"Just how hypocritical is the West," and "On the other hand, you know what has really elevated food prices? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine!" --both are similar to what I'd been thinking when I read Milliband earlier this week. I'd add that details matter. It's easy to lazily hand-wave Russia's invasion and say things like it and the U.S. invasion of Iraq are "the same," (and yes, here in Europe where I live, I hear this ALL THE TIME). Except, they're not, especially on the ground, especially re: the annexation aspect (and also war crimes and CAH aspects. There's a Pacific Ocean-sized gap in how the U.S. conducted operations in Iraq and how Russia has operated in Ukraine since 2014; more so this past year).
1. “Just how hypocritical is the West?” Very. But this is global politics. Everyone’s a hypocrite. All nations, very much including Western ones, are responding to this conflict in ways they perceive will enhance their interests. I think there’s an assumption that many GS countries are positioning themselves the way they have in a fit of pique, or because of anti-Western propaganda (you mention “swallowing Russian narratives”). I see a much more hard-nosed play for self-interest. Russia has been an important trade partner (food, oil and gas, fertilizer, and crucially, weapons) and security actor for many such states that they’d be loath to run foul of given how limited their options are.
2. “Are the sanctions worse than the war itself?” While the scale and severity of Russian sanctions are unprecedented, and will force states to rethink their financial systems I’d say it’s the sanctions against China that people find more concerning. The West (or the US at least) seems to have made putting a lid on their development an explicit objective, and is willing to break the global trade system it created to achieve it. Combined with the actions at the WTO, the rate hikes and bank failures that roil emerging markets, the sense is that Western countries are riding roughshod on their economies.
3. “Is the world as multipolar as you think?” Again most GS states are rightly far more interested in the well-being and prosperity of their people than the outcomes of global power struggles. The way to win them over will be to persuade them that that’s in their interest, with carrots or with sticks.
Can’t resist adding how fascinating it’s been watching the reversal of rhetorical modes from old patterns: the West sounding like Gandhi, India sounding like Kissinger. As I say: everyone’s a hypocrite.
Does U.S. toleration of Israeli occupation and de facto annexation justify some cynicism about its principled opposition to altering borders by force? Kuwait is a closer analog to Ukraine, but the West Bank and Golan Heights are close enough to generate some skepticism.
May not be as multipolar as CW in the Global South assumes. But being #! economy & military doesn't translate into obtaining desired outcomes. While power is situational, in most cases requires resolving problems requires coalition politics. I tried to explain here: https://www.stimson.org/2022/what-is-power-in-the-21st-century/
In India's case, I think it's important to remember that India and China had a face-off in the Himalayas just a couple of years ago, where Europe sat on the sidelines and refused to condemn Chinese forces for occupying Indian territory. Furthermore, Germany continues to import gas and oil from Russia while condemning India for doing the same. Macron's France has no problems allying itself with China to pressurise the Russians over Ukraine, but will condemn India relying on Russia to persuade the Chinese out of the Indian side of the Himalayas.
Furthermore, the Global South's attitude isn't new. Non-Alignment has been around for ages, almost as long as the United Nations and the Cold War. Jaishankar's point about "Europe's problems being the world's problems" is a quote from Nelson Mandela. Non Alignment was put on the backseat after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but this recent turn towards NA is more of a return to the norm than anything else.
Well, for starters literally no one outside of the west thinks that Putin's motives for this war have anything to do with territorial ambition or reconstitution of the USSR. They certainly don't think that Russia has any intention of annexing their countries.
Sure, no one thinks that the US is going to annex their country either, but what else might the US do? They might take the country with the highest HDI in Africa and turn it into an open air slave market to "stop Gaddafi from murdering his own people." Which really did wonders for the rest of the sahel too. https://thewaywardrabbler.substack.com/p/in-search-of-lost-empire
We have no "moral authority" whatsoever. We do nothing but actively undermine other countries, financially, militarily. All of that just to increase the wealth of a very few people thanks to the broad bipartisan agreement on right-wing economics. https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-military-industrial-stock-buyback
I also read most of those articles in Foreign Affairs with great interest. Uni-, bi-, and multi-polar were used quite a bit. But I feel that the key word was “polar,” in that there are one or more powerful entities which have the ability to shape the world as it desires. What, I feel, is missing from the discussion is how to make the world “uni-centric;” that is how to see past their differences and find common ground. Overall, I find a serious lack of leadership and stewardship (in the true sense) within the global order. As a result, each nation is taking a self-interested approach to foreign policy, with the Global North holding a firm line on ESG. Fragmentation is the result.
The 12th hour is here and the North is preparing for separation, not just politically, but also monetarily, as recently given in an address by Lagarde’s ECB. Not surprisingly, the monetary side is merely another arm of the same policy.
