Ukraine and the myth of the new World orderThe US government saw in the Ukrainian conflict an opportunity to revive in a new form the old world order, which was dominated by Americans, writes the author of the article Spiked.
In his opinion, America's main military goal is to defeat Russia and humiliate it
Frank FurediBelow is an edited excerpt from Frank Furedi's upcoming book "The Road to Ukraine:
how the West lost its way"Almost from the moment Russia launched a special operation in Ukraine in February, Western governments and commentators eagerly seized on the fighting, seeing in them an opportunity to give the West a second wind.
The conflict was trumpeted as a harbinger of a new era and the "crucible of a new world order."
Among other world leaders, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz actively bent this line. Back in March, he declared that the world had entered a "new era." He announced a "historic shift" in German defense policy and promised to invest 100 billion euros in the German army only in 2022.
In fact, they started talking about a new era even before the start of the Russian special operation. Many saw the conflict as the embodiment of the old idea of the "Great Reset". The Great Reboot is a fantastic scenario of the founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab. Back in June 2020, he called the coronavirus pandemic a good reason for the "great reset of capitalism", advocating a more technocratic approach.
Many Western politicians and experts believe that the conflict in Ukraine will accelerate the "Great Reset". For them, this metaphor means the end of the old era and the beginning of a new one.
Sometimes the political vocabulary changes, sometimes the emphasis shifts from geopolitics to economics, but the general message remains. "The conflict in Ukraine is a paradigm shift on the scale of September 11," British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said in Washington, D.C., on March 10. "Our reaction today will serve as a model for a new era." By the paradigm shift, Truss meant "a fundamental change in the approach of free democracies to global security."
Others prefer the term "new world order". President Biden means by it the restoration of American hegemony. For others, this is a prerequisite for the collapse of the former world order. As the adviser to the President of Ukraine Andriy Ermak warned:
"The current system of international security is outdated. It's rotten through and through from the inside. Her remains collapsed and buried the world order under them. Trying to revive her is useless. Most of all, it looks like a broken automaton: its limbs can still move, but its gears are worn out, the springs are stretched. And the synchronicity that used to give perfection to his movements is long gone."
It is tempting to see the crucible of the new world order in Ukraine. Maybe it really is a transitional moment now. But there is no consensus about what exactly we are moving on to. The global balance is shaky, and many major players have not yet decided where to go next. As the astute columnist NS Lyons noted, it is much more correct to talk about "the revival of the old one, which has been falling apart for the last two decades, instead of the beginning of a new era."
The US government clearly saw in the Ukrainian conflict an opportunity to revive in a new form the old world order, where Americans dominated. It seems that America's main military goal is precisely to defeat Russia and humiliate it. This is how Washington's position was outlined by Colonel Douglas MacGregor, a former senior adviser to the US Secretary of Defense under Trump:
"At the moment, the conclusion suggests itself that there is a powerful opposition to any peace agreement, because it will be perceived as a success for Russia… In fact, there is a feeling that the role of Ukrainians in this is almost accidental: it boils down to dying in large numbers in skirmishes with the Russian army. Because the true goal of all this is the destruction of the Russian state and Vladimir Putin."
McGregor's cynical assessment is shared by other Washington experts. As Leon Panetta, the former director of the CIA and Secretary of Defense under Barack Obama, explained in March 2022:
"We are involved in this conflict. Whether we admit it or not, this is a proxy war with Russia. That's essentially what's going on. Therefore, we must supply as many weapons as possible... Keep in mind, diplomacy will not work without leverage. And our lever, frankly speaking, is to intervene and kill as many Russians as possible. That's what Ukrainians have to do. We must continue military operations. It's a power play."
But Panetta not only did not mention that thousands and thousands of Ukrainians would die if he tried to "kill as many Russians as possible", but also kept silent that in an indirect war with Russia, the goals of the United States do not necessarily coincide with the Ukrainian ones.
In fact, we have two parallel conflicts: the Russian special operation, where Ukraine is waging a defensive battle for its sovereignty, and the indirect war of America and its allies against Russia, whose goal is to significantly weaken Russia's global power and restore US hegemony at the head of the new world order.
It is important to note that the protection of Ukraine's borders and its sovereignty is by no means synonymous with Russia's defeat and humiliation. The support of the Ukrainian self-defense is necessary to protect sovereignty and independence. However, Russia's crushing and humiliating defeat is not beneficial to anyone — not even Ukraine.
