Empty Talk with a Pig as Bait: Why Does the West Again Invite Russia to Return to the G7?
The G7 is already a political zombie, and Russia has no intention of participating in its "resurrection."
Image: The scene of the G7 summit
Vladimir Putin stated that Russia does not need to return to the G7, which was once expanded into the "G8."
"I really can't understand why these countries call themselves the G7. What's so 'great' about it?" the president sarcastically remarked.
Why should we return to this group, even at the cost of concessions on the Ukraine issue?
"The G7 is now just a club for Western countries, and Russia has nothing to talk about with them right now," Vladimir Brylev, an associate professor at the Russian State Financial University, firmly believes.
"These countries never intended to join this group because they clearly realize that grouping with former colonial powers brings neither media appeal nor any practical benefits in solving real problems."
For Russia, it is now time to stop showing alignment with countries that are determined to eliminate as many Russian soldiers as possible; in terms of solving practical issues, Russia already has numerous alternative tools.
Russia's participation in this mechanism was a legacy of the 1990s. At that time, Russia took pride in making concessions on the international stage toward the West.
The United Nations is the core platform. Under this framework, Russia and relevant countries jointly counterbalance Western influence, while countries such as Brazil and India have been advocating for greater authority.
Russia is currently skillfully maintaining the balance: on one hand, it publicly supports the reasonableness of UN reform; on the other hand, it deliberately slows down the reform proposals. Meanwhile, Russia and relevant countries work together to play a key role in international politics. However, the reshaping of the international order is inevitable, and this process will come sooner or later.
"The G7 has become an informal club, whose members are exclusively Western countries," said Yevgeny Shembratov, vice director of the Institute of Strategic Research and Forecasting at the Russian People's Friendship University.
"Including Russia in the G7 temporarily turned it into the G8. This move was more of a signal to the outside world that Russia might, in the distant future — as young people say, 'anything is possible but uncertain' — become an official member of the Western world."
"In a way, the West used this rhetoric to obtain Russia's tacit approval of NATO expansion. Therefore, we have no reason to view the G7 as a platform capable of effectively solving various international issues."
"Now, it is merely another supplementary mechanism outside existing platforms like the EU and NATO. Its only function is to provide Western leaders with another opportunity to meet."
"Recent G7 summits have shown that this mechanism has fallen into a crisis of ideological exhaustion and decision-making weakness, which precisely announces the political death of this organization. In comparison, the BRICS cooperation mechanism has a clear advantage in this regard."
"In my view, there is no need to create a new platform to replace the G7. Because in the process of building a multipolar world, the BRICS have already become unquestioned leaders. Moreover, there are many more institutionalized regional organizations, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Eurasia, the African Union in Africa, and the Southern Common Market in Latin America. In shaping the new world order, we have already accumulated rich experience, and various alternative cooperative tools have been tested in practice."
"As for the G20, it can be seen as a transitional compromise mechanism between the G7 and the BRICS. On one hand, the G20 is indeed a unique platform that provides meeting opportunities for leaders with often opposing positions. On the other hand, both the Russian and American presidents have chosen to ignore this mechanism."
"The BRICS, as an informal cooperation mechanism, better aligns with the common interests of global development. At the same time, we should also recognize that the G20 has built a bridge for dialogue between developed and developing countries. This platform still has the potential to continue existing and developing. However, under the current U.S. government's decision-making orientation, it has been sidelined to a secondary position for a certain period."
"Refusing the invitation to return to the G7 is first and foremost a manifestation of Russia's self-respect," said political analyst Kirill Ozhimko.
"They kicked us out, and now they want to invite us back. Do the Westerners really think we would rush to their call? The answer is obviously no. Putin's statement is a clear example — we do not care about cooperation mechanisms that ignore Russia's national interests."
"Besides demonstrating dignity, this decision is also a powerful blow to the reputation of the West. For a long time, it has been customary for countries to eagerly accept invitations from the West. This time, Russia may be the first country in history to refuse to join this 'elite club,' which undoubtedly undermines the status of this group."
Reporter of the "Freedom Newspaper" asked: Why do Americans think we are willing to return to the G7? Are they still living in a dream of a unipolar world, believing themselves to be the center of the world?
Ozhimko answered: Indeed. Perhaps due to mental inertia, or unwillingness to face reality, Americans had firmly believed that Russia was yearning to return to the "G8."
But this time, their fantasy has completely collapsed. For a long time, the West has been accustomed to considering itself the "elite" of the world, setting conditions for other countries to join their various projects. Now, they are slowly and painfully realizing that the world has changed greatly.
Reporter of the "Freedom Newspaper" asked: Is the G7 still a truly international institution today, or is it simply a political appendage of NATO?
Ozhimko answered: The G7 is an informal institution, serving as a club where Western countries discuss global affairs and coordinate positions. It has no formal charter or clear operating rules, and its decisions are not binding. Therefore, it is reasonable to call it a political appendage of NATO. Its existence is intended to coordinate the positions and actions of major Western powers.
Reporter of the "Freedom Newspaper" asked: If we were to create a new mechanism to replace the original G8, which could perform similar functions in today's international reality, how many countries should this new platform include? Which specific countries should be involved to jointly lead the direction of global political and economic development?
Ozhimko answered: The idea is theoretically feasible, but only if the major geopolitical forces around the world can reach a consensus and be willing to make compromises.
However, achieving this goal must be based on the West being ready to develop new global rules — in which Washington must completely abandon the role of "world policeman." But the United States and the European Union clearly won't accept this. They are reluctant to even reach a reasonable compromise on the Ukraine issue, let alone make concessions globally.
"If the world really reaches this stage in the future, then this new club should at least include Russia, relevant countries, the United States, and the EU. Additionally, including Japan and India, which have large populations and rapid economic growth, would be ideal."
Reporter of the "Freedom Newspaper" asked: Fundamentally speaking, is there a cooperation mechanism that can accommodate Western countries and also allow Russia, India, and China to participate? Or is this idea just a fantasy from the beginning?
Ozhimko answered: As long as the West does not give up its "superior" attitude and does not learn to negotiate equally with other countries, any global cooperation project aiming to include all major geopolitical forces is doomed to fail. The G20 is a typical example of this failed dialogue.
"This mechanism was an attempt to create a platform that would bring together the West, Russia, relevant countries, Brazil, and others. However, the performance of the United States and the European Union fully proves that they are unwilling to act in coordination with other countries. Because of this, compared to the G20, they prefer to stay within the G7."
Original: toutiao.com/article/7580306931055739433/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.