The emerging multipolar world order led by Russia, China, and the Global South is pushing the old Western arrogant order into historical oblivion
The upshot is that Ukraine has been callously devastated by the United States and its imperialist partners in a proxy war against Russia – a war that the Western powers have all but lost.
But this epoch-making conflict has significance way beyond the disaster of Ukraine.
This week marks the second anniversary of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine that began on February 24, 2022. President Vladimir Putin ordered the intervention of Russian forces for two reasons: to protect the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass region which had endured eight years of NATO-backed aggression; and, secondly, to denazify the regime that the Western powers had illegally installed with a coup d’état in Kiev in 2014. The tenth anniversary of that coup on February 22 was also marked this week.
Two years on, the first objective has been substantially achieved. Russian forces control most of the Donbass region, as well as Kherson, Zaporozhye, and Crimea. These regions are now legally part of the Russian Federation following historic referenda. In sum, Ukraine has lost about 20 percent of its pre-conflict territory to Russia. The concerned populations contend that they have rejoined Mother Russia.
The military victory last week for Russian forces in the key city of Avdeevka portends the imminent full taking of the Donbass along its historic provincial lines. That breakthrough also speaks of the near collapse of the Kiev regime forces. Two years on, the cities and towns of Donetsk and Lugansk have been rebuilt after suffering the vandalism and war crimes of the Kiev regime. The NATO-backed regime still attacks communities but the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine are appreciably safer and better off than they were two years ago.
As for the second objective, the denazification of the Kiev regime has still not yet been achieved. However, the regime is but a shell of its former incarnation when with the help of NATO weapons and military advisers it was waging a brutal aggression against ethnic Russian communities.
Moscow has stated that it will continue its military operation in Ukraine until the neo-nazi regime is eliminated. There seems to be little doubt that that objective will be met given the superior firepower on the Russian side and the rapidly deteriorating condition of the NATO-backed forces.
The Russian achievement is quite remarkable given that the U.S.-led NATO bloc (30 nations) has flooded Ukraine with a vast array of heavy weapons. The United States and its European allies have spent – wasted – up to $200 billion in supporting the Kiev regime over the past two years. Despite the inordinate flow of weaponry and mercenaries, Russia has secured the territory it set out to obtain, and the NATO-backed side is facing collapse.
The course of the war is on Russia’s side. From the outset, Moscow said it had no intention to occupy all of Ukraine. But the collapse of the regime in a rump state is no doubt something that Russia wants, and the betting odds point to that eventuality as the cabal in Kiev descends into corruption, backstabbing, and infighting.
But, importantly, the military situation in Ukraine is only part of a much bigger picture of global confrontation and one that speaks to an existential crisis for Western imperialism.
Few are unaware of the devastating trauma unleashed by the Mongol invasions.
Essentially, empire building is typical of several cultures. Furthermore, since empires usually result in negative and positive effects, it would be prudent to judge them based on their long-term impacts. The truth is that Western empires are special, because notwithstanding their flaws, only in the West did freedom become a cherished value.
Of extreme interest to many in academia is the impact of Western imperialism on former colonies. Exploring the implications of Western hegemony has become a cottage industry. There is a litany of studies examining colonial legacies in the developing world. For instance, distinguished scholars James Robinson and Daron Acemoglu trace underdevelopment in some countries to the institutional legacies of colonialism. History shapes the future, so we should never suggest that examining the effects of Western colonialism is an unworthy goal. But the fascination with the exploits of Westerners is quite strange. Listening to some commentators, one would assume that only white people launched empires. For instance, Nikole Hannah Jones in a letter she penned as a college student perfectly demonstrates a mindset prevalent even among educated adults: “The white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world….Europeans have colonized and destroyed the indigenous population of every continent on this planet. They have committed genocide against cultures that have never offended them in their greed and insatiable desire to control…every nonwhite culture.”
Denigrating Western civilization for previous atrocities is the norm in intellectual circles. In a blistering critique of the West, Daniel MacMillen Voscoboynik concludes, “The full impact of colonialism would be revealed in its long-term impacts. It radically transformed landscapes, state relations, philosophies, and cultures, leaving as one of its inheritance[s] an intensive and plunderous economic model. In pursuit of resources, countries ran roughshod over limits, and destroyed many of the ecosystems necessary for preventing climate change.” The need for objective discourse mandates that these claims be scrutinized. Jones and Voscoboynik are not wrong to repudiate horrendous acts. Yet their biases are revealing. The false narrative propagated by these thinkers is that conquest is unique to Europeans. Clearly, it has become fashionable to portray imperial pursuits as peculiar to white people, though this outlook is historically inaccurate.
