Though nationalists, Trump and Putin do not understand nationalism

US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are notorious nationalists and corrosively critical of the world order based on universal rules and norms. But quite ironically, they do not understand nationalism. They impose self-righteous greed on others under the name of nationalism, while dismissing the pressured or attacked nations’ quest for sovereignty and national pride. That is witnessed in Trump’s Donroe Doctrine and Putin’s Russkiy Mir ideology.

Now, let me talk about Trump’s Western Hemisphere policy and trans-Atlantic disputes. As soon as reinaugurated, Trump declared to annex Greenland and Canada and regain ownership of the Panama Canal, which startled the global community and spurred vehement criticism from NATO allies. Also, he argued that Ukraine should concede its territory for Russia to end the war quickly, completely dismissing the principle of territorial integrity. In all cases, Trump treats national territory and sovereignty like a transaction of real estate property.

I. Trump’s self-righteous nationalism and real estate instinct clash with nationalism abroad
(1) Greenland:
Trump did not care about the long path of history in which indigenous people struggled against Denmark to win their autonomy. How could they accept a sudden change in their status imposed by an erratic foreign leader? Let me review its history. Since Erik the Red came to Greenland around 980, Norsemen found their settlements in Greenland. But as the Little Ice Age began in the 14th century, they gradually abandoned those settlements. Europeans recolonized Greenland after the Denmark-Norway expedition in the 17th and 18th centuries. After Denmark split from Norway during the Napoleonic Wars, Greenland became Danish territory. Since then, indigenous Innuits have struggled for their autonomy against Denmark. One of the most noticeable issues is the 1951 defense agreement with the United States, which forced local Inuit to leave their traditional hunting grounds to expand the Thule base for the USAF.

The milestone of the postwar Danish rule in Greenland is the Constitutional Act in 1953, which aimed at decolonization through integration. Greenland became a country within the Danish realm. Since then, rapid modernization, economic development, and Danification were pursued in the 1950s and the 60s. In the 1970s, further assimilation pressure was imposed on native Greenlanders. In the referendum about EEC membership in 1972, Greenland was forced to join despite opposition from its residents. They were concerned about negative impacts on their fishing rights and the cession of their political decision-making to the Danish government and Eurocrats in Brussels.

Increased frustration led indigenous Greenlanders to protest the Danish rule and EEC membership. Greenland and Denmark had lengthy talks about autonomy and EC membership since 1975 through the Home Rule Commission. They were approved to leave the EC after a new referendum in 1982. Denmark went further to ratify the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989 at the UN level in 1996 to recognize cultural identity, socio-ecological rights, and political autonomy. (1)

Trump does not give even the slightest consideration to such historical backgrounds. As shown in his notorious phrase, “drill baby drill”, the socio-ecological rights of indigenous people are none of his interest. Also, they were forced to relocate their habitats for the USAF base in the past. Considering their historical grudge, Trump’s territorial claim could simply provoke anti-American sentiments among them. It seems that small nations and ethnic minorities are virtually nonexistent in his geopolitics.

(2) Canada:
Likewise, Trump showed no interest in Canada’s quest for a distinct national identity from both Britain and America in history. In response to Trump’s outrageous pressure that Canada be merged with the United States to resolve the tariff war and to strengthen its national security, Prime Minister Mark Carney replied clearly, “Canada is not for sale,” like the White House and Buckingham Palace. (2) In Trump’s real estate mindset, national sovereignty and territorial integrity are not serious concerns. Therefore, let me mention Canada’s historical pursuit of self-rule and diplomatic independence.

First, I will talk about Canada’s path to independence from Britain. It began when the UK Parliament adopted the British North America Act in 1867 to found a staunch confederation of Canada in view of the rise of America after the Civil War. It was Britain’s imperative to stop another Boston Tea Party in its white dominions to foster a common imperial foreign policy. However, dominions became increasingly self-aware through their contribution to the victory in World War I. One of the noticeable examples is Canada’s concern with the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. The rise of Japan after the war was changing the global balance of power so much, which made the United States, and also Canada, critically alarmed by that. As a result, Britain was forced to repeal the alliance with Japan. With the Statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada was approved to become an independent country within the British Commonwealth. (3)

As Canada was gaining equal status with Britain gradually, trade relations with the United States were splitting the nation toward the 20th century. Conservatives were pro-British and protectionist, while Liberals were pro-American and free traders. However, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 strained bilateral relations through tariff hikes, which pushed Canada to join the British imperial trade bloc. Though the relationship with the United States improved after it joined the Allied Forces in World War II, Canada continually had complicated relations with the big neighbor in the south. As British influence faded and American influence grew after the war, Canada became more conscious of its distinct identity.

Socio-culturally, Canada adopts bilingualism in English and French and multiculturalism. In domestic politics, American-style revolution and republicanism were not embraced, which led to less inclination toward individualism and a market economy, and more to governmental activism in this country. That has made Canada a welfare state with strict gun controls. These are completely at odds with MAGA dogmatism of anti-DEI, anti-welfare, and anti-gun control. Despite such historical backgrounds, Trump speaks about Canadian territory and sovereignty like real estate property and ownership, so lightheartedly.

In foreign policy, Canada places emphasis on soft power diplomacy and focuses on foreign development aid for its political presence in the world, just like Nordic nations. That is starkly in contrast with the hard power diplomacy of the United States and Britain. Though sharing Anglo-Saxon culture with them, Canada has neither nuclear weapons nor power projection capabilities militarily. Therefore, this country uses development aid as a strategic tool for trade and national security interests, (4) as well as for liberal values and humanitarianism. Like Nordic nations, Canada’s aid policies are founded on multilateralism and conducted through close partnership with UN agencies. (5) Such strategic soft power diplomacy is something akin to Japan’s proactive pacifism. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech for a middle power coalition impressed the global public so strongly, but his idea was not suddenly made but deeply embedded in Canadian foreign and domestic policies for decades. Trump’s idea of annexing Canada is so impromptu and ridiculous.

3) Panama:
In addition to Greenland and Canada, the annexation of the Panama Canal is the most critical strategic issue. Though Trump is wrong to claim that China controls the canal, its exit ports to the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans are managed by a subsidy container terminal operator of the Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings. That raises critical concerns about Chinese BRI outreach among American geostrategists. (6) However, current Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino is conservative and pro-American, and therefore, it is quite unlikely that he tilts toward China at the expense of America.

Professor Javier Corrales of Amherst University and Senior Lecturer James Loxton of Sydney University criticize Trump’s bulldozing as counterproductive in their joint article, based on the following points. For Panama, a sovereign canal is the centerpiece of national identity, and unilateral bullying would boost anti-Americanism precipitously vis-à-vis China, though Latin Americans do not necessarily view this country favorably. Also, such sentiments would nurture guerrilla violence throughout Latin America, as it happened in the 1960s and 70s since the Cuban Revolution in 1959, typically seen in Colombia and Nicaragua. For fear of that, the United States started the canal talks with Panama in the Nixon era, which were concluded by the Carter administration. Finally, the canal dispute could lead to the emergence of an anti-American coalition of leftists and military dictatorships like the Torrijos administration in 1968. (7)

While Trump is so obsessed with Chinese influence on the Panama Canal, he did not tell Brazilian President-then Jair Bolsonaro to stop China’s BRI-invested highway and railway projects through the rainforests in the Amazon, despite environmental and geopolitical concerns. His Donroe Doctrine is so contradictory. That shows us that this America First nationalist is not only ignorant of nationalism abroad. Actually, he is not seriously interested in stopping China, not to mention saving the environment.

(4) Ukraine:
His poor understanding of nationalism was also witnessed in Ukraine when this country was not fighting the war advantageously against Russia. Last year, when Ukraine was fighting an uphill battle against Russia, Trump told Ukraine to cede occupied lands and limit the size of its armed forces to end the war without a solid security guarantee. That raised critical concerns on both sides of the Atlantic, and his whimsical greed for the Nobel Peace Prize or some kind of legacy is harshly questioned. (8) Despite Trump’s lack of insight about Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, European officials were fully aware that American involvement was indispensable to manage Russian threats in Ukraine and the whole of Europe. (9)

Ex-Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg criticized Trump, confusing business and war, as the former Special Envoy for Ukraine of his administration. While Trump regards the peace process as just a swap of lands and a personal relationship as the cornerstone of diplomacy, KGB-minded Putin has no room for embracing such a real estate way of deal-making. (10) I quote him to show how absurd Trump’s approach is, even from a right-winger like Kellogg, who is one of the founders of the America First Policy Institute.

What Putin really wants is not tiny pieces of territory in Donbas and Crimea, but the annihilation of Ukrainian sovereignty and statehood, according to Peter Dickinson of the Atlantic Council. A sovereign and independent Ukraine symbolizes the enthrallment of the former Soviet bloc and the victory of Western liberalism, which struck Putin as the most catastrophic humiliation in his life. His political manipulation history in Ukraine traces back to as early as 2004, when his attempt to install a pro-Russian puppet was sidelined in the Orange Revolution, a decade before the annexation of Crimea. (11) Actually, the Special Military Operation was intended to immediately replace President Volodymyr Zelensky with a pro-Russian puppet. However, Russia failed to seize Kyiv, and the war continues unexpectedly long for Putin. This is why Ukraine is fighting this war so unyieldingly.

