A much extended and revised version of my paper on symmetric and asymmetric rules in the international order has now been published in Russia in Global Affairs. You can read it here.
I am currently on vacation in the exciting urban centre of Kitchener, Ontario (once called Berlin, but patriotically renamed during World War One) – thus the lack of posts this week. Normal business should resume next week.
IRRUSSIANALITY 
I vehemently disagree with one of the central premises of this article, Professor. Namely, that “in the West [the support] for an asymmetrical order is a logical outcome of human rights ideology as well as of the West’s relative strength”. Any kind of ideology is just an artificial superstructure over the already existing socio-political realities. Therefore, the support of the “asymmetrical order” is just a justification (and explanation) for the Western/American Hegemony, then transplanted from the present into the past (the claim that “the Western world order came into existence after WW2”, which is a lie) and the future. The so-called “human rights ideology” is itself just a superstructure, and thus totally redundant (and fraudulent) for determining the real reasons for why the West does this or that. And you actually agree with this, although have to bury it deep into the article:
“Realists regard the world as fundamentally anarchic and in need of a hegemon who can enforce order. Since the United States is the current hegemon, what is good for the United States is thus good for the world. America is the “exceptional nation” and in its role as hegemon is not bound by the same rules as others.
[…]
“The West’s vision reflects its relative power. Having enjoyed overwhelming military and financial power since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West has favored a version of the international order which maximizes its ability to use its power”
Given that no, no way, there is no political force in the US that would agree to bury the American Imperial Power ™, there is also no chance for relenting the ideological orthodoxy and zealotry. Therefore, there is no chance for Russia and the West for coming to terms via talks alone. The situation on the ground must change. Namely – the US must be delivered such a blow, that would make for them maintaining the global Hegemony impossible. History shows that’s the only way to deal with the universalists empires, all too sure of themselves and always ready to smother all potential competition. These empires, desperately clinging to their status of the “universal” (and, therefore, the only legitimate) powers, supported by the universalist ideology, were, in the end, pwnd down a peg or two. It’s been done to the Holy Roman Empire in the aftermath of the 30 years war. It’s been done to the Turkey after the last siege of Vienna. That’s the only way.
LikeLike
The otherwise (at least seemingly) noble cause for “human rights” has been used as a propaganda tool.
From what I’ve offhand surmised, Jimmy Carter was the first US president who greatly increased pushing that issue.
He did so quite hypocritically. Comparatively speaking at the time, his regime didn’t say much if anything about the conditions in China and for that matter Romania – two countries which back then didn’t have better human rights records than the USSR – the latter which was very hypocritically put under the microscope.
There was a Machiavellian component to this stance. China was being wooed by the US as an anti-Soviet geopolitical piece. Romania’s pesky manner within the Warsaw Pact had a pleasing element to neocons and neolibs. BTW, I understand that Romania under Ceaușescu played a role in bringing about the getting together of Egypt and Israel. Romania was the only Warsaw Pact country to not have broken relations with the Jewish state.
Some old enough might recall the huge ovation the Romanian delegation received when it entered the LS Coliseum during the opening ceremony of the 1984 Summer Olympics. Romania didn’t join the Olympic boycott of other Warsaw Pact nations.
LikeLike
(the claim that “the Western world order came into existence after WW2”, which is a lie)
why, I would be curious.
LikeLike
let me put it uneducated in politcal science and or power.
From within that limited nitwit frame the shift from WWII to the cold war wasn’t helpful.
LikeLike
Because while, certainly, aftermath of the WW2 concluded the process of forming the so-called “West”, it did not result in the world order. Could you deduce why?
LikeLike
WW2 concluded the process of forming the so-called “West”,
That’s a bit easy. look I am aware the world is round. From the US isn’t Russia West? China?
Could you deduce why?
well, from Colonialism to neo-colonialism. Or to put it as the political nitwit that I am, the change of guards (and approach, control) from the British Empire to the US one.
LikeLike
“the change of guards”
No, try again. I asked, could you deduce why it did not result in the world order. Notice the emphasize on the word “world”?
Or, you know what? Don’t try. Assume, that you are just right about everything.
LikeLike
Or, you know what? Don’t try. Assume, that you are just right about everything.
oh dear, I am really serious about my nitwittiness. It no doubt irritated people before you.
