The late P. Kondylis, a
Hellenic philosopher, had remarked about Gorbachev after 1989 that he was
either naïve or an idiot to acquiesce to the dissolution of the Soviet Union
without a comprehensive Treaty with NATO and the USA about East Europe and
Russian national interests. He would have gotten it and the world would have
been a safer place.
Instead, today we are in a
situation among three protagonists in a drama which has all the qualities of
the absurd: the EU, the USA and Russia. But these are just the protagonists.
China, India, and Islam are watching closely and getting the vital message of
this conundrum: the West has gone bonkers. Newsweek
and Time
amply and gruesomely expressed the beliefs and perceptions about Putin
and his actions in Ukraine. On the other hand the
Guardian shows that these kinds of perceptions about Russia
have an opposite effect on Russians who were not Putin’s supporters but now are
forced to side with him. The branding of Russians as murderers and Putin as the
cause of Ukraine’s civil war and the shooting down of MH17 has developed into a
hysteria which is driving the two sides apart fast and inexorably to a
protracted conflict.
But no serious historian and IR
professional will be satisfied until some questions are answered in a
meaningful way. Why the EU did initiate a policy for a treaty with
Ukraine, a take-it-or-leave-it one without engaging Ukraine’s biggest economic
partner, Russia in these negotiations? Why Angela Merkel, David Cameron and President
Hollande did give the go ahead in this major political mistep by the EU?
Did they believe that this move was an innocuous economic treaty about which
Russia would acquiesce without protesting? Were Russia’s interests, commercial,
financial, and strategic safeguarded by that treaty?
As events proved this wasn’t
the case at all. So the question about provocation and the culprit of criminal
acts, war and destruction of the Ukrainian state is not answered by a
propaganda machine which any rational analyst would consider totally irrelevant
to the facts of history and the acts of the EU and the USA. If Putin is old
fashioned and even mad to adhere to such nonsense as spheres of influence and
geostrategic considerations he should have been at least consulted about the
economic and commercial consequences of this treaty over Russian respective
interests.
It was argued that Putin is
working to build a new empire. The EU move tried to thwart his outdated plans.
If this was the real reason behind the EU move, then the perpetrators of this
policy should have been ready to face some serious reactions and even war. None
behaved in such a manner but the issue was decided upon a “democratic
revolution” of the people against Russia and in favor of the EU. This scenario
of a new world order: commercial interests, “democracy” as defined by the
Western social construct and an inconspicuous economic warfare: like printing
4.5 trillion dollars to keep America afloat, didn’t have, at least publically a
premise about sanctions, civil war and a reeling Europe.
On May 28th 2014
President Obama, in his speech at West
Point,
made explicit the doctrine that there are American interests worldwide and
military power could be applied , if necessary to secure them. So the
argument goes that there American interests but not Russian, Chinese or Indian.
Perhaps, the new world order implies that the interests of these states and
many more should coincide with those of the USA and its allies. This notion of
an overall categorical imperative: “should” is the core problem of this
perception of the world which may present Russia or China or for that matter, Iran,
Kenya or Nigeria as misfits and enemies. This is the hidden-not as a
political agenda- but as ideology behind a totally paranoiac reading of the
world. Fukuyama believes that the enemy of the West is Russia and
China and not a sectarian war in the Middle East. The Wolfowitz Doctrine in 1992 and Kagan’s arguments against an American decline plus Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard where Ukraine figured prominently as a pivot for the domination of
Eurasia, give us an insight about the ideology behind the policies and acts of
flagrant interference against the interests and aspirations of other states.
What all these point to in
nothing but a perpetual and unhindered conflict with no end in sight. The
reason for this is that all these views, messianic and millennial in the core
of their philosophy go against the grain of history and conflict theory. It is
impossible to thwart or hold back huge parts of the world as the Moslems, the
Chinese, the Indians by proclaiming your worldwide interests or attempting to
stop them participating in the world as equal partners and with legitimate
demands and even spheres of influence and projection of power. The famous
theory of “soft power” stands upon a hidden premise: hard power as the West
rightfully projects overtly or covertly anytime it wants to safeguard its
interests.
