By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a move signaling strained relations, Russia has cancelled military cooperation agreements with Portugal, France, and Canada, citing their lack of strategic relevance. These agreements, signed between 1989 and 2000, aimed to foster collaboration in the post-Soviet era, reflecting a period of improved relations with the West. The terminations follow a trend of increasing hostility toward NATO and the West, particularly in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Western support for Ukraine. This decision also comes amid discussions in Europe regarding the use of frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine, highlighting the current tensions.
Read the original article here
Russia terminates military agreements with Portugal, France, and Canada, a move that, frankly, seems less surprising and more like a formality in today’s geopolitical climate. Considering the current state of affairs, one might be forgiven for assuming these agreements were already rendered defunct by, well, events. The world has watched, often in disbelief, as Russia’s actions have fundamentally altered the landscape of international relations, and this termination simply underscores the widening chasm.
The initial reactions, judging by the available snippets, range from disbelief to a darkly humorous acceptance of the inevitable. There’s a definite sense of “Oh, right, we still had those?” and a healthy dose of sarcasm directed towards the perceived insignificance of the loss. The comments suggest that these agreements were likely more symbolic than practically relevant in recent years, especially given Russia’s military performance in Ukraine, which, let’s be honest, hasn’t exactly inspired confidence in their strategic capabilities.
It’s almost a relief that the West, in this case Portugal, France, and Canada, are no longer entangled with Russia in this formal way. The agreements probably weren’t worth the paper they were printed on after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It seems that many nations had already started distancing themselves from Russia long ago. It’s hard to imagine these countries actively benefiting from such partnerships considering Russia’s increasingly isolated stance and dubious international reputation.
The fact that these agreements even existed in the first place raises an important question about the nature of international cooperation and the impact of evolving political situations. It’s natural to wonder why these military agreements were not terminated sooner. Perhaps the diplomatic dance was slow or there were other competing priorities. Maybe there was a misguided hope that things could be salvaged. Now, in retrospect, it appears to be a moot point.
The tone shifts to a critical assessment of the situation, especially the way in which the world has become, or rather, has been maneuvered into. The comment on the United States and the actions of a “Peace President” indicates that the relationships in the west and russia are not in good graces. It implies the current political climate in the west, and perhaps in the United States, is actively emboldening Putin.
A key point is the perceived irrelevance of these agreements in the face of Russia’s actions. The sentiment that Russia wouldn’t be honoring their commitments highlights a fundamental lack of trust. The invasion of Ukraine serves as the prime example of this disregard for international law and agreements, and the devastating consequences of broken promises. It’s a somber reminder of the real-world impact of geopolitical decisions and the fragile nature of peace.
The conversation then moves into Russia’s geopolitical posture and its potential impact on the rest of the world. The shift to BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the idea of becoming a “third world” power is a dig at Russia, which has made it clear that they do not care if they are isolated. This sentiment is indicative of a broader shift in alliances and global power dynamics. This is important to note, the break up of the old world order.
It’s clear that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are seen as the catalyst for the unraveling of these military agreements, and indeed, a significant reshaping of the global landscape. The invasion exposed a deep divide between Russia and the West, highlighting a fundamental difference in values and geopolitical goals. The subsequent sanctions, international condemnation, and military aid to Ukraine have only served to exacerbate these tensions.
The comments also reflect a critical view of Russia’s leadership and the role of the Russian people in allowing Putin to consolidate power. The idea of silencing opposition and the subsequent invasion of Ukraine are seen as direct results of the Russian leadership’s actions. It prompts reflection on the responsibilities of a nation’s citizens in holding their leaders accountable and the implications of authoritarianism in the global arena.
The discussion, while short, highlights a shift in alliances and global power dynamics. The West must continue to stand in firm opposition to Russia’s expansionist policies and to hold those responsible for the invasion to account. It’s a moment of both finality and potential for new beginnings. The termination of these agreements serves as a stark reminder of the changed world order, the consequences of aggression, and the urgent need for international cooperation to uphold peace and stability.