https://sputniknews.in/20260430/will-middle-power-diplomacy-reset-the-world-order-it-just-may-do-it-10831386.html
Will Middle-Power Diplomacy Reset The World Order? It Just May Do It
Will Middle-Power Diplomacy Reset The World Order? It Just May Do It
Sputnik India
And again two publications, an Indian and a Russian one, met in infospace and resonated well. The subjects, in both cases, is restoration of some semblance of... 30.04.2026, Sputnik India
2026-04-30T14:04+0530
2026-04-30T14:04+0530
2026-04-30T14:04+0530
sputnik opinion
donald trump
spain
india
russia
the united nations (un)
european union (eu)
https://cdn1.img.sputniknews.in/img/07ea/03/16/10660471_0:104:2000:1229_1920x0_80_0_0_bdfc95476a3ccacb4a428447b2fa1b71.jpg
We are talking about The Pioneer’s opinion column, called Reconfiguring Diplomacy In A Disorganised Global Order. And an editorial in the Nezavisimaya, that’s The Independent from Moscow, with a title Why It Is Almost Impossible To Reform The UN Now.I have to tell you immediately that my choice of these two publications is entirely random. Literally dozens of the best minds from India, Russia, the US and everywhere else have triggered a real avalanche of proposals on how to re-create something like a global managerial platform, looking suspiciously like the United Nations. After all, there just have to be a relatively universal playground, where nations and states can voice their opinion and – yes, maybe have means to collectively punish some really bad guys.The biggest powers cannot or would not do it currently, so the Indian writer, namely Chaitanya K Prasad, dwells upon a well-known and reasonable idea about a group of middle powers getting together and forcing America, or China, or anybody, into sanity. India is supposed to be just that kind of middle power, among others.According to our Indian writer, the real question is not whether middle-power-style diplomacy works; it is whether the world is still structured in a way that allows it to work.“Countries that aren’t superpowers but aren’t small players either suddenly matter a lot more”, says the column, adding that such countries don’t dominate the system, but they can talk to everyone. “They can build bridges, form coalitions, and move across camps without immediately being seen as a threat (…) But here’s the problem. That role only works when the system allows for flexibility. When you can engage multiple sides without being forced to pick one. When the space for dialogue still exists. Right now, that space is shrinking”.And so, says the writer, “in that kind of world, diplomacy isn’t about control anymore. It’s about staying connected enough, flexible enough, and prepared enough to keep things from falling apart completely. Because if no one is really in charge of the system anymore, then the responsibility quietly shifts to those who can still move across it without breaking it. And that’s a much heavier role than it sounds”.Right? Of course it is right. It’s a little bit like a family quarrel, where the children are taking over and settle things, when parents clash to the impossible extent. It works, I’ve witnessed that family phenomenon a couple of times. But it doesn’t come easy.And now to the Russian publication, drafted by respected people I may know personally, since I’ve worked in The Independent long enough to encounter the best brains there. So, now, these best brains are attacking Pedro Sanchez, the Prime Minister of Spain, with his ideas about how to reform the United Nations.You definitely cannot find anything new in these ideas, says the editorial. The Spanish PM thinks that you only have to make “democracy” the ideological basis for international diplomacy, and, to make things really democratic, maybe elect a woman to chair the UN.Here I’d say that what the Spanish lefties call democracy, is a vague set of “progressive” – and very aggressive - ideas that have suffered a defeat in the US, giving birth to a powerful Trumpist conservative movement, which is not likely to disappear even after Trump. The leftie liberals are barely holding their ground in the EU nations, and are definitely unpopular in the Global Majority due to that typical Western way of imposing these ideas on everyone in the world. That, simply speaking, is a bankrupt ideology refusing to die.But The Independent editorial treats the problem in a simpler way. It says: first, nobody can offer anything better than the UN. Second, any nation willing to use military power is currently ignoring that UN, with or without its Security Council. So, making the UN “more democratic” and introducing new veto-wielding members into the SC will change nothing. Third, imposing the “progressive agenda” on the UN will only add another layer of its bureaucracy, trying to impose that agenda on everyone and issuing useless declarations, instead. So, The Independent says, the Spanish PM is showing us the way to prolongation of the crisis, and nothing much else.All right, so the UN is out for a while. Its only use is a chance for