by Elena Basile
In a recent, well-written Foreign Affairs article, it is emphasized that war is always avoidable. It results from the concrete actions of specific personalities. The competition between the British Empire and the rising German power from 1870 to 1914 made World War I inevitable once Bismarck, the statesman of European balance, was sidelined. Wilhelmine Germany became convinced that Britain would not allow its economic growth. On the other hand, a mediocre British leadership fueled public fear that the Germans threatened London’s well-being and freedom.
There are clear parallels to the current historical moment: the U.S.-China competition. The Thucydides trap unfolds before our eyes. If we had Western statesmen, we could avoid war, which is always a humanitarian catastrophe, with outcomes that never align with the reasons people are forced into conflict. Economic and geopolitical mediation between the U.S. and China is possible. It involves reforming multilateralism and global economic governance, recognizing one China, channeling Chinese savings toward the dollar, and Beijing self-limiting its competition in certain strategic sectors with the West.
Unfortunately, politics is far removed. Militarist thinking and short-termism prevail. The same applies to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk, without an open NATO involvement, contributes to escalation and multiplies Ukrainian suffering. Russia is winning a slow war, with Ukrainian casualties reportedly outnumbering Russian ones by a ratio of 3 to 1, although data is scarce. Still, there’s a basis for such analysis. Moscow’s defensive strategy limits its losses while slowly advancing in territorial conquest. Leading analysts in Europe should understand that this conflict is not about land grabs. The ill-planned Ukrainian advance in Kursk is logistically unsustainable, exposing Ukrainian troops to potential Russian drone attacks. The defense in Donbass has been weakened, and Moscow is gaining the upper hand. Thanks to Western escalation, a Russian attack on Swedish and Polish training centers, like the one in Poltrava, is now both possible and legitimate. If we had statesmen, Ukraine wouldn’t have to fear its annihilation but could rely on leadership capable of negotiating for the common good of Kyiv, Europe, and Russia (not NATO or the U.S.). We’ve repeated this and won’t revisit the possible terms of mediation.
Pessimism arises from the realization that wars are no longer inevitable due to political choices. In American imperialist global society, the system has become so corrupt that only unscrupulous individuals can rise to power, preaching the rhetoric. If Harris were a moral person and cut military aid to Tel Aviv in favor of a permanent ceasefire to save Gaza’s innocents, donors would switch to Trump. Harris would be abandoned by other Democratic politicians in Congress. Kennedy opposed the military-industrial complex when there was still room for maneuver, and we weren’t in advanced financial capitalism, and his fate wasn’t a happy one. Only a federated movement of opposition parties and movements, left (and perhaps right), against the ruling classes, puppets of financial powers and transnational oligarchies, could have some influence. As Marcuse predicted, capitalism is capable of shaping and standardizing behavior. It absorbs and includes what seeks to refute it. Blair, the emblem of the third way and the false European left, who lied like Bush about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is still interviewed in major newspapers. He shapes moderate opinion and tells us that war against autocracies is necessary to defend Western values. He shows no remorse for the 500,000 dead Iraqis and is unmoved by the deaths in Ukraine and Gaza. The center-left across Europe, which inherited the cynicism and opportunism of our Christian Democrats but not their culture and competence, repeats Blair’s baseless slogans, trumpeted by “mythical” journalists. In this context, building an alternative is a challenging path. Resisting the current imperial, militaristic, and nihilistic logic is, however, a moral commitment, before a political one, that is essential.
Il Fatto Quotidiano, September 8, 2024