Let us unpack the lopsided assertion that “Europeans have committed genocide against cultures that have never offended them in their greed and insatiable desire to control…every nonwhite culture.” History tells us that people irrespective of race or culture have subjugated weaker groups for no other reason than to attain political power. Few are unaware of the devastating trauma unleashed by the Mongol invasions. Ira M. Lapidus in his indispensable text, The History of Islamic Societiespoignantly describes the damages inflicted on Iranians by their Mongolian overlords:
The first impact of the Mongol invasions in Iran was disastrous and amounted to a holocaust. The populations of many cities and towns were systemically exterminated. Whole regions were depopulated by invading armies and by the influx of Turkish and Mongol nomads who drove the peasants from the land. The conquerors plundered their subjects, made them serfs and taxed them ruinously. The result was a catastrophic falling population, income, and state revenue. For over a century fine pottery and metalwares ceased to be produced. A period of urban autonomy and cultural vitality was brought to an end.
Iran was negatively affected by foreign rule, but except for a select group of scholars interested in empire building, these tales are rarely rehashed in the popular press. Some writers will not allow us to forget the unfortunate consequences of colonialism in Africa. Yet they never discuss African imperialism. Contrary to popular beliefs, Africans have not been passive actors in world affairs. In the past, they also established empires intending to achieve political hegemony. Writing about the expansionist state in Africa, Kwame Arhin illustrates the prowess of the legendary Asante Empire: “Asante was collectively the greatest beneficiary from military conquests and political expansion. Its conquered territories were the greatest in extent and its empire had the longest run.” Another interesting point is that non-European conquerors were hardly known for their generosity. E. Ola Abiola (1984) offers a stinging rebuke of Fulani rule in the northern states of Nigeria after the jihad of 1804–08: “The conditions of these unfortunate people were in no way better than they were under Hausa rule. In fact, they seem to be far worse.”
To be nuanced, however, we must admit that not all aspects of Fulani rule were negative. Johnson Olaosebikan Aremu presents a more favorable picture:
The Jihad could be said to have brought unity to Hausaland. It would be recalled that through inter-state wars, Hausa states had for centuries tried without success to impose an imperial authority which could guarantee political order, stability and unity among the Habe states. Fortunately, the Jihad, by enthroning Islam provided the much-needed suprastate ideology for integration among the Hausa states. The Jihad brought a new peace to the north.
Moreover, dominant in the rhetoric of people like Jones and Voscoboynik is the assumption that European colonialists built rapacious institutions to serve their interests. This position is not false, but how does this make Europeans different from non-European colonizers? Critics fail to acknowledge that the purpose of organizing an empire is to enrich the conquerors, not natives. Imperialism may actuate some positive effects, but imperial ambitions are not undergirded by a desire to ameliorate the conditions of conquered peoples. To think otherwise is patently naïve. Even the Aztecs established extractive schemes to derive wealth from their subjects. Anthropologist Frances Berdan explains the goal of conquest in the Aztec Empire: “A primary goal of conquest was the exploitation of resources (natural and human) from conquered peoples. Subjugated city-states were required to offer their overlords obeisance and supply them with palace service, corvée labor, and support in future military ventures.”
Essentially, empire building is typical of several cultures. Furthermore, since empires usually result in negative and positive effects, it would be prudent to judge them based on their long-term impacts. The truth is that Western empires are special, because notwithstanding their flaws, only in the West did freedom become a cherished value. As eminent sociologist Orlando Patterson notes: “Freedom has been the core value of Western culture throughout its history….It is the West that must be scrutinized and explained for its peculiar commitment to this value.” Due to the primacy of freedom in Western society, institutions for protecting individual rights such as parliaments and the jury system were instituted in colonies.
Considering that respect for the individual is of paramount value in Western society, empires managed by the West often endowed natives with rights, despite the failings of Western imperialism. For example, Europeans abolished slavery in many of their African colonies after conquests. Additionally, in his publication “The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy,” Robert D. Woodberry submits that Western missionaries were “a crucial catalyst initiating the development and spread of religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, and voluntary organizations in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.” He further outlines the pivotal role of these missionaries in promoting mass education: “Another mechanism through which Conversionary Protestants dispersed power was through spreading mass education…CPs advocated mass literacy so that everyone could read the Bible and interpret it competently. Their attempt to convert people through education threatened other elites and spurred these elites to also invest in mass education.”
