Ukraine Pushes Peace Summit, Sudan in Catastrophe, Israel-Hamas Deal at a Crossroads, and More

MCMAHON:
In the coming week, a Ukraine Peace Summit takes place in Switzerland. The UN Security Council discusses Civil War ravage in Sudan. And, diplomatic pressure mounts for Israel and Hamas to reach a cease-fire deal. It's June 13th, 2024 and time for The World Next Week. I'm Bob McMahon.

ROBBINS:
And I'm Carla Anne Robbins.

MCMAHON:
Carla, let's go to Switzerland.

ROBBINS:
Oh, yes.

MCMAHON:
Switzerland is a venue for all sorts of internationally minded organizations, but this week at the behest of President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, it is going to be host to a peace summit and there will be issues like nuclear safety, food security, possible prisoner exchanges discussed. But Russia, which is the other main party in Ukraine-Russia war, is not going to be in attendance. So, can there be a peace conference without Moscow at the table? And what should we expect from the summit?

ROBBINS:
Bob, this peace summit in Switzerland is just one of several meetings that are happening this week and in coming days that shift the focus back to Ukraine and its future. And it started off actually earlier this week in Berlin with Ukraine Recovery Conference, which sought to rally investment for ninety-five long-range projects, and also to talk about reform targets, which seem pretty important for Ukraine. And then the G7, which begins today, Thursday and runs through Saturday in Italy, is expected to finally come up with an agreement on how to leverage $300 million in frozen Russian funds, which are in European, mainly Belgian banks.

The Biden administration, we've talked about this before, has been pushing to turn all of that money over to Ukraine for defense and financial needs and some reconstruction. And the European bankers have been balking, claiming it's a violation of international law and undoubtedly bad for their business. The Europeans wanted to give the Ukrainians the interest, and that's just only about $3 billion a year, and the Americans have been arguing that that's not enough. And the compromise, and we're probably going to find out about this maybe even before the podcast drops, but the compromise they appeared to have agreed on, the G7 countries will loan Ukraine roughly $50 billion and this loan will be backed by the future interest earned on the frozen Russian asset.

At this G7 meeting, the leaders are also expected to discuss what they can do to stop China from selling so-called dual-use technology to Russia, including microelectronics and software needed to build weapons systems, drones and air defenses. So, there's going to be a lot of focus on what to do now as well as focus on reconstruction and money. So, after a lot of discussion of Gaza and something we're going to get into as well, there is going to be this shift.

And then toward the end of the week, there is this peace conference in Switzerland and you've raised a really basic question, how can there be a peace conference without the Russians at the table? This was something that Zelenskyy very much wanted. The Swiss say that Zelenskyy wouldn't have showed up if the Russians were there, and they see this as creating some sort of format for eventually a platform, a format eventually for a peace discussion.

What the Ukrainians want is they want an endorsement. They want as many countries possibly to show up. Zelenskyy has been pushing to have more Global South countries at the table, and so far what we know is 160 invitations went out. Some eighty countries, but they haven't published the attendee list are supposed to be there, and that list of things that they are going to be talking about are nuclear security and the need for free navigation and the exchange of captives and return of illegally deported children. The Ukrainian's argument is who could possibly disagree with this? And they're hoping that South Africa and Brazil and Turkey and all those fence-sitters are potentially going to send leaders. If not the very top leaders, some senior officials to show that Ukraine has more support.

We know that Macron is going to go. We know that Olaf Scholz is going to go. We know that Joe Biden isn't going to go; he's going to a fundraiser, but Kamala Harris will be there. And the Ukrainians may say these are pretty...Who could possibly disagree with these topics? But if you look at them, let's face it, if you talk about free navigation, if you talk about nuclear security, if you talk about the exchange of captives, the Russians aren't going to look very good, which is why the Russians have been lobbying so hard to keep countries away from this meeting. So, we'll have to watch it.

Zelenskyy, he's a pretty incredible diplomat for his country and he was out there even at the Shangri-La Dialogue, lobbying really hard. We know the Indians have said they're going to come, but we'll see once again what level they send people.

