The End of History
We appeal to an international order that doesn't exist, and unfortunately, it's Ukraine on the receiving end
Three weeks ago I wrote a rather dismissive newsletter discussing Ukraine. I got many things wrong, some badly so. My opinions on such matters were always redundant, but to also be so cavalier in missing the possibility of war shows how far the sands have shifted in recent times. Putin has the courage of his convictions, consequences be damned. His invasion is rightfully denounced as a war of aggression, but the seeds of destruction need to be closer analysed. This week has finally and permanently marked the end of the historical period of the end of the Cold War, to the beginning of something far more dangerous. There is no returning from the global decoupling occurring in front of our very eyes. Mussolini said that “blood alone moves the wheels of history”, and here we are, with tanks, helicopters and artillery bombarding cities and towns across Ukraine.
Not only does this war end the post Cold War period, it also places the final nail in the coffin of the idea of ‘the end of history’. First posited in the 1990s by American political scientist Francis Fukuyama, ‘the end of history’ thesis was that Western liberal democracy, after its triumph over the USSR and by extension ‘communism’, would be so ascendant and dominant that all other political alternatives would wilt away. Models of transnational government such as the European Union would naturally blossom, as like minded nations agreed to cooperate. Throughout the period after the GFC this thesis was looking incredibly wobbly, with the EU debt crisis, Brexit and Trump severely testing the limits of these loose political associations. Putin has abruptly and decisively shattered any illusion of a global cooperative future on Western terms, if there ever was a chance of one.
Personally, I’ve always been sceptical of the ‘end of history’ argument. It smacks of Western hubris. On its face, it always seemed so full of contradictions and holes that it wouldn’t hold in times of true crisis. I’ve been writing on the rise of China for a while, and assumed there was still years before the Taiwan issue would attempt to be resolved. Despite demographic issues, China has time on its side, and can patiently sit back and build its capabilities before challenging the US for supremacy. The ‘no limits’ agreement signed by China and Russia just before the recent Winter Olympic Games has proven to be far more consequential than most predicted. Even still, most seasoned ‘Kremlin watchers’ didn’t predict a full scale invasion of Ukraine to commence on the conclusion of the Games. The placement of troops in Belarus and Crimea for months, followed by the stage managed and scripted national security meetings of Putin and his advisors, and his rambling justification for war show that this truly was an operation in the planning for months. Far from the ‘end of history’, Putin’s moves in Ukraine begin a new period of the slow tussle between East and West, with real conflict and consequences back on the agenda.
So it turns out that the American intelligence services were correct in their predictions of invasion, and the primary objective of decapitating the government and head of state. Scepticism of these claims over the past month has been incredibly high across the globe, scepticism entirely justified given the bogus lie of WMD which led to the Iraq invasion. In highlighting the imminent threat of invasion, the US was attempting to stop Putin and call his bluff in security negotiations. However, it turns out Putin is deadly serious, and is fully prepared to engage in conflict to achieve his aims (much like the Americans in the Middle East). Over the years, Putin has repeatedly pointed out the Iraq invasion and Libya intervention as violations of international law, lacking as they were in a UN Security Council Resolutions authorising conflict. Now, he has used American and British “misadventure in the Middle East” as a justification for his own actions. Despite protestations by the West, he can credibly claim that Ukraine was a threat to Russian national security if it joined NATO or the EU, and as such has moved to decisively prevent such an eventuality. To my mind, the inflated Russian claims of mortal danger do not in any way justify these actions. However, "war is merely the continuation of politics with other means”, and upon the failure of diplomacy and negotiation, Putin has chosen war to achieve his aims. This is in sharp contrast to the current state of the Western Alliance, as it were, who are stuck between trying to look as tough as possible and not provoking a nuclear armed rival. There aren’t too many options between those two positions which will halt the Russian invasion, and unfortunately it is the Ukrainian people who suffer most.
Another central idea of globalisation, that it is better to make money than make war, is also near the scrap-heap. The Western attempt at bringing supply chains home has a long way to go, but is the first step in this process of ‘de-globalisation’. Last newsletter I was largely dismissive of these attempts, and truly believed that trade relationships, specifically reliance on gas, would prevent a large-scale conflict in Ukraine. Wrong. It is those very trade relationships between the Europeans and Russia which have allowed this conflict to occur. Putin has correctly identified the central weakness of European energy dependency, even with the new pipeline off the agenda. The Nordstream 2 pipeline across the Baltic Sea will now sit idle, fully built but useless, a rune of a previous geopolitical age where trade and cooperation promised security and peace. One can only assume that Putin was well aware the pipeline was to be cancelled as the Ukraine crisis came to a head, and has moved to consolidate his energy strange hold over Eastern Europe. Here’s the gas pipelines crossing Ukraine:
Putin has calculated the time to move was now, for a variety of reasons. His gamble has a high chance of backfiring, as the sanctions on the Russian Central Bank and blocking access to the SWIFT payments system will tank the economy and the currency. The situation on the ground in Ukraine is very fluid, and this newsletter doesn’t contain any news. But here’s some key points to consider:
Putin knows the whole globe is facing an inflation time bomb, with food and energy costs spiking at levels not seen since the 1970s. Russia is a net exporter of these commodities, so any economic punishment for his actions will be easily rebounded back at the Europeans in the form of higher prices. Frustratingly, it also means higher revenue per unit for the Russians, helping to cushion the blow of Western sanctions on banks etc. There is also a real threat of a global starvation event occurring over the next 6 months brought about by already surging inflation, failed wheat crops in the war zone, and underlying global warming. We desperately need this conflict to be concluded as soon as possible to prevent such an eventuality.