Trump may have changed his approach to peace in Ukraine in view of their resilience, and he does not talk about territorial cession as frequently now. But it is quite unlikely that he has deepened his understanding of Ukraine's quest for freedom and that he has changed his real estate thinking in the war.

(5) Iran:
Trump recklessly talked about regime change without noticing Iran’s long history of nationalism to resist invaders. He may have thought this job would be done with just a few drops of bombs to kill Shia and IRGC leaders, but Iran has a huge reserve of élites to fill vacancies. His success in Venezuela is not applicable. Also, Trump belittled Iran’s grit to fight against the enemy. Remember, they overcame the supply chain crisis of strategic materials, including weapons, during the Iran-Iraq War, as typically seen in the case of F-14 Tomcat fighter jets. They were brand-new weapons that the Shah invested a huge number of petrodollars in, but ever since American engineers had withdrawn, they faced a severe lack of equipment and components for operation. Iranians barely managed to revive those “Persian Cats” to defend their airspace from Saddam Hussein’s air force.

From domestic politics to foreign affairs, Trump’s self-claimed “art of the deal”, which is poker game styled bluff to pretend his upper handedness, resorts to various verbal abuse and shaming, negative labelling like “communist” and “woke”, coercive measures like National Guard deployment and use of force pressure, to gain what he wants, without persuading others. Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations comments that such ways of bullying just boomerang on him as opponents and foreign nations take damaging retaliation, and Iran is no exception. Now, hardliners are invigorated in Tehran, and the Strait of Hormuz is the hostage of their “art of the deal”. (12)

Here again, Trump falls into real estate thinking, as in Greenland, Canada, Panama, and Ukraine. He even mentioned his plan to annex the Strait of Hormuz (13) but does not show the idea of how to defend there and ensure Persian Gulf security from Iranian drone attacks in waves, which led to the defense pact among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. (14) Furthermore, Elliot Abrahams of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that US troops are considering relocating forward bases out of the Iranian drone range, as they are concentrated on the Gulf area for the War on Terror. (15) Trump may be experienced in swapping land in the real estate business, but state territories are accompanied by nationalism, national security, and territorial integrity. He is even unlikely to be aware of the Atlantic Charter, which is the foundation of international rules and norms today.

II. Putin’s bogus vision of the Russkiy Mir and Ukraine
Before the invasion of Ukraine, Putin published the notorious essay, “On Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” in 2021. He assumes that the Kievan Rus was a rigidly monolithic ethnic entity, but it was actually a loose political federation. Shortly after the publication of this controversial essay, Professor Andrew Wilson of University College London criticized that Putin intentionally confuses the Ancient Rus with Russians. Though Modern-day Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians descended from the Rus, they have had a long history of separate nation-building for centuries. In addition, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church had been influenced by the Renaissance and its subsequent religious movements, unlike the isolated Russian Orthodox Church. From this point, I would argue that Ukraine’s tilt to the West is more natural than to Russia. Ukrainians have no reason to embrace Czar-worship among Russians.

Furthermore, Wilson flatly denies Putin’s claim of Russia’s historical territorial rights in Crimea, the annexation of which in 2014 was the precursor to the current war. This is a strategic location to control the Black Sea trade route for exporting agricultural products. Nevertheless, Putin mentions the unproven history of Kievan Rus Prince Vladimir’s baptism in Crimea. Clearly, he wanted to impress the spiritual value of Crimea on the Russian nation. The place of Prince Vladimir’s baptism is in dispute among historians, but Putin dismisses the fundamental point that Crimea was an alien land for both the Kievan Rus and modern-day Russians until colonized by Catherine the Great. Prior to her conquest, it was inhabited by Crimean Tatars, Greeks, Armenians, etc. (16)

Even if Russians and Ukrainians shared a common language and culture as Putin says, I would argue that that does not necessarily substantiate his one-nation theory. Canada has sought autonomy, sovereignty, and identity from Britain and America. Putin’s ambition to exterminate Ukraine and Trump’s eagerness to merge Canada sound like Adolf Hitler’s annexation of Austria by Germany. Those poorly grounded one-nation claims come from megalomania. Above all, Putin is not interested in academic integrity. That essay is a showcase of KGB-bred disinformation.

III. Trump and Putin compared in personal backgrounds
Both Trump and Putin live in an information bubble, but that is not the only reason why they dismiss nationalism against a repressive foreign power in other countries, while boastfully claiming self-righteousness for their own countries. After all, they satisfy their nationalism through bullying others. They are extremely zero-sum minded from their lifetime experience in the real estate business and intelligence service, respectively. For further understanding, I would like to mention the personalities of both leaders.

Trump lacks the intellectual competence to understand foreign history and global affairs. When he was young, he boasted to have graduated first in his class from the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania (17), but that was flatly denied by the late Professor William T. Kelley, as he revealed that Trump was the dumbest goddamn student he ever had. (18) Wharton is a prestigious school, but as his academic performance there was so poor, he is not bright enough. No wonder he is so hateful to established intellectuals. Some commentators misunderstood that Trump got an MBA degree. No, his achievement was so bad at the bachelor’s level. MAGA people are fond of politically incorrect attacks regarding race and gender. Then, let’s fight back in their politically incorrect manner to mock Trump’s poor brain. Go for it!

On the other hand, Putin is molded into a KGB-brained. Soviet elites were grouped by two pillars, and the Communist Party lost power, but the Cheka survived the collapse of the union. Ideologically, they have converted from Marxism for workers of the world to authoritarian nationalism of the secret police. Senator John McCain talked about Putin: “I looked into his eyes and saw three letters, a K, a G, and a B,” when he competed for the Republican Party nomination in the US presidential election in 2000. (19) His ideological opponent, ex-Lieutenant General Kellogg, who believes in America First, firmly agrees with him about this. Anyone seriously committed to national security shares common views regardless of political position, but does Trump really understand this?

Ironically, Putin is prosecuted by the ICC now, which has hindered him from attending the BRICS summit in South Africa and Brazil, though he focused on international law and trade at Leningrad State University (St Petersburg State University today), an archrival to Moscow State University. His KGB training was more influential in shaping his thoughts than his college education.

IV. Exploitative or predatory nationalism of Trump and Putin
Despite some differences in individual backgrounds, Trump and Putin are quite like-minded as they try to impose their tribalistic views on others by any means. They do not see the world from intellectual modesty, but from exploitative or predatory nationalism. They want to seize what they want, whether legitimately or illegitimately. They do not care about moral and logical contradictions in what they claim. That leads them to repress liberal nationalists in other nations. Liberal nationalism rises from the quest for autonomy and freedom, as seen in Greenland, Canada, Panama, and Ukraine. That is not an ideology of hate, which is favored among MAGA mobs and other Western right-wingers. It is not exploitative and predatory.

Leaders like Trump and Putin are so conscious of the great-power status of their countries that they are bulldozing the world with their exploitative and predatory greed, but are not interested in providing global public goods or fulfilling responsibility to the world in accordance with their national power. Meanwhile, some middle-power leaders like Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada stand against them with liberal nationalism for their own countries and liberal internationalism for the global community.



Footnotes:
(1) "Greenland's autonomy: Nothing about us without us"; Eurac Research; 16 March, 2026

(2) "Carney tells Trump that Canada 'won't be for sale, ever'"; BBC News; 6 May 2025

(3) "Canada becomes independent from Great Britain"; ESBCO; 2022

(4) "Why Canada’s deeper linkage of foreign aid with trade outcomes is raising concerns"; Tront Star; August 12, 2026

(5) "What do Canada’s political leaders want to do with foreign aid?"; CTV News; April 13, 2025

(6) "Who Controls the Panama Canal?"; Council on Foreign Relations; January 29, 2025

(7) "Why the U.S. Should Not Take Back the Panama Canal"; Americas Quarterly; January 23, 2025

(8) "Ukraine would cede territory to Russia in draft of Trump peace plan obtained by AP"; AP; November 21, 2025

(9) "How European leaders are responding as Trump urges Ukraine to cede territory to Russia"; PBS News; October20, 2025

(10) "Europe should tell US to ‘take a back seat’ on Ukraine, ex-Trump envoy says"; TVP World; 1 July, 2026

(11) "Alaska Summit: Trump wants a real estate deal. Putin wants an empire."; Atlantic Council; August 14, 2025

(12) "Trump’s bullying has backfired"; Washington Post; August 24, 2026

(13) "Trump posts map labeling Strait of Hormuz as US territory"; Hill; August 18, 2026

(14) "Saudi defence pact with Turkey and Pakistan is a verdict on the reliability of US security guarantees"; Conversation UK; August 11, 2026

