Message number one: G7 countries fly together to the next G20 summit at the invitation of Indonesia. There, in Bali, there will be contention, because on Monday Russian President Vladimir Putin also agreed. Scholz’s justification was “KuK”: the struggle to make new friends.

This is happening between two power blocs that are also partially overlapping: the G7, namely the West, led by the United States, and the Brics countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), which meanwhile are the undisputed main powers coming from from Beijing. . Whether Putin will attend in person is as open as the answer to the question of whether all Western heads of state will actually fly there, including the Chancellor.

Scholz, Putin and the Brics nations: The G7 is coming to an end – but the “battle for friends” has just begun

However, at the end of the G7 meeting in Elmau, Scholz gave an official reason why the West, which was on the side of the victims being attacked in the Ukraine war, did not heed Volodymyr Zelensky’s request to boycott the G20 meeting. if Putin is present. Scholz said that one should not “separate the G20”. And: you have to “give a good push”.

However, it was not a difficult defeat for the Ukrainian President, as Selenskyj has managed to get the Western Allies to promise permanent military assistance to Ukraine, albeit without the mantra once chosen by ECB President Mario Draghi for the rescue of the euro: “Whatever it takes”.

Message number two is hidden behind only three letters in the basic sentence about the Chancellor’s energy transition. It reads: This energy transition will “only” occur in developing and developing countries.

Now global climate woes and woes are no longer just a German problem

This “one and only” chancellor is likely to shape Germany’s debate on the energy transition, the gradual abolition of fossil fuels. So far, discussions have taken place as if the world’s climate was hanging on, for example, about Germany’s efforts to phase out coal, nuclear power, oil and gas. It plays a major role in almost every federal debate. The core argument is that Germany is now a global pioneer in the energy transition, and the world can only be convinced of this if the energy transition is truly successful.

That’s why Scholz’s “one and only” is so significant: Now the world’s climate woes and woes no longer depend on Germany alone, but mainly on developing and developing countries.

This puts these countries in a key position, and in more ways than one. Especially geopolitically: Western countries have been a bit surprised since realizing that they have slipped into a minority position globally in support of Ukraine.

This broadens the political “range” of this war, so to speak, which is suddenly no longer “only” about Ukraine, Russia, the United States and Europe – as if that weren’t enough. A regional war is now a conflict affecting the whole world.

The new “great game” about power sharing in the world has been in full swing for a long time

Africa is affected because the continent is more dependent on Ukrainian grain supplies than Germany on Russian gas. And Asia took part because, first, it was also affected by soaring inflation in Europe and the United States. And secondly, because the Ukraine war has long given rise to a new “great game” of power sharing in the world.

And, frankly: If Joe Biden and Olaf Scholz are hoping to win the KuK soon with a simple invitation to influential developing countries and some financial and development policy commitments, then: they’re dealing with a lemon.

The countries where Russia and China on the one hand and the United States and Europe on the other now compete have made the best of this contest for themselves: more money and more power.

South Africa example: In the spring, when the West pleaded that Russia be condemned for the attack on Ukraine, South Africans abstained – as did 25 (!) other African countries. There are several reasons for this, one of the most important: Putin’s Russia is quite popular in South Africa. Even the Soviet Union undauntedly supported the ANC, when it was not yet head of government and was still a liberation movement against the apartheid regime. of white people.

Why should South Africa and India also give up the seesaw policy between West and East?

The result: West helps South Africa with billions of euros to remove coal, Chancellor speaks of “climate club”. And Timur, Russia and China, pledged to South Africa at the Brics summit to campaign for a stronger role for Pretoria at the United Nations.

So the question is: why should South Africa give up its seesaw policy between West and East? Why choose between more climate protection and more power when you can get both?

India example: It works according to the same pattern: Indians get money from the West, weapons from the East. What India desperately needs – because of the internal conflict on the one hand and because of the conflict with Pakistan on the other. 70 percent of India’s weapons come from Russia, and India will remain dependent on these weapons supplies for a long time – at least 10 to 20 years.

India won’t be turning to the west for that long, so Scholz and Co. can change themselves.

Because of Putin’s war, these countries are far from likely to win with Russia

In KuK, the struggle for friends, Scholz basically argues in terms of identity politics, the extraordinary greening of social democrats. There is a high possibility that countries like Indonesia, India, South Africa, Senegal or Argentina will join the west camp, as these are democracies. But: so what?

Scholz said of developing countries’ views on the Ukraine war: “No one (of them) has any doubts about what caused this conflict”. Namely, Russia’s aggressive violation of international law. Just: That’s why these countries are far from likely to win with Russia. Here Scholz made a – well-meaning of course – error:

Democracy doesn’t make friends into friends. More important than the internal constitution and its underlying values ​​are: the national interest.

And Africans have a huge interest in the West giving up vaccine patents during the coronavirus pandemic. But he didn’t. For which there are reasons – such as the constitution of private economy. However, in the Global South, what is happening is that the West is doing what it has always done – just taking care of itself.

The West wants to fight China’s Silk Road initiative – but it’s ten years too late

Unfortunately, Putin’s story that the West is to blame for the food shortages that lead to starvation is also true in African countries. And not Russia. The attacks are not to be blamed on the fact that Africans should be starving, but on sanctions from the West, which do not take into account African interests.

We in the western allies might think that’s bullshit, but that’s the version that emerged in the southern world. The problem: you can’t get something like this for 600 billion euros.

That is the number that the West now wants to counter China’s Silk Road initiative. Only: West is about ten years late. Behind this, too, lies a fairly basic misunderstanding: aid does not necessarily create geostrategic allies. All German and European development aid did not make Africa side with the West in the Ukraine war. The Chinese are clearly starting to get smarter with their “belt and road initiative.”

Gifts don’t create dependence, loans do

They don’t give money, they give loans. For large infrastructure projects such as large connecting roads, large ports, and large airports. They created a completely different lever than the West with (pardon me): the alms policy. Gifts don’t create dependency, loans do, because they last for decades and must be repaid in the end.

Conclusion:
The Western realization that neither climate protection nor war in Ukraine can cope without a large part of the “Third World”, which has become more confident, is now there. But:

It helped in the Ukraine war: absolutely nothing.