MCMAHON:
Carla, I wonder how much of this, in addition to whatever substantively comes out, how much of this is just another effort from Zelenskyy to try to boost morale at a time when Russia has generally been said to have seized the initiative with all these, certainly with the step-up in shelling and missile launching and adapted missile launches and so forth. That Zelenskyy's trying to convey to his people like the rest of the world is talking about this and is involved in this and is trying to play a role as opposed to, it's just all going in the bad direction. Is that also play a role or am I overstating that?

ROBBINS:
Well, certainly they need any good news and Ukraine's current situation is really grim. Russia is continuing to launch missiles and drones just at Kyiv just the other day itself. And Russian forces are continuing to press really hard. So, any act of solidarity is certainly welcome and. President Biden just today is also going to make a commitment for a ten-year security deal, assuming he's reelected. He won't be able to keep it for four years. We'll see if President Trump is elected. Ukrainian civilians, even if they're not in the direct line of fire, half Ukraine's electrical generating capacity has been destroyed by Russian attacks, much of it just in the recent months. And the country's experiencing major power cuts and people are wondering what's going to be like in the coming winter?

That said, there is some good news just as the U.S. aid is finally flowing, these attacks on Kyiv in the last day or so, they've been able to repel a lot of them. And even the mayor of Kharkiv, this is Ukraine's second city, which was on the brink of falling just a few weeks ago, the mayor of Kharkiv was at that Berlin conference and he told Reuters that Western weapons and this permission to use these weapons against Russian targets close to the border had actually slowed the Russian assault down.

So, there's a small amount of good news, the sense of solidarity there, but the war is really hard and it's going to take a lot more support, but the sense of solidarity is really important. And more than anything else, getting a lot more Patriots there, which are also coming, is certainly absolutely essential.

MCMAHON:
And somewhere on the horizon potentially are these advanced aircraft that are said to be transferred at some point, although training's going to have to happen and everything else, but you are seeing potential for stepped up capabilities on the horizon. And it should be noted, Russia is burning through a lot of material. They have moved to a war economy more and more forcefully. They are clamping down against any dissent seemingly much more vigorously.

So, things are sort of hardening. It is going to be interesting to see how they respond to this bit of financial wizardry that's going on with the G7 in terms of what sort of reprisals can they mount? They've talked about seizing assets of some G7 countries that still have holdings in Russia itself. So, things are getting more and more intriguing, I guess you could say, in addition to more meaningful.

ROBBINS:
As Biden was leaving for Italy, Treasury announced these expanded secondary sanctions, which gives the U.S. power to blacklist any bank. And the main targets are Chinese and Hong Kong-based banks that are facilitating these deals of these so-called dual-use items that are keeping the Russian military-industrial complex going, but the U.S. power to blacklist any bank that does business with Russian financial institutions. And there's a hope that all the G7 countries are going to follow.

And what we know today is the price of the dollar spiked in Russia and the Russians have proved incredibly adaptable moving away from, getting around any sanctions that have been imposed upon them, and they've been very dependent on the Chinese. And taking this focus directly to the Chinese is absolutely essential. And one thing that I read that I found really quite interesting is that the Russians have pivoted away increasingly from quote "toxic international currencies", the EU and the dollar and the yen and moving more and more to the Chinese currency, to the renminbi. But there are some reports that they're having increasing problems getting their hands on Chinese currency because the Chinese are felling the squeeze and are afraid that they're going to get in trouble with the global financial system.

So, I don't want to get our hopes up here because the Russians have proved incredibly resilient militarily, incredibly resilient financially, but it's quite good to see that there's a push, a push on all sorts of fronts, and particularly since this military aid is flowing and more patriots are moving, so we will see if this new focus and this new push does some good for Ukraine.

MCMAHON:
And it's all a new lesson in what are the levers of financial statecraft that are still available and they still seem to be considerable.