everyone to speak out loud at one of its sessions, and thanks God for that.The two publications mentioned resonate in one obvious way: it shows us that Spain cannot be a middle power. It is not able to – see above – “engage multiple sides without being forced to pick one”. It cannot “build bridges, form coalitions, and move across camps without immediately being seen as a threat”. Spain, with its current leftie-liberal government, is definitely a part of a formerly rigid coalition, currently on the verge of crumbling down, and formerly known as Collective West.So, what can be done right now about resetting the world order in the near future? The first step in that direction has already been made. Almost everyone in the world knows by now that the old order is finished, and its simple rebuilding looks impossible. Some changes have to be made, some mistakes of old should be avoided in the future.The second step could be a universal recognition of a critical overload of the system, that system being not meant to withstand such pressures. To remind, the basic idea of United Nations was to maintain peace in the world, and nothing much else. The year 1945 saw at least two basic ideologies in that world, Western and Eastern. Both ideologies have been represented at the top of the UN and have been given a power to veto any decision of the opposite side. That balance of mutual fear never worked well, but it worked. And the whole system began to crumble down when that balance was gone. It now appears that the nations ceased to be united exactly at the moment when their basic, 1945-style difference began to disappear.That certainly looks like a paradox. Maybe the reason for it is, the UN has grown itself too many additional functions after the year 1945 that proved to be an overload after the end of the two-system, two-ideologies, balanced world. It appears, nobody likes a global bureaucracy that tries to impose all kind of norms in anything thinkable. And things are becoming especially bad when left-liberals like Sanchez dream of going on pushing their new rules of behavior in every corner of the world. It is getting especially bad, when these ideas belong to a rigid (though shaking) group of governments, willing to punish others for being different.And that’s why the idea of middle-powers, “engaging multiple sides without being forced to pick one”, looks good for recreation of the world order.Dmitry Kosyrev is a Russian writer, author of spy novels and short stories. He also did columns for the Pioneer and Firstpost.com
spain
india
russia
Sputnik India
feedback.hindi@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
2026
News
en_IN
Sputnik India
feedback.hindi@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
Sputnik India
feedback.hindi@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
donald trump, spain, india, russia, the united nations (un), european union (eu)
donald trump, spain, india, russia, the united nations (un), european union (eu)
Will Middle-Power Diplomacy Reset The World Order? It Just May Do It
And again two publications, an Indian and a Russian one, met in infospace and resonated well. The subjects, in both cases, is restoration of some semblance of world order.
We are talking about The Pioneer’s opinion column, called Reconfiguring Diplomacy In A Disorganised Global Order. And an editorial in the Nezavisimaya, that’s The Independent from Moscow, with a title Why It Is Almost Impossible To Reform The UN Now.
I have to tell you immediately that my choice of these two publications is entirely random. Literally dozens of the best minds from India, Russia, the US and everywhere else have triggered a real avalanche of proposals on how to re-create something like a global managerial platform, looking suspiciously like the United Nations. After all, there just have to be a relatively universal playground, where nations and states can voice their opinion and – yes, maybe have means to collectively punish some really bad guys.
The biggest powers cannot or would not do it currently, so the Indian writer, namely Chaitanya K Prasad,
dwells upon a well-known and reasonable idea about a group of middle powers getting together and forcing America, or China, or anybody, into sanity. India is supposed to be just that kind of middle power, among others.
According to our Indian writer, the real question is not whether middle-power-style diplomacy works; it is whether the world is still structured in a way that allows it to work.
“Countries that aren’t superpowers but aren’t small players either suddenly matter a lot more”, says the column, adding that such countries don’t dominate the system, but they can talk to everyone. “They can build bridges, form coalitions, and move across camps without immediately being seen as a threat (…) But here’s the problem. That role only works when the system allows for flexibility. When you can engage multiple sides without being forced to pick one. When the space for dialogue still exists. Right now, that space is shrinking”.