(15) "Rising U.S. Casualties in the Iran War Should Force a Rethink of Middle East Basing"; Council on Foreign Relations; July 21, 2026

(16) "Russia and Ukraine: ‘One People’ as Putin Claims?"; RUSI; 23 December, 2021

(17) "Fact-Checking All of the Mysteries Surrounding Donald Trump and Penn"; Philadelphia Magazine; September 14, 2019

(18) "Trump’s professor thought he was his ‘dumbest student’ ever"; Study International; 25 May 2026

(19) "John McCain saw through Vladimir Putin better than anyone"; Washington Post; August 27, 2018

Democracy in Africa and Western countermeasures against Russian penetration

The global community has been astonished at unexpected influence of some pro-Russian and autocratic nations in Africa at UN General Assembly vote on the Ukrainian crisis. However, the African Union reaffirmed to suspend the membership of pro-Russian military dictatorship regimes in the Sahel region, that is, Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea, and Sudan to show zero tolerance against unconstitutional changes of government at the 36th AU summit in Addis Ababa in February this year. Just before this summit, the ECOWAS also (Economic Community of West African States) announced to maintain halting the membership of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Guinea (“African Union reaffirms suspension of Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea and Sudan”; Africa News; 20 February, 2023). Those actions by the AU and the ECOWAS are hopeful signs for democracy in Africa. Therefore, we should not fall into “pessimistic realism” to embrace the fall of democracy and the fall of the West in a supposedly forthcoming multipolar world. In a revisionist world order that Russia and China uphold, our history would devolve and degrade into repression and chaos. The consequence of our defeatism would be fatal to the global community. We have to reconfirm that values of democracy, freedom, and human rights are not restricted within the West, and not completely alien to Africa.

To begin with, we have to understand the overview of democracy in Africa. According to Freedom House, freedom index in Africa has been declining for years recently, as with the case of the trend worldwide. That is in resonance with penetration of Russia and China in this region. However, “African countries have also showed signs of improvement and resilience”, according to Tiseke Kasambala, Director of Africa Programs, though resurgence of military dictatorship, particularly in the Sahel, destabilizes the continent. Quite importantly, the AU adopted the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 1981, which is supposed to be very progressive to defend human rights, but many member states are reluctant to implement it. Meanwhile, the government is weakening constitutional rule of law in South Africa, although it was invited to the Democracy Summit by US President Joe Biden both in 2021 and 2023. However, the judiciary, civil society, and media barely manage to maintain democracy collectively, against populist autocratic attempts by the ruling ANC (“How African Democracies Can Rise and Thrive Amid Instability, Militarization, and Interference”; Freedom House Perspectives; September 1, 2022). In view of long one-party rule after the fall of apartheid, more attention needs to be paid to the Ramaphosa administration’s invitation of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the BRICS summit in Johannesburg this August, to assess the rule of law in this country as a member of the International Criminal Court.

Interestingly, a reverse of world history is witnessed in Africa, that is Russian penetration. Remember that shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, East European nations including some former Soviet republics jumped into joining the EU and NATO. That is entirely their own sovereign preference. Rationally, nothing of Russia is appealing in view of its poor governance, economy, technology, and also, its anachronistic neo-Eurasianism. But strangely, African countries do not necessarily think so. At the UN General Assembly on Russian invasion of Ukraine in March last year, nearly half of African nations did not support the resolution to condemn the aggression. Some ruling élites in southern Africa feel nostalgic of their cooperation with the Soviet Union in their struggle against colonialism and apartheid during the Cold War era, but that is merely at the governmental level. Unlike commonly believed, Africans are not necessarily obsessed with anti-colonialism today. Also, they are not concerned with the great power conflict on geopolitics and ideology in Europe and Asia. They choose partners through their perceived self-interest, whether Russia, China, or the West. Regarding African views on Russia and the ongioing invasion of Ukraine, the Economist and Premise conducted opinion polls in six leading African nations including Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Côte d'Ivoire, and Mali, which reveals that people in those countries do not necessarily agree to foreign policy direction of their government. While South Africa, Uganda, and Mali abstained from the UNGA vote to condemn Russian invasion of Ukraine, the rest of them approved it. Among those ruled by pro-Russian government, South Africa is a sample of democracy in southern Africa where the ruling party is engrossed in anti-apartheid nostalgia, while Mali is a sample of military dictatorship in the Sahel where anti-Western regime depends on Wagner in counterterrorism.

As shown in Table 1, the approval rate of Russian invasion of Ukraine is the lowest in democratic South Africa, but highest in Wagner sponsored Mali. Also, as shown in Table 2, people in Mali are the most likely to blame the West for the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, those in South Africa are the least likely to blame NATO and the United States (“Why Russia wins some sympathy in Africa and the Middle East”; Economist; March 12, 2022).

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

After the military coup d’état in 2020, Mali has been isolated from the global community, as France withdrew counterterrorism troops and the membership of the AU and the ECOWAS was suspended. Wagner seized this opportunity to infiltrate there. Impoverished and poorly educated people are easily misled by propagandas that Russia and the military regime spread.

That is not the case with South Africa, where checks and balances by parliamentary opposition, the judiciary, and the media are balking the ANC’s revisionist foreign and domestic policies. Particularly, the Democratic Alliance (DA) which succeeds from anti-apartheid white liberal Progressive Party, is launching a fierce campaign against President Cyril Ramaphosa’s invitation of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the BRICS summit in Johannesburg this August. The DA applied for litigation so that the Gauteng High Court can enforce the ICC rule to arrest Putin upon his arrival to South Africa to attend the BRICS summit (“DA launches court application to compel the arrest of Putin in South Africa”; DA News; 30 May, 2023). Also, DA leader John Steenhuisen even warned that the ANC administration sent some weapons to Russia in an interview with CNN, according to Briefly News, a South African digital media, which displays “Stand with Ukraine” banner on its web site (“John Steenhuisen Says President Cyril Ramaphosa Is a “Political Swindler” Who Fooled the Country”; Briefly.co.za; June 1, 2023). Furthermore, he criticizes Ramaphosa’s intermediation between Russia and Ukraine as a waste of taxpayers’ money and diplomatic stunt. More importantly, the DA blames the ANC’s close association with autocracy like Putin’s Russia (“How much did South Africans pay for Ramaphosa’s failed diplomatic PR stunt?”; DA News; 17 June, 2023). As shown in the recent draft of race quotas for water use, which would impose huge burden on farmland owners that consume 60% of the resource, the ANC seems to be obsessed with an ideology of class struggle and victimhood (“Parched Earth: ANC introduces Race Quotas for water use”; DA News; 1 June, 2023). Right or left, such victimhood minded populists would easily befriend dictators like Putin.

We should also discuss the Russian presence in Africa from Russian perspective. Joseph Siegle at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies testified about Russian activities in Africa at the hearing of the US House of Representatives. He mentioned three main pillars of Russian strategy in Africa. The fist pillar is to gain influence on the sea lane from southern Mediterranean to the Red Sea through Suez and Djibouti. The second pillar is to remove Western influence from the continent. Wagner activities in Central Africa and Mali are one of the most noticeable. The third pillar is to reshape rule-based world order, by disrespecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of member states, which is displayed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Kremlin’s involvement in Africa pleases only autocrats and disinformed people, as its strategy of those pillars just destabilizes political economy of this region (“Russia’s Strategic Objectives and Influences in Africa”; Africa Center for Strategic Studies; July 14, 2022). After all, Russia hardly cares about local development, empowerment, and well-being and simply wants to make use of Africa for siloviki’s perceived national interests. That is entirely at odds with the ideal of the AU, the ECOWAS, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Most fundamentally, Paul Stronski at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace quotes a speech by US Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Mills that Wagner presence in the Sahel aggravates human sufferings without resolving real causes of instability, such as poor governance, broken institutions, long term displacement, and armed groups proliferation (“Russia’s Growing Footprint in Africa’s Sahel Region”; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; February 28, 2023).

Russia is too opportunist in its charm offensive in Africa, because its influence is declining in former Soviet CIS, Eurasian Economic Union, and CSTO, since the invasion of Ukraine, but the Kremlin still wants to display their diplomatic power in a multipolar rivalry of geopolitics in this century. That is the background of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to seven African countries including South Africa, Eswatini, Mali, Mauritania, and Sudan early this year. However, Vadim Zaytsev, an independent expert on Russian policy in Africa, comments that most of the African nations take cautious neutrality, and do not want to risk their ties with the West, although they rhetorically resonate with Russia’s contradictory denouncement of neocolonialism that dismisses the colonial nature of the invasion of Ukraine (“What’s Behind Russia’s Charm Offensive in Africa?”; Carnegie Politika; 17 February, 2023). It is not only Western experts who are critical to Russian penetration. African experts also warn the danger of Russian presence. Peter Fabricius at a South African think tank Institute for Security Studies (ISS) comments that Russia deepens its relations with Africa through military dimensions, rather than increasing the amount of trade and investment. He argues that Russia penetrates in Africa through exploiting instability in the target country. In Mali and Burkina Faso, Wagner filled the vacuum after the withdrawal of French troops. That weakens AU deterrence against military dictatorship. Meanwhile in Cameroon, Russia provokes separatists in the Anglophone region. It is likely that they want to overturn the regime to use this country a gateway to export natural resources from the Central African Republic. Such natural resource export is one of the means for Russia to finance its war in Ukraine and elsewhere, along with organized crimes such as trade of illegal weapons and drugs, money laundering, hacking to cryptocurrency, etc (“Africa shouldn’t ignore Russia’s destabilising influence”; ISS Today; 24 February, 2023). Fabricius is a white South African, and submitted some policy recommendations on African development to the World Economic Forum from African point of view.

