As I reported recently, the first response of Western leaders to the war in the Ukraine is a river of hypocrisy. But Justin Trudeau pontificating about “stand[ing] against authoritarianism” at the same time as he is employing hackers to doxx protesters and their supporters is just the most obvious duplicity floating atop a stinking cesspool of cant.
The outraged posturing of America and Europe that Vladimir Putin is a unique threat to “the rules-based international order” is rank hypocrisy of the first order. That isn’t, of course, an excuse for Putin unleashing the dogs of war. But let’s not pretend that “the good guys” haven’t been releasing the hounds when it suits them.
Putin has merely ripped the bandaid off the festering sore that is the decaying, post-WWII order.
The “rules-based international order” that rose from the ashes of World War II has been dead for years. Russia’s savage invasion of Ukraine might finally convince Western diplomats and dreamers of this reality.
When I studied International Relations, we were introduced to the major competing theories: Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. Constructivism, the idea that nations exist in a floating world of “constructions” enjoys some popularity in academia, but the prevailing doctrine of the West since WWII has been Liberalism. This is the notion of a harmonious global order, as espoused in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis.
But the more I learned of IR, the less comprehensible I found it that anyone could seriously disbelieve that Realism simply describes best how the world works.
Realism is the bitter acknowledgement that all states are attempting to enhance their own power and that a nation’s primary goal ought to be its self-interest. Realism doesn’t preclude international co-operation, of course: as Adam Smith pointed out, we owe our daily bread to the baker’s self-interest, not his magnanimity.
Studying even modern history, and the endless wheeling and double-dealing of international relations, it seems hard to conclude that Liberalism is little more than a fairy-tale for the naive, and a cover-story for the duplicitous.
Throughout the buildup to the invasion, the Biden administration attempted to shame Vladimir Putin for breaking long-held norms […]
“Who in the Lord’s name does Putin think gives him the right to declare new so-called countries on territory that belonged to his neighbors?” Biden asked in a Tuesday presser. “This is a flagrant violation of international law, and it demands a firm response from the international community.”
It should have been clear to our leaders that Putin doesn’t give a fig about “international law,” let alone the “rules-based international order.” China doesn’t care about it either. Nor the Taliban. And they haven’t for a very long time.
Nor, should anyone be deluded, does the United States, when it suits them. Does no-one remember G. W. Bush scoffing in disbelief when a reporter raised the issue of international law during America’s invasion of Iraq? Joe Biden voted in Congress to support that invasion, and Afghanistan, as well as supporting Barack Obama’s “regime change” in Libya, which turned it into a failed state.
The United States owes 75 years of relative peace and prosperity to a handful of wise men who set our ship of state on a sober, rational course through the Cold War and beyond […]
International norms only work if everyone agrees to the rulebook. Vast swaths of the planet have never agreed to these terms and it’s past time we accept that fact.
More importantly, that we stop saying one thing, while doing quite another. For a time, during the Cold War especially, the “rules-based order” was a useful fiction. At least, while enough people believed (or at least, pretended to believe) in it. But, with the passing of time, fewer people even pretended.
Not even the UN. The foundational value of the UN is (supposed to be) the sovereign equality of all its Members. Yet the UN has spent at least the last few decades steadily white-anting the principle of sovereignty, under the guise of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Most obviously beginning with the Balkans and the UN-backed war on Kosovo and culminating in the disastrous “liberation” of Libya, the UN has repeatedly sanctioned violations of national sovereignty.
Putin, to damn him with faint praise, isn’t bothering to pretend.
As Putin nears 70, he’s looking to a legacy for both himself and his nation. Like many leaders before him, whether Soviet tyrants or the czars before them, he wants to expand Russia’s borders. He successfully accomplished that in Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014) and no one batted an eye. Now, sadly, it’s Ukraine […]
This is not a man concerned about financial sanctions or not being invited to the next wine-tasting at Davos. He’s playing for the history books.
Meanwhile, the West is alternating between playing dress-ups and self-flagellating.
China and Russia see liberal democracies as fading relics, torn apart by infighting and self-recrimination. We insist America is a hellscape of institutional racism and sexism, then demand countries like Ukraine emulate us.
We have lost confidence in our institutions, yet force the same structures onto emerging nations.
Instead of bashing ourselves, it’s time to buckle up. It’s a dangerous world – as it always has been. Let’s start acting like it.
AZ Central
Part of that is picking our battles. We’ve spent twenty years, thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars, fighting foreign wars that have achieved little other than to make Washington’s cronies rich.
Do we really want to get suckered into another war on the other side of the world — especially while storm clouds gather to our north?