The Europeans, particularly the Germans, are acutely aware of their reliance on Russian commodities, hence their initial hesitance and delay in approving the SWIFT sanctions. As it is, energy payments have been excluded. So, the pipelines continue to run, and Putin maintains his energy leverage over the EU. There is also the question of oil production, with Russian sales continuing as prices per barrel spike to $115. Russian oil is currently seen as toxic to purchase, but as the price spikes closer to $150, and the conflict reaches a climax and conclusion, it is likely Europe and Asia will be forced back into purchasing Russian oil reserves to cushion rapid and uncontrollable inflation
In light of these issues, the US and EU are also preventing Russian Central Bank activity on foreign markets. Putin has labelled these an act of war, and there is no doubt a full scale economic war has begun. Again, the economic and financial sanctions may cripple Russia, or they won’t. Either way, the measures don’t appear to be stopping the invasion in the short term, with wide-ranging defaults in the West also a potential side effect of the sanctions.
China and India have already agreed to conduct trade and currency exchanges with Russia outside of the USD system. There were high hopes for the new QUAD arrangement between the US, Japan, Australia and India, but at the first real challenge, the Indians under Modi have sided with the Russians. Much was made of China’s abstention to the UN resolution to ‘condemn’ the invasion, but India and the United Arab Emirates also abstained. With friends like these, Biden must be wondering what the hell is going on, to the point that the US is considering sanctioning India for its relationship with Russia. A great crisis is developing, one which could rapidly increase the collapse of the USD as the global reserve currency.
The Americans are now saying Putin won’t stop in Ukraine, but I doubt he’ll take on NATO. If he does, he has truly lost his mind. There is no chance the Russian army can simultaneously hold Ukraine and fight in the Baltics, and though it appears Putin has miscalculated the time it would take to topple Kyiv, their forces will continue to slowly choke key cities in the south and east. Placing nuclear weapons in Belarus is reckless, but then again, for 80 years the missiles have always only an hour or two away from enemy territory, facing each other. Unless true negotiation and compromise is engaged by both sides, these conflicts and ensuing potential for nuclear annihilation will always be just around the corner. We are two seconds to midnight on nuclear destruction once more, 30 years after the end of the Cold War.
With the above point in mind, anyone advocating for a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine is insane. This is madness of the highest order, as it will lead to Russian and NATO fighter jets directly duelling. This would be an escalation far past the severity of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and there is simply no way forward for resolution to the conflict if this occurs. This would spell the end of the new Cold War, and the beginning of the end of Europe and the US. If someone of high intellect is demanding “something be done”, ask what they would like to happen, because it cannot be the euphemistic “no-fly zone”. That “something” must be diplomacy.
It is clear that there is a large push in the US to depose of Putin. Senators and Congress members are calling for his assassination. Even liberal minded think tanks such as the Brookings Institute are calling the economic sanctions as steps towards ‘regime change’, whilst simultaneously arguing against military intervention. Putin has labelled Western sanctions as akin to a ‘declaration of war’, but has stopped short of attacking NATO positions. It’s important to note than in an escalating situation, it’s very hard to distinguish rhetoric from policy, on all sides. White House Press Secretary Psaki states that ‘regime change’ is not the policy of the US government, but then Secretary of State Blinken tells the BBC that the Ukrainians can absolutely win the war and push back the invasion, without Western intervention in the skies. It is clear the West is aiming to embroil Putin in a protracted campaign in Ukraine very similar to the Iraq quagmire the US found itself in. The long term goal, as such, is the collapse of the Putin regime brought about by an insurgency in Kyiv, but how long that takes, who knows. All we know is it is Ukraine’s fight alone to achieve these goals, no matter how many cities get razed in the process. I support the Ukrainian peoples fight against the invasion; I also believe a political settlement is the only way forward to prevent further bloodshed and destruction.