After the Prigozhin mutiny, the foresight of Wagner activities and Russian influence in Africa is unpredictable. Kimberly Marten at Columbia University comments that it would be relatively easy for the Russian defense establishment to replace Yevgeny Prigozhin with someone else. Meanwhile, Jędrzej Czerep at the Polish Institute of International Affairs argues that everything depends on whether African clients perceive Russia strong and reliable enough to achieve their goals (“What next for Wagner’s African empire?”; Economist; June 27, 2023). Either way, what should America and its allies do to edge out Russia from Africa? Last August, the Biden administration released “US Strategy toward Sub-Saharan Africa” to address new opportunities and partnership between the United States and African nations. Joseph Sany at the US Institute of Peace comments the following. Not only does it pledge aid surge to resolve regional problems such as food security, agriculture, supply chains, and climate change, but also stresses the necessity of listening to Africans. Thus, US embassies need sufficient work force led by accredited ambassadors. Furthermore, he argues that America enable African nations to resolve their problems by their own initiative (“The New U.S. Africa Strategy Is a Moment We Must Seize”; USIP; August 11, 2022). Regarding Wagner presence, Sany says that moral condemnation does not work. African clients are forced to sign with brutal Wagner out of desperation because international counterinsurgency operations have not wiped-out terrorism. But he mentions that bipartisan American policymakers have found past US policies are too myopic and too narrowly focused on military aspects, without giving sufficient consideration to governance and the economy of target countries (“In Africa, Here’s How to Respond to Russia’s Brutal Wagner Group”; USIP; April 6, 2023).

Despite Russian penetration through Wagner, Africa shares our values of freedom and democracy. At G7 Hiroshima, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida may have had to invite AU Chairman Azali Assoumani and South African DA leader John Steenhuisen to confirm this, rather than Wagner supported Mozambiquan President Filipe Nyusi. In order to deepen partnership with this region, the Western alliance needs to upgrade their diplomatic presence. For this objective, the United States should reconsider the Jacksonian system of political appointment of ambassadors. Senate confirmations are delayed frequently, and appointed ambassadors are not necessarily well qualified. One of such examples is Lana Marks, a handbag designer, whom the Trump administration nominated to the ambassador to South Africa for her contribution to their election campaign. Remember, those who make great contribution to the campaign are not necessarily well-acquainted with foreign policy. Some of them are narrow-sighted vote grubbers. I would like to talk about such an example from my experience. In the past, I had some opportunity to see a Japanese LDP diet member’s office from inside. One day, when a senior staff of the office was watching TV news during the lunch break, and he paid keen attention to reports about Nagata-cho politics and domestic election, but no sooner had the news reported about international affairs than he shut out information from the TV with contempt. It was very startling, and he appeared quite a strange creature for me. Though he graduated from Kyoto University, he behaved like a poorly educated bumpkin. Therefore, any US president should abstain from appointing such an irresponsible vote grubber to the ambassador. After all, it is our firm commitment that would enable us to outcompete with Russia in Africa.

China’s Notion of Sovereignty Could Split the Sino-Russian Axis

China is a vocal critic of current international rules and norms, because they regard the rule-based world order today as being based on Western values. Accordingly, Chinese policymakers claim idiosyncratic notions of national sovereignty and international law, which leads them to face frequent territorial dispute with their neighbors and philosophical conflict with the global community. In view of this, there is some possibility of a future conflict between China and Russia despite their common defiance against the Western liberal world order, as Chinese Ambassador to France Lu Shaye made a gaffe that the sovereignty of post-Soviet republics was questionable (“China’s ambassador to France questions 'sovereign status' of former Soviet nations”; France 24; 23 April, 2023). In other words, the Sino-Russian axis is breakable, and the notion of sovereignty is one of the causes to accelerate the split.

The ambassador’s remark was so controversial that Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning responded quickly to deny this to soothe criticism from the global community, and emphasized that China respected the sovereignty of former Soviet countries (“China affirms ex-Soviet nations’ sovereignty after ambassador comments”; PBS News; April 24, 2023). However, Masanobu Abe, a Japanese journalist based in Paris, argues that Western experts regard Ambassador Lu’s comment as common understanding of post-Soviet national sovereignty among Chinese foreign policy makers (“China’s Real Intention? Why the Ambassador to France Casted Doubt on Ukrainian Sovereignty?”; Toyo Keizai; April 27, 2023). Lu may have wanted to deny Ukrainian territorial legitimacy in Crimea, but theoretically, it implies that China does not recognize the sovereignty of Russia as well. Potentially, that could trigger a Sino-Russian clash in Outer Manchuria or the Russian Far East. For China, this is a historical range of Manchurian Qing Empire, but taken forcibly by Russia through the treaty of Aigun in 1858 and the treaty of Peking in 1860. At the end of the 1960s when the Sino-Soviet border conflict broke out, relations between both countries turned worse.

In view of such historical context, recent remark by Chinese President Xi Jinping could provoke a bilateral territorial dispute in the Russian Far East again, as he demanded that Russian geographical place names in this region be renamed in Chinese, such as Vladivostok into Haishenwai. That implicitly suggests China’s deeply rooted territorial grudge against Russia, although Outer Manchuria was out of the Han Chinese sphere throughout history. Despite the anti-Western axis, China wants to prompt Russian decline in the economy and demography, to make this country more dependent on them to gain more access to natural resource in Siberia (“Goodbye Vladivostok, Hello Hǎishēnwǎi!”; CEPA; July 12, 2022). Xi’s remark insinuates China’s hidden territorial zeal to retake this area as Russia is exhibiting in Ukraine now, which could spark a bilateral conflict in the future.

The potential territorial dispute could develop into a further problem. Currently, Russia exports oil and gas to China and India through huge discount to alleviate the impact of Western sanctions on its economy since the invasion of Ukraine. The export price of Russian oil from Baltic ports is deducted by $11 per barrel for China and $14 to 17 for India (“India and China snap up Russian oil in April above 'price cap'”; Reuters; April 19, 2023). But that sort of bargain sale is self-defeating and unsustainable in the long run, from a fair-trade point of view. Particularly, China would also exploit other natural resource in Far Eastern Siberia, at the expense of the taiga environment. Actually, Chinese lumbermen were notorious for illegal logging there, even long before the war in Ukraine (“Corruption Stains Timber Trade”; Washington Post; April 1, 2007). As Russia loses bargaining power through the ongoing war, China’s selfish appetite for natural resource would devastate the local ecosystem and livelihood of the people. Experts of international politics focuses on state-to-state power interactions so much that they do not pay sufficient attention to conflicts related to global commons. Also, Western environmentalists should be more active to defend Siberian forests as they were to defend Amazonian forests in the 1980s. The issue of natural resource and territorial sovereignty in the Russian Far East is deeply interconnected each other. This is another cause to split the Sino-Russian axis.

Both countries do not abide by the rule-based world order, and therefore, they often behave disrespectfully to mutual accords. Though China and Russia share anti-Western and revisionist views of the world, Russia fears Chinese expansionism in its Far East territory, leading to the Kremlin's imperfect compliance with bilateral trade and investment deals (“The Beijing-Moscow axis: The foundations of an asymmetric alliance”; OSW Report; November 15, 2021). On the other hand, China claims that current international law is insufficient to protect their core interests, and therefore, they have to defend the interest through domestic legislation even if that law is incompatible with global rules. One of the most critical examples of China’s defiance to international law is its infringement of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. Professor Emeritus Shigeki Sakamoto of Kobe University denounces that such arbitrary interpretation of international law would inflict tremendous damage on international maritime order. The focal point is that China does not clarify the condition to prioritize domestic legislation to global rules and norms (“The Anatomy of Chinese Maritime Strategy: Violation of International Maritime Order through Domestic Legislation and Arbitrary Interpretation of UNCLOS”; JFIR; February 13, 2023) If China goes its own way so aggressively, it would face bitter frictions with other countries throughout the world, including Russia. Remember the Sino-Soviet split since the denunciation of Stalinist cult by Soviet Communist Party First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev. Just being anti-American cannot keep the solidarity of both countries.