And so, says the writer, “in that kind of world, diplomacy isn’t about control anymore. It’s about staying connected enough, flexible enough, and prepared enough to keep things from falling apart completely. Because if no one is really in charge of the system anymore, then the responsibility quietly shifts to those who can still move across it without breaking it. And that’s a much heavier role than it sounds”.
Right? Of course it is right. It’s a little bit like a family quarrel, where the children are taking over and settle things, when parents clash to the impossible extent. It works, I’ve witnessed that family phenomenon a couple of times. But it doesn’t come easy.
And now to the Russian publication, drafted by respected people I may know personally, since I’ve worked in The Independent long enough to encounter the best brains there. So, now, these best brains are attacking Pedro Sanchez, the Prime Minister of Spain, with his ideas about how to reform the United Nations.
You definitely cannot find anything new in these ideas, says the editorial. The Spanish PM thinks that you only have to make “democracy” the ideological basis for international diplomacy, and, to make things really democratic, maybe elect a woman to chair the UN.
Here I’d say that what the Spanish lefties call democracy, is a vague set of “progressive” – and very aggressive - ideas that have suffered a defeat in the US, giving birth to a powerful Trumpist conservative movement, which is not likely to disappear even after Trump. The leftie liberals are barely holding their ground in the EU nations, and are definitely unpopular in the Global Majority due to that typical Western way of imposing these ideas on everyone in the world. That, simply speaking, is a bankrupt ideology refusing to die.
But The Independent editorial treats the problem in a simpler way. It says: first, nobody can offer anything better than the UN. Second, any nation willing to use military power is currently ignoring that UN, with or without its Security Council. So, making the UN “more democratic” and introducing new veto-wielding members into the SC will change nothing. Third, imposing the “progressive agenda” on the UN will only add another layer of its bureaucracy, trying to impose that agenda on everyone and issuing useless declarations, instead. So, The Independent says, the Spanish PM is showing us the way to prolongation of the crisis, and nothing much else.
All right, so the UN is out for a while. Its only use is a chance for everyone to speak out loud at one of its sessions, and thanks God for that.
The two publications mentioned resonate in one obvious way: it shows us that Spain cannot be a middle power. It is not able to – see above – “engage multiple sides without being forced to pick one”. It cannot “build bridges, form coalitions, and move across camps without immediately being seen as a threat”. Spain, with its current leftie-liberal government, is definitely a part of a formerly rigid coalition, currently on the verge of crumbling down, and formerly known as Collective West.
So, what can be done right now about resetting the world order in the near future? The first step in that direction has already been made. Almost everyone in the world knows by now that the old order is finished, and its simple rebuilding looks impossible. Some changes have to be made, some mistakes of old should be avoided in the future.
The second step could be a universal recognition of a critical overload of the system, that system being not meant to withstand such pressures. To remind, the basic idea of United Nations was to maintain peace in the world, and nothing much else. The year 1945 saw at least two basic ideologies in that world, Western and Eastern. Both ideologies have been represented at the top of the UN and have been given a power to veto any decision of the opposite side. That balance of mutual fear never worked well, but it worked. And the whole system began to crumble down when that balance was gone. It now appears that the nations ceased to be united exactly at the moment when their basic, 1945-style difference began to disappear.
That certainly looks like a paradox. Maybe the reason for it is, the UN has grown itself too many additional functions after the year 1945 that proved to be an overload after the end of the two-system, two-ideologies, balanced world. It appears, nobody likes a global bureaucracy that tries to impose all kind of norms in anything thinkable. And things are becoming especially bad when left-liberals like Sanchez dream of going on pushing their new rules of behavior in every corner of the world. It is getting especially bad, when these ideas belong to a rigid (though shaking) group of governments, willing to punish others for being different.
And that’s why the idea of middle-powers, “engaging multiple sides without being forced to pick one”, looks good for recreation of the world order.
Dmitry Kosyrev is a Russian writer, author of spy novels and short stories. He also did columns for the Pioneer and Firstpost.com