I believe that if Trump were still President, this war would have been avoided. He would have conceded the full Donbass region to the Russians in early February, and probably negotiated a neutral position for Ukraine similar to that of Finland during the Cold War. This wouldn’t have pleased the security community, NATO, the weapons manufacturers, or the majority of Ukrainians who would prefer EU membership. It would have been quintessential ‘bad deal’ Trump, sacrificing American prestige for personal acclaim, much like his agreement with North Korea. Think something along the lines of Obama’s deal with Iran. However, when the alternative is what we are seeing, one does wonder whether good faith negotiations and diplomacy were truly undertaken in order to avoid this conflict. The Americans and Europeans consistently stated they knew the invasion was coming, and rather than discuss or concede to any Russian security concerns, they chose to leave the Ukrainians alone to face the consequences. This is my reading, as all public statements available from the US and the UK were clear in stating that the Western alliance was not prepared to compromise on any of Russia’s security demands. This doesn’t excuse the invasion: Putin is a criminal who has broken international law, and as such, should face the consequences of his actions. There is talk of the International Criminal Court in the Hague investigating war crimes perpetrated by the invaders, and many calls for Putin to be held responsible. That is unlikely to happen, and we’re left to wonder whether this conflict, like most other wars, could have been avoided.
I sincerely hope people extrapolate their outrage at the current crisis backwards to the war mongers responsible for Iraq, Vietnam, Central America and countless other crimes against humanity perpetrated by the “free world”, mostly in the name of democracy. Pea-brained historical myopia runs deep in the West, and its in moments like these we need to reflect on our whole collective history, rather than mindlessly condemn and rush to further destruction.
Think back to the US engagement in south east Asia 50 years ago, specifically “Operation Menu” and “Operation Freedom Deal”, or the 4 year long carpet bombing of eastern Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam in 1969-1973. During this campaign, which was kept secret from Congress, an elaborate system was developed to prevent journalist criticism and democratic oversight of the bombing. The Russians are seen as pioneers of disinformation, but the information and propaganda war has always been won by the powerful. Richard Nixon was conveniently regarded as “outside the American political tradition” after the Watergate scandal, but he didn’t act alone. His Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in the words of Christopher Hitchens, deserves prosecution “for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.” This figure of American barbarism and duplicity was never sent to the International Criminal Court, and remains free to live out his days, celebrated as a highly effective political operative by the American media, national security state, university academies and political elite.
Hillary Clinton and her “friend”, war criminal Henry Kissinger.
The United States has a stated policy of invading the Hague if any of its or its allies are held for trial in the International Criminal Court. American and allied crimes throughout Vietnam and the War on Terror have gone unpunished, from Kissinger to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Putin looks at these calls for his potential trial at the Hague with disdain, much in the same way the powerful do on our side.
Watch Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State during Bush’s second term, nod agreeably to the statement, “when you invade a sovereign nation, that is a war crime”, and then herself reiterate that an invasion is against “every principle of international law and international order”. Remember, the UN did not authorise the invasion of Iraq under any conditions. John Howard made sure Australia was first in line to join the “Coalition of the Willing”, a group of mostly Western nations “willing” to break international law. The only reason I bring all this history to attention in relation to Ukraine is obvious: we are appealing to Putin to follow rules we have broken with impunity for years. He calls our bluff, and we are bewildered, frustrated and immensely confused at the change in the status quo. We shouldn’t be, considering how casually the “liberal rules based international order” has been disregarded over the years; it’s simply the fact that someone outside our alliance has the nerve to act as we do. If this sounds like equivocation to you, or Russian propaganda, so be it. And if we were truly in favour of democracy and self-determination, I don’t see a place for the theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia in our coalition, or American material support for the War in Yemen, or the occupation in Palestine. There is simply no “Western tradition” that the Americans or British can appeal to that has overwhelming moral or legal authority, and in the final analysis, whose responsibility is that?
When Putin talks about blood and soil, liberal Westerners are repulsed, recalling the echoes of fascism and Nazism. Putin sees himself reunifying the Eastern Orthodox Church, a trinity broken in recent political events. He seeks to Make Russia Great Again, through any means available. In most senses, Putin is more a politician of the earliest stages of the 20th century, before the Bolshevik Revolution, but informed by the collapse of the USSR at the hands of Western forces. Putin was in East Germany when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and saw first hand the failure of economic “shock therapy” by the West in Russia during the 90s. He is appealing to a different narrative to the West, one which we will never understand whilst we clutch at our unfulfilled ideals of transnational governance and order envisioned in Fukiyama’s “The End of History”. We maintain there is something egregious to Putin’s actions, which there certainly is, but in doing so, our leaders implicate themselves. I hope there is a negotiated settlement to the conflict soon. This has been a wholly avoidable tragedy. There is always a space for diplomacy, and it always must be opened with the possibility of concessions. We must come down from our high-horse with sincerity and grace, lest we be dragged off by sheer force by rivals who detest our dominance and exploitation. The future of the world depends on it.