine was also not invited to participate in the G-20 summit this year, unlike last year, when the summit was held in Indonesia.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine expressed disappointment with the “weak text” of the declaration. The spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Oleg Nikolenko noted:

“Ukraine is grateful to the partners who tried to include strong wording in the text. At the same time, the “Group of 20” has nothing to be proud of in terms of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

We spoke with Pavlo Klimkin, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, about the results of the G20 summit and their significance for Ukraine.

 

How do you examine the results of the summit?

I believe that the G20 summit, like all global formats, is gradually rebooting. For us, this summit was not a success, as we couldn’t reproduce the wording from the previous year’s declaration in Bali during Indonesia’s chairmanship.

The declaration is neither good nor bad, the declaration is simply nothing. But they’ve got a consensus. Which again is embarrassing for us. And from the point of view of the West, which was able to transfer bridges to non-Western countries through messages that there would be an increase in the allocation of grants and lending through the World Bank for development projects, for projects to combat climate change. This is an important point because many non-Western countries complain that “yes, we sympathise with Ukraine, but because of the war, we have no attention or money.” And so, the West tried to break this narrative, which is very actively spread by Russia, but also by others (in particular, partly by the Chinese). And in part, I believe, it succeeded (interrupt the narrative, — ed.).

And the last thing is that the Hindus were the stars of this summit, they had been preparing for it for a year. As you can see, they even put a different sign for themselves: not “India”, but “Bharat”. It is important for them, because “India” is a name that has a geographical connection to “Indus”, and “Bharat” is after all about greater spiritual and national unity. Hindus, by the way, flew to the moon. And much more successful than Russia. To have a counterweight, to have a balance. Well, this also created the conditions that India wanted to remain the main player and star of this summit, and if Ukraine was there, then, of course, this stardom is partially Indian, but it would be spoiled. That is, my main conclusion is that the result is definitely not positive, but there is no disaster.

Ukraine was not invited to the summit this year. Many call it treason. And what do you think about this? Why weren’t we invited?

That is precisely because India did not want to shift the focus from itself. And this is not the only reason, but actually the main one. That is, it was very important for India to show the ability to talk to everyone. India is an independent player. India is gradually thinking about future geopolitics, in a simplified form as a certain triangle: States, China, and India.

Well, the second reason is the desire of the West to calmly talk with non-Western countries. With the African ones, since the African Union has formally acquired membership in the twenty, which is actually not bad, we have additional channels to communicate with them so that we understand what is happening. You see the numbers in the declaration: by 2030, only non-Western countries need to invest 4 trillion annually in order to fight climate change. It is obvious that both money and, most importantly, technology can come only from the West. And this is an important element of addiction. And, of course, it is important for us that the West does not understand who is the source of technology and money for it, and that it is not China, and even more so not Russia.

Many G20 leaders, including US President Joseph Biden, tried to push for a tougher wording on the war in Ukraine, but such a compromise was reached. Could our Western partners push, or what was this compromise for?

They could, but then there would be no final declaration. And the final declaration is important. There are 30 pages, if I’m not mistaken – 83 paragraphs. Of these, 10 or 11 are devoted to politics and geopolitics. And there are many things aimed at how international development institutions will work in the future, in particular, the World Bank, how lending and development aid will work. If it were to collapse, all non-Western countries would have a very bitter aftertaste and an understanding that there are different priorities, and even if they understand that Ukraine needs to be helped, they believe that key interests need to be balanced.

For us, it is a completely different story, for us Ukraine is above all, and for some – the projection is completely different and it is impossible to convince them with value arguments since the war has been going on for many years, suffering, victims, hunger… I work with Asian countries, and with Latin American and African ones. They say: “Yes, of course, we see that this is aggression, we see that international law does not work, but to explain to our citizens, who have been fighting for many years and are suffering…it is actually very difficult. They can see it on TV screens, but they don’t see it as something we have to sacrifice for.” And this is also a big question. We must understand others, we must treat them with respect, their thoughts, their emotions. This does not mean that Ukraine should not be above all else for us, but we simply have to understand the world and work with it. Compromises can sometimes be made; the main thing is that they do not turn into concessions.

We talked more about the global implications of the summit with Stanislav Zhelikhovskyi:

“In general, it is worth noting that currently there are diverging opinions as to whether the summit should be considered more of a victory for Russia or the United States, but there is still a consensus that the meeting held in New Delhi is primarily the success of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. I generally share the point of view that there are rather certain victorious achievements of Western leaders, first of all the USA. However, of course, it should be understood here that the declaration that was ultimately adopted, although it covers many important issues, including climate change, the food situation in the world, the fight against poverty, and the like, unfortunately, the Ukrainian issue was not covered as much as Ukraine would have liked. The report was formed somewhat softer than at last year’s summit on the island of Bali.

