Is this the start of WWIII? The ongoing war in Ukraine is only one of the more obvious expressions of a much bigger conflict. It remains to be seen if that conflict can be resolved quietly or with the kind of noise that we hope to avoid.
I just listened to an interview with Anders Puck Nielsen, a military expert from the Royal Danish Defense College. I dovetails accurately with an interview I listened to several months ago with US Naval War College expert, Sarah C.M. Paine. The first is brief at 11 min., the 2nd is much longer at 2hr 24 min. Both are excellent. The Anders Nielsen interview touches on the issues at play while that Sarah Paine interview goes into great depth. I will attempt to summarize the issue in this diary.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is about much more than taking territory in Ukraine, or even taking over Ukraine & ultimately re-establishing something like the old U.S.S.R., it’s about establishing a new world order, which, sadly, looks an awful lot like a world order that we know from the past.
In Sarah Paine’s interview, she discusses the nature of continental vs maritime powers. Russia is fundamentally a Continental power while the USA is fundamentally a maritime power. Those promoting continental security paradigms seek a world divided into exclusive spheres of influence, while those following maritime security paradigms envision a world of shared maritime commons governed by universal rules to maximize the compounding wealth from trade.
Harry Truman’s administration created a new world order out of the ashes of WWII that was fundamentally centered on the vision of the USA as a maritime power. The United Nations & various other ostensibly global organizations were the most obvious structures in this new world order. It was (& is) far from perfect but it shared a particular quality that everybody, even its opponents, claim to support. A world order based on “rule of law.” Now “rule of law” can be problematic at times. Laws can be unjust, they can be abused, they can be oppressive. However, people often don’t dwell on the alternative to “rule of law.” That alternative is as old as humanity or even older, simply put, that alternative is “might makes right.” Whoever has the power to impose their will on to others (presumably weaker), gets to make the rules. This is the basis for continental power. A continental power will (of course) have laws, but those laws will virtually always laws imposed from above as opposed to the maritime power expression of laws that were mutually agreed to by “equal partners.”
I understand that this might be a bit confusing at times because both forms of “rule” involve the imposition of “law (& order).” The important distinction is that the world order envisioned by the Truman administration (& similarly motivated leaders) involve the creation of laws with widespread support among the nations. That vision included things like respect for international boundaries, human rights, environmental protection & more. The other form of “rule of law” is fundamentally all about laws imposed according to the whims of those who happen to hold power at a given moment. We clearly see that this is Vladimir Putin’s desire but it goes far beyond Putin & his vision of Russia’s ambitions.
Rest assured that other global powers are watching the conflict in Ukraine & making their calculations. We need look no further than to see who is supporting both sides & who is “fence sitting” in regards to this conflict.
N. Korea & Iran are actively supporting Russia. Both countries are ruled by despots. In N. Korea, Kim Jong Un holds the reins of power supported by a clique of military leaders. Iran is ruled by Ali Khamenei a despot at the head of a theocratic organization. Clearly, both of these people (& the local elites whom they represent) favor the rule by a small clique. Who is sitting on the fences regarding Ukraine? China, quite similarly to the previous two, ruled by the Communist Party’s Central Committee, headed by Xi Jinping, is clearly very sympathetic to Putin but China also depends heavily on trade & also obtains benefit from the maritime power structure. Modi’s rule of India seems to be heavily focused on a particular vision of nationalism & Hindu identity. While India IS the world’s largest democracy, Modi seems to be hedging his bets & clearly does no object to the vision of a world where “might makes right.”
Much of the global south is also waiting on the fences to see how the Russia/Ukraine war plays out. While I am no expert on the politics in many of these countries, many of these countries lack long histories of democratic self determination. Some have only a few decades out from under colonial rule but even besides that, global trade as a basis for wealth creation on the current scale, is a phenomena of recent decades while territorial rule & despotism has a long history which is familiar in almost every culture.
While the USA & Europe have been the strongest supporters of Ukraine (& arguably, the globalist order), there is political conflict within most of those countries as people struggle with the challenges presented by global issues vs national(istic) identity. Biden vs Trump is only one of the most obvious expressions of this conflict.
Globalism (maritime power structures) has not always been kind to the people of the Earth in the few decades where it has dominated. However, despotism has almost universally been worse. I’ve heard it said that the best form of rule is the rule by a benevolent despot but invariably, such a benevolent despot is typically benevolent to some (members of the despot’s “tribe,” however that “tribe” might be defined) while much less benevolent to others. Globalism, for all of its deficiencies, arguably will create greater long term stability while at the same time, better allow for the possibility of evolution into a regime where respect for human rights, the environment & self determination are possible. Despotism (continental power structures) has periodically produced enlightened rulers but has more frequently produced mediocre or even evil rulers. Furthermore, despotic rule is only as stable as the ability of the particular despot to hold power with no assurance that the next despot will be as kind. Globalism is (rightfully) much maligned by many people of every political leaning but I would argue that, in the face of global issues of environmental degradation (& depredation) & mass migrations, a global vision is what is needed to make a better life for the planet & its inhabitants. Between the two choices — & I am confident in arguing that there really are only two choices, while allowing for many “sub” choices within the two — a maritime or globalist regime is far superior to the fractured & fundamentally despotic nature of the continental/nationalist regime.
I believe that the outcome of the Russia/Ukraine conflict will set the direction for humanity for generations to come. Both the globalist/maritime & the nationalist/continental views have their positive & negative sides but I believe that Putin’s ambitions clearly depict the dangers of the nationalistic/continental view. For all of its problems (subject to a further discussion) the globalist view has the best possibility to create a world where all humans will most greatly benefit.