The Sino-Russian axis has been splitting our alliance and democracy, and their manipulations have grown more invigorated after the Cold War. Particularly, Russian election intervention for Brexit and Trump has shaken the foundation of Western democracy. Now, China is intervening the Taiwanese presidential election through inviting Kuomintang candidate Ma Yingjeou to the mainland (“Ma Ying-jeou’s historic trip: Can former Taiwan president help ease cross-strait tensions?”; Japan Times; April 7, 2023). Therefore, we must find every weakness of the Sino-Russian axis to retaliate against those crafty actions. Their solidarity is breakable. While G7 nations made efforts to rift the Global South from China and Russia at the Hiroshima summit, it is more important to drive a wedge between these great powers.

America’s Ukraine Policy after President Biden’s Visit to Kyiv

US President Joseph Biden made a long-awaited visit to Kyiv on February 20 in order to show that the United States would be firmly committed to help Ukraine from Russian invasion. In his subsequent visit to Warsaw, he re-emphasized that Russia would never win in Ukraine, and its neo-czarism was destined to fail (“Biden in Warsaw: ‘Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia’”; Hill; February 21, 2023). Though the Biden administration sent Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to Kyiv before, and Biden himself met Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky in Washington, they were so cautious as not to provoke Russia to resort to nuclear warfare. Also, antiwar voices driven by MAGA Republicans and the woke left, frequently under the influence of the conspiracy theory, were hurdles to American commitment to Ukraine.

Despite such foreign policy constraints by extremist isolationist populists the right and the left, it is essential to know how American experts, who understands American role on the world, see the prospect of the ongoing war after Biden’s visit. Quite noticeably, some of those who are skeptical to help Ukraine refer to ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Professor John Mearsheimer of Chicago University frequently, to disguise themselves as consummate realists, thereby propagandizing their views that the United States is reluctant to get involved in this war and allied nations be careful enough not to be drawn into the war caused by a handful of warmongers among the Washington establishment. But, no matter how great their reputation is, neither Kissinger nor Mearsheimer represents the whole Americans. Self-styled realists, MAGA Republicans, and the woke left do not either. I do not know the background of each one of those disengagement advocates, but some of them behave as if they synchronized with specific ideological groups in America, whether right or left. In any case, it is wrong to believe that the majority of the public and policymakers in the United States are against helping Ukraine. I would like to mention viewpoints of American foreign policy opinion leaders to deny such disinformation, without partisan bias.

Regarding diplomatic implication of Biden’s visit, Professor Eliot Cohen at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, comments that Biden came to Ukraine at the critical moment when China was rumored to send weapons to Russia, and Russia was launching massive offense in Donbas to retake occupied lands to commemorate the anniversary of the “Special Military Operation” (“Biden Just Destroyed Putin’s Last Hope”; Atlantic Daily; February 21, 2023). Russian President Vladimir Putin counted on reluctance and political divide on the Western side to help Ukraine, but Anne Applebaum of the Atlantic mentions that his poorly-grounded hope was shattered when Biden finally visited Kyiv to meet Zelensky (“Biden Went to Kyiv Because There’s No Going Back”; Atlantic Daily; February 21. 2023 or here). This is the precedence for Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s visit there as the last leader of G7 nations, which posed restraints to Putin’s diplomatic demonstration of strong Sino-Russian solidarity through hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping to the Moscow meeting (“Japanese and Chinese leaders visit opposing capitals in Ukraine war”; BBC News; March 22, 2023).

Also, we have to understand its domestic implication against “TrumPutin”. As commented by David Rothkopf of the Daily Beast, people around the world reconfirmed the Helsinki US-Russian summit in 2018 that President-then Donald Trump favored Putin’s Russia over American and allied national security organizations, and was willing to abandon Ukraine (“Biden’s Trip to Kyiv is the Ultimate Humiliation for Putin—and Trump”; Daily Beast; February 20, 2023). Why? That is because he detests "the world America made", and takes a hostile view of the “neocon globalist establishment” in the Department of State, the department of Defense, and intelligence agencies. Furthermore, he blames them warmongers who plot World War III of nuclear powers. That real estate agent has no understanding of Russian infringement of rule-based world order and territorial integrity. Ex-Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger raised a critical concern with Trump’s malicious attack on American national security agencies and outrageous praise for Putin. Actually, Kinzinger did not run in the last midterm election, because his party was taken over by rightwing extremists. We have to watch carefully, how Biden and his centrist fellows beyond partisanship strike back those ideocratic isolationists.

This is the darkest, most insane video yet. I cannot imagine any other president saying Americans, not RUSSIA, is our enemy. This should put chills down the spine of every American https://t.co/A8ZeB4DIFH

— Adam Kinzinger #fella (@AdamKinzinger) March 18, 2023

Those isolationists and disguised realists need to understand why a lukewarm compromise with Putin’s Russia is more dangerous than Ukraine’s unyielding resistance to squeeze out invaders. When Putin’s invasion had become increasingly imminent, Robert Kagan, who was a foreign policy advisor for the presidential election campaign of John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton, commented that his assault on Ukraine would be just the beginning of his ambition to reestablish historical Russian sphere of influence in Eastern and Central Europe, when Baltic states and Poland were nonexistent, and Warsaw Pact nations were virtually ruled by the Soviet Union (“What we can expect after Putin’s conquest of Ukraine”; Washington Post; February 21, 2022). Therefore, we understand that an immediate ceasefire while Russo-Ukrainian territorial issues unresolved would just destabilize the whole of the region, and it is by no means any step toward peace. Rather, China would be prompted to impose critical pressure on Taiwan and other East Asian nations. In view of this, Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul of the Obama era, tells explicitly that a half-way peace is an illusion, because Putin is firmly determined to conquer Ukraine by all means, and believes that Russian endurance will prevail over Western guile and technology, as he sees Americans and Europeans are unenthusiastic and divided. It seems to me that his success in the election interference for Brexit and Trump seems to have emboldened him excessively. Therefore, McFaul argues incremental military support to Ukraine does not work, and also, sanctions on Russia should be as coercive as possible (“How to Get a Breakthrough in Ukraine”; Foreign Affairs; January 30, 2023).

Since it is almost impossible to settle a peace agreement through diplomatic talks, we have to explore how should the United States crack down Putin’s bigoted ambition from military perspectives. Regarding the strength and capability of the Russian armed forces, ex-US Army General David Petraeus commented that their exercise prior to the invasion was irrelevant to supposed operation in Ukraine, and they were poorly trained to implement inter-service coordination within their own forces (“What We’ve Learned from the War in Ukraine”; Foreign Policy; January 10, 2023). That implies the failure of Putin’s nation building for decades implicitly, and the Western alliance should consider how to help Ukraine defeat such a dull and inept Goliath Russia. Currently, Ukraine is on the second stage to retake in the east and the south. Though anti-interventionists are skeptical of further military aid to this country, in an interview with CNN, Petraeus evaluates highly of their morale and competence to restore their territory in this war, because Ukrainian soldiers understand the objectives of this war clearly, while it is questionable whether Russian soldiers understand that as they are disproportionately recruited from ethno-sectarian minorities of Dagestan, Buryatia, and Krasnodar. Also, he says that Ukraine has made substantial achievements in recruiting, training, equipping, organizing and employing additional forces, with the support of the US-led Western alliance.

From his comment, we can infer the following points. The opinion poll may show high approval for Putin’s illegitimate invasion, but that is quite unreliable, because most of the Russky do not mind the plight of those ethno-sectarian minorities as long as they manage to live normal life every day. The Russky are not determined to sacrifice their life for their mother land. In addition, the governance in Ukraine can be improved after the war potentially, in view of rapid organizational restructuring of its military in parallel with Western support. Consequently, Petraeus supports Biden’s determination, though he comments that the president should have sent next stage weapons such as tanks and fighter jets much earlier (“Gen. David Petraeus: How the war in Ukraine will end”; CNN; February 14, 2023). It was Britain that provoked Germany and other NATO allies to make up their mind to send tanks to Ukraine. Also, the Sunak administration is the first among trans-Atlantic stakeholders to train Ukrainian pilots for NATO standard fighter jet. Meanwhile, America vacillated whether to boost military aid before Biden’s visit to Kyiv. Remember, General Petraeus defeated terrorists in Iraq through the surge. His viewpoints as a military strategist are combat-proven, which is not the case with Mearsheimer.

Even from MAGA Republicans’ favorite FOX News, ex-Army General Jack Keane argues against isolationism. He is completely at odds with rightwing populist anchorman Tucker Carlson at this TV station. Keane helped Petraeus plan the 2007 surge in Iraq along with Frederick Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War. Regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine, he agrees with Petraeus, mostly. Furthermore, he argues against isolationist obsession with nation building at home. Fiscal conservatives do not tolerate massive but necessary spending for Ukraine, but Keane tells them that a Russian victory in this war would embolden China and Iran. Also, he refutes xenophobic right-wingers who believe that America should care more about the US-Mexican border, rather than the Russo-Ukrainian border. That is because both issues are completely irrelevant each other, and the border control problem at home cannot be resolved through an abandonment of Ukraine (“What would a win in Ukraine look like? Retired Gen. Jack Keane explains.”; Washington Post; March 6, 2023). Like Petraeus, Keane is also a combat-proven military strategist.

