by Dr. Gennady Shkliarevsky
Dr. Shkliarevsky is Ukrainian-born American and Professor Emeritus of Bard College in Russian history.
American foreign policy has never been particularly tidy. It has always had its share of inconsistencies, contradictions, and paradoxes. However, America has never reached a critical point that it faces today. Its policy is in total chaos that can lead to the disintegration of the entire global liberal order.
Warnings about the impending collapse appear today even in mainstream media sources that are not generally known for being alarmist. In its recent editorial, symptomatically entitled “The Liberal International Order is Slowly Coming Apart,” The Economist offers a very bleak view of the future. As the article puts it, “The disintegration of the old order is visible everywhere.” The institutions that sustained the old order are “either already defunct or fast losing credibility.” With the collapse of the institutions, there is a strong possibility that “world affairs will descend into their natural state of anarchy that favours banditry and violence.”
The conflict between America and China over Taiwan may erupt into a full-fledged war in the East. There is an even more likely possibility of a wide-scale war in Europe between the West and Russia. Their hostile relations over Ukraine may erupt into an outright war. Although the title of the editorial suggests that the process of disintegration is gradual, it emphasizes that this process can quickly degenerate into a collapse. The editorial ends on a sour note. It may seem, the editorial concludes, that the international order “can survive everything that is thrown at it . . . It can’t.”
The fact that American foreign policy appears to be in free fall points to the lack of an adequate organizing principle to shape its course. This certainly has never been the case in the past when America became involved in international affairs. Although its foreign policy has certainly had its ups and downs, it has not appeared at any point to be without adequate guidance.
During the early period of American history, its foreign policy pursued the establishment of America’s independence from Great Britain. For a long time thereafter, American foreign policy was largely isolationist, as it tried to avoid entanglements in foreign blocs and alliances. The isolationist period lasted until WWII, with a brief interruption during WWI when the United States joined the war on the side of England and France against Germany and its allies. However, the war was only a respite in America’s isolationism, and America returned to it after WWI. The Second World War ended America’s isolationism for good. During and after the war, the United States concluded a series of international agreements and became firmly ensconced in global politics.
The international order that emerged after WWII was essentially a system based on the principle of spheres of influence. Its reality was very different from the appearance of unity presented by the United Nations Organization. The world was essentially bipolar; it was divided between the capitalist West (the U.S., West European countries, and their satellites and allies) and the communist East (the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact countries, and their satellites and allies). Later a bloc of non-allied nations came into existence. It maneuvered between the two superpowers in pursuit of its own advantages. Although the bloc played a significant role, it ultimately did not affect the principal division that existed in the world.
The system of spheres of influence lasted until the fall of communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. The collapse of communist rule was a cataclysmic event that generated much optimism and hope. While the United States and the West celebrated their victory, many in their camp believed that this victory would bring a long period of peace and stability that had for a long time escaped human civilization. Some even prophesied that with the establishment of the liberal political, economic, and social order, world history would finally come to an end, as there would be no more strife, hostilities, wars, and destruction. This optimism, however, has proven to be short-lived.
As a result of the changes brought by the demise of communism, the United States has emerged as the sole superpower capable of projecting its influence globally. The U.S. wasted no time in trying to capitalize on the opportunities that the new situation presented.
The American government used the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact to offer the countries of East Central Europe an opportunity to form economic, political, and, ultimately, military ties with the Western bloc. There were also discussions of the possibility that Russia might also follow suit and become part of the expanded Western alliance. Russia’s entry into NATO would certainly offer the United States a unique advantage. The combined power of such an alliance could curtail all potential rivals (China, India, or the Islamic world) that could challenge American hegemony in world affairs.
However, the plans for bringing Russia into NATO fell through. Although Russia initially welcomed this opportunity, it had to turn it down. The refusal to grant Russia an equal status in the alliance showed that the United States was unwilling to accept Russia as an equal but only as a junior partner.
In the wake of the failure to incorporate Russia into NATO, the U.S. modified its plans for attaining global hegemony. It pursued policies designed to weaken Russia and reduce its influence in the region by splintering from it the newly independent states of Eurasia that had formerly been part of the Soviet Union.
The U.S. government supported and helped to foment and orchestrate the so-called “colored revolutions” that took place in Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, Ukraine, the Central Asian states, and other countries in the region. The goal of these ventures was clear: to detach these states from Russia and turn them into de-facto American satellites. The United States also supported opposition groups and movements inside Russia. The goal of these policies was transparent enough: to weaken Russia, to reduce its influence in the region, and, if possible, to fragment the country.
