“Axis of evil” expands and grows stronger, “axis of good”... hesitates and reflects

Another point is important: Ukraine is waging its own war for independence and has a chance to take revenge for previous defeats and centuries of statelessness.

The Kremlin and others: restructuring the “axis of evil”

Today, Ukraine's resistance at the cost of significant losses and destruction is not always perceived as part of pan-European security. 
 

By attacking Ukraine, Russia was trying to create a foundation for further expansion into Europe, and this desire is no longer a secret. The Kremlin viewed Ukraine as a potentially easy prey, and its occupation and subjugation not only brought the Russian army into the operational space, but also significantly strengthened Russia's self-confidence and added additional resources. Today, Ukraine's resistance at the cost of significant losses and destruction is not always perceived as part of European security. We need to work on understanding Ukraine's role in this context.

Having failed to realize its blitzkrieg intentions and being forced to plunge into the war headlong, Russia is trying to use its advantages in a cynical way. It is not only about attempts at nuclear blackmail, which is causing outrage in the West and concern in China. It is also a desire to significantly expand and strengthen the “axis of evil,” which, in Washington's view, consisted of several countries. In 2002, George W. Bush called them Iran, Iraq, and the DPRK.

Today, Iraq has become a country that, after its defeat in the confrontation with the United States, is certainly unable to spread evil. However, Iran and the DPRK are supplying attack drones and ammunition to Russia, Tehran is trying to ignite a war in the Middle East, and the DPRK military is appearing in Ukraine. These facts, by the way, prove the ineffectiveness of even large-scale sanctions against states that have tried  to sideline the global development process.

This fact is worth mentioning separately. North Korea is a totalitarian and militarized country that is in a state of permanent confrontation with the Republic of Korea. Divided by the 38th parallel, Korea has become one of the symbols of the Cold War, and now the Kim Jong Un regime is a reliable ally for Russia. The prospects of supplying the Kremlin with cannon fodder from the Korean peninsula are truly alarming. 

Despite the complicated logistics of deploying manpower, Korean soldiers have obvious advantages for the Kremlin: they are trained and no one will cry or worry about them in Russia, meaning that it is possible to increase the army without negative social manifestations. Yes, this step may indicate a deterioration in the situation in Russia, but it does not deny Putin's desire to continue his offensive in Ukraine. And the consequences of the ratification of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement between Russia and the DPRK by the parliaments should be taken seriously.

We should not seriously expect the Belarusian army to participate in the invasion of Ukraine. The Belarusian dictator is rather trying to demonstrate loyalty to Putin...
 

We should not forget about Belarus, the country that most actively supports aggressive actions among all of Ukraine's neighbors. Despite the fact that Lukashenko continues to exercise aggressive rhetoric, in particular in terms of nuclear blackmail attempts, one should not seriously expect the Belarusian army to participate in an invasion of Ukraine. Rather, the Belarusian dictator is trying to demonstrate loyalty to Putin, but as part of a geopolitical game with China, he must take care to preserve Belarus' formal independence. However, Lukashenko's loud statements certainly attract the attention of European politicians. They do not know how to respond to such stimuli in any other way.
 

Next week, Kazan will host the BRICS summit, an organization that for Russia is a symbol of the ineffectiveness of Western sanctions and demonstrates the existence of a powerful movement of those who disagree with Western policy. It should be understood that the expansion of the BRICS is perceived in Moscow as a victory for Russian diplomacy and the willingness of a number of countries to pursue a foreign policy different from that of the United States and the European Union. At the same time, in economic terms, the Kremlin is trying to use the BRICS as a way to circumvent Western sanctions against Russia, although, for example, energy supplies to India and China are hardly financially beneficial for Russia. I assume that the Ukrainian special services are also preparing for the summit in the capital of Tatarstan, because, for example, a failure to meet the schedule of guests' arrival in Kazan would be painful for Putin's reputation.

We are witnessing disturbing trends in the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East, where the flame of confrontation between the conflicting parties is not extinguished but constantly growing.  Indeed, compared to the scale of the Russian-Ukrainian war, the current tension in these usual hot spots is low, but the world is hardly ready for an outbreak of violence in several regions of the world.
 

The main question is whether the Kremlin will be able to go all-in in early November.
 

That is, to persuade its partners to use the US presidential election, the results of which may be difficult to summarize, to destabilize the situation in the world as much as possible.
 

It would be a mistake to tar all the BRICS members with the same brush, but one obvious fact is worth noting. Authoritarian countries such as Russia, North Korea, or China have the ability to make geopolitical decisions, effectively ignoring the opinion of their own citizens, since nothing depends on the procedure called “elections” in these countries. Therefore, when analyzing the actions of the BRICS, the principle of a fly in the ointment often works, especially when there are more than one of these “ flies,” although it is certainly not possible to talk about a fully coordinated economic policy of the Global South and Russia.
 

