Bolsonaro made a serious foreign policy mistake in the Ukraine war, says diplomat

by

Brazilian diplomacy has experienced its worst days in recent weeks, by not explicitly condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in the assessment of Roberto Abdenur, advisor to the Brazilian Center for International Relations, Cebri.

The first message of harsh tone came from the country’s representative at the UN, Ronaldo Costa Filho, at a meeting this Friday (25), in which the country voted in favor of a resolution to condemn Moscow’s action – which ended up barred by the veto of the Russians themselves. .

A diplomat with a 45-year career, with a passage through the post of ambassador in Beijing and Washington, Abdenur says that President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) worsened the already compromised image of Brazil in the international community by declaring days before the war that “we are in solidarity with Russia ” —without specifying which aspect—, and the diplomatic corps did not know how to react. “Itamaraty clearly squirmed under pressure from Bolsonaro,” she says.

Abdenur does not believe that President Vladimir Putin has among his plans to go beyond Ukraine, but he is surprised and worried by the escalation of tension on both sides. “We are experiencing a rupture in the structure of the so-called liberal international order, founded on the basic principles of the UN and which has preserved world peace since the end of the Second World War, even through the Cold War”, he says. “It’s a very serious shock and it will have repercussions.”

How to interpret such an emphatic military action by Putin in Ukraine, even after numerous appeals from heads of state? If we look at history, there were two traumatic events for Russia at about the same time. The decomposition of the Soviet Union and the loss of Ukraine, territory that the Russians considered theirs. In December 1991, Ukraine held a referendum, more than 80% went to the polls and more than 80% voted in favor of independence — including the eastern regions, where the two self-proclaimed independent republics are today.

In a 2014 article, shortly after the annexation of Crimea, Henry Kissinger, one of the great statesmen of the last century, points out that Ukraine is divided between two parts that do not always understand each other – the predominantly Russian east facing Moscow, and the western Ukrainian proper and facing west. And that the country has a problem of national identity to solve, and it is important that none of the parties try to overlap.

This was broken by the civil war, provoked by the insurgency of pro-Russians from the east, inflated and supported, even militarily, by Putin. This kind of veiled civil war caused 13,000 to 15,000 deaths on both sides. Thus, Tsarist Russia, Soviet Russia, to this day, feels that it had a part amputated. That’s why Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as an independent state

From this perspective, would Putin have reason for the invasion, then? Absolutely not. Putin must be condemned and boycotted in the most vehement way possible. In the present day, it must be recognized that Russia has valid concerns about its security in the face of NATO’s expansion towards its borders. In international politics, a situation in which both sides have well-founded reasons is always more complicated. Ukraine’s accession to NATO would be the last domino to fall at the border.

Putin’s goal in Ukraine is not just to change the government. It is to change the regime and install another one, one that is sympathetic and obedient to Moscow, and an autocracy, like Hungary, Kazakhstan and Russia itself. Putin will not annex Ukraine, but he will surely maintain an occupation until he reaches some understanding.

It was a historic tension with predictable risks. There are two little-known facts that show this. During George Bush Sr.’s administration, Secretary of State James Baker was concerned that, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons were spread across different countries, including Ukraine on one side and Kazakhstan on the other. The US made a very big move with these countries and Russia itself, advocating that all the former USSR’s nuclear weapons should be concentrated in the hands of the new Russia, and that’s what happened.

Then Bill Clinton launched the Partnership for Peace. It was an attempt to prevent a new division of Europe and to include all countries, including Russia, in a grand scheme of collective security. This ended up not working. There was a change of government, and countries that had been part of the USSR felt threatened by the new Russia and, later, by Putin’s Russia. They sought refuge in NATO and were welcomed with open arms. But the latest NATO demonstrations have been worrying.