Similarly, there is strong consensus in some quarters that colonialism in the Post-Enlightenment era was advantageous for long-term political development. According to the findings of one study, “Colonial duration is positively associated with levels of democracy among countries colonized after 1850….Western penetration after 1850 during an enlightened (yet imperialist) age created an openness to Western ideas and ideals that facilitated the transition to democracy and modernization.”
Throughout history, humans have developed oppressive empires. Yet the moral revolution aiding the abandonment of imperialism and its associated evils first emerged in the West. Critics of Western imperialism should not be dismissed as flippant. However, they must admit that only Western empires succeeded in promoting universal freedom. What they ought to be wondering is not why Westerners built empires, but that they even entertained the thought that dignity could be extended to conquered peoples. Author:
Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to Mises.org, The Federalist, and the Jamaica Gleaner. He may be contacted at lo_matthews@yahoo.com or twitter @matthewslipton
Every time you speak out against western imperialism in a given nation or question western propaganda narratives about that nation’s government, you will inevitably be accused of loving that nation’s government by anyone who argues with you.
When I say “inevitably”, I am not exaggerating. If you speak in any public forum for any length of time expressing skepticism of what we’re told to believe about a nation whose government has been targeted by the US-centralized empire, you will with absolute certainty eventually run into someone who accuses you of thinking that that government is awesome and pure and good.
I have never, ever had this fail to occur, even once. If I write an article about the mountain of evidence suggesting we were lied to about a chemical attack in Syria, I get people telling me I think Bashar al-Assad is a girl scout who’s never ever done anything wrong. If I express skepticism of the flimsy narratives we’re being fed in the escalating propaganda war against China, I get “If you love Beijing so much and think Xi is so innocent you should go and move to China!” It’s one of the only completely predictable things about this job.
Which is of course idiotic. Understanding that the US government and its allies lie constantly with the full-throated support of western news media in no way suggests a belief that the targeted government in question is wonderful, and there’s absolutely no legitimate reason to infer such a thing. The indisputable fact that US-led military interventionism is universally disastrous and based on lies has nothing to do with anyone’s level of emotional support for the governments targeted for destruction by the US-centralized empire. Yet everyone reading this who’s ever tried to speak out against US foreign policy has encountered the behavior I’m describing here.
Why is that? Why do establishment loyalists engage in such a weird, nonsensical behavior with such reliable consistency? Why do they literally always accuse anyone who questions any narrative about any empire-targeted government of having positive emotions toward that government, even though there is no rational reason for them to do so?
I’ll tell you why: Hollywood.
Well, not just Hollywood. Really the dynamic we’re about to discuss has been going on for as long as there have been war stories. But the dominant storytellers of today are in Hollywood, and that’s where the dominant war stories are told.
For as long as war stories have been told, those stories have been framed as a battle between good and evil. The good side is the side you identify with, and the evil side is the one you want to lose. You see this in almost all depictions of war coming out of Hollywood today, from movies based on actual wars to sci-fi and fantasy films like Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings. Over and over and over again from childhood we are trained to assume that mass military violence must have a Good side and an Evil side, so when we see a war being depicted anywhere we immediately start trying to sort out who are the Good Guys and who are the Bad Guys, usually without even thinking about it.
Obviously war isn’t actually about Good versus Evil; usually it’s nothing more noble than geostrategic agenda versus geostrategic agenda. But because people are conditioned from an early age to overlay any ideas about large-scale conflict with this false Good or Evil dichotomy, there’s an immediate assumption that if you’re suggesting that one side might not be Good, then the other side are the Good Guys. If you say the government pushing regime change in Iran is doing something immoral, then you’re saying they’re the Bad Guys, which means you think the Iranian government are the Good Guys.
Yes, the behavior in question really does boil down to something that stupid. This phenomenon where empire apologists will predictably accuse you of loving an empire-targeted nation just because you oppose imperialist agendas is primarily due to a combination of dumb binary thinking and watching too many Hollywood movies. In other words, it’s due to bad information meeting bad thinking.
All we can really do to address this dynamic is bring consciousness to it. When someone’s acting out the unexamined assumption that because you are critical of western imperialism you must necessarily believe that all of its targets are perfect and wonderful, you can point out the absurdity of this position and invite them to think a little harder about it. Or just link them to this article.
Beyond that, all you can really do is understand what you’re looking at, roll your eyes, and sigh.
MCViewPoint 