Besides: How could I ever be familiar with your mental universe.
But yes, there has always been much more that I would like to know, then I possibly ever can. …
LikeLike
Namely – the US must be delivered such a blow, that would make for them maintaining the global Hegemony impossible.
There were a bunch of MEasterners mainly Saudis that may have tried this. What is the result close to two decades later?
Now this is interesting:
History shows that’s the only way to deal with the universalists empires, all too sure of themselves and always ready to smother all potential competition. These empires, desperately clinging to their status of the “universal” …
Ironically enough, I stumbled across an online poll after an article not too long before I read this. It asked the readers a question, I do not fully recall either article or poll. But it was somewhat related to Paul’s analysis. It least it feels it could have been. The question was, would you support some type of international order for war and peace vs a US led order. (how often did the US challenge UN rules by now?) I doubt they put it like that but the international order included Russia and more then 60% preferred that order.
But yes as some type of counterforce to the high profile publication in the above events aftermath like US Mars vs Europe Venus, there was a lot of talk about the fall of empires on the side of the US dissenters.
LikeLike
“There were a bunch of MEasterners mainly Saudis that may have tried this. What is the result close to two decades later?”
[…]
[…]
[…]
[…]
[…]
[__] <-Bottom
^[Knock-knock!]
You know, LeaNder, I think you are very, very lonely. That’s why you post weird, incomprehensible ramblings, that ought to solicit any kind of response from other commenters just by the virtue of their weirdness. You are, therefore, kinda troll. Not mean-spirited, just lonely. Troll.
What you did here is called “false equivalence” logical fallacy. That’s not you being a “nitwit”. That’s your brain functioning in non-Euclidean manner, and you voicing the unutterable reality-warping ravings from the Reality Beyond Reason.
Did I write “the US must be delivered such a blow, that would make for them maintaining the global Hegemony impossible”? Yes. Did I add “resort to the terrorism”? No. Terrorism as a game-changing tactic is overrated. What I had in mind, was along the lines of the battle of Rocroi and the lifting of Vienna’s siege in 1683.
LikeLike
What I had in mind, was along the lines of the battle of Rocroi and the lifting of Vienna’s siege in 1683.
Could you translate this into some type of present ideal policy?
Lonelyness, yes maybe.But if so, it started with the age of 9.
I didn’t expect you to answer.
LikeLike
yes,
You are, therefore, kinda troll. Not mean-spirited, just lonely. Troll.
Can we try to create some type of a working definition of the lonely troll? Where would ideology or assumptions enter that help us to immediately recognize and ignore him or her?
LikeLike
human rights ideology, eh?
Would works better without ‘ideology’ and with caps, I think. Like this: “…a logical outcome of the relentless pursuit of Righteousness, Human Rights, and Social Justice”.
LikeLike
Concerning the international order as it relates to the US and Russia, this piece is a prime example of US establishment realism:
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/delusions-about-russia-72321
The very first sentence starts off with a tabloid bit that will not be opposed by the neocons and neolibs – “Russia is a dangerous adversary.”
Start the article off with a tabloid bit that will not be opposed by neocons and neolibs. In so many words, Simes had been called soft on Russia by establishment hack Natasha Bertrand (who JRL promoted “Yalensis” has called a “whore”. So much for Dave Johnson’s behind the scene hypocritically pious opposition to the way that some express themselves.):
https://eastwestaccord.com/paul-r-grenier-on-natasha-bertrands-mccarthyite-hit-piece/
LikeLike
Interesting.
called soft on Russia by establishment hack Natasha Bertrand (who JRL promoted “Yalensis” has called a “whore”. So much for Dave Johnson’s behind the scene hypocritically pious opposition to the way that some express themselves.)
Yalenis? Should I recall?
I may not have read the articles the way you wanted. But interesting Dimitri Simes may thus have influenced the little I liked but deeply distrusted Trump to follow up on during his campaign?
I admittedly went beyond Paul Grenier’s article to the source of his anger Politico’s “whore” and from there to Daily Beast’s Betsy Woodruff’s aricle on Maria Butina.
LikeLike
our Yalensis?
Am I seriously misguided he drew the attention of JRL vs you?
LikeLike