volprof
Destroyer of Nihilists
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 18,154
- Likes
- 10,067
This is going to be the longest post in VolNation history, but bear with me.
You know me, I'm an unabashed tribalist. Humans and animals didn't develop such an evolutionary phenomenon that has resided with us for millions of years for no particular reason. But there's good tribalism and bad tribalism. A robust and healthy tribalism can assure that the interests of one's tribe is best served while impeding another tribe from gaining too much power or from setting a paradigm that is fundamentally unfavorable.
Now take "tribe" and replace with the "nation." My goal, as an American nationalist (who obviously has no bearing on actual policy unless perhaps I write an article or two one day) is to ensure the essential health of the nation-tribe above all else. Whereas other nationalists may see this as the only goal, I however, see it as the primary goal that can only be well served if it uses its robustness to facilitate a system of relative mutuality (maybe not complete) that benefits the majority of other nation-tribes as well. A "global commons" if you will.
For the most part, the US created this commons and served it remarkably well for the better part of the past 70 years (mistakes were made and lives wasted but overall, it was net positive for America and the world). The current instability we see in the Middle East, in Ukraine, in Eastern Europe, in East Asia, etc. is the result of two forces:
1. While America's reach is not necessarily weakening, as some have claimed, others have entered the theater to fill some of the gaps. I give you Russia and China, namely. This was inevitable. The 90s were an anomaly. In the process of this return to history, the liberal order finds itself harried, questioned, and even weakened in places.
2. The US betrayed its own order, and this was largely the result of unilateralism (which is not to be confused with hegemony). Rather than allowing liberal forces to take effect and for the mostly self-steering and self-correcting (under US guidance) order to work, the US took advantage of the post-Cold War, post-9-11 climate to circumvent its own rule-based order. This cannot work. For the order to work effectively, it must come with patience, resolve, and fortitude (which is why containment is not necessarily bad, but more on that below). While a process that can be sped up, it cannot be done necessarily by force. It must occur organically, and we betrayed our own order, particularly in Iraq in 2003.
So, in essence, the current instability we see, while mild in comparison to that witnessed by previous epochs, is not a result of the flaws of the liberal order; rather, it is a result of that orders weakening.
The pull is still heavy though, and American power should be used wisely to maintain the order's inherent appeal (more stability and security, easier access to markets, liberalized domestic governments and economies, greater international cooperation, etc.).
And this is where a risky dame named "Russia" walked in. Legs that ran on for miles. Rather than viewing Russian (and Chinese) power as a complete obstacle, it is in American interests to co-opt Russian nationalism and use it to its own benefit. The counterbalancing (though not necessarily multipolarity) involved can keep America from being her own worst enemy and from subverting the order again. Putin's desire for spheres of influence and multipolarity is not desirable by itself, because it offers no real common global objective and is reductive in the sense that it returns us to a pre-WWII order (which never worked well). I don't blame him, because what the hell else is he going to do since the US controls the global liberal order, but his objective for the future should be desirable to no one. He can, however, be a useful tool that unwittingly keeps the order from weakening since he keeps the US honest, direct, and reserved.
Lastly, you addressed the issue of containment indirectly through your referencing of the staggering amount of US bases worldwide. Containment is important though, and it's important for the reasons I stressed above. It is a guarantor that the order survives and perpetuates but without conflict. Why does the US have so many bases overseas while a country like Russia has very few? Very simple: geography. Russia directly consists of or directly borders all of Mackinder's "heartland," while the US resides in a secure but globally irrelevant backwaters (almost literally). Russia didn't become as powerful and as globally relevant as it is for no particular reason; it harbors very valuable (but dangerous) real estate indeed. Russia doesn't need bases all over the world, because the only relevant strategic places on Earth, it already borders or is fairly close to. It would be a waste of money. If the US wants to remain relevant and wants to secure the longevity of its liberal order (of which it is the primary beneficiary, no doubt), then it must maintain these positions that cradle the Eurasian heartland, although we could certainly still function with fewer. No containment is death. Once the US loses its grip on these places in the rimland it may never gain them back (since simply bordering them is far easier than sailing a navy 8,000 miles across the ocean and rebuilding a global alliance system).
Now, if you don't think the rule-based liberal order is the most desirable for global trade and security, then none of what I say will make much difference and it will simply be a matter of philosophical loggerheads. I, for one, think it a net positive for the US and the world (relative to any other conceivable alternative epochal paradigm), and if it is to survive it will need to learn how to turn the Russian and Chinese return of history against itself by playing smart but, most importantly, by playing by its own rules again.
Last edited:
