From Fisted by Foucault - last seen in his "The Dubrovnik Interviews: Marc Andreessen - Interviewed by a Retard" - May 30:
Two articles and a speech that are highly relevant to international affairs and are subjects of note on this Substack
At this moment I am impatiently tapping my fingers, awaiting the answers to my questions from my selected interview subject. I wanted to publish this interview well over a week ago, but I cannot force others to write. I know how much all of you want new interviews to be published here. Please bear with me.
In the meantime, there are two articles and one speech that I would like to draw your attention to, as the timing and the subject matter make them highly relevant, especially to this Substack. Let’s turn to those now.
The War Against Ukraine as a “Revolt Against the US-Led Global Order”
As you’ve heard me say dozens of times previously, the USA achieved its main goal on the first day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine as it quickly led to the complete severance of Russian political and economic ties to Europe, forcing the continent into “US protectorate” status. Everything since then has been about bleeding Russia as much as possible by gently and gradually raising Western involvement step-by-step.
The light touch that Russia used in the first phase of the war surprised everyone, including me. Why they approached this conflict in this matter is of great interest to us all, but we will have to wait years until we receive a definitive answer. Over-confidence is surely part of the equation.
Two other facts have surprised many observers, especially the Americans:
the resilience of the Russian economy, which was supposed to have collapsed by this point in the conflict
the West’s isolation, whereby diplomacy has failed to bring Latin America, Asia, and Africa aboard the sanctions regime targeting Moscow
It’s this second surprise that forms the basis of a recently-held lecture by British-American Russia hawk (and former US National Security Council official under President Trump) Fiona Hill. In it, she warns of global fatigue with constant US demands, insisting that a new approach and new language is required to maintain dominance even as the old order is ebbing away.
This has not, as Vladimir Putin and others claim, become a proxy war between the United States or the “collective West” (the U.S. and its European and other allies) against Russia. In the current geopolitical arena, the war is now effectively the reverse—a proxy for a rebellion by Russia and the “Rest” against the United States. The war in Ukraine is perhaps the event that makes the passing of pax Americana apparent to everyone.
In its pursuit of the war, Russia has cleverly exploited deep-seated international resistance, and in some cases open challenges, to continued American leadership of global institutions. It is not just Russia that seeks to push the United States to the sidelines in Europe, and China that wants to minimize and contain U.S. military and economic presence in Asia so both can secure their respective spheres of influence. Other countries that have traditionally been considered “middle powers” or “swing states”—the so-called “Rest” of the world—seek to cut the U.S. down to a different size in their neighborhoods and exert more influence in global affairs. They want to decide, not be told what’s in their interest. In short, in 2023, we hear a resounding no to U.S. domination and see a marked appetite for a world without a hegemon.
“They want to decide, not be told what’s in their interest.”
Fiona has clearly read the room, and has found that US heavy-handedness has become an impediment to maintaining the pre-eminent role it currently has on the global stage.
In this context, the next iteration of the global security, political and economic system will not be framed by the United States alone. The reality is already something else. It is not an “order,” which inherently points to a hierarchy, and perhaps not even a “disorder.” A range of countries are pushing and pulling in line with their own priorities to produce new arrangements. We in the transatlantic community may need to develop some new terminology as well as adapt our foreign policy approaches to deal with horizontal networks of overlapping and sometimes competing structures. We have entered what Samir Saran, President of India’s Observer Research Foundation, has dubbed the age of “limited liability partnerships.”
Ms. Hill recognizes the limits of the current approach, and finds it lacking. A big issue here is that her realist approach collides head on with the current messianic environment in US governance. There is a global liberal revolution based on rapidly-changing American mores to export.
Fatigue with America:
Since 1991, the U.S. has seemingly stood alone as the global superpower. But today, after a fraught two-decade period shaped by American-led military interventions and direct engagement in regional wars, the Ukraine war highlights the decline of the United States itself. This decline is relative economically and militarily, but serious in terms of U.S. moral authority. Unfortunately, just as Osama bin Laden intended, the U.S.’s own reactions and actions have eroded its position since the devastating terrorist attacks of 9/11. “America fatigue” and disillusionment with its role as the global hegemon is widespread. This includes in the United States itself—a fact that is frequently on display in Congress, news outlets and think tank debates. For some, the U.S. is a flawed international actor with its own domestic problems to attend to. For others, the U.S. is a new form of imperial state that ignores the concerns of others and throws its military weight around.
The USA could have retrenched and recognized the criticisms leveled at it (as eloquently listed and described by Ms. Hill), but it instead decided to sabotage a presidency and go TURBO in order to cut down to size two revisionist powers that threaten its standing.
If your feelings about Fiona are becoming positive, check out this next bit....
....MUCH MORE