The successful realization of these goals would certainly be a big step in America’s bid for world hegemony. It would make Russia extremely vulnerable and susceptible to America’s pressures. With Russia effectively neutralized, the United States could meet any other challenges in the world that may come from China, India, or any other potential rival. The world would effectively become Pax Americana.
Yet these plans also failed. Russia regained its composure and strength. It was able to bring the centrifugal tendencies in the region under control and rebuilt its ties with and influence among most of the regional states. Even the rebellious Georgia finally abandoned its anti-Russian stance. The only country that the U.S. could still count on in its pursuit of hegemony in the region that would open the path to global hegemony was Ukraine.
Ukraine occupies a very special place in America’s search for hegemony. It is a large country that borders on Russia. It also has a history of national extremism that was hostile to Russia and everything Russian. There are several organizations that represent this anti-Russian extremism. They include several organizations. The principal ones are OUN (the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) and UPA (the Ukrainian Insurgent Army).
These organizations derive their support mostly from western parts of Ukraine. Their goal has always been to remake the entire Ukraine in their own image. Their influence grew in the interwar period. During WWII, these organizations cooperated with the Nazi forces against the Soviet army. After the end of WWII, they remained active and fought a bloody guerilla war against the Soviet army well into the 1950s, when they were finally subdued.
Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union when Ukraine gained independence, the remnants of the nationalist organizations re-emerged on the political scene in Ukraine. They sought to establish their dominance in the country. In pursuit of this goal, they created a variety of venues for spreading their influence and propaganda.
They particularly focused on indoctrinating young Ukrainians into their ideology. For this purpose, they used local schools, churches, various youth camps (often militarized), and other youth organizations. They also became extremely active in Ukrainian politics where they sought to eliminate their political opponents who did not support their goals and tried to prevent them from dominating Ukrainian politics.
The defining feature of Ukrainian national extremism is its visceral hatred of Russia and everything Russian. One of their main goals was, and still is, to eliminate all remaining vestiges of Ukraine’s ties with Russia and its culture. They renamed streets and removed monuments to prominent Russian and Ukrainian public figures who were known for their ties to Russia. Their special target is the Russian language that has always been widely used in Ukraine, particularly in its eastern parts. I
n pursuing their fight against the Russian language, national extremists have successfully sought to ban courses that taught Russian in schools, thinned Russian holdings in public libraries, and closed theaters that have used Russian in their performances. They also actively pursue policies that try to eliminate the use of Russian by ordinary Ukrainian citizens, particularly in major large metropolitan cities such as Kiev, Kharkov, and others.
Finally, the movement has vowed to carry on its fight against Russia by all possible means, including the use of military force. They view Russia as the greatest evil in the world and vow to seek its destruction. Their favorite slogan is “moskaliaku na gilliaku”— “a Moscovite (a derogatory term that Ukrainian nationalists use for Russians) should hang from a tree branch.”
The radicalism of Ukrainian nationalists has fitted into American plans for global hegemony. The establishment of the domination of Ukrainian national extremism in the country would turn it into an irreconcilable enemy and a permanent threat to Russian security. One of the principal goals of Ukrainian extremists is to become part of NATO, which, if successful, would make Ukraine and its military major beneficiaries of NATO’s vast military support and funding.
From the American point of view, Ukraine’s membership would strengthen the American position vis-à-vis Russia and would make Russia vulnerable to political pressures from the United States. This arrangement would bring the U.S. closer to its avowed goal. It would put the U.S. into a very advantageous position vis-à-vis China and would strengthen America’s bid for global hegemony.
All these plans, however, were put on hold when Russia started its military operations in Ukraine in 2022. The extremist government in Ukraine was woefully unprepared for this new development. By all indications, it expected that Western support would bring Russia’s collapse and its disintegration. The reality has proven to be very different. Russia came well-prepared for this conflict.
It has a population that is much larger than the population of Ukraine. It can muster more people in the field than the government of Ukraine can. Russia’s military-industrial complex is much larger and more productive than the military production of Ukraine; it offers Russian military some very advanced technologies that can successfully operate against weapons supplied by NATO.
