Geopolitics, Culture and Justice or Why the West is a Loser
Geopolitics and culture have a crossroad in social relations anytime anywhere. The basic cultural lanes taking to the crossroad usually possess conservative and historically rooted constructions with various, even sometimes specific ramifications. However, neither kind of ramification can upgrade the lanes nature of collective fear and greed. It is valid also for the Christian perspective in human history when it is dried up to a dramatic geopolitical fulcrum of a war, for example. The war developments channeled often into ramifications of justice or self-defense have to pass across at least one of the lanes in full fledge in order to produce whatever palpable result for the society. The society’s political or economic survival although is a different and noble cause, it is impossible to be laid out within a competitive ambiance without entailing fear and greed, either. That is why our personal freedom could get over our own socio-political survival if ever put under a threat, in something such as martyrdom. If you want, you can call this type of survival a dignity or a crucifix. It does not matter geopolitically. It matters ethically for the individual. How could we then individualize the social ethics of the democratic West in post-2008 geopolitics? It is the one of a loser, alas. Even a simple look at the media today may show you immediately why.
Not long time ago in the entire mainstream on and offline politically focused media, we read the battle tanks numbers promised by the USA and its Western allies to Ukraine, but if you were informed, slightly more extensively about the Ukrainian – Russian war development, this data could only bring into mind a confusion. You perceive in the uncritical news stream the deliveries of modest numbers (e.g., around 100 new battling machines) from different countries and protracted timing. Then you inevitably get aware that the few battle tanks will scarcely be effective for defense purposes, supplied in several separate shipments the first of which is envisaged in 3-4 months and the last one hopefully in a year. You ask yourself under these circumstances how will it be possible for Ukraine to organize its territorial liberation with modern battle tanks if Russians surpass the Ukrainian army significantly in tanks numbers and in artillery units by a ratio of 2:1 (Russia Has More Artillery Than Ukraine. ... (forbes.com))? Besides, every normal person also asks himself why the USA and the EU having a cumulative GDP 20 times bigger than the Russian one (GDP (current US$) | Data (worldbank.org) are struggling to supply some 100 new battle tanks to Ukraine within 12 months, if Russia can manufacture or repair about 200 – 250 machines for the same months (Ukraine's Defense Express magazine report. 01/05/2023). Raising a few other similar questions may go on further effortlessly. If the USA keeps about 8 700 battle tanks in Northern America (All countries compared for Military > Army > Main battle tanks (nationmaster.com)) how can the on-time delivery of 30 tanks to Ukraine reduce the US national security safeguarding? Why are the European NATO member countries not able to deliver to Ukraine also on time even the promised by them earlier old models of second-hand German Leopards tanks? After all, if it is a problem for the USA to move 30 new battle tanks to Ukraine in proper time why does it negotiate a delivery of 56 such machines to Romania (Romania to buy 56 Abrams tanks from the US under G2G contract (msn.com))? What about if the West were standing up against the Chinese production capacities instead of the Russian ones? Is it not the situation with the ammunition and missile deliveries to the Ukrainians like one of the battle tanks?
Raising such questions may go on, on and on … But the confusing news rekindles some gloomy memories related to a loser’s attitude too. In the case of the battle tanks and the ammunition news, the memories doubtlessly refer to the West’s geopolitical giving into the authoritarian regimes in the last 10-15 years all over the globe. Eleven such memories are:
- Georgia has been left by the West aside of the EU and the NATO integration processes since 2008;
- Crimea was lost by Ukraine in 2014;
- The US failed to transform Afghanistan and withdrew its troops from there;
- North Korea became a nuclear power;
- China is gaining continually economic and political vantages over the West;
- Arab countries are cooling to the West and this diminishes its influence on petrol pricing while it did little military in Syria;
- The cumulative average GDP of the USA and the EU went up by 13.40% between 2008 and 2021 (the EU one with only 5.12%), but the Chinese GDP growth soared by 459.21% and China overtook the EU as the second-world largest economy (GDP (current US$) - United States, China | Data (worldbank.org);
- China reached the USA in PPP-adjusted GDP still in 2016;
- Russia occupied nearly 1/5 of the Ukrainian territory in 2022 (i.e., we cannot talk just about a border clash between Russia and Ukraine);
- It is still impossible for NATO even to initiate Sweden entering into it;
- The USA and the EU have made no substantial legal advances since February 2022 in appropriating some part of the immobilized Russian assets in the West to boost Ukraine (incl., by providing more sizeable weaponry deliveries).
