For this week’s geopolitical look, we take a look at the “bad guys” of the international stage. We begin with an analysis of the de facto blockade of Odessa and other Ukrainian ports, stifling the flow of vital commodities out of the resource-rich country. We also examine in our second article how Putin’s threat of nuclear force has changed nuclear diplomacy, setting the world on a dangerous downward slope towards proliferation. From there, we pivot to China, examining how Xi Jinping’s aggressive policies have alienated the West while keeping their spheres linked through economic coercion. Finally, we conclude with a look at why the West may have to bring Putin to the table to avoid deeper international pain.

Why the Battle for the Black Sea May Be the Most Important Showdown in the War — For Ukraine and for the World

Joshua Keating, The Grid

Read the full article here 

The Black Sea may be the most important front in the war between Russia and Ukraine. Though Russia has not formally declared a blockade on Odessa, Ukraine’s largest seaport, the Russian Navy has effectively blockaded the Ukrainian coast by making the Black Sea too dangerous to travel through. Even if a shipping company was willing to take the risk, insurance rates have gone through the roof, further disincentivizing travel to Ukrainian ports. More than 80 merchant vessels are stuck in Ukrainian ports and at least 10 have been attacked. With goods unable to leave the ports, millions of tons of grain are not being delivered to millions of the world’s poorest people who are heavily dependent on Ukrainian grain. Ukraine is a country rich in commodities, so it is not just food that is being affected by the maritime blockade. Ukraine produces half of the world’s supply of the neon gas used to produce semiconductor chips and it is also a major producer of the wire harnesses used in the electrical systems of European cars. With the war taking a massive toll on the Ukrainian economy, the country is relying on foreign aid, but this is not sustainable and it will not resolve the Black Sea blockade. While some have proposed international naval escorts to protect merchant ships in the Black Sea, a number of political issues make this difficult, including the fact that Turkey has cut naval ships off from access to the Bosporus Strait and that NATO countries are reluctant to send their sailors into a situation where they could become involved in direct combat with the Russians. So far, Ukraine’s supporters are providing Ukraine with the firepower to fight the blockade themselves. Ukraine, and the world, desperately need to gain control of the Black Sea. World Food Programme Executive Director David Beasley warned last month, “Millions of people will die because these ports are blocked.”

A New Nuclear Era

The Economist

Read the full article here

At the outset of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the Russian president warned that interference would bring consequences “such as you have never seen in your entire history.” This thinly veiled threat of nuclear force has thus far been effective – while NATO’s response has been firmer than expected, the group has been hesitant to send advanced armaments for fear of provoking Russia. The success of Putin’s nuclear blackmail is likely to encourage other actors, such as Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, to expand their arsenals. Vulnerable states such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Japan, and South Korea would have added incentive to expand their own nuclear capacity, especially in light of NATO’s apparent inability to push back against a rogue nuclear power. Proper arms control is a virtuous goal, but fear is a powerful motivator. If his tactics are successful, Mr. Putin’s nuclear bullying will set precedents for bad actors. To prevent escalation, NATO must find a route to rebuff Putin without further endangering Ukrainian lives.

Xi’s Third Term Would Be Another Step Backward for China

World Politics Review

Read the full article here 

Xi Jinping is expected to be confirmed for an unprecedented third term at the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) later this year. However, Xi’s aggressive foreign and domestic policies have alienated many outside of China, and a growing number of voices within it. While there are some rumblings within the Party of a bid by Premier Li Keqiang, Xi’s vice-grip on power is unlikely to come loose any time soon. Should Xi continue his path, China’s attempt to cut off Lithuania from the EU for its support of Taiwan may only be the first in a long campaign of economic warfare as China leverages its economic might. China is notoriously territorial on what it considers “internal affairs,” viewing any criticism as “interference in China’s sovereignty.” Countries who have taken a stance on the inhuman genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the military bullying of Taiwan, and the draconian repression of Hong Kong have been met with fierce and unapologetic “wolf warrior” diplomats, who weaponize Western social issues to divert attention away from China’s abuses. When UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet toured Xinjiang in late May, the UN’s traditional standards for such visits were set aside for fear of waking the dragon, and Xi capitalized on the opportunity to spew nationalist rhetoric. This is only the latest example of the West cowing to China’s redlines due to fear of retaliation. As one Chinese observer noted, progress is “not coming to a halt…We are driving in reverse while stepping on the gas.”

“Dealing with Horrible Leaders Is Part of the History of International Relations”

Bernhard Zand, Spiegel International

Read the full article here 

In his interview with Spiegel International, Harvard University political scientist Graham Allison believes the US will ultimately have to negotiate with Putin, “a demon”, and find a way to coexist with Russia, just as it did with Mao and Stalin: “Dealing with really horrible leaders, even mass murderers to the extreme, is part of the history of international relations.” While there has been quite a bit of debate around the question of whether or not Putin is a rational actor, Allison argues that he is because he is purposeful and calculating in order to achieve an objective. The major question US leadership needs to analyze is: “Can Putin lose this war, and can he survive if it is an unambiguous loss?” Allison says, if Putin’s a rational actor, the answer to this question is no, he can’t. If Putin has to choose between losing and escalating the level of violence, he is going to choose the latter and he would probably do it in the form of a tactical nuclear weapon. This is why Allison believes it is necessary to “stop the killing now” and give Putin the choice of winning something over losing everything. When posed with the question of what this something could be, Allison said the US needs to give Putin something that would allow him to spin his narrative into a win, such as the ability for Putin to declare to the Russian people that they’ve consolidated their control of the Donbas and now have a land bridge to Crimea. In the end, Putin will really be suffering a strategic defeat, but we need to give him a reason to stop the war, according to Allison. So far, the US has not been very clear on what it wants the outcome of this war to be. Allison’s interpretation is that the US has four interrelated war aims: Ukraine survives, no world war, a decisive strategic defeat for Putin’s Russia, and strengthening the international security order. To achieve these goals, the US will need to bring Putin to the negotiating table.