The United States has the capacity to exert extensive pressure on other countries, not only through bilateral relations but also through subordinate international organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank. While this violates international law, it has become a common practice of preventive diplomacy, that is, threats of subsequent punishment that can have long-term economic and political effects.

In particular, it has previously been observed that countries that voted against the US position at the UN then faced restrictions on receiving loans or credits from these financial institutions. This was the case during the vote during Operation Desert Storm against Iraq. A similar option was used by the US against Russia. This explains why so many developing countries are on the list of states that voted against Russia at the UN.

At the same time, to avoid being hit by the US whip, even friendly Serbia voted against Moscow! President Aleksandar Vucic then justified himself that the decision was taken under pressure from Western countries, but that Serbia was not going to impose any sanctions against Russia. Given the occupation of Kosovo, Serbia does not have full sovereignty even in theory, so it is forced to balance between the collective West, around which it is surrounded, and Russia.

However, it is understood there that restoring sovereignty can only come through Russia’s help, not the West’s action. The near future will show how this direction will unfold, especially given the recent arms deliveries by Britain to the Kosovars, which Belgrade has assessed as unfriendly.[i]

The most obvious case of recent American interference in the internal affairs of another country because of an independent position is the change of government in Pakistan. The prime minister was in Moscow at the time of the start of the special operation in Ukraine and met with our country’s leadership.[ii]

Pakistan did not vote against Russia at the UN and also refused to condemn Moscow after a collective appeal by EU ambassadors. He was told from Washington through Pakistan’s ambassador to the US that he should step down or else it would be worse for Pakistan. Imran Khan was not afraid to say so openly at a public rally, where he claimed clear interference from outside.

But the parliamentary coup, did take place, although there were attempts to prevent a no-confidence vote. Pakistan now has a pro-American government, which has begun to change key ministers. And the Solidarity Movement is taking thousands of supporters to the streets in various cities across the country. Mass protests are planned for the end of the holy month of Ramadan in Islamabad itself.

Already there is a record high level of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. Imran Khan has vowed to fight both American interference and the “imported government”, by which he means the current coalition in the National Assembly of the Muslim League-N and the Awami Party of Pakistan.

Given Pakistan’s fragile situation, this ‘coup’ will hit first and foremost the people of Pakistan themselves, who are suffering from prolonged perturbations and lack of political stability.

In neighbouring India, Washington has also tried to influence decision-making on the interaction between New Delhi and Moscow.

The India-US 2+2 summit held in the Indian capital on 12 April discussed the conflict in Ukraine and possible trade and economic restrictions. During the joint ministerial conference, there was unequivocal condemnation of civilian deaths and calls for an immediate ceasefire, but it was not possible to get India to stop buying Russian energy resources and even weapons from the US.

Although Blinken and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin are trying to lure India into their orbit, New Delhi does not believe the promises and is pragmatic about expanding India-US military-technical cooperation. There is no carrot or stick with India, although the United States in fact does not have any carrots.

Turkey, on the other hand, has clearly succumbed to US pressure. Ankara announced the closure of Turkish airspace for Russian aircrafts flying to Syria the day before. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu explained that the permission to fly Russian aircraft had been granted for three months and had been repeatedly extended, and now it has expired. The Turks have notified Moscow about this in advance. This applies to both civil and military aircraft.

Obviously, there was no intervention here by the US, which is trying to put maximum pressure on Turkey because it did not join the sanctions against Russia (this would have hit Turkey’s own interests hard).

In Latin America, the White House is also trying, if not to form an anti-Russian coalition, then at least to get some countries to agree to the anti-Russian sanctions. The biggest success in this has been achieved by the U.S. in Colombia, where new presidential elections are looming and amid acute social instability, accusations are increasingly heard against Venezuela, where Russian military personnel are supposedly based, which might cause some harm to Colombia.

