Stuck

 

COPILOT on Think Deeper...:

2014; Was it a good idea for the US - with Canada's help - to force Russia out of the G-8 after they had invaded Crimea?

The decision to expel Russia from the G8 in 2014 was, at its core, a profound statement against actions that violate international law and undermine a nation’s territorial integrity. After Russia invaded and then annexed Crimea—a move widely viewed as illegal by most of the international community—the U.S. and Canada, along with their partners, felt compelled to send a clear message: aggression that changes borders by force would not be rewarded or normalized. In this context, the removal of Russia served as a symbolic punishment and reaffirmed the principle that breaches of sovereignty carry severe consequences .

That said, the measure is not without its critics. Some voices, including those later echoed by former political leaders, have argued that excluding Russia from dialogical platforms like the G8 may have reduced opportunities for constructive engagement. By sidelining Russia completely, there’s the risk of deepening polarizations that make future negotiations more complex. Those who hold this view suggest that keeping Russia within an international framework—even under sanctions or conditional membership—could have preserved a channel for diplomatic dialogue, potentially moderating its behavior over time .

At the same time, many experts contend that the decision was necessary to reinforce Western unity and to uphold international norms at a time when swift and decisive action was critical. The move underscored that upholding global rules—like those enshrined in agreements such as the Budapest Memorandum—is non-negotiable. In effect, while the short-term outcomes may have included increased isolation of Russia, the long-term symbolic impact helped galvanize support for Ukraine and maintained a clear stance against territorial aggression .

Ultimately, whether it was the “right” call depends largely on what one values most in international relations. If the priority is to preserve a rules-based international order where violations are met with tangible consequences, then the action stands justified. However, if one believes that maintaining open channels for dialogue is crucial for long-term conflict resolution, an argument can be made that reintegration might have provided an additional avenue for engagement. The full impact of that decision continues to resonate in today’s geopolitics, even as debates over diplomatic strategy remain as contentious as ever.

In reflecting further on these themes, it might be worthwhile to consider how international forums could be reformed to balance normative stances with opportunities for dialogue—even in situations of serious breaches of international law. How might future actions differ in a world where shifting alliances and hybrid forms of engagement are increasingly common?

Leadership in both the US and Canada has flipped since then, but not that of Russia. Does that not contribute to Russia seeing itself stuck in the same event, and thus unjustly done by? Could anything be done here?

That’s a sharp observation. Political leadership changes frequently in democracies like the U.S. and Canada, but Russia's continuity under Putin has kept its perspective largely unchanged. When governments shift, new administrations may recalibrate foreign policy or adopt different tones in diplomacy—yet for Russia, the removal from the G8 remains a defining moment that feeds into its broader narrative of being isolated or mistreated by the West.

From Russia’s point of view, consistent exclusion from Western-led institutions like the G8 (now G7) may reinforce a grievance-based mindset, where they feel permanently sidelined. This perception, whether justified or not, plays into Russia’s strategic approach—seeking alternative alliances, such as deepening ties with China and expanding its influence through BRICS and regional partnerships.

Could anything be done? Diplomatic engagement remains an option, though the conditions would have to be carefully structured. Some experts argue that reintroducing Russia into certain dialogues—perhaps under new frameworks that acknowledge current geopolitical realities but impose accountability—could prevent further polarization. However, any action to reintegrate Russia into institutions like the G7 would likely face strong resistance unless there are meaningful changes in its policies, particularly concerning Ukraine.

A potential alternative could be fostering unofficial backchannels where discussions happen away from rigid institutional frameworks. Track II diplomacy—where non-official figures engage in dialogue—could be a way to build some level of constructive engagement without implying full reintegration into Western forums. Another approach could be selective cooperation on global issues such as climate change or nuclear nonproliferation, areas where mutual interests might encourage dialogue even amid broader tensions.

The difficulty, of course, is that Russia itself has shown little willingness to shift its stance or acknowledge Western concerns regarding Ukraine and broader security issues. As long as this remains the case, the situation is likely to remain deadlocked, with both sides viewing past events through fundamentally different lenses.

How do you see this playing out in the long run? Could global institutions evolve to accommodate shifting alliances without undermining their core principles?

                                                                 *     *     *

I live in Canada, in a Parliamentary Democracy. It is clear to me that anything the government undetakes can and will be questionned. In the US, it is not so clear to me. There is a huge amount of discussion and disagreement in the media, but it all seems not likely to have much effect on the moment. Am I missing something? Please, comment!

You're absolutely on point noticing that, in Canada’s parliamentary system, there’s a near-constant and visible mechanism for accountability. In Parliament, ministers regularly face questions and challenges from opposition parties during Question Period and other debates. This setup ensures that government actions are subjected to immediate scrutiny and that any missteps quickly become part of the public conversation.

In contrast, the U.S. system—built on a framework of separation of powers—distributes authority among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This structure means that while there are robust checks and balances, accountability tends to operate on a slower, more diffused timeline. The president isn’t answerable in a daily parliamentary-style question session, so the primary arenas for scrutiny become media commentary, congressional oversight, judicial review, and eventually, the electoral process. Although intense media discussions and disagreements abound, these debates often serve more to shape public opinion over time rather than providing an immediate corrective force.

You’re not missing anything per se; rather, the U.S. system is architected to allow for a longer-term accountability cycle. The idea is to protect executive decision-making from every transient wave of public opinion while still leaving open channels for redress—like investigative journalism, congressional hearings, and, ultimately, the ballot. However, the flip side is that this slower process can sometimes make it feel as though significant discussions and dissents are less likely to trigger immediate consequences.

This divergence also reflects differing political philosophies. In parliamentary democracies, the executive is usually drawn directly from the legislature, so the government and its challengers regularly interact in a relatively intimate setting. In the U.S., the deliberate insulation of the branches is intended to provide stability and avoid rapid swings due to momentary public pressure, even if that means accountability can seem more gradual.

Given this, one could ask whether there might be reforms or alternative mechanisms in the U.S. that could bridge the immediacy gap without undermining the benefits of separation of powers. For instance, enhancing the powers of oversight committees or strengthening the watchdog role of independent media might speed up the political feedback cycle without necessitating a complete overhaul of the presidential system. Similarly, the growing influence of digital information and social media could gradually transform how quickly public discontent translates into political change.

It’s an interesting space to explore—could there be innovative institutional tweaks that allow for more immediate accountability akin to parliamentary questioning while preserving the safeguards inherent in the U.S. model? What kind of political reforms do you think might best harness the power of public debate into more agile governmental responses?