Velina Tchakarova: prediction

Transcript context

…Are we now in a world where the laws of war are basically obsolete? Putin is acting in Ukraine without restraint, killing civilians. The conflict in the Middle East — whatever one might think of it, there’s clearly a lot of disagreement about it. The ICC, the morning of this recording, is bringing charges against Netanyahu and the Israeli government. The United States government does not really recognize that as legitimate. Do we have international law anymore at all? Well, we have international law, but in the world of realpolitik and geopolitics, the strong do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must. This is the principle, unfortunately, that more or less overrides international law norms and rules. Right now, in this gray area of an interministic international system, the old international system is crumbling down, and the new international system is trying to be born. We are in, let’s say, a stadium of an emergence of a new global system in which each and every single field, including the international law — we see it also with international organizations such as the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council is a perfect example for it, where we have clear bipolarization, bifurcation of the club between China and Russia on the one hand, and the United States, France, and UK on the other. The same goes for all these international bodies. That is to say that they are, of course, being used on both sides, and at the same time, they’re being misused, unfortunately. That is the reality we are in right now. We are in this period of international relations where the number of international military conflicts and wars hasn’t been that high since the end of the Cold War. It’s the highest number of military conflicts and wars. We have a lot of, as you said, casualties. I argue we are going to have even more tensions and more military conflicts in the next years to come, with this year, 2024, being extremely volatile. In a sense, I’m not surprised that we are in this situation where both sides are trying to instrumentalize legal norms, rules, standards, but to no avail because in the end, until we do not have a new winner or new emerging blocks with their reading of international law, with their understanding of organizational principles, with their structures, we will be in this gray zone of interpretation and misinterpretation. And practically, there is almost no common ground in between. We do see that there is no more global police power that can decide over the end of military conflicts or wars. At the same time, we see that, more or less, the narratives that are coming from both sides are equally being instrumentalized. Right now, you mentioned the case of the Middle East. In fact, I argue that the war between Israel and Hamas probably will find its way by the end of this year, as compared to some other tensions that will still be ongoing, like the war in Ukraine, which will still be ongoing in the next several years. But here, we have a clear case where you see that the West — United States, European Union powers — are supporting Israel, and countries like China and Russia are actually supporting the Palestinian question. I argue that in the end, probably, this balancing act will be the positive influence on finding a two-state solution for this conflict, with devastating humanitarian consequences for the Palestinian people without a doubt. Let’s say that Putin manages to take and then keep something like a third of Ukraine, and then there’s an uneasy truce. What would Putin do next? Is it Suwalki Gap? Is it Lithuania? Is it eastern Estonia? Is it Moldova? Play out the scenario in that case.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.