Actually, the new world order was only a blip on the pages
of history. And so was the European Union. The past tense is a fitting way to
characterize its ongoing gradual dissolution, with NATO not far behind.
Europe’s panorama is moving toward its semi-permanent mix of
the last 1,200 years, consisting of a corsage of smaller and larger states,
transitional empires (from Charlemagne to Napoleon to Habsburgs) and cultural
glitter as well as major detours into savagery.
As for the United States, it is experiencing a major
demographic metamorphosis that puts into question the extent of U..S influence on
the world scene in the not too distant future. We are beginning to see it now,
in the ongoing conflict between President Barack Obama’s provincial neo-isolationism
and the proponents of re-asserting U..S leadership in Asia; yes, in Asia, while
being mostly silent about Europe —
except scolding NATO members for cutting their NATO budgets below the 2
percent.
Remarkably, two countries have shown stubborn permanence.
One is Britain (“There will always be an England”) and the other is Russia.
Since its beginnings from the 14th century as Duchy of Moscow, Russia has not changed much in terms of the form of governance, the unity
between state and church, the cultural isolation and intense patriotism of its
masses coupled with distrust of foreign influence (except in artful adaptation
of Western technology, reenforcing local skills and pursuit of pure science).
The timidity of both the EU and NATO in
responding to Russia’s ongoing aggression, not only in Ukraine but also in
brazen provocative moves toward the West, is easily explained by rapid
disappearance of the “post-war order” and acceptance of a revised reality,
which comes from recognition (on all sides) of the crumbling of Europe’s and
NATO’s backbone.
This crumbling reminds of the meltdown of the Soviet Union,
albeit for the entirely different reasons. Whereas the major reason of Soviet
collapse was its dog’s life economy, Western collapse can be attributed to the
excesses of the good life, which its citizens (even the unemployed on welfare)
are not willing to either give up or defend against Russia’s appetite for
spoils.
The existing Western political and military structures (EU
and NATO) cannot last long in this new reality, especially when the United
States is in the midst of an internal turmoil of its own.
There is already talk in Berlin about restructuring of NATO,
without U.S. membership. How this would make sense is not clear,
except when the absurd takes hold, as it seems to be.
Ukraine is obviously on the margins of the brilliance of
Western powers, even though it is the action in Ukraine that will determine the
fate of the West itself, at least for the near future.
To speculate what comes next in Russia’s war on Ukraine is
not part of my pastime. The West is not willing to send weapons for Ukraine. But
Ukraine is capable of raising the resistance level on its own, as suggested in John
Schindler’s op-ed (“How Ukraine can win,” Kyiv Post, on March 9) — by activating a much larger defense force.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