The developments in eastern Ukraine over the last year or so clearly show Russia’s military superiority to the forces that stand against them. They have been able to capture sizable areas of Ukraine and are now conducting military operations that may end up in the capture of Kharkov—the second largest city in Ukraine. The capture may well be a disaster for Ukraine and its efforts to stop Russia. It would also be a serious setback to America’s plans for global hegemony.
The preceding overview will help to understand the source of numerous problems that American foreign policy faces today. The serious mistakes, miscalculations, and contradictions in the U.S. international behavior are no accident. They are not results of human weaknesses, either.
They indicate a systemic flaw that leads to decisions that have no rational explanations. For example, one cannot understand the reason why Biden’s administration has blocked military aid to Israel—the country that has been the only and staunchest ally of the United States in the Middle East that fully embodies the values of liberal democracy.
At the same time, Biden’s government offers a generous military aid to the government of national extremists in Ukraine that has very little to do with democracy or liberal values. One can hypothesize that the reason is an expectation—one that is not supported by any known facts–that somehow nationalist Ukraine will help America subordinate Russia and then everything else would fall into place.
By all indications, currently, Israel does not figure prominently in Biden’s plans. That is why Biden’s administration can afford to throw Israel under the bus. This example, among many others, indicates that the organizing principle that guides American foreign policy today is not adequate for effective leadership in international affairs. This inadequacy is the source of America’s many flawed recent decisions.
To help understand the systemic problem that scuttles American foreign policy, one observation is in order. Global community of nations is a very complex entity that involves an entangled web of interactions and many differences. Regulating such complex entity and managing interactions among its constituent parts requires a very powerful system. The power of a system can only come from the incorporation and integration of the many differences that its constituent parts represent.
The emphasis must be on differences, not commonalities, because differences, not commonalities, offer new possibilities. Exercising global leadership and regulating complex interactions among many nations requires a very powerful system. Such a system should include and integrate all differences represented by the member-states, as differences are a source of possibilities. Only combinations, or multiplication, of differences can give rise to a new level of organization that will be powerful enough to regulate and manage a system of such complexity.
This observation helps us understand the main systemic problem that American foreign policy faces today. The organizing principle that guides American policy has always been and is its national interests. These interests, as formulated by political elites, have guided American behavior in international affairs. The approach used by the U.S. does not involve universal inclusion and equality. At best, the liberal practice uses selective inclusion, which is a form of exclusion. This approach is fundamentally exclusionary. This approach also affects many domestic policies pursued by the liberals. One example is the policy of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion that excludes white Americans, Asian Americans, and other groups.
Commonalities, not differences, form the foundation of these arrangements. Yet differences, not commonalities, make it possible to create new and more powerful levels of organization that offer new and more powerful possibilities. Such a policy based on commonalities can never be the source of global leadership. It simply does not offer enough possibilities; it lacks sufficient power. A system that can manage and regulate complex interactions within the global community must rest on inclusion and integration, or multiplication, of all differences that member-states bring into such a global arrangement.
The approach used in American foreign policy is exclusionary. This policy is exclusionary even in its national context, as it is formulated by political elites that are, by definition, exclusionary. Thus, the level of organization that sustains American foreign policy is weaker than the level of organization of the global entity over which the United States tries to establish its hegemony. This discrepancy can only lead to a failure. The numerous blunders, miscalculations, and outright mistakes are symptoms of this systemic flaw.
Before discussing a possible solution for this problem, a clear statement as to what cannot be part of the solution is in order. Blaming others will certainly not work. A solution can come only as a result of a critical and rational examination of one’s own flaws. Israel, Hamas, Taliban, Russia, and China are not problems; they are symptoms of America’s failures. War certainly will not work, either. As the history of human civilization shows, wars can bring only more wars and destruction. War has never been a solution; it will not be a solution in the current crisis.
Peace is absolutely essential for finding a solution. Only the cessation of armed conflicts can open possibilities for constructive work in creating and consolidating a new level of organization that will be powerful enough to regulate and manage global affairs. The level of organization that will be capable of sustaining order on a global scale must be universally inclusive. It should recognize the equality of all differences. Only universal inclusion and equality can lead to the emergence of a sufficiently powerful level of organization that can sustain global order.
There are plenty of incentives for pursuing this approach. Our civilization desperately needs a stable global order. We need it to end cycles of violence, wars, and destruction. We need it to protect our environment, develop science and technology, pursue the exploration of space that can bring numerous benefits to humanity, and much, much else. To attain these goals, we need a new social practice that will be based on universal inclusion and equality and use the process of creating new and increasingly more powerful levels of organization as its main organizing principle.
