Written by Kostas Grivas
Long before the Russians invaded Ukraine, it was obvious to the naked eye that we had entered a new period, the central element of which was the American strategy of “double containment”, that is, of both Russia and China. In fact, the product of this strategy was the new Cold War. In contrast, Donald Trump seeks to focus on containing China, hence his overtures to Russia and the attempt to disengage the United States from the Ukrainian war.
One of the main reasons behind Trump’s stance is his desire to distract Russia from its alignment with China, as the policy of “dual containment” de facto pushes the two major Eurasian powers into each other’s arms. It does not mean, of course, that the US wants to engage in war with China, but it expects it not to become first among equals in a multipolar system.
Because, if things remain on the same line, the model of a geopolitical magnitude will be created that could be characterized as the first hyper power in the history of humanity, given that the dimensions of this complex are simply enormous, from whatever perspective one looks at it.
This is despite the fact that Russia and China had become deadly geopolitical rivals since the late 1960s. Maoist China had even approached the US strategically in order to counter the then Soviet threat. So they are not “natural” allies and suspicion between them is a given.
So, in order for the US to be able to restore the traditional logic of “divide and conquer” and avoid the creation of a super-superpower, it must break the Russia-China axis. It must, therefore, open channels with Moscow, so that it is not forced to be dependent on Beijing. For this to begin and succeed, the war in Ukraine must end. But ending the war is a difficult process, as Trump finds out. The main reason is that wars always acquire their own momentum and good intentions are not enough to end them.
The question after the latest developments is whether Trump will ultimately be dragged into the logic of the “war party”, the EU and the American deep state, as they are clearly seeking to drag him into. With the 50-day deadline he gave Moscow to reach a ceasefire and the denial of the Financial Times report that he gave Zelensky the green light for strikes on Moscow (the White House referred to Trump’s simple “curiosity” about whether the Ukrainians have this capability), it shows that he is still seeking to avoid it, without of course being able to predict what will happen next.
The new Cold War
What, however, prompted the West to turn against both, instead of choosing a policy of “divide and conquer” that is the foundation of Anglo-Saxon geopolitical wisdom? An initial answer could be that this was a forced choice, because both these countries are extremely hostile and aggressive towards the West, leaving no other option than rivalry. However, this did not seem to be confirmed by the facts. In reality, what both China and Russia mainly sought and are seeking is to create a security zone in their near abroad, something that does not threaten the strategic interests of Western countries.
China is trying – with a paranoid reading of the Law of the Sea – to turn the South China Sea into Chinese “blue territory”, so as to create a maritime extension that will function as a geopolitical shield. This is an aggressive action against the countries of the region, but it expresses a defensive logic at the broader international level. In contrast to the US, it borders countries that are its competitors.
More generally, China neither can nor wants to claim the position that the US (supposedly) has held until now as the world's leading power. Its "colonial" inroads into Latin American and African countries do not threaten the vital interests of the West. It is also extremely vulnerable to Western countermeasures, if deemed appropriate.
The routes that connect China with the outside world continue to be controlled primarily by the West and its allies. In addition, today's China, unlike that of the Maoist era, is more vulnerable, precisely because it depends on the outside for inflows of raw materials, energy, food and, in the future, possibly drinking water, as well as for exports of its products. As China's power increases, being a commercial empire, so does its vulnerability...
Ukraine as a buffer state
For its part, Russia has irrevocably fallen from the position of superpower it held as the Soviet Union. It is currently facing many problems and, above all, it shows no inclination to threaten any Western state. As for Ukraine, what the Kremlin consistently sought was to turn it into a buffer state. That is, to function as a neutral zone, as a “shock absorber” country, between Russia and NATO.
If this had been agreed, we would probably not have reached the point of the Russian invasion. Kiev, however, was seeking to join NATO, and NATO declared that it was pursuing an “open door” policy. Thus, after the events of 2014, which led to the overthrow of the elected government, Russia annexed Crimea and at the same time gave the green light to the secession of the Russian-speaking eastern provinces of Donbas. Both of these problems were problems between Ukraine and Russia, which did not affect Western interests.
They concerned American geostrategy, however, precisely because it emanates from the doctrine of “dual containment.” In this context, both Russia and China were treated with “excessive” hostility. The new Cold War, therefore, was a reality long before the Russian invasion.
And while neither China nor Russia can threaten Western hegemony individually, together they form a geopolitical powerhouse that far exceeds the sum of their individual sizes. In fact, they are becoming the pre-eminent candidate for global hegemony and, of course, a strategic threat to the West. This is precisely what he has understood. Trump, but not the rest of the West, which insists on an absurd strategy...
The root of Western behavior
To identify the causes of this of Western behavior we must descend below the level of the “realist” School of international relations, which seeks relationships based on measurable geopolitical interests and a logic of balance of power. The writer’s view is that the behavior of the West throughout the previous period (before the Russian invasion) was largely due to an existential crisis located at its very cultural core.
The West is suffering from a profound identity crisis, and this manifests itself in seemingly irrational geopolitical behaviors. If we wanted to say it in as few words as possible, we would say that the West today is in a peculiar “war of civilizations” with itself. A deep element of guilt, which is endemic to Western civilization anyway, has today reached extreme levels and leads to self-denial readings of large parts of Western societies.
Manifestations of this phenomenon are the attack we saw in the US until recently on the ancient Greek classics as “racists” or the collective denunciation of Western civilization as “sexist”, “patriarchal”, “racist”, a paranoia that was partially “braked” by the election of Trump. There are also obsessions, such as with green energy, that led to energy suicide in EU countries. As manifestations of it is the denial of the concept of nation, people and gender, which are considered arbitrary “imaginary” constructions by most of the Western academic establishment.
Psychogeopolitics of depth
So, if you cannot define yourself positively, you will do so negatively. And you achieve this by creating a dark image, a negative “significant Other” in contrast to whom you will define yourself. So you need an imaginary demon to whom you will transfer the negative views you have about yourself, so that you can get rid of them and be able to define yourself positively as the opponent and opposite magnitude of this demon.
The new Cold War presupposes the demonization of the opponent, in this case Russia and Putin personally. China is also demonized in the background. The Russian invasion, in fact, gave the West the basis to define itself as “good” against the “bad”. The demonized “dark Other” is not enough to be sufficiently bad. It must also be sufficiently powerful. And Russia is a powerful nuclear power, not to mention the Russia-China arrangement.
The difference between the Trump system and the EU is that the former sees Russia and China as geopolitical rivals. However, the EU now views Russia in racist terms, often to the point of hysterical ridiculousness. For example, although European armies are in reality a shadow of their former selves (with Europe being humiliated even by Haftar) the Europeans seek to enter the war with Russia at the forefront.
The German Defense Minister declares that the German army is ready to "kill Russian soldiers", Berlin celebrates that it will buy American weapons to send to the Ukrainians, the Macron government announces new shocking austerity measures, but excluding defense spending from the cuts, always to contain the "Russian threat", etc...
All of this may sound excessive and even wrong to many. However, the tendency to define the behavior of countries based on the “rational actor model” is now considered restrictive and misleading. More and more, “hidden foundations” are being sought in geopolitical behaviors and actions. And this “psychogeopolitics of depth” that has been very simplistically presented in this text offers, if nothing else, some elements that provide an initial interpretation, or at least illuminate an aspect of Western geostrategy.
source:
https://slpress.gr/diethni/apo-pou-pigazei-i-antirosiki-isteria-ton-evropaikon-elit/
photo DC Studio, Image license by freepik.com