After the fall of the Soviet
Union it seemed fairly easy to pretend that the USA was the sole super-power.
The majority of nations and societies were persuaded even by rumor or awe that
the USA was the one and only superpower. Twenty five years later this is just a
myth debunked by facts of history. This isn’t a consequence of the decline of
the USA but a matter of rising of others. What globalization brought about was
an incredible intertwined nexus of commercial and economic interests which
definitely shaped a different world order. That though wasn’t enough to
establish a volunteered admission by all that the USA can decide and act upon
any matter on earth. Far from it, the practices of the USA were in direct
conflict with other societies and civilizational paradigms which didn’t have
any intention to follow American decisions and practices. Identity politics, a
dominant theme for Western social agenda, is not and cannot be part of the
priorities of other civilizational paradigms.
The new world order which in
some way the world had implicitly accepted up to 9/11 ended up with a bang.
Since then this new world order isn’t just more difficult but impossible to
maintain. What has happened and happening in the Middle East and in
Ukraine as well as in the China Sea are too conspicuous to be covered or
misinterpreted. The ideology and policy expressed and defended by pundits and
Presidents alike is simply drowned in the historical process which confronts
bypasses or mocks the established world order as it is conceived in a static
and emotionally presumptuous way.
The new world order is no
more and no less the old world disorder and it won’t take long to evolve to a
probability of a general conflagration if we do not attempt to have a new
Congress of Vienna, not of the European Powers, but of the World. This Congress
should not be just about establishing a world balance of power but about saving
the world from environmental collapse and from a nuclear war.
Ukraine
The West has a window of
opportunity to come to grips with the Ukrainian mega-crisis by the end of
August. The Ukrainian “government” resigned on July 24th and a new
ball game started in that tormented country. Western media covered the
resignation with elliptical and outright propagandistic analyses without offering
to their readers the true causes of the resignation: the economic doldrums of
Ukraine. The Udar and Svoboda parties denied their vote for new economic
measures to adhere to IMF’s demands for structural reforms. They did what most
governments in the EU did after the austerity programs were implemented by
Germany. They want to contest an election upon lies, promises and bravado. They
also want to exclude the Communist Party from the coming elections and
intimidate their opponents making a mockery of democracy.The stark reality of
Ukraine is that the country is bankrupt and the hard question is: who is going
to pick up the tab, most certainly the EU. General winter is coming and gas
prices are up 57%. The most probable scenario is that individual EU countries
will contribute security forces and it is even possible tor NATO to reach an
agreement to support the government against the Russian “aggression”. The
crisis promulgated and advanced by incompetent bureaucrats in Brussels is
attaining its own dynamic and the horrendous Malaysian Airlines incident has
exacerbated perceptions and interventionist policies. These are correspondingly
perceived by the Russian government as aggressive and naked threats against
Russia.
The pressure may have two
consequences: the fall of Putin or a Cuba crisis. The first case is possible in
the long run. However the heirs of Putin will be most probably not utopian
Russian loves of the West but this time around some somber generals. This
will lead to a Cuban crisis. If on the other hand Putin stays in power, the
policy planners of the West are betting upon Putin’s rationality to avert a
real hot Cuban crisis where threats of a nuclear war will no doubt smear Russia
as a threat to world peace and human survival. At the same time though such a
crisis will ruin the Wests’ reputation as a responsible power which actually
underpins and guarantees world peace.
In either case the outlook is
grim and involves a probability of a Cuban crisis or even a limited use of
tactical nuclear weapons. The gambit in Ukraine is still under control but
inimical perceptions are hardening from both sides. The Mass Media of the West
are doing an excellent job in portraying an economic debacle to an existential
threat against liberal democracy and its values.