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
Its amazing what foreigner’s can see in American foreign policy. I only saw confusion, conflicting aims and goals, endless contradictions, inconsistencies. Where this man sees imperial ambitions I saw endless give aways, Uncle Sugar being used as a giant ATM by our friends and enemies. But then again he is a “professor” and an expert and I am only an uninformed observer who observed these experts in action.
First of all, do not denigrate yourself. We are equals here. Feel free to criticize. Secondly, I am not a foreigner. I am an American citizen who lived over 50(!) years in America. I know people who have lived much less in this country and try to shape now its policy. How about Ilhan Omar who is a star in liberal politics?
Finally, I do not dispute your point that America often acts like a giant ATM machine. But this does not come free. You would not dispute the fact that America is the decisive voice in NATO. It has made European countries dependent after WWII and then pretty much dictated their policies. It is also a fact that the American foreign policy establishment has intervened in “color revolutions.” What would you call this intervention? Friendly assistance? It essentially offered Ukraine an unlimited account. Is this also free? No, it is not. Ukraine will pay for it. But there is a deeper point here. We are sending weapons to Ukraine and we expect Ukrainians to die in this war. But if they win, the principal beneficiary will be the United States and its quest for global hegemony. Ukrainians will only lose. Their country is destroyed. The population is depleted. The number of dead and maimed is crippling. Ukraine will pay for this policy for many decades. Who will pay to bring the country back from this abyss? Biden? He is not going to be around for much longer, You find it fair?
Thank you for your charity regarding my observations on the conduct of American foreign policy. I was not aware that the billions American has bankrolled came with mortgages or pay back notices. I was under the impression that the debts incurred from WWI are still outstanding with few exceptions, but I am a mere observer. One wonders of the hundreds of billions poured into the ratholes of Asia, Africa, South America, the Middle East that have yielded so many rewards to America and so much loyalty. When you speak of the conditions these funds are given, the most demanding of these are that any contracts are given to “select” firms that are connected to the proper politicians in DC. As a result US aid seldom results in concrete results but yields many intangible results, the endl3ess studies, programs teaching about ecology, crop yields, cultural enrichment, but seldom developing damns, railroads, roads, ports, water treatment plants or other vital infrastructure.
American global hegemony? What is this hegemony of which you speak? I never saw it during 30 years overseas. Where was the tribute from Europe. Where are the vassal states you speak of?
Ooooh we expect Ukrainians to die in this war? Who might we expect to die in this war Bolivians? If the US is to blame for anything it is when the USSR dissolved we allowed the Ukranians to give up nuclear weapons without recognizing the history of Russian expansionism. Pardon me for saying if the Ukes win I believe the USA gains little beyond the hope of some gratitude which I believe given the attitude I have experienced in Europe to be at best fleeting except in those communities located near American military cemeteries, where the people are constantly reminded by the sacrifices Americas made. Though you’d never know it in Rome, Paris, London or Berlin today.
As for the state of the Ukraine I believe the target of your wraith should reside in Moscow. If you believe that the author’s of this war are Americans then I’d love to know your reasons for this.
As far as the reconstruction goes I believe all those brave hero’s sitting in Europe should pay for it. Since they have saved hundreds of billions not paying for their own defense by using Americans as their paid mercenaries they can damn sure pay for the defense and rebuilding of their neighbors. I for one am tired of the Europeans fighting to the last American.
They use Americans to defend their raw materials, their trade routes, their financial interests. That’s why Davos exists.
By the way when you say the Ukranians will pay. If you believe that I have a time share condo for you in Malabo as an investment if you believe that.
Listen, stop playing this passive-aggressive game with me. You obviously have not read the article. Again, I do not deny that America gave a lot of money. But American did it out of self interest. Don’t tell me it’s charity. The fact the liberal government has not reaped much benefit simply shows how inept and ineffective the policy is. By the way, much of this money came from the American debt that is ultimately distributed among all countries in the dollar zone that pay nominal value for cheaper dollars. As to hegemony, what did America do in Iraq? Looked for chemical weapons? What did we do in Afghanistan beyond wasting money and American lives? If the liberal globalist government has not gained world hegemony, it is not for the lack of trying. Intentionally or not, you are talking the Soros talk,
On the contrary you are giving the Davos speak here. No details, no evidence and an amazing lack of facts. Making logic jump through hoops and endless chant does not a coherent argument make. You accuse America of seeking an empire yet where is the domination you speak of, the puppet states, the vassals? All this is accomplished much more effectively by the World Monetary Fund and far more cheaply. Iran has far more influence through the use of terror than the USA achieves through its billions in aid in the Middle East. The entire US Middle Eastern policy is the result of Europe’s goals. Europe not the US depends on this area’s resources so why is the US involved here?