ROBBINS:
Bob, let's head to New York where the UN Security Council is going to hear a briefing on another extremely grim crisis, and that's one in Sudan. The situation there is desperate. And since this conflict began in April of last year, ten million people have been displaced, at least fifteen thousand killed. And in a country which is already struggling with problems of hunger, disease, ethnic, gender-based violence, the horrors have only multiplied. The UN provides vital humanitarian services. Although its mission has been reduced, the circumstances are incredibly hard in Sudan, and it's also trying to facilitate a peace process there. What can we expect from the Security Council when it meets on Sudan next week?

MCMAHON:
Well, things are moving a bit fast on this front actually, Carla. Because ahead of next week, as early as this afternoon, the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution that demands one of the warring sides, the Rapid Support Forces, or RSF, to halt its siege of the capital of North Darfur state, which is al-Fashir. It's expected to call for the immediate halt of fighting and for de-escalation in and around al-Fashir. The reason for that is Darfur is unfortunately, this was a region people might recall as the center of genocide in the early aughts, 2007, 2008 in particular, and it's now teetering on that brink again. The UN officials have been extremely concerned at ramping up violence in the area and the fragmentation of Darfur, which is a very large chunk of territory in Western Sudan into ethnic sectarian lines, and just a great deal of concern about Arab versus African groups and so forth.

On top of that, all this is happening against the backdrop of just massive population flows, but al-Fashir seems to be a particularly bad area where this is occurring. And so Security Council is, even though it has been fractious and divided and certainly divided between these major powers that we were just talking about on Ukraine, Russia, United States, China, even the Security Council seems to be seized of the need to make a strong statement as it pertains to al-Fashir.

Next week, there will be further discussions about the broader humanitarian state, about in particular trying to lay out the markers for how to securely provide humanitarian aid to Sudan from various border crossings, and particularly Chad, because there are parts of Sudan that are teetering on the edge of famine. The numbers, again, as you said at the beginning, this is the world's worst crisis if you don't consider all the other crises going on. This is certainly the most neglected major crisis in the world, and it is proving to be extremely hard to point A, which is just to stop the fighting. And that's because the two sides in part have some strong backers.

The RSF has a backing of the UAE. The Sudan Armed Forces have the backing of the Saudis and Egypt. They also increasingly have been getting support from Russia, if rhetorical, if not otherwise. And you can expect Russia to speak up at the Security Council next week about making sure that any aid passageways are done through the auspices only of Sudan government controlled places. And the problem is, is that Sudan government forces have been in retreat in certain key areas, and it's not clear where they're going to be able to control the aid passages.

So, it puts the UN, which as always is the go-to humanitarian center of coordination, in a very difficult spot. Cindy McCain, who's the executive director of the World Food Program, just appeared at CFR earlier this week and talking about just how difficult it is to get secure corridors that are not going to be looted or UN workers held up at point of violence to turn over their goods. There is a great deal of lawlessness going on, and so it's an extremely difficult situation. And yes, there is an attempt by parties including the U.S. to try to forge some sort of a peace process right now that the U.S. and Saudi efforts in particular have met with problems because the Sudanese Armed Forces have said they would not participate in peace talks until the RSF is decisively defeated. That seems to be far off.

ROBBINS:
So, what's the point of peace talks if the other side is decisively defeated?

MCMAHON:
Yes, good point, Carla.

ROBBINS:
Well, in the past we've talked about all the different players who have relationships with the two sides and with the hope, I think that they could use their leverage to at least broker some sort of a serious cease-fire here. But in your description, it seems that they're actually fanning the fighting. Can we get the UAE, the Egyptians? Certainly not the Russians, I think they're providing weapons. Are any of these outside players serious interlocutors for moving a peace process forward?

MCMAHON:
I think you've seized on one of the things that makes this particularly difficult because you've had reports, repeated reports that the countries that are supporting both sides in this are looking for a bit of leverage in terms of some of the spoils of supporting the different sides. So, Sudan is a country with a lot of natural resources, for example: oil and gold. And there have been reports that the different sides supporting the different parties are looking for access to those resources as a trade-off for continuing to support them. It's not clear.

