fFor the Russian warlord Vladimir Putin, the summit meeting of the twenty most important industrialized and emerging countries on the Indonesian island of Bali this week went a lot worse than one might have expected anyway. The other countries agreed, at least “most”; they condemned the invasion of Ukraine “in the strongest possible terms”, as the summit declaration said. They disapproved of threats to use nuclear weapons anyway.
How did this come about after important countries like China or India had held back for so long with a verdict on the campaign in distant Europe? Certainly, skilful Western diplomacy played its part, including the chancellor’s Beijing trip, which many, including his own foreign minister, had criticized so hastily. The clumsy actions of the Russian side also played a role, as did Putin’s cancellation of the summit and the half-hearted guest appearance of his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
Everyone suffers from high energy prices
None of this would have had an effect if there weren’t tangible interests against showing consideration for Moscow. This war is expensive, not only for devastated Ukraine or gas-dependent Germany. Countries all over the world suffer from the high energy prices, unless they export oil or gas themselves, poorer countries more than rich ones.
This applies even more to food than fuel, which is becoming scarcer and more expensive in many places despite the extended grain agreement. And perhaps most important of all: The uncertainty caused by the ongoing war and the nuclear threats is weighing on the overall economic climate, with dramatic consequences for growth-spoilt China, for example, which is already struggling enough with the consequences of its failed corona policy.
Economic ties lead to commitment
At the beginning of the crisis, it looked as if many developing and emerging countries would blame the West: What is a war in distant Europe to us if our people can no longer afford food or fuel? That is over, not only because of the lively diplomacy of Western heads of state and government, but above all because of Putin’s own behavior – and precisely the economic ties that mean that the consequences of the Russian campaign can be felt all over the world.
If there were no world market for oil and liquid gas, if every country could act independently in terms of energy policy and shield itself from the consequences of war, engagement against the Russian threat would certainly be less pronounced. For example, if the Arab countries weren’t plagued by drought, but instead were blessed with the black soil of Ukraine, they could be indifferent to Putin’s aggression and the halt to grain deliveries. If the Chinese autocrat Xi Jinping had already realized his dreams of self-sufficiency, he would not have to worry about the consequences of nuclear threats for the world trade climate.
One-sided dependencies problematic
Much has been written over the past year that the idea of “change through trade” has failed. The fact that growing prosperity does not automatically lead to political liberalization has not only been known since 2022, but actually since the Tiananmen massacre of 1989. But that does not change the fact that economic dependencies still contain conflicts, the willingness to compromise and peaceful conflict resolution, at least in the case of semi-rational actors such as in Beijing or New Delhi, who do not indulge in mere Moscow-style delusions.
Dependencies are problematic when they are completely one-sided, for example because a country gets most of its gas from Russia or its grain from Ukraine alone. However, the necessary diversification does not mean isolation, on the contrary. The “one world” that idealists dream of is already reality: as a world market on which everything that has a human face depends.