As the United States and NATO allies are providing further military aid, there are some issues to be considered in the phase of Ukrainian counteroffensive. The most critical one is whether Putin would resort to nuclear attack on Ukraine, if he saw the war disadvantageous for Russia. Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund, points out that the Biden administration has taken effective measures. They told directly to Russia that a use of nuclear weapon would bring fatal consequences, because the Western alliance would resort to further measures on Russia through various economic, diplomatic, cyber, and conventional military responses. Also, China and India would not tolerate a nuclear attack, despite their long friendship with Russia (“Why Hasn’t Putin Used Nuclear Weapons?”; Daily Beast; February 9, 2023). Regarding such sensitive Sino-Russian relations, ex-Ambassador McFaul questions Putin’s deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus, because it contradicts with the joint statement of the Moscow meeting between China and Russia, which denies the use of nuclear weapons in this war. Putin may have broken international promises frequently. Therefore, McFaul argues that the United States drive a wedge between both countries (“Are Putin and Xi as Close as Everyone Assumes?”; McFaul’s World; March 28, 2023). Meanwhile, China exploits Russia’s preoccupation with Ukraine, as President Xi Jinping demanded Russia to rename Russian Far East geographical names into Chinese ones, such as Vladivostok into Haishenwai, for example (“Russia will never recover from this devastating collapse”; Daily Telegraph; 1 April, 2023 or here, and “China Challenges Russia by Restoring Chinese Names of Cities on Their Border”; Kyiv Post; February 26, 2023).

Another issue is strategic value of Crimea. Ex-Commanding General of the US Army Europe and Africa Ben Hodges (Lieutenant General) talks about this repeatedly. Come to think of it, this war has not begun in February 2022, but March 2014. Hodges says that Russia could obstruct Ukrainian export of food from Odesa and Mariupol as long as it occupied Crimea, even if the whole of Donbas were liberated. Also, massive missile launch from there would continue to be a critical threat for Ukraine (“Russia’s Nuclear Weapons More Effective as Propaganda, Retired US Lieutenant General Says”; VOA News; February 1, 2023). Hodges is also a veteran of America’s most recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his opinion is combat-proven as well. Quite interestingly, Hodges refers to an article by Professor Rory Finnin of Cambridge University on Twitter, which articulates historical legitimacy of Ukrainian sovereignty in Crimea and other Russian occupied areas in the east and the south.

Excellent piece:"Russia’s hold on Crimea is tenuous. Any proposed peace settlement that codifies its occupation in exchange for a cessation of hostilities would be a ticking time bomb. Ukraine will never be peaceful with a Russian-occupied Crimea..." https://t.co/O7fLkDwTof

— Ben Hodges (@general_ben) January 16, 2023

According to Finnin, Crimea has been persistently plagued with ethnic cleansing, violence, and so forth throughout the Romanov Russian and the Soviet rule in history. Therefore, the majority of the residents preferred to stay in Ukraine before the 2014 invasion. Finnin reviews history since the Crimean Tatar Khanate, which dominated Crimea and neighboring steppeland along the coast of the Black Sea and Azov Sea, before the conquest by Catherine II. In the 19th century, Alexander II Russified this peninsular by sending immigrants from the mainland. After repressive Stalin rule, Prime Minister-then Nikita Khrushchev decided to transfer impoverished Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 (“Why Crimea Is the Key to Peace in Ukraine”; Politico; January 13, 2023). From such backgrounds, if Ukraine retakes Crimea from Russia, historical and cultural implication of it will be insignificant.

Nevertheless, we still need to be cautious of MAGA Republicans, no matter how they are bigoted and poorly aware of international affairs. William Kristol, Director of Defending Democracy Together, mentions repeatedly that the Republican Party today has become too Trumpified, and increasingly America First. Typically, he criticizes a recent article of National Review Online defends cold-blooded and fake realism Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine is just a territorial dispute and irrelevant to American national interest (“What Ron DeSantis Got Right in His Ukraine Statement”; National Review Online; March 18, 2023).

And...here we go.@NRO decides defending DeSantis is more important than defending Ukraine, and denouncing the woke Left is more important than standing against the war crimes of Putin.
https://t.co/MpIHWbipHc

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 18, 2023

"Trump is running against DeSantis. But DeSantis isn’t running against Trump yet...DeSantis doesn’t seem prepared to do the one big thing that matters: show that he intends to beat Trump instead of sidestepping him." https://t.co/pQ6sK3XClG

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 29, 2023

"The position implied here is that the price of social peace is absolute impunity for Trump. The insistence that Trump must be kept above the law — no matter his wrongdoing — courses through all these GOP responses." https://t.co/sVuZz08nSj

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) April 2, 2023

Deplorably, DeSantis does not even strike back constant verbal abuses by Trump. It seems that the Florida Governor is afraid of the risk to challenge the former president who has become the standard bearer among MAGA Republicans (“Why Does DeSantis Keep Letting Trump Take Shots at Him?”; Bulwark; March 29,2023) (“Trump widens lead over DeSantis in 2024 GOP presidential nomination showdown: poll”; FOX News; March 22, 2023). Rather than winning the presidential election by himself, DeSantis may think of solidifying his position in the party through assisting Trump as Chris Christie did in the 2016 election. Moreover, MAGA Republicans are so infuriated with recent indictment of Trump by the Manhattan District Attorney of New York County that they deny due process of law in this procedure through agitating the fear of “liberal establishment” (The unhinged GOP defense of Trump is the real ‘test’ for our democracy; Washington Post; March 31, 2023). Such conspiracy theory can easily lead to Lindbergh isolationism, and we must be vigilant how much will those MAGA Republicans obstruct serious foreign policy effort to help Ukraine, in view of the 2024 presidential election.

Those who are skeptical of Western support for Ukraine, including fake realists who actually synchronize with the far right and the far left in the United States, seem to worship Mearsheimer so much. But America is the land of the free, and opinions there are diversified. The keypoint to understand America’s Ukraine policy is to review such diversified opinions beyond partisanship, but focus on highly professional ones. There is no partisan bias in my choice of pundits. Robert Kagan was a foreign policy advisor for presidential candidates of both parties. Michael McFaul was the Ambassador to Russia in the Obama era, and is currently a Senior Fellow at conservative Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Also, pay more attention to combat-proven opinions and analyses. Among some of such ex-generals whom I mentioned, David Petraeus has made unrivalled achievements in the battle field. He is also a renowned scholar of military strategy who received a Ph.D. degree from Princeton University. He is due to publish "Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Ukraine" this October, which is coauthored with British historian Andrew Roberts.　More importantly, ex-General is completely unbiased against the Biden administration.

John Mearsheimer may be a big name, but I would rather say that a careful observer of American foreign policy should "stop admiring him" for his academic fame. We must think again how much his opinions and analyses represent those among policymakers and the public in America. Most importantly, I wonder why so many experts and people in the media do not take combat-proven viewpoints more seriously to foresee American strategy in Ukraine. This is a war, and there is no prospect of immediate diplomatic negotiation for ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, or Russia and the West.

The ANC’s pro-Russian Diplomacy is a Sheer Betrayal to Their Fellow Blacks in the West

TrumPutin: The axis of racists between Russia and the Western far right

Despite unprecedented confrontation with the West since the invasion of Ukraine, Russia keeps close relations with African nations, and nearly half of them have abstained from denouncing and imposing sanctions on the Russian aggression at UN General Assemblies. Among them, South Africa is a critical focus because ruling ANC makes a fatal and completely self-defeating mistake, as they maintain friendly relationship with Russia, even though this country is the worst racist regime in the world under the Putin administration.

The ANC is wrong and self-defeating to pursue pro-Russian diplomacy, ideologically. We all know that this party had fought against apartheid for decades until the end of the Cold War. Their fellow blacks in Europe and America showed strong solidarity with their anti-racism struggle. However, as if they had forgotten their long history of resistance, current ANC is befriending racist Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. This is an innocent betrayal to those who supported their effort for multi-racial democracy, because Russian President Vladimir Putin is the most notorious sponsor for the far right in the West to weaken liberal democracy, which led to Russian election interferences for Brexit and the Trump presidency. Even after the worldwide shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, some of those rightwing populists still resonate with Putin in order to propagate their aversion to socio-cultural diversity associated with globalization and devotion to White Christian nationalism. The party that advocates racial egalitarianism should never forget murky ties between Russia and Western racists.


Deplorably, the ANC betrays them unconciously.