The Wagner group for example, there have been reports that it has been involved in gold mining operations. And so Russia, again has been a very strong supporter of the government forces. Wagner though in the past had also had connections with Hemedti, who's the person who's heading the RSF. There had even been reports that Wagner had supplied weapons and trading to the RSF. So, at the same time you have Russian officials doubling down on their support for Sudanese Armed Forces. So, that's just one example. UAE had staked out some areas as well of influence and had been said to have been sort of trading off its support for certain concessions within Sudan.

So, you're going to have to get past, and it's going to have to take big power, arm-twisting among other things to get involved here and to try to once and for all bring the parties to negotiation that acknowledges that there's some competition for spoils going on, but that the end of the day they have to bring this war to an end. It is epic what is going on in terms of humanitarian. Previously to the war, there were millions of people who were displaced. Now there are ten million people displaced in Sudan. Roughly half of its population of fifty million is said to be insecure in some way. A few million have already crossed borders into other countries.

And Africa has seen this before, regrettably. Congo comes to mind and Congo still has its problems in Easter Congo, but there was one point where Congo had six different countries with military forces involved. That wasn't too long ago because there were different stakes to be had, and yet patient, persistent diplomacy can sometimes prevail. We saw it prevail in the civil war between North and South Sudan, and now there is a new nation of South Sudan, which still has its own difficulties as well. But this is all a long way of saying, Carla, that there are outside parties that are not helping to bring this to an end in terms of bringing it to an end to finally bring peace. And there needs to be stepped up attention at a time when this sad old earth is dealing with a lot of other conflicts, and we've talked about one already. And it's going to have to be persistent and consistent or else this is going to devolve further.

Carla, let's take our conversation to Israel, not because we're going to move beyond difficult war situations, but because we are at a potential inflection point, because a cease-fire deal remains on the table. This past Sunday, however, Benny Gantz left Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet and removed his centrist National Unity party from a emergency unity government that had been set up. Now without the support, Netanyahu is more dependent on far-right parties and they have been more supportive of escalating military operations rather than finding a route to a cease-fire. Meanwhile, in the United States and other international groups are applying pressure, although a lot of it seems to be focused on Hamas at this point saying the deal is on the table for them to accept or not. So, how might Netanyahu be sort of handling this situation? What should we look for in the next step? And can you help sort through the confusion about whether or not there is actually a deal that the Israeli government supports?

ROBBINS:
I have learned never to predict anything in this conflict, or at least not anything hopeful, but the sequence of recent events, which you were summing up, look to me at least in a contrarian way, like the best chance in a very long while for pushing through a cease-fire for hostages exchange deal.

First on Saturday, Israel rescued four hostages to great rejoicing, but the challenges that rescue have made clear to many in the Israeli military establishment that the only way to get all of the remaining hostages out, and it's not clear how many of them are still alive, is with some sort of a cease-fire deal. Then Benny Gantz and his National Unity party withdrew from Netanyahu's wartime government, and that gave Bibi a choice. He could either go full on hard right and isolate Israel from the U.S. and a lot of his own public or tack at least partly toward the center and embrace a cease-fire deal.

To up the pressure on both Hamas and on Israel, the U.S. then on Monday went to the UN Security Council and won its banking, only Russia abstained, for cease-fire plan for Gaza. And the United States interestingly had vetoed three previous cease-fire resolutions and had gotten crosswise with lots of other ones there. But it clearly did this to put pressure on Hamas, but also to put pressure on Israel. If Washington is to be believed, the proposal hewed closely to what Hamas put on the table, and Washington claimed that it had already received Israel's private endorsement, but Netanyahu was yet to say so publicly.

And nothing is easy here. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was on his eighth trip to the region since October 7th, said Hamas had responded to the deal and suddenly had changed its position. And some of the changes are he said "workable," some are not. And today, on Thursday at the G7, National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan said that the administration was going to keep pushing, but it didn't look like he'd made any progress. And meanwhile, once again, the Israelis are still not saying that they'd committed to the deal.