It is good for Ukraine that it is mentioned at all (in the declaration, — ed.), but there is a tendency to soften such documents, and this can be an alarming signal both for Kyiv and for other countries that may suffer from those or other aggressive actions.

Another not-so-pleasant moment is that Ukraine was absent, there were no representatives of Ukraine even online, unlike the Balinese meeting.

And here it is worth noting that the ambassador of Ukraine in India made attempts to receive an invitation, but, unfortunately, he did not receive the result. In general, Ukrainian diplomacy really worked in this direction, but the very position of the Prime Minister of India played a role here. He very much preferred to see Vladimir Putin, who did not come, at the meeting table in New Delhi. One of the reasons why the president of Ukraine was not invited may be that the two leaders, who are now on different sides of the barricade, would not sit at the same table.

Western countries insisted on condemning Russia. But, unfortunately, without the wording that we have, this resolution would not exist. And, in fact, a compromise was reached neither with Russia nor with China.

We see the strengthening of ties between Western countries and the same India. And that’s why many observers now say that the idea of this summit is not to rent an arena of opposition to the Russian Federation, but is a game against the People’s Republic of China.

Of course, India itself benefited from this meeting, which, although not a Western country, tries to cooperate closely with Western players. But at the same time, it balances between the West and Russia, and we also know that there are very big contradictions with China.

For the Western world, especially for the United States, this summit can`t be considered a defeat.

It is important for the Biden administration to show both international partners and — most importantly — the domestic consumer, the citizens of the United States of America, that the United States is worried about the fact that China is challenging the global arena. The G-20 summit could be one such platform, a tool to counter China. Perhaps this will really add additional electoral points for Biden so that he can win in the upcoming elections. Let’s say it is important for Ukraine, because there is a risk that Donald Trump may return to the position of president, and he has openly anti-Ukrainian statements.

Also, at this summit, a new corridor was created that will connect India and the European Union. African Union countries are also invited to the G-20. To take the initiative in the region of the African continent is to have your own agenda. This can also be considered a defeat for China, because China has great influence in Africa, and every year it has only increased because it has given a lot of loans and things like that.

And from the point of view of geopolitics, we can still say that China was given preference at the summit. Russia has nothing to play here yet.

If, after all, the Western world proves that it is ready to play a leading role in the future than it was in previous years, then this will have a positive effect on us as well, since the West will be able to invest more financial and economic resources in our state, and provide more weapons”.

“There is a serious reformatting of the international order”

We also talked about this topic with Andrii Senkiv, an expert in international politics and security policy:

“The points of the Declaration of the G20 countries concerning Russia’s war against Ukraine are very weak and clearly not in favour of Ukraine. The approval by the world’s leading democracies of a statement containing only calls to states to act in full compliance with the UN Charter, with no emphasis on aggression and the importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, a sluggish position regarding economic cooperation of some countries with the aggressor and their non-compliance with sanctions, is a step back in diplomatic support of Ukraine. Of course, the question arises: would it be better if the Declaration did not contain these points at all, given the economic focus of the G20? There is no clear answer to this question. But the non-participation of the Ukrainian side at the summit shows that the agenda of the meeting and consolidation of pre-worked issues were much more important for the G20 members than the issue of the Russian-Ukrainian war.

According to the results of the G20 summit – it is clearly visible that a serious reformatting of the international order is taking place. The focus is not on compliance with current international law, but on the confrontation (primarily economic) between the USA and the People’s Republic of China. The United States is actively working to win as many countries of the Global South as possible to its side in this struggle, including India, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf monarchies, offering cooperation on more favourable terms than China. Moreover, along with the purely economic aspect of the construction of a transport corridor that will connect Southeast Asia with Europe (a de facto alternative to the China Road), negotiations are ongoing regarding the basing of the American Navy in India. These transport corridors and hubs in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan and Egypt will essentially bring the region on par with Europe in terms of economic importance.

But whether international law will undergo significant corrections, or whether the current period of arbitrary interpretation will end with a return to its origins, we will see. But it can be stated unequivocally that economic and security expediency (interests) and the “right of the strong” dominate now. Accordingly, many states ask themselves questions every day: with whom is it more profitable for us to cooperate – with Ukraine or Russia, the USA or China, the principles of democracy or the “right of the strong”? And can he cooperate with everyone when it is profitable and where it is profitable? And we increasingly see that decisions are made solely with one’s own benefit in mind, often contrary to international law.”

Consequently, the G-20 summit in New Delhi became quite controversial and received different assessments from experts. However, it is impossible to call him unequivocally treasonous.

Anya Ostymchuk