Is the common denominator of giving in within these memories and the Ukrainian current plight proving Western geopolitical impotence? It does not seem quite so, but the West needs to renounce its global retreats and reveal a distinct resolve to win at last one of the world’s conflicting situations when it drops crumbs away from its table. It must also promote a common strategy for the sustainable handling of geopolitics. The success in the turning-side geopolitics is as much important as it puts at stake nothing less than the economic and cultural sustainability of Western democracy in the looming geopolitical blocks competition. That is why the resolve demonstration is a competitive act (i.e., it is a costly stuff) and it should start from the delivery of sufficient support to Ukraine to liberate its occupied territories in 2023 because they belong to the West by the will and blood of the Ukrainian people. The immobilized Russian assets (more than US 1 trillion) could offset financially any huge volumes of weaponry deliveries for this purpose and even create conditions for investments in the Western military-industrial capacity increase. On the other hand, it would not be a win for the USA and the EU if the war will drag beyond 2023 and Putin burdens continuously the global economy through it, supported military by Iran, North Korea and eventually China. Furthermore, no cultural identity ever prospered for a long time in a vulnerable economy. This fact obviously corresponds with the Western democratic and cultural values future, too. The earnest consideration of values such as solidarity and pragmatism highlights that Ukraine should be accepted in NATO before entering the EU. It is equally valid for Georgia. Otherwise, who will guarantee Ukrainian and Georgian national security? Without this guarantee, it will be impossible for both countries to attract serious private investments. Lacking them, why should they apply for an EU membership at all? Concern about the Russian nuclear potential cannot excuse the fear stemming from the Ukrainian and Georgian potential entries into NATO. Such a fear misses ethics first. Besides, Kremlin will reap nothing from a nuclear conflict and it is even stupid to think, that Mr. Putin would commit an ordinary suicide just out of desperation. It goes without saying that he is more interested in dominating Russian neighboring states than the West. However, in case he has eventually a fragile psyche, he could be enough despaired and commit suicide at any time and under any conditions if losing the war, by the way. Should that allow him to limit democracy’s global dominance and spread by bloodshed, out-suffering the cowardly West? The right answer is that sufficient resolution is not recklessness. The opposite answer means that after Ukraine, the West should sacrifice earlier or later either Moldova, Poland, Romania, Baltic republics or Bulgaria. No matter that, most of these countries are NATO members. That is why the primary Western cultural contribution to geopolitics may and should be the straightforward ethics of resolve. Only it can allow removing nuclear blackmailing from modern geopolitics. Who if not the West is most interested in this happening? The resolve is the best signal to China, too. The resolve is important also for the war escalation in Ukraine. Ukraine will not defend itself if the war would not be escalated, especially when it has less military resources than Russia. Therefore, the war must escalate if the global geopolitical order propped on the state-of-the-law principles should be preserved by the military defense. If we adopt a different point of view, then we have to ask ourselves whether the current geopolitical order needs to be exchanged for pacifism. Perhaps, it is better all the same for Mr. Putin to change the escalation direction or drop it off after he is the war aggressor while Ukraine only defends itself. That being said we might easily see how resolve can connect ethics and geopolitics in a healthy social relationship.