So what is this deal? That's the one that Biden rolled out claiming it was an Israeli deal. It's three phases. First phase, six-week cease-fire, withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas of Gaza, and a release of elderly and female hostages in exchange for a release of hundreds of Palestinian detainees. Then a second phase, all remaining hostages released, including male soldiers, all hostilities end. All Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza. And then this third phase, which is reconstruction, although it's not clear who would run Gaza at that point, which is really a big deal, and one of the reasons why Gantz got out and perhaps the most neuralgic of issues inside the war cabinet itself.

And what Hamas is reportedly demanding at this point, and it hasn't said so publicly, is a full Israeli withdrawal by the end of the first phase, as well as completing quote "sustainable halt to fighting before any exchange of prisoners", which really would be completely out out of step with what this supposed agreement that was on the table. What we don't know is, was this really the original Hamas deal? Did the Israelis sign on? We don't know a lot of this, but if we take the Americans at their word, the Americans still think that they can push something forward.

So, here are the big questions. First, the Americans have put all the pressure on Hamas, and does Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, want any deals? I think that's a pretty legitimate question here. Hamas has agreed to a brief cease-fire late last year during which more than 100 hostages in Gaza were freed and many more Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons were exchanged, and Sinwar is believed to be hiding in a tunnel beneath Khan Yunis. And there was this, I don't know, Bob if you read this. There was this pretty extraordinary story in the Wall Street Journal citing dozens of messages that Sinwar had sent to cease-fire negotiators to Hamas leaders outside of Gaza. And it sounded like he believes that Hamas is just going to benefit for more fighting no matter the cost in civilian Palestinian lives. So, if you buy into that, Hamas is not going to accept anything.

On the other hand, if you buy into the notion that Hamas is dependent on international support, a move like this UN Security Council vote really matters. So, we'll have to see. And then to go back to your original question, what does Bibi want and can anything satisfy him? And then that goes back to this sort of electoral math. He still has enough votes in the parliament to hold on for a while without Gantz, and he does have to make a choice here about who he himself is going to deal with. But certainly if you look at the polls, the Israeli public wants those hostages home and they want elections and Bibi...you can debate whether or not he really wants an end to the war because that may mean an end to his prime ministership and going trial. But that level of isolation, including that level of isolation from the United States is what he's looking at if he refuses to move ahead with this cease-fire process.

MCMAHON:
And if that was not complicated enough, Carla, there's an escalating problem with Hezbollah in the north. And one of its biggest salvos, I think since the October 7th initial attack by Hamas took place this week with more than 100 missiles fired at Israeli positions. Communities in that area have already been emptied out of tens of thousands of people. And there's a lot of concern that Israel's going to ramp up its actions against Hezbollah. The salvo this week followed the Israeli killing of a senior Hezbollah official, military official.

This can continue for quite a while. Hezbollah is a lot better armed, a lot more potent than Hamas at this point, and that's a concern about a lot of regional security experts about what happens if that's the case. And by the way, the Houthis continue to lob various aerial missiles and other things at shipping in the Red Sea and have continued to be potent as well. So, this regional aspect continues to be a big issue here, which is again, one of the things driving the diplomatic pressure for a cease-fire.

ROBBINS:
And if you look at, Gantz didn't just want a plan for Gaza, the day after in Gaza, he wanted a comprehensive plan for security and did not want the military occupying Gaza for the sake of Israeli security as well. And you have lots of other politicians, including interestingly enough, Yair Lapid, major opposition leader, welcoming Gantz's resignation and offering Netanyahu quote "a safety net" and said he would join the coalition government to pass the cease-fire a deal if the far-right leave.

There's lots of people saying to him, "Bibi, you're really far out there on a limb. Israeli security is at risk here. Yes, we too want to destroy Hamas, but we are surrounded by enemies and this war is not resolving what the problems are." So, Bibi's got some pretty big choices and the way the Americans have couched it at this point, publicly at least, the pressure isn't on Bibi, but he's got some pretty big choices. And except for the fact that Sinwar may let him off the hook once again. So, the Americans are expressing hope. But as I said, I never predict anything hopeful in this conflict.

