Seven Thoughts on Geopolitics
A scholar at The Graduate Institute in Geneva, where I did my doctorate (summa cum laude, thank you very much), posted these seven points on LinkedIn.
I believe they constitute the conventional wisdom among certain intellectuals. I'm a different kind and I do think it comes down to personality, not only analysis. My responses are below.
HIS MAIN POINTS:
1. "Cool heads and sober judgement" are critical ingredients for analysing an ongoing war; academia can provide a foundation for sober judgement about the war in Ukraine.
2. Militarising Europe is dangerous and poses significant risks for the post-Second World War European project that has shaped the regions stability and prosperity.
3. European economies have been weaponised, this is why efforts to end the war must include economic disarmament.
4. So far, the United States has drawn the most significant strategic wins from the war in Ukraine.
5. When preparing for peace, Western leaders need to be reflective about their own actions that stimulated the conditions for this war, especially by normalising foreign intervention.
6. There will be no peace without China: It is the only country with leverage over Russia at this point.
7. We have reached the future: Climate change, population growth, pandemics, geopolitical shifts and scientific revolutions are now happening all at once. Current institutions are not ready for handling this complexity, and this is why we need to rethink and redesign the institutions for an era of rapid and deep transformation.
MY REPLIES:
1. We are not trying to merely analyze an ongoing war. We are looking to win one. While I too agree with Yoda that anger clouds judgement, academia has generally proved timid, critical, insulated, and unwilling to give operational advice – i.e. recommendations for courses of action. I know this from 10 years at UNIDIR where we had to pull academics kicking and screaming out of their enclaves where there opinions might have moral consequences.
2. Militarizing Europe is the only way to protect it from authoritarian and expansionist countries, like Russia, that literally want to annex other sovereign states. The post-WWII project was indeed aspirational towards stability and prosperity, but those exist within a system that is able to maintain itself. That includes (but is not limited to) military preparedness.
3. One of the greatest surprises and brilliant tactical moves against Russia has been the weaponization of economic and soft power. Indeed, should this become scaled back, Russia will be invited back into the fold. I don’t think there’s much debate about that (e.g. SWIFT, Mastercard and Visa, travel, etc.) But things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
4. The world is now waking up to what a true global disorder will look like if there is no Pax Americana. Obama was negligent in resisting Putin, and Trump was a full collaborator (and remains one). America has not instigated this but now even the Russophiles in the GOP are starting to realize that isolationism won’t work. NATO was meant to “keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.” The Germans need to perk up a bit more and will in time, but those other two goals could not be more clearly needed.
5. The Kremlin is working very hard (here’s a great example: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdb5...) to push the argument that Western foreign interventions made this seem reasonable. They didn’t. That is simply Russian propaganda. The worst example of Western intervention in the last 25 years was the U.S./British decision to invade Iraq to remove Saddam based on lies. Even in that case, however, the UN resolutions had been maintaining no fly zones in northern and southern Iraq since about April of 1991 (!) because Saddam had murdered over 100,000 people (mostly Kurds, Shiittes and Marsh Arabs) in the uprisings against him after the war, and because he had never stopped trying to attach planes; foster international terrorist networks, etc. Likewise, the U.S. never intended (and didn’t) annex the country.
6. China is driven by the Legalist tradition more than Communist ideology and — in a nutshell — China will do whatever is good for China at all times and forever. It wants Taiwan and it will use this crisis to its benefit. Whether that makes it learn towards or away from peace remains to be seen and that depends on whether Putin is a worthwhile investment.
7. Current institutions are already being aggressively eroded by American negligence, Chinese hostility, European technocrats, and a general malaise all across Geneva and Brussels. They will indeed need to be reconceptualized and the mechanisms re-built, but we live in a world without serious architects right now and if Geneva is going to be useful as anything other than a place to drink after skiing, it needs to turn out students and leaders who think bigger than the problems — not people who plan to slot in and cash out.
Onward.