Those pro-Russian right-wingers earn a horrible reputation in the United States. MAGA Republicans claim that America disengage from the conflict with Russia over Ukraine in the name of a “small government” ideal. Such right-wingers in the House are Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG), Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, Maddison Cawthorn, etc. In addition, former Trump administration officials, including ex-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, ex-White House Advisor Peter Navarro, and ex-Senior Councilor to the President Steve Bannon justify Putin’s aggression of Ukraine, as if they spoke on behalf of the Kremlin. Some of those extremists ridiculously regard Volodymyr Zelensky as “a globalist puppet for Soros and the Clintons.” Above all, Donald Trump himself praised Putin a genius when he invaded Ukraine (“Meet the pro-Putin Republicans and conservatives”; Republican Accountability Project). There is nothing Reaganite in their national security visions.

Also in Europe, some far right politicians still show pro-Putin posture, even though their countries face more direct threat of Russia than their fellows in America. After the Italian general election this September, newly-elected Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni from neo-fascist Brothers of Italy have overturned her position regarding Russia, but her right-wing colleagues in the cabinet such as Matteo Salvini and Silvio Berlusconi still remain pro-Putin (“Putin’s Friends? The Complex Balance Inside Italy’s Far-Right Government Coalition”; IFRI; November 28, 2022). Russia was also behind the German far right coup attempt led by Heinrich XIII this December. One of the suspects was approaching Russia on behalf of Heinrich (“Germany arrests 25 accused of plotting coup”; BBC News; 7 December, 2022). Pro-Russian demagogues and arsonists are found in the right wing media as well. Tucker Carlson of FOX News tells his TV audiences to take sides with Russia over Ukraine. Ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage of GB News speaks more discreetly to support Russia indirectly by propagating skepticism about Zelensky’s competence to govern the nation.

Do we really, wholly trust Volodymyr Zelenskyy?

pic.twitter.com/5kKWWugcEU

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) November 16, 2022

The list of those Western far right on both sides of the Atlantic is filled with creepy and scary people. Why should a party of black empowerment associate with the axis of “TrumPutin” racists? Remember, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed wholehearted sympathy to white nationalists in the United States this April, as he blamed “anti-white aggressions” (“Russia Warns of Anti-White 'Aggression' in U.S.”; Moscow Times; April 1, 2021). Actually, it is not just racism, anti-feminism, and anti-LGBT values that the Kremlin and the Western far right is in agreement. Putin’s Russia and Western racists share much more deeply fundamental values, which is called nationalist democracy by Israeli rightist historian Yoram Hazony, and sovereign democracy by former Russian Presidential Advisor Vladislav Surkov. That is an ideology totally in denial of the universal value of liberal democracy, and strongly nativist and anti-modernist. Those “TrumPutin” racists detest enlightenment and globalism, both of which are strongly endorsed by the Western establishment.

Furthermore, Putin’s aggression of Ukraine has also revealed domestic racism his country. The casualty rate of soldiers of ethnic minorities such as Mongolian Buryats and Caucasus Muslim Daghestanis is much higher than that of Russians (“Young, poor and from minorities: the Russian troops killed in Ukraine”; France 24; 17 May, 2022). More critically, I suspect that Putin’s interpretation and implementation of the Russky Mir notion reflects his racist vision of the world. In the well-known article “On Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”, he expresses deep-rooted grudge against Western superiority in the post-Cold War international politics and sheer disrespect to Ukrainian culture and history to deny their independence and sovereignty. With such contemptuous attitude, there is no wonder why the Russian troops have committed so many crimes in Ukraine, including rape, burgling, torture, murder, and any other kind of violence. Appallingly, Putin awarded a prize to those shameless rapists of Bucha (“Putin honors brigade accused of war crimes in Bucha”; Washington Post; April 19, 2022).

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the ANC owed significantly to Soviet help in the past in their struggle against apartheid. As in the United States, racial equality activists had almost no choice but leaning to the left. Their alignment with the communist super power was a natural option in those days, but that was too provocative for both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, in view of the Soviet-Cuban presence in Angola and Mozambique. Fortunately, the party leader Nelson Mandela proved that he could be in partnership with the West and white South Africans to develop multi-racial democracy, and won support from the global community. After all, the Soviet regime had collapsed, but the ANC leaders still seem to feel emotional and nostalgic ties with Russia.

It seems that Africans share the same kind of sentimentalism with Japanese. Typically speaking, late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pursued his father Shintaro’s unfinished job to settle the peace treaty with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev by having the Norther Territories returned. Abe sought to develop economic cooperation with post-Communist Russia. However, his wishful dream ended in failure, because he dismissed ruthless nature of Putin’s rule of power. Putin is not Gorbachev. From the current Kremlin’s point of view, Japan is just a subordinate ally of the United States, and Russia does not have to return the territory in consideration of economic cooperation. The problem is not just reciprocity. Ideologically, the old Soviet Union and current Russia are completely at odds, as the former sponsored communists worldwide while the latter sponsors far right racists in the West. Therefore, it does not make sense that the ANC still regards Putin’s Russia as their friend. Like Abe, they see Russia very illusionally. Think again. America and Israel were on very friendly terms with Iran ruled by modernist Shah, but both countries shall never treat current Shia theocracy of this country as such. A different regime makes a totally different country.

Rather than befriending Russia, the ANC is in a good position to denounce Putin’s nuclear blackmail racism. His Russky Mir essay shows an implicit sense of Russian superiority to Ukrainians, and it is such disdainful thinking that makes him so cruel to the enemy whether Chechnyans, Syrians, or Ukrainians. Without Western deterrence, he would not mind mass murder against any enemies who deny his Russky Mir values. To the contrary, South Africa is the only sovereign state that has abolished nuclear weapons by itself, while autocracies in the Global South such as Iran and North Korea commit nuclear proliferation. Remember, both of them help Putin’s savage invasion of Ukraine. Why should a party of multi-racial democracy make friends with the axis of racists, anti-globalists, and anti-enlightenment, which is primarily constituted of Putin’s Russia and Western far right?

Deplorably, most of the media do not criticize tremendous contradictions associated with the ANC’s unconscious betrayal to racial egalitarians around the world. It is no use to report their historical relations with the Soviet Russia so “sympathetically”. Putin’s Russia no longer upholds the value, “Workers of the world, unite!” In the name of traditionalism, his Russia provokes racist unrest in the West.

Among African nations, South Africa draws my attention from the following reasons. This country is located in a position to link the Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific area, which is quite important in the 21st century geostrategy. Also, the prospect of multi-racial democracy in this country is a global attention. In addition, this country belongs to the Anglo-Saxon politico-cultural sphere, since it was founded as a white dominion of the British Empire historically. Therefore, South Africa stimulates my interest, as my main focuses are the United States and Britain. And therefore, I would like to call an attention from the media and academics around the world to review fatal contradictions of pro-Russian diplomacy of the ANC more critically.

Can Britain Draw India into the West?

The war in Ukraine has starkly divided the world into Western democracies and Russo-Chinese autocracies. However, some democratic nations that were invited to the Democracy Summit by US President Joseph Biden, stay neutral and abstained from denouncing the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the UN Security Council in February and the UN Human Rights Council in April. Among them, India has long and deep relations with Russia since the Cold War era to counter Pakistan. Even today, Russia is the primary exporter of weapons for this country. Thus, it is unrealistic to expect India to join Western sanctions against Russia, at this stage.

On the other hand, India has been deepening security partnership with the United States since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Today, she joins the Quad to enhance the FOIP against China’s maritime expansionism. Therefore, it is a strategic imperative for Western Democracies to draw India into their side. For this objective, it is necessary to provide some defense and economic incentives from long term perspectives. The 21st century Cold War between the Sino-Russian axis and the Western alliance would go beyond the Russo-Ukrainian war. Prior to the Quad summit in Tokyo on May 24, Britain and France made some deals with India. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited India to meet his counterpart Narendra Modi on April 22, in order to enhance strategic partnership between both countries regarding the economy, security, climate change, etc. (“PM: UK-India partnership ‘brings security and prosperity for our people’”; GOV.UK; 22 April, 2022). Among numerous issues, the most deeply related to the focus of this post is Britain’s assistance of India’s next generation fighter aircraft project (“UK, India promise partnership on new fighter jet technology”; Defense News; April 22, 2022).

Prior to the deal with Britain, India cancelled the FGFA project, whose design was based on the Su-57 of Russia. Actually, this project has been delayed repeatedly and turned out too costly, as Russia faced financial and technological problems to develop the original Sukhoi stealth fighter aircraft (“$8.63-billion advanced fighter aircraft project with Russia put on ice”; Business Standard; April 20, 2018). Quite importantly, India was dissatisfied with the proto-type of the Russian design, and wanted more than 40 changes in engine, stealth and weapon-carrying capabilities (“India and Russia Fail to Resolve Dispute Over Fifth Generation Fighter Jet”; Diplomat; January 06, 2016). It seems that operational history of this fighter substantiates those concerns. In 2018, the Su-57 made a battlefield débuts in Syria (“Russia's most advanced fighter arrives in Syria”; CNN; February 24, 2018), but strangely, it is not used so much in the contested air space of Ukraine, where Russia is supposed to need a stealth fighter to establish air superiority (“Russia's much-touted Su-57 stealth fighter jet doesn't appear to be showing up in Ukraine”; Business Insider; Jun 14, 2022).