Apart from the resolve, the post-war strategy of the West has to show where the Western sustainable crossroad of geopolitics and culture historically may stand. That is why the strategy has to be globally efficient and inclusive. Libertarian and isolationist slants will not help it. In fact, the West can rely only on systematic success in the hi-tech export and its arms industry in order to be a stable geopolitical leader. At the moment when it will not be longer a global technological market maker, the Western economy will begin to lag behind the more resourceful Chinese and Russian economic potential. That is why the Western strategy should be centered on massive domestic and international investments in such sectors as sustainable energy production, circular economy building, arms manufacture, hi-tech and global logistic chains re-designing. The USA and the EU would be often competitors in the strategy practical accomplishment, but it should not make it a multitude of abstract objectives. It is highly possible, that the USA will be the leading party in the Western strategic partnership. The last 15 years have shown that the EU cannot reach meaningful economic growth, its military capabilities are limited, the R&D expenses lower than the US and the Chinese ones and the EU economy is more sensitive to geopolitical changes than the American and Chinese economies. The economically based approach of the strategy should elaborate inclusively on Eastern Europe, where it must aim for the creation of export businesses, respectively broader social groups with pro-Western interests. Supporting business incubators network development (commercially, not by grants) in the region is a good geopolitical tool. Another one is the encouragement of closer economic and military cooperation between Poland and Ukraine within the EU. Both countries can be a good military buffer for Russia’s territorial containing. If Ukraine enters the EU, it and Poland cumulatively will have a weight in the EU administrative organs almost as the one of Germany. It explains why the USA should be interested primarily in stimulating close Polish – Ukrainian ties. Support for green re-industrialization in Eastern Europe seems similarly a reasonable tool. The USA should also analyze all the opportunities for setting up energy supply diversification projects in Eastern Europe. Some of the tools applied in Eastern Europe selectively may be used in Africa, too. The fulfillment of the pointed-out geopolitical tools will open new jobs in the USA, will ensure some extra investment returns for the US economy and give the USA additional political influence in Europe and Africa.
The OECD estimates that the world economy in 2023 will shrink by $2.8 trillion vs. 2021. The protracted delivery of 100 new battle tanks and an insufficient volume of ammunition to Ukraine will not solve this problem. A stronger backing of the Ukrainian army to win the war is what can be suggested to the West as a ‘geopolitical impotence immediate and thriftiest medicine’. After the medicine’s immediate effect comes into action, the Western geopolitical perspectives on sustainability should be evaluated further with the described above strategy asserting efficiency. One thing however is certain in any circumstances – no competitive sustainability of democracy can be guaranteed without some degree of justice to be applied by the Western governments when dealing with collective fears and greed. That is why these governments owe nowadays-honest answers to exemplary questions like the ones here below:
- Are really they considering the Ukrainian territorial liberation as a war strategic target or do they want only to save the pro-western government in Kyiv while making peace with Russia, something the size of the Western military support to Ukraine has proved so far despite the Western officials’ opposite promises (e.g., USA has assisted Ukraine with a total direct military aid amounting to $31.7 billion. since Feb., 2022, while Russia has spent about $82 billion for the same period of time, Forbes estimates Russia has spent $82 billion on war with Ukraine since Feb. 24. (kyivindependent.com));
- Is NATO prepared for a serious war when it pretends to lack enough stockpiles of ammunitions, missiles and battle tanks but the Western governments do not demonstrate also a will to ramp up rapidly the manufacturing capacities of their national military industries;
- Is the out-proportional precaution in the West towards the Russian nuclear arms a curtain behind which is hidden an unwillingness to spend as much as necessary public funds and a deficit of resolve to win a conventional proxy war;
The non-Western world hardly could be seen as a current seeker of geopolitical justice. It wants mainly quick peace in Ukraine and lower energy, food and fertilizers prices. It wants all that here and now. Only the West could still enforce sustainable peace in global geopolitics (regardless of its past transgressions) through its ethics of resolve and culture of justice. But is it really ready to carry out such a mission? If it hopes to win a war of attrition against Russia, it is not a promising answer. The time is not with the West. It is with the one having full resolve or at least being capable of out-suffer its opponent.