"Just how hypocritical is the West," and "On the other hand, you know what has really elevated food prices? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine!" --both are similar to what I'd been thinking when I read Milliband earlier this week. I'd add that details matter. It's easy to lazily hand-wave Russia's invasion and say things like it and the U.S. invasion of Iraq are "the same," (and yes, here in Europe where I live, I hear this ALL THE TIME). Except, they're not, especially on the ground, especially re: the annexation aspect (and also war crimes and CAH aspects. There's a Pacific Ocean-sized gap in how the U.S. conducted operations in Iraq and how Russia has operated in Ukraine since 2014; more so this past year).
An attempt at a response:
1. “Just how hypocritical is the West?” Very. But this is global politics. Everyone’s a hypocrite. All nations, very much including Western ones, are responding to this conflict in ways they perceive will enhance their interests. I think there’s an assumption that many GS countries are positioning themselves the way they have in a fit of pique, or because of anti-Western propaganda (you mention “swallowing Russian narratives”). I see a much more hard-nosed play for self-interest. Russia has been an important trade partner (food, oil and gas, fertilizer, and crucially, weapons) and security actor for many such states that they’d be loath to run foul of given how limited their options are.
2. “Are the sanctions worse than the war itself?” While the scale and severity of Russian sanctions are unprecedented, and will force states to rethink their financial systems I’d say it’s the sanctions against China that people find more concerning. The West (or the US at least) seems to have made putting a lid on their development an explicit objective, and is willing to break the global trade system it created to achieve it. Combined with the actions at the WTO, the rate hikes and bank failures that roil emerging markets, the sense is that Western countries are riding roughshod on their economies.
3. “Is the world as multipolar as you think?” Again most GS states are rightly far more interested in the well-being and prosperity of their people than the outcomes of global power struggles. The way to win them over will be to persuade them that that’s in their interest, with carrots or with sticks.
Can’t resist adding how fascinating it’s been watching the reversal of rhetorical modes from old patterns: the West sounding like Gandhi, India sounding like Kissinger. As I say: everyone’s a hypocrite.
Does U.S. toleration of Israeli occupation and de facto annexation justify some cynicism about its principled opposition to altering borders by force? Kuwait is a closer analog to Ukraine, but the West Bank and Golan Heights are close enough to generate some skepticism.
May not be as multipolar as CW in the Global South assumes. But being #! economy & military doesn't translate into obtaining desired outcomes. While power is situational, in most cases requires resolving problems requires coalition politics. I tried to explain here: https://www.stimson.org/2022/what-is-power-in-the-21st-century/
In India's case, I think it's important to remember that India and China had a face-off in the Himalayas just a couple of years ago, where Europe sat on the sidelines and refused to condemn Chinese forces for occupying Indian territory. Furthermore, Germany continues to import gas and oil from Russia while condemning India for doing the same. Macron's France has no problems allying itself with China to pressurise the Russians over Ukraine, but will condemn India relying on Russia to persuade the Chinese out of the Indian side of the Himalayas.
Furthermore, the Global South's attitude isn't new. Non-Alignment has been around for ages, almost as long as the United Nations and the Cold War. Jaishankar's point about "Europe's problems being the world's problems" is a quote from Nelson Mandela. Non Alignment was put on the backseat after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but this recent turn towards NA is more of a return to the norm than anything else.
Also, the EU turns out not to be quite the declining power most theorists have assumed until now
Well, for starters literally no one outside of the west thinks that Putin's motives for this war have anything to do with territorial ambition or reconstitution of the USSR. They certainly don't think that Russia has any intention of annexing their countries.
Sure, no one thinks that the US is going to annex their country either, but what else might the US do? They might take the country with the highest HDI in Africa and turn it into an open air slave market to "stop Gaddafi from murdering his own people." Which really did wonders for the rest of the sahel too. https://thewaywardrabbler.substack.com/p/in-search-of-lost-empire
Same for Syria. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/04/20/al_qaeda_is_on_our_side_how_obamabiden_officials_helped_create_a_safe_haven_for_terrorists_in_syria_827477.html
Need I review our record in this hemisphere? https://cepr.net/out-of-the-ashes-of-economic-war/
We have no "moral authority" whatsoever. We do nothing but actively undermine other countries, financially, militarily. All of that just to increase the wealth of a very few people thanks to the broad bipartisan agreement on right-wing economics. https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-military-industrial-stock-buyback
I also read most of those articles in Foreign Affairs with great interest. Uni-, bi-, and multi-polar were used quite a bit. But I feel that the key word was “polar,” in that there are one or more powerful entities which have the ability to shape the world as it desires. What, I feel, is missing from the discussion is how to make the world “uni-centric;” that is how to see past their differences and find common ground. Overall, I find a serious lack of leadership and stewardship (in the true sense) within the global order. As a result, each nation is taking a self-interested approach to foreign policy, with the Global North holding a firm line on ESG. Fragmentation is the result.
The 12th hour is here and the North is preparing for separation, not just politically, but also monetarily, as recently given in an address by Lagarde’s ECB. Not surprisingly, the monetary side is merely another arm of the same policy.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2023/html/ecb.sp230417~9f8d34fbd6.en.html