In what aspect? NATO issued a statement harshly criticizing Russia. But the secretary general declared that they are deploying troops from different countries to reinforce their presence in Eastern Europe and deter any Russian adventures. Biden said they will not accept the invasion of one centimeter of any NATO country. So the invasion of Ukraine is leading to a level of tension unheard of in Europe. 30 years ago, since the end of the Cold War, nothing like this has happened.

like mr. assess China’s stance? Xi Jinping, in a call with Putin, urged him to negotiate. But Russia and China have recently promoted an earthquake in the geopolitical order. The strategic alliance they announced contains a phrase unheard of in the annals of diplomacy, a “partnership without limits”.

Now, in practice, it’s not that limitless. At the UN Security Council meeting on the night of the 23rd to the 24th [de fevereiro], when the invasion had already begun, the Chinese ambassador said that it was necessary to take into account the legitimate interests of all nations, but that China reiterated its unwavering commitment to the principle of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations. Interestingly, in the most important body, Beijing has given Putin a hint, though without openly condemning the invasion, and is exerting pressure on Putin to negotiate with the other side.

He cannot help but heed Xi, because the partnership with China is fundamental to his regime of power.

It’s impossible to imagine that Putin didn’t foresee all this pressure, right? Calculated everything. As Biden said, while he was talking and seemed willing to negotiate, he was preparing the military escalation. And Volodymyr Zelensky [presidente da Ucrânia], innocent and concerned with avoiding internal disturbances, said that everything was normal. He failed to prepare the country to defend itself.

Putin knew that this would have serious repercussions, would lead to harsh sanctions. He has amassed a reserve of US$ 630 billion [R$ 3,2 trilhões] and made import substitutions. But Russia is not immune. So, we are experiencing a rupture in the structure of the so-called liberal international order, founded on the basic principles of the UN and which has preserved world peace since the end of the Second World War, even through the Cold War. And a very serious shock will have important repercussions.

In the limit, is a Third World War possible? It is such a distant, delusional hypothesis that I prefer not to elaborate.

like mr. assess the position of Brazil? Itamaraty clearly squirmed under pressure from Bolsonaro. The president made a very serious foreign policy mistake.

Mr. talk about his trip to Russia? It was inopportune and counterproductive. You see, he said that line irresponsibly, but it’s serious. It had repercussions, it was repudiated by countries that expected a different attitude from Brazil. Bolsonaro made the statement lightly, because he does not understand the consequences of what he says. But he had the opportunity to correct himself, he could say: “I wanted to express my faith in the negotiation, but now, given the gravity of what happened, I cannot help but criticize Russia.”

Which sentence did Mr. refers to? “We stand in solidarity with Russia.” Saying that meant supporting a regime of force that threatened the sovereignty and integrity of another country’s territory. The Bolsonaro government, from the very beginning, burned bridges with European democracies, with the US after the fall of Donald Trump, with China, with Argentina. Today he has little dialogue with his neighbors. It ceased to be a leader in South America and Latin America. It has no foreign policy worthy of the name.

He took the worst positions on environmental issues, human rights, risks to democracy, attacks on institutions. He really is an outcast, and it will only get worse if he takes a lenient stance on barbarism.

And Itamaraty squirmed to try to express itself about Russia without using the keywords in the present situation: invasion and condemnation. Brazil cannot hide behind the pretext that it has important relations with Russia in order to omit itself in the face of the brutal violation. Itamaraty used elliptical languages ​​to avoid talking about invasion.

The moment is decisive for preserving the honor of Brazilian diplomacy, the respectability of Itamaraty. People don’t think about it, but Brazil is part of the West. He chose the West when he declared war on Nazi Germany and sent troops to Italy in 1944. During the Cold War, when he was allied with the USA. This belonging even took place under the aegis of a dictatorial military government, capable of reconciling in foreign policy the fight against communism and the so-called third world.


x-ray | Roberto Abdenur, 79

Board member of Cebri (Brazilian Center for International Relations). He was a member of the Brazilian Foreign Service from 1963 to 2007, being ambassador to Ecuador, China, Germany, Austria and the USA. As a consultant, he accompanied chambers of commerce and business entities. Between 2011 and 2014, he was executive president of ETCO (Brazilian Institute of Competition Ethics)

You May Also Like

Recommended for you