The Middle
East
The efforts to sway Iran to a
nuclear deal are a real achievement of the Obama administration. However,
technically the deal is not very probable due to the advanced stage of Iran’s
nuclear program. Iran is willing to sign a compromise but the requirements are
too demanding. At the same time the terrain is rapidly changing and Iran is
facing more threats than it initially calculated. The ISIS question is posing a
serious dilemma to the Ayatollahs; they either have to fight them at some point
or they have to side with the West to avert a war of all against all. The
Regime in Teheran isn’t working upon a short term plan. They cannot gamble
their existence upon an onslaught of the Sunnis while they aren’t ready for it.
Actually they are the only reliable regime in the area which can behave in a
more or less rational way. Even if their agenda is anti-Western and theocratic
their ultimate purpose is survival and this can be accomplished only with the
tolerance of the West or if they acquire a nuclear arsenal
The Sunni front is collapsing
and at the same time it is restructuring itself. The old order is no more. The
only serious players in the area are Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The first supports
the second because this is the only way the Saudi Kingdom can survive. The
other way is to surrender to the Turks, their old satraps. Egypt on the other
hand is a state under economic collapse. It tries to stave off a Muslim
Brotherhood resistance and a jihadist activity in the Sinai. President Sisi is
playing the role of all the previous military rulers professing to be both
secular and an Islamist. This ploy cannot last for too long because radical are
closing in from all sides, Sinai, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and Iraq. The balance
in the area is hanging by a thread and depends upon the advances of the IS and
its capacity to organize a rudimentary administration in the territories it
holds. Presently all seem to avoid attacking the “Caliphate”. Perhaps its rapid
advance was a real shock to all. It is not easy to stop a victorious army where
there is no army in the area which has a clear and worthwhile reason to fight.
Israel on the other hand is
experiencing a turning point in its existence as a state. After the last
ruinous war with Hezbollah in Lebanon the Israelis are fighting a war with a
desperate Hamas. The fight is as usual lopsided but Israeli losses are heavy.
Hamas is resisting in ways that may inspire Arab masses which up to now are
either indifferent or have problems of their own. However, the unpredictability
of history may work here in ways which will press both Saudi’s and Egypt’s
antipathy for Hamas to the point of an internal explosion. The longer the
Israeli incursion is Gaza lasts the probability of an explosion gets higher.
There are some signs that point to this. Both a Pakistani and a Saudi journalist are bringing the point of apathy and
failure of the Arabs and the Moslems to the open and forcefully suggest that if
the Palestinians decide to fight to the death the outcome of their struggle
most probably won’t be the same as in previous occasions.
The routine military
preponderance of Israel is still there. However the weak or failed states in
the area aren’t a sign of its strength but or its weakness. Any state can be an
enemy but also a part of a deal. Barbaric chaos is actually the end of the
area. Who can trust a long term investment in an area where people blow
themselves up and behead their enemies? To be an oasis in the desert doesn’t
cancel out the effect of the desert; it rather makes it starker and more
ominous. Israel cannot survive among ruins and desolation. And the same holds
for Turkey. A permanent state of war and insurgency will sap the social and
political fabric of these societies turning them to failed states themselves.
No man is an island but no state is an island either in this globalized world.
Geography is history and destiny.
Conclusions
The world is in its usual
disorder. There is no new world order around. What are more and obviously
demanding are the depth and the scope of this disorder. Was it a a
creation of a historical evolution or a premeditated intervention for some
grandiose aggressive plans for world domination or perhaps defensive ones hiding economic and social dysfunctions which need “enemies”
to become scapegoats for eventualities yet unknown to the indifferent and
malleable public opinion of the USA and Europe? There is even another rather
humiliating and unworthy reason for this new world disorder: the effort
of boosting the legacy of an American President who was elected with rising expectations
and is departing with the horrendous failures of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria,
Libya, Egypt, and Ukraine.
Nicholas A. Biniaris Hellas
July 30 2014
