US Attempting Pivot To Global South--Can It Work?

As the disastrous Neocon war on Russia drags on, the BRICS nations—led, of course, by the very nations, Russia and China, that the Neocons have targeted for subjugation—go from strength to strength in their diplomacy and outreach to the Global South. In particular, African nations are seeking to break free from the remaining trammels of their colonial past, enshrined in their financial subservience. The Islamic world—including key oil producers—is also seeking to break free from domination by the Western financial system. The US appears to have taken note that it is the West that is increasingly finding itself isolated. As resources are coming to dominate the world, isolation from sources of natural resources is likely to become a major problem for the West. Not so much for the US, which remains resource rich, but definitely for its European vassal states.

And so the US, according to M. K. Bhadrakumar, is enlisting the aid of India to cozy up to the Global South. One of the things that stands in the way of the US in this regard is the implacable hostility of the Neocons to the two nations that the rest of the world looks to for leadership against Western domination: Russia and China. MKB discusses these issues in one of his trademark insightful articles today:

US stoops to conquer Global South with some Indian help

MKB focuses on the recent G20 meeting in India, where these issues came out in the open. First of all, in the runup to the G20 there was none of the usual Russia bashing from the Western participants, “as if on cue from Washington,” as MKB observes. Then came the Delhi Declaration on Ukraine—in which the US acceded. It was universally perceived as a diplomatic victory for Russia and a “climbdown for the US and the West.

As we’ve previously discussed, it has become more and more apparent that the US and the EU are desperate to find an exit from Ukraine via negotiations. The idea is to force Ukraine into negotiations with Russia—more or less in the same way that the US forced Ukraine to back out of its negotiated peace with Russia in April, 2022, and go to war. The US, through the Ukrainians, will cleverly pull the wool over the Russians’ eyes and talk them into a “frozen conflict”—just like in Korea—and then claim victory over Russia and exit. The fact that Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, has rejected the notion of a “frozen conflict” and stated that Russia’s aims remain the same as ever, well, that’s just a bridge to cross.

MKB asks whether the US “climbdown” at the G20 should be seen as “a certain nudge to Kiev to negotiate?” This may be, he suggests, the price that the US will have to pay to break out of its isolation from the non-Western world—a “frozen conflict” could even allow the US to “‘(re)connect’ with China and Russia as well as with the Global South. … The sense of urgency is palpable.”

The difficulty with this scheme remains. The Russians understand it—and reject it. Why would they walk away from victory, to help the US and the Neocons out of the hole they dug themselves into, leaving the West in the position of resupplying its Ukraine proxy to resume the war on Russia at some later date. What makes the sense of urgency so palpable is that the US knows that, probably sooner rather than later, Russia will launch its own offensive, with overwhelming force, against a devastatingly reduced Ukrainian military. I really like MKB’s summary near the end:

Considering the huge stakes involved in the launch of this new foreign policy approach to synergize US relations with the Global South, it is not really a big deal that Biden threw Ukraine under the bus during the negotiations over the G20 declaration.

The looming Russian offensive must be stalled somehow, as its inevitable consequence will be Ukraine’s “demilitarization” and “denazification” – the conclusive eviction of NATO from Ukrainian soil and the removal of the present viscerally hostile power structure in Kiev, which serves as a proxy of the US and NATO.

The number one priority today, therefore, is to freeze the Ukraine conflict at the present stage where Russia is yet to succeed in fulfilling its original objectives of full control of Donbass and the “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine – plus preventing Ukraine’s future NATO membership – while on the other hand, the Western alliance still retains the option to remain engaged with Kiev regarding the unfinished business of the war from the angle of European security.

... while Washington will continue to strengthen Ukraine militarily, Kiev must engage in dialogue with Moscow – consistent with the American riddle of “nothing without Ukraine.”

No doubt, this is a bitter pill to swallow for the regime in Kiev, weaned on outlandish notions of defeating Russia militarily. But what is the alternative?

