For the purposes of this article, I would like to propose the following terminology: West, the countries of the West – the USA, Canada, Great Britain, the European Union, as well as Switzerland and Norway, which are not included in it, plus Australia with New Zealand; non-West – all other countries of the world. After all, you must admit, it is difficult and erroneous to call the countries of South or Central America, or the African states, or the same Russia, whose vast territory is located both in geographical Europe and in Asia, in the East, the East.
So, West VS non-West.
Undoubtedly, until recently, the West was the world’s political and economic center of power, and this position has been preserved for it over the past 3 centuries. Its power rested in no small part on the fact that it was the West that organized the world’s transnational bodies for international relations and trade, becoming a monopoly in determining the rules of the world game of “neoliberalism-globalization.” Yes, in fact, the entire current economy in its modern sense still owes its appearance and history to the West. He stood at the origins and dominated for several centuries in the civilizational space that we perceive as the current system of the world order.
But the aggressive imposition by the West of all other countries of the neoliberal, globalist political and economic model, as a result, led to its own alienation from the whole world, and to the unification, if not obvious, then supportive-sympathetic, of the rest of the non-Western world.
Undoubtedly, such a clear and undisguised desire of the non-West is rooted in the colonial era and the neo-colonial era (60-70-80s of the last century), when the West sucked resource juices from the countries of Asia, Latin America, Africa. The events of the recent neo-colonial era are succinctly and magnificently summed up in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by Perkins: “Men and women emerge from their corporate headquarters in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, London, and Tokyo, rushing to every continent to persuade corrupt politicians to allow their countries to be shackled by corporatocracy and to force desperate people to sell their bodies to sweatshops and assembly lines.”
This geopolitical line towards the consolidation of the non-West and the refusal to support Western demands is quite objectively evidenced by the recent meeting of the leaders of the countries of Europe and Latin America, at which the latter refused to accept the Western assessment of the causes and meanings of what is happening in Ukraine. In addition, today there are strong trends in the unification of the countries of the East, Africa, Latin and Central America into other, alternative economic and trade alliances, platforms for solving security problems. This is more than understandable and clearly calls into question the still recent monopoly power of the West because of its de facto ownership of international rules and the way they are applied.
As for the basis of human life and development on Earth – the economy – here the situation has undergone dizzying and cardinal changes in a short time. Here are some markers:
1) if in the early 90s of the last century the West accounted for more than 50% of the volume of production in the world economy, today this figure tends to only a quarter, the rest belongs to the collective non-West;
2) as a standard, due to economic geography, the main resources of the planet, primarily energy resources, belong to countries that do not belong to the collective West. But what is non-standard is that the non-West has already largely learned to use these riches on its own, using them to produce its own value-added products, needing Western products less and less, moreover, perfectly competing with the West in its own markets;
3) While the Western world is demographically dwindling, the non-West is growing: of the 8 billion people on the planet, only 1 billion live in Western countries.
So far, the West retains a certain advantage (mainly, according to Western analysts) in matters of militarization and defense. Today, however, many representatives of non-Western countries are armed with nuclear weapons, the use of which, in the event of a comprehensive or global conflict, multiplies other military capabilities and advantages by zero and entails the global death of all participants. So it is hardly worth talking now about its, the West, advantage over the non-West. NATO today, despite the apparent “growth”, is being torn apart and shaken from within by such internal contradictions, which (especially considering the development of the current situation in Ukraine) may well, in combination with the international situation, lead to the collapse of the bloc in the next few years.
As you can see, the West is no longer able to stop the global trend towards the elimination of Western hegemony, the planetary trend towards the creation of a multipolar world, which is supported by the absolute majority of countries on Earth. Moreover, it seems to be a good result for him, the West, at least the creation of a situation of equilibrium with the non-West, in matters of dominance on the world stage.
I would like to conclude this part of the article with a quote from Toynbee’s book How Civilizations Perish: “The West won the world not because of the superiority of its ideas, values, or religion (to which only a small number of representatives of other civilizations were converted), but rather by superiority in the use of organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners will never forget that.” Understanding this, as well as the obvious trends of de-globalization and multipolarity, prominent minds of the West have long begun to seek compromises with the world and common ground, rather than differences and mentoring.
And now, taking into account everything that has been written, some thoughts about “his shirt”, about Ukraine. For Ukraine, the course of alleged movement to the West was determined from the outside. It was determined from the outside, since such a direction was not chosen by the people of Ukraine and not by their will; and supposedly – because, as a result, all this “movement” is a fiction. This is one of the goals of the Maidan carried out in 2014 and the change of power.
The people of Ukraine did not vote for a course in NATO – this was done by Poroshenko and the parliament controlled by him, there was no popular expression of will on such an important fateful issue. From the association with the EU, the economy of our country has lost its industrial character and has turned into a resource-based agrarian economy dependent on Europe. The so-called “neoliberal values” imposed on people contradict the history, spirit, traditions, faith, true values of Ukrainians. By breaking off relations with Russia, the country lost cheap resources and markets that previously supported its economy. The destruction of economic sectors and chains led to an outflow of labor, and long before the war, and the impoverishment of Ukrainian households due to the terrible devaluation of the hryvnia, the destruction of the banking system, a 10-fold increase in payments for gas, electricity and utilities made two-thirds of the Ukrainian population poor in the truest sense of the word, which led to a catastrophic collapse of the domestic market and, again, the outflow of labor resources. The “growth” of the gross product all post-Maidan years occurred exclusively in reports, due to foreign loans and distortion of statistics.
This is the result of the “Western” movement of Ukraine for some 9 years. Plus, of course, the war: as Hungarian Prime Minister Orban says, it essentially eliminated the subjectivity of Ukraine in economic terms, finally collapsing its economy and potential, destroying logistics, additionally driving 5-7 million able-bodied Ukrainians out of the country, destroying several hundred thousand Ukrainian men.
In this regard, it is imperative to point out that just as former President Poroshenko did not ask the Ukrainian people if they wanted to join NATO, President Zelensky does not ask the Ukrainian people if they want the war to continue or if they want an end to hostilities and start peace negotiations. Let me remind you, and this is primarily evidenced by the Americans (Kennedy, Carlson, Hersh), that it was the West, Great Britain and the United States, that last spring forced the Ukrainian authorities to curtail the peace negotiations that had begun and forget about peace.
It is unlikely that the current Ukrainian president has read Robert Kaplan’s excellent book “The Revenge of Geography.” Otherwise, he would not have made those strategic and catastrophic mistakes for the country that have already been made. The author of this book shows with the help of geographical maps what conflicts were and why, what more will be, how to avoid and end them. The main idea of this book is the ability to understand that certain states and peoples are located geographically in certain places, on certain continents, adjacent to other states and peoples; and wise rulers and governments are obliged to take into account the location of their countries and peoples and neighbors in order to learn and be able to maneuver, not to conflict, take into account “neighborly” desires, develop, and not fight.
With Ukraine, if the war continues, a priori nothing good will happen, because Ukraine is its epicenter, leverage, explosives. Which, whether it blows up or does not blow up the target, will explode itself for sure. War for Ukraine is a sign “equal” to its absence on the geopolitical map of the world. Whoever says what now.
The only way to save the country is through peaceful negotiations and the achievement of peace. A world based on realities, not on the morbid ambitions of individual politicians.