Forever Wars, This Way

Western hegemony is passing, but for reasons other than the war in Ukraine. The war is accelerating trends already in place. But it is a “turning point” in the sense that the war’s origins are found in one kind of a world order while its end will come in a different kind.

By world order we mean the way in which power is distributed around the globe, who makes the rules, and its legitimacy, how countries play by the rules.

NATO enlargement was nested within a liberal internationalist outlook. It took some inspiration from democratic peace theory, which holds that a world filled with democracies would be a safer place because democracies do not go to war with each other.

But there is a darker rationale behind NATO expansion. Ukraine inside NATO would be a way of weakening and destabilizing Russia so as to bring Euro-minded reformers to power there. The end state would be to transform Russia into an appendage of the West, relegated permanently to second-tier status. This goal sometimes lapses into talk about breaking Russia up into smaller ethno-entities.

Liberal internationalism has a conceptual template similar to radical Islam’s. The jihadist divides the world into the House of Islam, where Muslim societies are expected to live in peace with each, and the House of War, where non-Muslim societies are expected to convert or to be subjugated by the sword if necessary. The liberal globalist divides the world into democracies, which are expected to live in peace with each other, and non-democracies, which are expected to convert or to be subject to the right kind of regime change if necessary.

“The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“...the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“The war, therefore if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that the hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word “war,” therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that is exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This—although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense—is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.”
― George Orwell, 1984

There was never any discussion of "breaking up Russia" as NATO expanded: this is revisionist nonsense.

NATO was faced with a challenge between the former Warsaw Pact members clamoring to get in and alienating Russia. Their clamoring was based on centuries of experience with Russian expansionism and not just the Soviet version. Freeing the "captive nations" of the East Bloc had also been a part of NATO's raison d'etre from the beginning.

Russia was also invited into the "partnership for peace" program and only afterwards was possible NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia mooted-- at their request.

You can make the argument hat continued US involvement in NATO after the Cold War was not in US interests. I think it's a bad argument, but you can make it without the ridiculous lie of portraying Russia as the "victim" of Western aggression.

The main lesson from WWII was that the great powers would give up the policy of territorial aggrandizement by war: we hanged men at Nuremberg for that. Why? Because such territorial acquisition was considered the primary cause of both world wars. If you want to ignore Putin's war of aggression, you're simply setting the stage for WWIII despite all the caterwauling about that here on FR.

Serbia was an obvious victim of Western aggression. Some might argue they deserved it as Milosevic died in prison before he could be convicted of war crimes. But NATO bombed Serbia to break off a piece of the country and give it to (recently convicted) terrorists.

Putin talked about it in the interview along with his other motivations like the ethnic Russians living above valuable natural resources in the ground (he left out the latter part).

Because such territorial acquisition was considered the primary cause of both world wars. If you want to ignore Putin's war of aggression, you're simply setting the stage for WWIII despite all the caterwauling about that here on FR.

It used to simpler to ascribe territorial and economic interests since those overlapped. Now territory is less meaningful as drones and missiles shred everything in the territory. Now it's more about economic interests. The progressives and war party have joined together formally with literally hundreds of warmongers signing onto the agenda of nullifying the Bill of Rights.

There was never any discussion of "breaking up Russia" as NATO expanded: this is revisionist nonsense.

That is lie:

https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/01/dick-cheney-us-goal-break-up-russia/

Brzezinski proposed a “loosely confederated Russia — composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic”. He added that “a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization”.

The Russian Federation of today consists of 22 republics. Moscow has long accused Washington of supporting secessionist movements within its borders, aimed at breaking away some of these republics, with the goal of destabilizing and ultimately dismantling Russia.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.