In addition, Colombian President Ivan Duque has been harsh on Russia, pointing out that the FARC fighters may have some sort of links to Russia. And in relation to his rhetoric, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova made a special statement, noting the need to preserve friendly Russian-Colombian relations despite such an ignorant tone from the Colombian head.[iii]

It can be assumed that the current activity of the US State Department is, in one way or another, linked to anti-Russian policy. If it is not done directly, then at least indirectly.

In April 20, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken visited Panama with Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorcas to discuss migration issues and sanctions against Russia. Officially, Blinken thanked the Panamanian leadership for its pro-American stance.[iv]

Since the US is Panama’s main economic partner and the main direct investor (including the operation of the canal, where more than 70% of the cargo passing through it is destined for or shipped from the US) it is obvious that they will follow Washington’s lead there.[v]

In addition, Ukraine had previously tried through its ambassador in that country to get Panama to close the canal to the passage of Russian vessels. However, Panamanian authorities refused to impose such restrictions citing the channel’s neutral status with regard to international politics.[vi]

Tellingly, the earlier case of the Panama dossier, with data on the accounts of various oligarchs, was used by the US against Russia to impose additional sanctions.[vii] It is likely that future restrictions by Panama will be for using their country for Russian investments or some kind of financial transactions. But major players in Latin America have so far withstood Washington’s anti-Russian demands.

Mexico has refused to follow sanctions against Russia, as it previously did against Cuba. Although here it should be taken into account that President López Obrador is critical of the US, although he is aware of his country’s strong dependence on its northern neighbour.[viii]

Argentina has so far been successful in dealing with such pressure – its foreign minister, Santiago Cafiero, has stated that Argentina will not go along with such actions.[ix]

Brazil has generally condemned Western sanctions against Russia for exacerbating the economic impact of the conflict and harming peoples who depend on basic resources.

“[These sanctions] could exacerbate the economic consequences of the conflict and affect the basic supply chain,” Brazilian Foreign Minister Carlos França said in early April, referring to the embargo imposed by the West, led by the US, against Russia.

At a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Brazil’s diplomatic chief made it clear that such measures were aimed at the interests of a small group of governments, while hurting others that rely on basic resources.[x] Here, one must consider the two countries’ heavy dependence on Russian fertilizer supplies, on which Brazil and Argentina depend for their agricultural sectors.

There are still many countries in Africa and Asia that have outwardly condemned Russia’s actions at the UN, but formally continue to engage. Sooner or later, Washington will get to them to join the sanctions or impose some special restrictions.

Clearly this will affect their own sovereignty and in this difficult choice much depends on the political will of the leadership. However, Russian diplomacy should not wait for some new intrigue from the State Department, but should pursue a more active foreign policy and maximise cooperation with friendly and neutral states.

[i]     https://ria.ru/20220417/serbiya-1783965016.html
[ii]    https://www.geopolitika.ru/article/chto-budet-s-pakistanom
[iii]   https://mundo.sputniknews.com/20220421/rusia-lamenta-la-retorica-negativa-del-presidente-colombiano-en-su-contra-1124653073.html
[iv]   https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-homeland-security-secretary-alejandro-mayorkas-panamanian-foreign-minister-…
[v]    https://www.state.gov/secretary-blinkens-trip-to-panama-commitments-to-a-regional-approach-to-hemispheric-migration-and-to-anti-…
[vi]   https://mundo.sputniknews.com/20220420/el-canal-de-panama-el-arma-que-occidente-no-podra-usar-contra-rusia-1124605364.html
[vii]  https://www.telesurtv.net/news/EE.UU.-usara-Panama-Papers-para-imponer-mas-sanciones-a-Rusia-20160407-0026.html
[viii] https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/mexico-declines-to-join-russia-sanctions-seeks-to-stay-on-peaceful-terms…
[ix]   https://ria.ru/20220423/sanktsii-1785124287.html
[x]    https://www.hispantv.com/noticias/brasil/540594/sanciones-rusia-conflicto-ucrania