Bob, it's time to discuss our audience figure of the week. This is a figure listeners vote on every Tuesday and Wednesday at CFR_org's Instagram story. And this week, Bob, our audience selected the one I wanted them to select, which is, "Four Russian Military Ships Arrive in Cuba." Russia's been focused on its war in Ukraine, so why is it diverting its attention to travel across the world to Cuba? And is four warships a serious show of strength or are they just going through the motions?

MCMAHON:
At the end of the day, Carla, I would say it's more of the latter, going through the motion. Signaling, which it has done occasionally in the Caribbean to show that yes, it can operate in the U.S. backyard just as the U.S. operates in its backyard or its near abroad as they like to say. Let's talk about the ships first. Some initial reports were calling it a flotilla, which was a vast overstatement.

ROBBINS:
Flotilla of four.

MCMAHON:
And certainly the first pictures that emerged, which were taken from a celebrity cruise ship, I should add-

ROBBINS:
The spies of a celebrity cruise ship.

MCMAHON:
This is not your grandparents' Cuban missile crisis, and I don't want to be glib about this because that was obviously one of the most serious nuclear altercations in history. It did not happen, but it played out in the fall of 1962 when there were Soviet missiles deployed in Cuba. These three ships plus a nuclear-powered Russian submarine do not have nuclear weapons. And that is coming from both the U.S. and Cuban officials and the U.S. has basically said they're watching this closely, but they're not concerned about this deployment of ships, which are apparently going to be in the region through the summer.

Russia and Cuba, it should be noted, are having a bit of a resurgence in ties that suits both countries well. The Russians, because it's nice to be able to sort of cruise by ninety miles from the U.S. territory and power into a Cuban port when they need to. The Cubans because they could use the various goods that Russia can provide, whether it's the 90 thousand metric tons of Russian oil that Russia supplied back in March or other boosts that Cuba desperately needs in terms of infrastructure, tourism, help to its sugar producing industry, which has been in a bad way recently.

And Russia also continues to have ties with Venezuela, which is, it's part of this mini regional axis of resistance against the U.S., I guess we could say. It's sort of suits their purposes to come by this area. These ships were chosen deliberately as both ships with potential, but not with nuclear potential. And I think we should just sort of treat that as the gesture that it is, but it's also a sign of this worrying turn of relations between big powers and geopolitics.

ROBBINS:
Well, it is certainly, and we've talked about this, a very grim time inside of Cuba. They've got food shortages. They've had these massive blackouts, rolling blackouts, but for hours and hours and hours a day. And Cubans who always like to proclaim their sovereignty are pretty desperate right now, and they can no longer depend on the Venezuelans for support.

So, I suppose any chance to poke the U.S. is a good one, and any hope that they might be getting some sort of economic and financial support for the Russians is good enough reason to float around there. I think, I suppose the U.S. is not reacting particularly forcefully to it because let's face it, it's four ships.

MCMAHON:
That is right. And so we again, thank our audience for choosing the number four as our figure of the week to allow Carla and I to go back into the Cold War a little bit and talk about the Cuba-Russia axis.

ROBBINS:
One of our greatest hits here.

MCMAHON:
Yes, and that's our look at The World Next Week. Here are some other stories to keep an eye on. As we were taping this, the South Africa's ANC was due to reach deadline on agreeing on a unity government, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol continues his travels in Central Asia to promote his K-Silk Road Initiative. And the Hajj, the annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca, begins in Saudi Arabia.

ROBBINS:
Please subscribe to The World Next Week on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts, and leave us a review while you're at it. We appreciate the feedback. If you'd like to reach out directly, please email us at [email protected]. The publications mentioned in this episode, as well as a transcript of our conversation are listed on the podcast page for The World Next Week on CFR.org. Please note that opinions expressed on The World Next Week are solely those of the hosts, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Today's program was produced by Ester Fang with Director of Podcasting Gabriel Sierra. Special thanks to Kenadee Mangus and our new intern Emily Smith, welcome, Emily, for their research assistant. Our theme music is provided by Markus Zakaria, and this is Carla Robbins saying so long.

MCMAHON:
And this is Bob McMahon saying goodbye and please be careful out there.