The visit of President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) to Russia, scheduled to begin on Monday (14), sends the wrong signal to the world: that using military threats to resolve disputes is a tolerable path. The assessment is by Melvyn Levitsky, former US ambassador to Brazil (1994-1998) who also worked at the US embassy in Moscow.
“The trip makes no sense in terms of Brazil’s position on international law. The country has a reputation for being very careful about respecting international rules. It is a very active member of the UN, and the UN Charter forbids trying to resolve a dispute or impose its will on another country by military means,” he says.
Levitsky, 83, served as a US diplomat for 35 years. He is currently a professor of international politics at the University of Michigan. in conversation with the leafhe also commented on Putin’s motivations for putting pressure on Ukraine and Russia’s rapprochement with China.
How do you evaluate President Jair Bolsonaro’s decision to travel to Russia? It’s a trip at a very bad time, when 100,000 Russian soldiers are marching to the border and threatening a neighboring country. An important country like Brazil making an official visit at this time is really [passar] a wrong signal — not just to the Russians, but to several other countries that may have similar disputes. There are many disputes over borders in Africa, for example. We do not want the erosion of the principle of resolving disputes peacefully rather than threats of military action.
The trip makes no sense in terms of Brazil’s position on international law. The country has a reputation for being very careful about respecting international rules. It is a very active member of the UN, and the UN Charter prohibits actions of this kind, such as trying to resolve a dispute or imposing its will on another country by military means.
looks like the president [Bolsonaro] thinks keeping the trip is a normal thing to do. I read in the press that he said that [a viagem] it was a long-standing plan, but that’s not a good excuse. That could be delayed very easily, given the tension that exists right now. I don’t see any real justification on the part of the Brazilian government as to why this visit seems to be so important now.
Could the visit cause problems for the Brazilian government’s relations with the administration of Joe Biden? The relationship has deteriorated, based on what Bolsonaro said, but also because of the way he dealt with Covid and his open support for the pandemic. [ex-]president [Donald] Trump. However, personal relationships are important, but not everything. There is still an important Brazil-US relationship. I was ambassador in Brazil and we [EUA] we have always considered it very important. In terms of trade, private investment in Brazil and vice versa. That [a viagem à Rússia] doesn’t help the relationship, but it will go on. It doesn’t have to be just at the top level. [entre presidentes].
What could Brazil do to try to help resolve the crisis between Russia and Ukraine? Brazil is an important power. It has a lot of influence, worldwide relations and a very good Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with very well-trained diplomats.
It would be very helpful if Brazil made some kind of statement on the issue of a country like Russia threatening a neighbor, it could help convince Russians that actions like this are outside international law. And there are many developing countries that follow what Brazil is doing. Any statement from Brazil is quite influential.
How do you evaluate the actions of Biden and the European governments in the current crisis? Biden has done a good job because he is very close to his allies in Europe. NATO has made it clear that Ukraine does not yet qualify for membership and that it may take time before it meets the parameters.
My feeling is that negotiations in the case with Russia basically involve saying, “Let’s calm this down. Get your forces out of there. Ukraine isn’t going to join NATO tomorrow or for the foreseeable future.” And try, as we say, to take it out of the oven and put it in a water bath. The situation needs to calm down, and that is what the US and other NATO allies are trying to do.
Let’s see what Putin’s response will be. No country will give a guarantee that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO. Such a declaration would do a lot of damage to the principles of international relations, to the freedom of countries to choose with whom they will ally themselves and what relations they will have.
Do you believe that there is a real risk of an invasion by Russia? If there is an invasion, despite all international resistance, Russia would lose influence around the world. If Putin wants Russia to regain its great power status, [invadir] it’s the kind of thing he shouldn’t do.
The tension should go on for some time. It’s one of those situations where Russians need an excuse to back off. And that can take time. Russian troops are there. Ukraine is also now very well armed. And if Russia invades, the Ukrainians will be fighting on their territory against an invader. So the incentive will be very strong. I don’t like to make predictions because in international affairs you never know, but my feeling is that this [a crise] it will boil for some time and maybe then cool down. And gradually disappear.
Why does Russia care so much about keeping NATO at bay when there is no palpable threat of a Western invasion of Russia? Putin has been in power for a long time. He has already said that the greatest tragedy in recent history was the fall of the Soviet Union. Remember: he was raised as a KGB figure, he had a career in the midst of communist Soviet ideology. This is not the ideology he is advocating, but the sense of “we need to go back to being a great power”, with the same power as the US, France, Europe, etc. It’s a compulsion of his, and he has good support in the country, as well as a strong oligarchy that has become very rich and has benefited from his rule.
It’s not an ideology like the Cold War, but there is a lingering resentment in Putin and the Russian elite that their place in the world has been diminished. The country’s economy is not doing very well. The population has reduced considerably. Russia has a lot of land, but much of it is unproductive. So there’s an almost paranoia about perceiving threats. NATO is not threatening Russia, it was not designed specifically against Russia, although [se contrapor à União Soviética] was its original objective during the Cold War.
The sense that Russia is being diminished in the way it is seen in the world has a powerful bearing on Putin. He wants to regain great power status. Its military capability is still very strong, even though the economy is not doing so well. And there have been protests in the country. So this could be part of Putin’s plan to “bring Russia back”.
like the Mr see the rapprochement between Russia and China, highlighted last week after Putin met with leader Xi Jinping in Beijing? China is very wary of the Russians. It has always been that way, even during the period of the Soviet Union. The Chinese are very sophisticated in their foreign policy, and giving a signal that they have a productive relationship with Russia is something they see as a positive thing for themselves. They had this meeting to show that they have relations with all countries and are involved in major international issues.
andChina and Russia could create a kind of alliance against the US? I’m sure Russia would like something like that, but I don’t think China sees it as in their interest. The US is a big customer of China, and much of the Chinese economy depends on exports. And if the relationship [com os EUA] get to the point where Americans start looking for other manufacturers, China would suffer a lot. It is us [americanos] we need the Chinese because they produce a lot of things that we don’t produce anymore. So I don’t think China would go that far to support Russia.
X-ray
Melvyn Levitsky, 83
A US diplomat for 35 years, he was ambassador to Bulgaria (1984-1987) and Brazil (1994-1998). He also served as the person in charge of US-Soviet bilateral relations and was an employee at the Moscow embassy. He holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Iowa and is currently a professor of international politics at the University of Michigan.
