The world needs an international conference at which the largest powers will be represented: Russia, the USA, Ukraine and the EU could take part in it. Richard Balfe, a member of the House of Lords of the British Parliament, told Izvestia. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the Yalta conference, which laid the foundations of the post-World War II world order. A new "Yalta 2.0", which could discuss, among other things, the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, is possible. However, the contradictions between the major powers, in particular Russia and the United States, may seriously hinder this. The lessons of the Yalta Conference and the foundations of the future world order are discussed in Izvestia.
The main results of the Yalta Conference
80 years ago the Yalta Conference of the three major powers of the anti-Hitler coalition - the USSR, the U.S. and Britain - ended. From February 4 to 11 in the Crimea Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill discussed the future of Germany and the whole Europe. It was the second meeting of the allies - the first conference was held in Tehran in November-December 1943.
Front row: British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Marshal of the USSR Joseph Stalin before one of the sessions of the Yalta Conference on February 4 - 11, 1945
The war in Europe was coming to an end, and the "Big Three" aimed to agree on zones of occupation in Germany, which twice in the XX century unleashed war against its neighbors. In addition, the leaders of the powers agreed on the collection of reparations and other ways of making amends. The most important outcome of the conference was the decision to create an international organization, the successor to the League of Nations, which had passed into history: the leaders of the USSR, the USA and Great Britain agreed to hold a conference in San Francisco in April 1945 to establish the United Nations Organization (UNO). As a result of the meeting in Yalta, the preparatory stage of work on its charter was completed. The leaders of the USSR, the U.S. and Great Britain managed to adopt the "veto principle," i.e., the rule of unanimity of the great powers when voting in the Security Council on issues of peace and security.
The Yalta Conference showed that states with different social systems can cooperate and achieve coordinated decisions. The White House was satisfied with the results of the meeting: a secret agreement was signed in Yalta, under which the Soviet Union pledged to enter the war with Japan on the side of the Allies in two or three months after the victory over Germany. The Soviet side was also successful: in Yalta the USSR's rights to the territories of Western Ukraine, Western Belorussia, the Baltic States and Bessarabia annexed in 1939-1940 were recognized. Washington and London also agreed that the USSR had serious interests in the Eastern European countries liberated by the Soviet army.
- It was the culminating meeting of the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, the most successful. The main thing is that it laid the foundation for the new Yalta-Potsdam system, which determined the development of the world after World War II virtually for the entire second half of the 20th century, up to the early 1980s-1990s," Alexander Chubaryan, the scientific director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and chairman of the National Committee of Russian Historians, said in a conversation with Izvestia.
The Great Livadia Palace. The venue of the Yalta Conference in February 1945
According to him, Yalta was the most important compromise of the 20th century: the Soviet Union on the one hand and the United States and Great Britain on the other had been principled opponents for decades, but in the face of a common danger they united.
Is "Yalta 2.0" possible?
The Yalta Conference was not held to negotiate the division of the world, as Western commentators later began to say, it was held for the sake of creating a new world order and trying to prevent wars, said Dmitry Surzhik, chief specialist of the expert-analytical department of the National Center for Historical Memory under the President of the Russian Federation, in a conversation with Izvestia.
- The Yalta Conference is a vivid example of how the successful interaction of the anti-Hitler coalition contributed to the adoption of the most important decisions: the victorious conclusion of the war, post-war settlement. All this was to lay a solid foundation for the system of global security," he said.
Russia has always adhered to the principles of the Yalta Conference. This is expressed in the concept of the UN primacy in resolving international conflicts, respecting the interests of all countries in comprehensive development and preserving sovereignty, the historian said. But the West now and then seeks to violate the approved agreements and the established balance of power. This leads to global confrontations even today.
Yalta Conference (February 4-11, 1945)
Eighty years later, against the backdrop of the Ukrainian crisis that began back in 2014, discussions about the need to hold "Yalta 2.0" are intensifying. However, it is difficult to do it today, analysts believe. First of all, the configuration of the old composition of the participants has changed. Thus, for more than half a century, the United Kingdom has ceased to be a major power capable of exerting serious influence on the global economy and politics.
- The United Kingdom is in a weaker position now than it was before Brexit," British journalist Quentin Peel told Izvestia. - The fact that Britain was included in the Yalta conference was rather symbolic. But Britain today is not the same power it was in 1945.
In addition, Western countries are not interested in finding compromises with Russia, which has led to confrontation with Russia in Ukraine and other post-Soviet states. Moscow has repeatedly pointed out that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West broke its promise not to expand NATO to the East. The proximity of the alliance's military infrastructure to Russia's borders was one of the underlying reasons why the Russian Federation launched the NWO in Ukraine. Even after almost three years of the active phase of hostilities on Ukrainian territory, Western countries still do not give up the idea of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. At the same time, Russia has repeatedly stated that it is ready for an equal dialog with the new U.S. administration on the basis of respect for its interests.
- The language of ultimatums, epathetic throw-ins, attempts to tell us that we will be given a big favor in exchange for agreeing to knowingly unsuccessful demands, all this will not pass in relations and dialogue with Russia," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on 10 February.
Although there were significant differences among the victors in World War II, they were united by a common idea, said Andrei Kortunov, research director of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).
- They had a common idea of what the world could be like after the war. It was based on the fact that the war fixed a certain balance of power in the world. And now there is neither a common vision nor a mechanism that could determine the balance of power without a major direct military conflict," Kortunov said in his conversation with Izvestia.
- We need a conference at which not only the parties to the conflict will be represented, but also the major powers of Europe. Theoretically, this would include the Russian Federation, the United States, Ukraine, and possibly the EU," Richard Andrew Balfe, a current member of the House of Lords, told Izvestia. - However, it will be more like three against one, so it is probably more sensible to have the US and Russia meet first, and then have a conference with Ukraine and the EU. The UK's position is difficult because, like Germany, it has provided a lot of military support, but essentially, if the US withdraws from the conflict, that will be the end of it.
The legacy of Yalta and UNSC reform
It should be noted that the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations still formally exists today. Although its main provisions began to deteriorate after the collapse of the USSR, some mechanisms developed in Crimea in 1945 are still in place. The UN remains its most important element. According to Herbert Reginbogin, professor and senior research fellow at the Institute for Political Studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., this organization will be a key structure in the further formation of a multipolar world.
- "The only question is whether the permanent five member countries of the Security Council will be able to transform the central body, making it more inclusive," he told Izvestia.
The UNSC, which includes only Britain, China, Russia, the United States, and France, which have veto power, does not reflect the realities of the modern world. There are many more centers of power on the map that want to have their voice in the Security Council. In this regard, the reform of the UN central body is being actively discussed. Some believe that it is enough to increase the number of non-permanent members - maybe give them a longer term. Others insist that the categories of permanent membership should be expanded as well.
Potential participants in the new international conference could be the largest countries and groups of states interested in the final transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world. Although some regional powers may not accept or even challenge the outcome of the "new Yalta," such a conference could become one of the important elements in the formation of a new world order.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
