International Relations: Who Can Do What To Whom
I struggled with how to comment on the Russo-Ukraine war. I knew I had to, considering this blog’s focus and how much the events in Eastern Europe affect not only the region but also the world- emotionally, materially, politically. Initially, I wanted to make a “How did we get here?” type of piece, not expecting it would become an invasion. Once the brinksmanship broke into belligerence last week, I didn’t know what to write.
Yes, it’s difficult to make me shut up, as both friends and foes attest.
Yes, I have an opinion on everything and have a political-ish blog.
Yes, I majored in political science and history.
Yes, I care more about geopolitics than the average bear.
Yes, I do my research and (sometimes) bring something new to the table.
But, as the painful war images scrolled across my computer screen, none of these facts mattered.
I couldn’t put my thoughts in words.
That’s because, per usual, someone else already said it better. Consider the TIME magazine cover after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea:
The main piece enhances the picture. 8 years ago, Author and Foreign Correspondent Robert Kaplan wrote:
“Geography increasingly fuels endless chaos and old-school conflicts in the 21st century. This isn’t what the 21st century was supposed to look like. The visceral reaction of many pundits, academics and Obama Administration officials to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s virtual annexation of Crimea has been disbelief bordering on disorientation….
Whereas the West has come to think about international relations in terms of laws and multinational agreements, most of the rest of the world still thinks in terms of deserts, mountain ranges, all-weather ports and tracts of land and water….
The post-Cold War era was supposed to be about economics, independence and universal values trumping the instincts of nationalism and nationalism’s related obsession with geographic space. But Putin’s actions betray a singular truth, one that the U.S. should remember as it looks outward and across the globe: international relations are still about who can do what to whom.”
All honeymoons must come to an end. It’s easy for the West, especially Americans, living in a world hegemon, isolated from long periods of conflict and more powerful foes, to forget that in much of human history, and in much of the world still, might, territorial expansion and violence have been the dominating force in international relations.
This tragedy comes down to an ugly truth about geography, which is “the study of diverse environments, places and spaces of Earth’s surface and their interactions. It seeks to answer the questions of why things are the way they are, where they are” as defined by Britannica.
Russia and the West have fundamentally different political systems, allies, histories and goals. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance perhaps extended too far east. Much like the Dwarves in the Mines of Moria, NATO mined too deep-too far west.
Then, the Balrog Putin arose from the fiery depths. Unfortunately, Ukraine has been, is and will be caught in the middle.
As Mr. Kaplan concluded,
“Ukraine is simply located too far east, and is too spatially exposed to Russia, for it ever to be in the interests of any government in Moscow- democratic or not-to allow Ukraine’s complete alignment with the West.”
The notion that economics, independence and universal values housed in institutions such as the United Nations will trump nationalism and its “related obsession” of territorial conquest is powerful. But the pieces are not yet there on Earth for such an arrangement. The United Federation of Planets will have to wait.
Even after its formation, there’s outer space, planetary expansion and extraterrestrial adversaries to worry about.
A return to the old world order indeed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, as The Who famously sang.
In the future the old boss may be fired. Though it will take some kind of wizardry for us to be rid of it.
Paging Gandalf the White…