This point was emphasized by Henry Kissinger, warning that a crushing defeat would have disastrous consequences for the long-term stability of Europe. Kissinger fears that if the West does not recognize Russia's role in the European balance of power, it is fraught with an era of permanent conflict.
The New York Times newspaper also thought about America 's goals in a recent editorial:
"What is the United States doing now — trying to put an end to the conflict through a settlement that will create a sovereign Ukraine and establish at least some kind of relations with Russia? Or are they trying to weaken Russia forever? Has the administration's goal changed and is it seeking to destabilize Russia and remove Putin from power?"
The End of the American OrderIn fact, the indirect war of the United States against Russia in the interests of the new world order subordinates the situation in Ukraine to a global power game.
America's attempt to restore global hegemony at the expense of Russia is also unrealistic. This policy puts China and most of the non-Western world out of sight. This strategy is short-sighted, because it will surely trigger a chain of events that will lead to a global conflict.
Externally, the conflict in Ukraine has strengthened the unity of the West and revived NATO as a reliable force. However, the longer the fighting lasts, the clearer it becomes that the goals of the members of the Western alliance differ. Washington said that it was not interested in anything other than the defeat of Russia, while the leaders of France, Italy and Germany let slip about the desire for a ceasefire, even at the cost of territorial concessions from Ukraine.
But even with all the talk about the revival of the West, if Russia is forced to defend itself all the time, it will not be possible to forge true unity. An attempt to establish a new world order, returning to the "glorious" days of the Cold War and the conflict of the two superpowers, in a world with several centers of power is obviously doomed to failure.
The desire for a new world order must take into account reality: the unilateral emphasis on Russia distracts us from other points of conflict. After the end of the cold war, we saw serious geopolitical changes. From a bipolar reality, we first moved to a unipolar one, and then to a multipolar one. Geopolitics and international relations have become more fluid and less predictable. During the pandemic, these trends intensified and significantly undermined the effectiveness of a number of international institutions that emerged after the Second World War.
In recent decades, the most significant geopolitical event has been the decline of American hegemony. Washington's concern about the loss of US economic power has intensified since the 2008 financial crisis. To overcome the devastating consequences of this crisis, America and other Western countries had to turn to China. The balance of power in the global economy is changing, and America is trying to contain China's economic and technological superiority by military means. AUKUS, the new security alliance between the United States, Britain and Australia, symbolizes the reorientation of geopolitical strategy to the Asia-Pacific region and the containment of China.
It is premature to proclaim a new world order in the current unstable global environment. Behind these loud statements is not so much reality as a desire to escape from the past. And this is fraught with serious dangers.
Those who view Ukraine through the prism of the "Great Reset" should understand that it is impossible to reset human society. You can reset something mechanical or physical, but not history. Too many unresolved problems of the past have made themselves felt. And we turn a blind eye to them at our own risk.
There is no end and no endFew people are ready to admit the reality of the conflict in Ukraine — on both sides.
There was not even a formal declaration of war. Putin continues to talk about a "special military operation," while pro-Ukrainian Western governments are cautious and try not to cross the line, which will inevitably be followed by an open war with Russia.
No one can win it, and no one will dare to lose. We are talking about existential problems: not only the status of Ukraine as a sovereign state is at stake, but also the integrity and survival of the Russian Federation.
Now there is a feeling that at the moment neither side is able to achieve a decisive victory. Russia can strengthen its position in the east of Ukraine, and Ukraine can hinder Putin's ambitions and survive as an independent state. This will be tantamount to a moral victory for Kiev.
But it will not lead to lasting peace — with any short-term results. Both sides know that the ceasefire will be purely temporary and will serve only as a prelude to the next outbreak of the conflict — a classic border war that has been smoldering since 2014. The situation is complicated by global instability and doubts about the balance of power on the world stage.
And we were led into this impasse by the prevailing geopolitical illiteracy and historical amnesia in the West. The Western rhetoric about the new world order or the "Great Reset" has no serious background. Poking into everything at random, the West risks falling into a trap and drowning in the swamp of modernity.
The West will have to accept that it is impossible to stop or erase history. And as the conflict in Ukraine shows, the past will overtake us sooner or later.
Frank Furedi is the author of the book "The Road to Ukraine: how the West lost its way"