Euro-Atlantic uncertainty

In today's environment, it is not so much the countries of the Global South that are powerful as the cautious representatives of NATO and the EU. The United States (the traditional moderator of the West's geopolitical activity) under President Joe Biden is pursuing a course to prevent escalation in relations with Russia. As you know, Washington perceives Russia as a less dangerous enemy than China, as Russia is not able to dominate the world economically, and for China to become the number one economy in the world is a realistic task.

NATO, whose geopolitical raison d'être was revived after Russia's seizure of Crimea, turned out to be far from the image that Soviet cartoonists Kukryniksy liked to use. In fact, the North Atlantic Alliance is a defensive military and political alliance, and to say that NATO is ready to fight Russia today would be a lie. 
 

In the years since the end of the Cold War, bellicosity in NATO countries has been the exception rather than the rule

First, the Alliance has benefited from the Russian-Ukrainian war, with Finland and Sweden becoming members, making the Baltic Sea a de facto inland NATO lake. If we add to this fact that the distance from the Finnish-Russian border to St. Petersburg is only 70 kilometers, it becomes clear that Euro-Atlantic hawks have room to roam. But first, they will have to grow up: in the years since the end of the Cold War, bellicose fervor in NATO countries has been the exception rather than the rule. I hope that the gradual increase in defense spending will lead to a serious change in approaches to Russia.
 

The European Union, under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, is trying to act as a center of stability in Europe, but it is hard to say that it has been successful in this direction. The reason is obvious and trivial: democracy and the Kremlin's familiarity with the procedures of the Old World. The competitive nature of the economy, the perception of democracy and freedom of speech as sacred cows, respect for minority opinions and positions inherent in European politics are perceived by Russia as signs of Western weakness and it tries to use them to its advantage. This is done cynically and usually by someone else's hands, which has led to the emergence of a whole layer of “Putinverstehers” among European politicians. In addition, the Kremlin is quite demonstratively using “active measures” in the EU countries that demonstrate the greatest readiness to resist Russian pressure. And - understandably - it is skillfully, publicly and behind the scenes encouraging its allies like Viktor Orban, as if to say “We are ready to cooperate. Are you?”

The wave of publications in the Western media about possible scenarios for ending the Russian-Ukrainian war on a “here and now” principle shows that there are influential groups of establishment representatives in the West who like 'business as usual' with Russia. Their existence is, in fact, confirmed by the continuation of economic cooperation with Russia in the defense industry despite the publicly imposed sanctions. For these businessmen, the inviolability of the free trade principle dominates not only solidarity with Ukraine, but also common sense: only short-sighted people can believe that the Kremlin's aggressive intentions can be limited to Ukraine.

The Western world in the Euro-Atlantic format is experiencing an obvious crisis of positioning. The elites there cannot recognize the mistakes of three decades of trying to talk to Russia as a normal country, and they perceive military and security threats as ironic, at least. Indeed, the NATO military has increased the intensity of its exercises, but the question of their moral and volitional readiness to withstand possible Kremlin aggression remains open.

The cancellation of the Ramstein anniversary meeting due to Hurricane Milton not only hit Ukraine's defense capabilities, but also raised the question of the ability of Western countries to provide timely and effective assistance to Ukraine. Therefore, I would not be surprised if Joe Biden does meet with the leaders of Germany, the United Kingdom, and France during his working visit to Berlin on October 18.

Unfortunately, democratic political regimes are a priori unable to work as fast as authoritarian ones
 

Therefore, we cannot count on radical changes related to the US presidential election in November this year or the German Bundestag elections next fall. NATO, the largest security alliance in the world, is unfolding like a medieval knight on the battlefield. And this has only one advantage: this static nature will also apply to the new approaches to Russia that are now gradually taking hold of the masses of the Euro-Atlantic establishment. In terms of demythologizing Russia, the Ukrainian Armed Forces' operation in the Kursk region has played a significant role, demonstrating that the Kremlin's “red lines” are dashed.

Not a point, but a magnitude

What should Ukraine do in the current situation? Obviously, Ukraine's policy should not raise any doubts about its affiliation with the democratic camp. Indeed, for Ukraine, Russia's aggression is a test not only in military terms, but also a test of its ability to live within the matrix of democratic values.

Therefore, fighting corruption, preserving freedom of speech, improving the quality of governance and transparency of strategic communications are no less important to success in confronting Russia than effective mobilization and development of new types of weapons. The Russian Federation is superior to Ukraine in virtually all respects, except for moral and volitional ones, so Ukraine can effectively counter the aggressor only asymmetrically and with the conscious support of Ukrainian citizens. Frankly speaking, this is not an easy task.

Another goal is to prove Ukraine's value to NATO and the EU. Ukraine has to show the Western world that it belongs to it. Without exceptions and reservations. To do this, it is advisable to conduct a two-pronged information campaign. First, emphasize that Ukraine is fighting a war for independence, emphasizing its importance for the formation of the Ukrainian nation. Secondly, it should be noted that Ukraine is the largest country in Europe in terms of territory, and no integration project (European or Euro-Atlantic) will be complete without its participation.

Source

About the author. Yevhen Mahda, political scientist

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.