Biden has started playing hard ball to win the 2024 election.

I just don’t believe the Russians are so stupid as to fall for this obvious ploy, nor are they desperately in need of a peace. Rather, the fact that such a scheme is being floated more or less in public seems to me to be a clear sign of Western desperation.

Alexander Mercouris delivered some remarks this morning that I found to be equally as insightful as those of MKB. This occurs toward the end of his presentation. He first recounts Zelensky’s interview with the Neocon outlet The Economist, then shifts to a response given by Blinken in an ABC interview. Mercouris maintains that the question posed to Blinken was solicited by Blinken so that Blinken could deliver a prepared statement as if he were answering a question—and that sounds about right to me:

ABC: Let me move on to your time in Ukraine [Blinken's 2 day trip to Kiev last week]. You spent quite a bit of time with President Zelensky. What is your sense? How does he see this ending? Does he see himself coming to a negotiating table with the Russians at some point? How does this end?

Blinken: ... [Boilerplate nonsense omitted]

Keep in mind that Putin has already lost in what he was trying to achieve. He was trying to erase Ukraine from the map, end its independence, subsume it into Russia.

[Mercouris: That's what Blinken says, but of course it's not true. ... Throughout March and April Putin tried to negotiate with the Ukrainians on all the points that he had previously set out. Of course Blinken won't acknowledge any of that. But we have to pretend that if we freeze the conflict Putin will have failed to achieve his original objective. So already we can see how a future, potential narrative--if negotiations get under way--is now being shaped. Then Blinken goes on.]

Now, where exactly this settles, where lines are drawn, that is going to be up to Ukrainians. But I found a strong determination to work to get their territory back that's been seized by Russia. And as to negotiations, John, it takes two to tango. And thus far we see no indication that Vladimir Putin has any interest in meaningful diplomacy. If he does, I think the Ukrainians will be the first to engage and we'll be right behind them. Everyone wants this war to end, but it has to end on just terms and on durable terms that reflect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

[Merouris: Now, that's completely different from what Zelensky has just said. Zelensky said that you can't negotiate with Putin at all. ... Blinken is saying that there have to be negotiations.]

Me: Blinken is dealing in weasel words. "Where lines are drawn." Is he by any chance talking about boundary/border lines? As for respecting "Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity," who's to say how those will be defined? Might not sovereignty and territorial extent be redefined through negotiations--and then the "reflection" of that new reality would be respected?

Now, I presume that the real Neocon goal here is a "frozen conflict" in which the West would not recognize any of the results and neither would Russia, but the fighting would--for a time--be at an end. Negotiations, are necessary now—but only as a Neocon tactic to stave off full and total defeat by “freezing the conflict” in place. Negotiations can go on and on, with nothing ultimately settled--except that the Neocons will claim a victory over Russia via the “frozen conflcit”. That's the real bottom line for the Neocons: no hard and fast commitments or concessions to Russia, because that would be admitting the unthinkable—defeat. They will cling at all costs to their mantra: “Putin has already lost.” The risk in this scheme, of course, is that the Ukrainians might take matters into their own hands and do their own deal with Russia. But such is the desperation of the Neocons, it seems, that they're willing to take that risk in order to free themselves of this tar baby.

The reality, of course, remains that top level actors in Russian politics have flatly rejected any "frozen conflict," regardless of what the Neocons would like. I think we can take that to the bank--simply in terms of Russian domestic politics, that's unthinkable. If Putin accepts a “frozen conflict” he will, indeed, have failed—which is exactly why he won’t do it. And there’s not reason to do it. The Russians will continue as planned and the Neocons will hope that Ukraine can somehow hold on until past Election 2024, so that the full scope of the disaster won't be too apparent to the few Americans who are paying attention. But that leaves the Russians with the strongest of motives to settle this before Election 2024 and to reveal the full scope of the defeat of the American Empire to the entire world—not least to the American public. That motive is revenge. Yes, Putin wants to secure Russia’s national security, but revenge will be a part of that.