I believe they constitute the conventional wisdom among certain intellectuals. I'm a different kind and I do think it comes down to personality, not only analysis. My responses are below.
HIS MAIN POINTS:
1. "Cool heads and sober judgement" are critical ingredients for analysing an ongoing war; academia can provide a foundation for sober judgement about the war in Ukraine.
2. Militarising Europe is dangerous and poses significant risks for the post-Second World War European project that has shaped the regions stability and prosperity.
3. European economies have been weaponised, this is why efforts to end the war must include economic disarmament.
4. So far, the United States has drawn the most significant strategic wins from the war in Ukraine.
5. When preparing for peace, Western leaders need to be reflective about their own actions that stimulated the conditions for this war, especially by normalising foreign intervention.
6. There will be no peace without China: It is the only country with leverage over Russia at this point.
7. We have reached the future: Climate change, population growth, pandemics, geopolitical shifts and scientific revolutions are now happening all at once. Current institutions are not ready for handling this complexity, and this is why we need to rethink and redesign the institutions for an era of rapid and deep transformation.
MY REPLIES:
1. We are not trying to merely analyze an ongoing war. We are looking to win one. While I too agree with Yoda that anger clouds judgement, academia has generally proved timid, critical, insulated, and unwilling to give operational advice – i.e. recommendations for courses of action. I know this from 10 years at UNIDIR where we had to pull academics kicking and screaming out of their enclaves where there opinions might have moral consequences.
2. Militarizing Europe is the only way to protect it from authoritarian and expansionist countries, like Russia, that literally want to annex other sovereign states. The post-WWII project was indeed aspirational towards stability and prosperity, but those exist within a system that is able to maintain itself. That includes (but is not limited to) military preparedness.
3. One of the greatest surprises and brilliant tactical moves against Russia has been the weaponization of economic and soft power. Indeed, should this become scaled back, Russia will be invited back into the fold. I don’t think there’s much debate about that (e.g. SWIFT, Mastercard and Visa, travel, etc.) But things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
4. The world is now waking up to what a true global disorder will look like if there is no Pax Americana. Obama was negligent in resisting Putin, and Trump was a full collaborator (and remains one). America has not instigated this but now even the Russophiles in the GOP are starting to realize that isolationism won’t work. NATO was meant to “keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.” The Germans need to perk up a bit more and will in time, but those other two goals could not be more clearly needed.
5. The Kremlin is working very hard (here’s a great example: https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxdb5...) to push the argument that Western foreign interventions made this seem reasonable. They didn’t. That is simply Russian propaganda. The worst example of Western intervention in the last 25 years was the U.S./British decision to invade Iraq to remove Saddam based on lies. Even in that case, however, the UN resolutions had been maintaining no fly zones in northern and southern Iraq since about April of 1991 (!) because Saddam had murdered over 100,000 people (mostly Kurds, Shiittes and Marsh Arabs) in the uprisings against him after the war, and because he had never stopped trying to attach planes; foster international terrorist networks, etc. Likewise, the U.S. never intended (and didn’t) annex the country.
6. China is driven by the Legalist tradition more than Communist ideology and — in a nutshell — China will do whatever is good for China at all times and forever. It wants Taiwan and it will use this crisis to its benefit. Whether that makes it learn towards or away from peace remains to be seen and that depends on whether Putin is a worthwhile investment.
7. Current institutions are already being aggressively eroded by American negligence, Chinese hostility, European technocrats, and a general malaise all across Geneva and Brussels. They will indeed need to be reconceptualized and the mechanisms re-built, but we live in a world without serious architects right now and if Geneva is going to be useful as anything other than a place to drink after skiing, it needs to turn out students and leaders who think bigger than the problems — not people who plan to slot in and cash out.
Onward.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Mackay
(new)
Mar 07, 2022 11:14AM
I don't always agree with all your points, but I have found your posts about this current tragedy useful and thought-provoking, so thank you.
reply
|
flag
Interesting points. Thanks for sharing.