COLOR REVOLUTIONS, THE eeu IS ENGAGED IN MASSIVE POLITICAL warfare against central dissident state that will not bow down before the fascist central powers that dominate western europe today. You sound like the “experts from INR at foggy bottom. No wonder America has such a pathetic and disasters foreign policy history since 1939.
I find it amazing that your evidence for failure to prove your thesis is offered as “proof” and not “lack of trying.” God my five year old has consistently better reasoning in explaining why he has disobeyed or failed to complete his duties.
Please, come to your senses. Don’t turn yourself into a laughing stock. The Davos line is globalist. Haven’t you noticed? Due to your obvious biases, much of what you say lacks credibility.
Res ipsa loquitur. I have seen and heard nothing but the hysterics of the globalists screaming about imperialist ambitions and hegemony. You advance no evidence, nor proof but stand here preening and shouting like Brandon after being hyped up for a public appearance. Please if you can’t provide a rational argument then do not embarrass the readers here. The imaginary advantages that are gained through the expenditure of trillions of dollars require some explanation other than “hegemony” which may appeal to gender studies majors at Harvard but render others skeptical or incredulous.
Do you understand what globalism means? George Soros is a globalist. Globalists are in favor of creating a global system of states with the United States as the leader.
Your Latin impresses the hell out of me. Are you a lawyer or just trying to create an impression?))
You are missing the point. It is not so much about resources, it’s about hegemony (Please note, I am not using the word “empire,” I am using the word “hegemony.” Do you know the difference?) When Bush decided to go to Iraq, it was about sending the entire world a clear message: Shape up. If you do not, you will pay the price. That’s what the likes of Cheney had in mind when they called the invasion a slam dunk. By the way, the U.S. supported Israel to compete with the Soviet Union in the area, not because of resources. You need to understand international politics better.
You keep using this Orwellian term that means nada. Tell me what does it yield. Nada.
Russia sent the world a clear message to the world in the Ukraine. Shape up or the tanks will come. Bushies send a clear message invade another nation and we will not be happy and may do something about it if you force us to. Big difference especially since US vital interests weren’t involved-but the Bushies were in thrall to the Davos crowd-America took the knee to its masters and did their bidding.
It is doing that now. Tell us how American vital interests and involved in the Gulf.
Tell us about these phantoms of yours you keep waving about. Why should any American die for hegemony?
Laughable. Reminds me of the Europeans sceaming at Wilson why America must stop the Kaiser in 1917. Heard way too much of this tripe at Newport.
You have chosen a very strange pen-name for yourself. Can you explain the meaning?))
Go check out Chicago’s boy’s town which Obama frequented.
If you don’t think the US is hegemonic then check the State Department and USAID, along with many other entities. A country doesn’t do ‘Color Revolutions’ without a reason. They attempted that in Belarus, and called it “democracy”.
I am still waiting for a list of the many vassal states of the vaunted American empire. All I see is a Europe that does as it pleases, South America that loves top ship its criminals and drugs to the USA, an Asia that sees America as a great market place where patents can be stolen. As for the “color revolution” you have to be joking. When in history can you name any state that did not involve itself in the affairs of its neighbors. As I recall the Czars financed the election of the French PM leading to the French involvement in WWI. Oh my bad, it was the foreign minister who did that, acting on his own. The Czar was too busy listening to his own advisors.
All European states tow the line of American foreign policy, some very unwillingly (for example, Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, there are others too.),
Really? That’s why the French and Germans set up forces outside of NATO and refuse to meet NATO standards? This is why Europe slavishly follow America’s foreign policy for example in Vietnam or Iraq? Or how much Europe went to the defense of Iraq? Or to Ukraine today?
If Europe were my wife I’d demand a divorce.
There are some exceptions that only confirm the rule. Germany went off the Russian natural gas on American demand. The first Iraq war involved NATO countries. Bush did not need them in the Second Iraq war because he wanted the U.S. to send the message to other countries about the might of the U.S.