The Russian defense industry had been a formidable rival to the Western counterpart until the 1980s. But their technological strength lies in hardware, not in software. For example, the West was startled to see the level of Russian aerodynamics of fighter aircraft, when the Su-27 demonstrated Pugachev’s Cobra maneuver at the Paris Air show in 1989. However, as a consequence of the progress in computer electronics and information technology, avionics have become more important than maneuverability, which has given the West a much more advantageous position vis-à-vis Russia. At the beginning of the 1990s, when the Soviet Union was crumbling, Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard University mentioned about Russian manufacturing, “The Stalinist economy was successful in mastering relatively unsophisticated technologies and producing basic goods on a massive scale. … The biggest problem , however, is that Soviet central planners lack the flexibility to keep up with the quickened pace of today’s information-based economy. … An information-based economy requires broadly shared and freely flowing information to reap maximum gains” (“Bound to Lead”; Chapter 4, p. 120~121; 1990). Throughout the Yeltsin and the Putin era, Russia still fails to resolve this old Soviet problem. How dare can Vladimir Putin is compare himself with Peter the Great who successfully modernized and enlightened this country?

Currently, Britain is providing technological assistance for major regional powers to develop their indigenous next generation stealth fighters such as Turkey’s TAI TF-X and Japan’s Mitsubishi F-3. These projects proceed in parallel with Britain’s Tempest project, while technology transferees are allowed to maintain their sovereign initiative. Since the Modi administration launches the “Make in India” initiative to strengthen manufacturing sector, Britain’s offer will be helpful for India. Other Western countries such as the United States and France are launching export campaigns of their weapons actively, but Britain is quite assisting India’s stealth fighter to counter China's J-20 and J-31, from the R&D stage (“India bolsters arms ties with West to sever Russian dependence”; Nikkei Asia; June 17, 2022). Historically, Britain did not rule the whole of the Empire directly, but permitted some sort of self-rule by local lords to some extent in some areas. This traditional imperial skill will be helpful for the British defense circle to engage with stealth fighter projects in Turkey, Japan, and India.
　
BAE Systems that lead the Tempest R&D, is one of the top suppliers of high-tech components for advanced American weapon systems, which is technologically the most competitive defense market in the world. This implies that British defense technology is more reliable than Russian one. The war in Ukraine impresses Western advantage furthermore. Russia has fired numerous precision guided missiles, but unlike Western ones, 60% of those missiles failed to attack the target (“Exclusive: U.S. assesses up to 60% failure rate for some Russian missiles, officials say”; Reuters; March 26, 2022). Appallingly, Russian missile attacks are more poorly accurate than a layman’s throw in playing catch. Sanctions will broaden the gap of industrial technology between Russia and the West. China is not going to supply Russia with sanctioned technology, for fear of secondary sanctions on itself (“Russia's economy in for a bumpy ride as sanctions bite”; BBC News; 15 June, 2022). Russian weapon systems are less expensive and need less maintenance work than Western ones. But India today has grown richer and stronger enough to deploy more advanced Western arsenals, and ultimately, that will lower dependence on Russia.
　
Britain’s engagement with India’s stealth fighter project is also associated with its Indo-Pacific strategy. Last year, before Ruussian invasion of Ukraine, the British Prime Minister’s Office released “Global Britain in a competitive age”, which shows how Britain’s foreign and security policy anchors the “tilt” toward the Indo-Pacific within the Euro-Atlantic region. It states that Russia is the foremost threat, while China, India, and Japan are the key strategic focuses in the Indo-Pacific from their respective natures. Among the three, Britain regards China as an authoritarian state that poses the “biggest state-based threat” to its economic security and a “systemic challenge” to its security, prosperity and values. Meanwhile, India is recognized as “ “the largest democracy in the world” and as an “international actor of growing importance” to be aligned with Britain’s partner in this region, notably, the United States, Japan, and Australia, in terms of security, economy, and the environment (“Understanding the UK's ‘tilt’ towards the Indo-Pacific”; IISS Analysis; 15 April, 2021).

The “tilt” was designed to augment Britain’s global standings in the post-Brexit era, through deepening security and economic engagement with the Indo-Pacific region, to curb Chinese threats and to open up business opportunities in this fast-growing market. It is endorsed by diverse actors in Britain, including the government, business, and think tanks. Also, stakeholders in the region welcome the “tilt” (“What is behind the UK’s new ‘Indo-Pacific tilt’?”; LSE International Relations Blog; October 6, 2021). Regarding the Anglo-Indian partnership in the “tilt”, Visiting Professor Tim Wiliasey-Wilsey mentioned the following in a joint commentary by defense experts of the King’s College London (“The Integrated Review in Context: A Strategy Fit for the 2020s?”; King’s College London; July 2021). The fundamental point is that we should observe the strategic partnership bilaterally and multilaterally. The latter includes the Quad plus, the AUKUS, and other regional security and economic arrangements. Historically, India regarded Britain as pro-Pakistani, because the Muslim League of Pakistan was treated more favorably than the Congress Party of India during the colonial era and upon independence. Also, Pakistan joined the CENTO, a UK-led anti-communist military alliance in the Middle East. However, as the Taliban obstructed NATO operations in Afghanistan, Britain had begun to turn to India rather than Pakistan. Today, Britain is even inviting India to join the Five Eyes. When the FGFA project has stalled, the United Kingdom is drawing India into the West, both in terms of defense procurement and intelligence. That would be helpful to decouple this country from the Kremlin in the long run, despite current disagreements on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Hindu nationalism can grow into a critical hurdle to develop the strategic partnership between India and Britain, and also, other Western countries. First of all, we have to reexamine the assumption that India is the largest democracy in the world. According to the Freedom House index, India is not as free and democratic as advanced democracies. Regarding political rights, though India inherited British political system, ethnic and religious minorities are under-represented in the parliament. The scores in civil liberties are much worse. Current Prime Minister Modi is more antagonistic to press freedom than his Cambridge and Oxford-educated Sikh predecessor Manmohan Singh. Also, religious freedom is not guaranteed, as the Hindu majority launches aggressive anti-Muslim campaign in line with Modi’s BJP. The judicial authority is not independent enough to stop such populist upheaval (“FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2022: India”; Freedom House). Had a January 6 riot occurred in New Delhi instead of Capitol Hill, India might have failed to stop ribald vandalism. The West has a technological advantage to supplant Russia in defense procurement. But the question is how much we share common values with India.

Quite interestingly, Hindu nationalists have some similarities with Russky Mir devotees for Putin and January 6 rioters for Trump. All of them are extremely vindictive and tribalist. According to Gareth Price, Senior Research Fellow at Chatham House, most of the support for Modi’s BJP comes from the most populous and generally poorer Hindi ‘heartland’ states in the northern inland like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. They are resentful of English-speaking globalist elites who brought socio-economic inequality. Those nationalist populists satisfy their pride by scapegoating “privileged” ethno-sectarian minorities, notably Muslims and Dalits, just as Trump Republicans blame affirmative actions for blacks and Hispanics, and Putin supporters label pro-Western independentists in Ukraine as neo-Nazis. Most of the media and experts dismiss this point, although that seems to be deeply related to the reason why Modi’s India is so tolerant to savage, brutal, and immoral deeds by Russian troops in Ukraine. A developing country may have impending priority in the economy, but India even hesitates to condemn Russian conduct just verbally. For further consideration of Hindu nationalism in foreign affairs, we have to bear in mind that this ideology is so xenophobic that it is not so hostile to other homegrown religions such as Sikhism and Jainism, but antagonistic to exotic ones, notably Islam and Christianity (“Democracy in India”; Chatham House; 7 April, 2022).

Therefore, the West should not be so wishful as to call India the largest democracy in the world. Of course, this country share common geopolitical interest with the West, notably, "Free and Open Indo-Pacific". But with the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, India’s deep and inextricable relationship with Russia is reconfirmed among the global public, which poses a critical question how much we share common values with this country. As shown in Britain’s defense cooperation, the West can outcompete with Russia in the defense market of India, with more advanced and sophisticated technology. Geostrategically, that is a worthy effort for the West to weaken the Russo-Indian ties. Modi’s Hindu nationalist India in the Indo-Pacific is like Erdoğan’s Islamist Turkey in the NATO. Coincidentally, Britain is providing Tempest technology for both countries to help their indigenous fighter projects. While deepening strategic partnership with India on common interest issues to dilute Russo-Chinese influence on this country, we should not fall into wishful thinking to regard this country as the largest democracy in the world. For the time being, it is not recommendable to take provocative reaction to Hindu nationalism at governmental level. We should rather let non-governmental actors engage with ethno-sectarian and other social minorities to improve governance in India.