The Russia-Ukraine War—an inflection point of Western hegemony t
Although the United States does not admit that the Russia-Ukraine war was the result of NATO's eastward expansion, but pulling a neighbor of a big country into a military alliance against that big country will inevitably lead to fierce opposition from that big country. Just imagine if Canada or Mexico joins a Russian-led military alliance, wouldn’t the United States use military force on the US-Canada or US-Mexico borders? If the same situation occurs in a neighbor of another big country (China or India), the reaction of that big country will be similar. Unless that big country is too weak to respond.
The operations of the Western world, led by the United States, before and after the Russia-Ukraine War were in line with the characteristics of historical world hegemons: that is, a hegemony during its heyday, would not realize its biggest crisis is internal not external. Hegemony always overestimates its own power and uses it excessively to maintain and strengthen the external dimension of hegemony, but is unwilling or unable to plug the loopholes in its foundation through internal reforms.
Today, the Western world has lost its basic industry, is losing its leading ability in high-tech industries, and will also lose its leading position in scientific research. The United States' economic aggregate has dropped from 40% of the world's economic aggregate (1960) to 21% (2022). After Western civilization occupied the pinnacle of world civilization for hundreds of years, many corrupt things began to appear. No matter how beautiful a halo (democracy, freedom, etc.) is given to corrupt things, it will only accelerate the decline of Western civilization. The Western world believes that democracy and freedom are the basis for the survival of Western civilization. This is correct for the past of Western civilization. Do they believe that the overuse of democracy and freedom will be the main reason for the decline of Western civilization?
The West, led by the United States, should have shrunk its external hegemony before the Russia-Ukraine war and focused its main energy on domestic reforms to restore and improve its competitiveness with emerging economies. However, the greed and inertia of hegemony have allowed it to continue to expand in the Indo-Pacific and Europe among the three main battlefields (Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific). Therefore an avoidable Russia-Ukraine war broke out. The war has lasted for one year and ten months. Let us predict the subsequent process and outcome of the war parties.
Russia: Russia misestimated its own and Ukrainian strength before the war, causing heavy losses to Russia. However, it can adjust its goals and shrink its battle line, and treat the Western world led by the United States but not Ukraine as its main opponent. Russia maintained an unbeatable situation in Ukraine, and avoided excessive consumption of its war potential. Russia's economy has withstood sweeping Western sanctions and performed better than major European powers. The important thing is that Russia's national power is in a period of slow recovery after hitting bottom, rather than a crisis-ridden period at the end of the Tsarist period when the country was facing a change of dynasties. The United States' comprehensive containment of China has forced China and Russia to support each other, and China has become Russia's biggest backer. Russia's economy and war potential will continue to grow slightly, allowing it to eventually achieve some of its war goals and become the side with a small victory.
United States: The United States has miscalculated the outcome of this proxy war, which is to at least consume Russia's war potential through the Russia-Ukraine war and let Russia decline. It has been proven that this will not happen. If the United States expands the war, it will be possible to defeat Russia only if NATO joins the war directly. But the probability of defeating Russia is equal to the probability of a nuclear war. If the United States coerces its allies to continue supporting the war in Ukraine, it will not only consume arms and money, but also deepen conflicts with its allies. There is a high probability that the United States will not get a better outcome than the current ceasefire. The best policy for the United States is to force Ukraine to negotiate an armistice with Russia as soon as possible, but this is tantamount to admitting that the West has failed in this war. Therefore, the United States will support Ukraine in continuing the fight and try to find a more dignified ending, but it is impossible to change the outcome of the war.
Ukraine: Ukraine's biggest mistake was its failure to remain neutral between Russia and the West. Ukraine could have negotiated an end to the war with Russia early in the war and returned to the Minsk agreements. Doing so is in Ukraine's best interests. But trying to become a member of the West by fighting Russia under the instigation of the United States, is a wrong bet on the fate of the country. Ukraine will be the biggest loser in this war. Ukraine's best policy is to negotiate an armistice with Russia as soon as possible, establish a lasting peace agreement, focus on reconstruction and people's livelihood and avoid another war with Russia. The middle strategy is to fight for a period of time and then negotiate a truce. If no lasting peace agreement is reached, the fighting will repeat stop and start for a period of time and then reach a finally cease. The worst option is to insist on regaining all the territory including Crimea through war. After sacrificing more lives and losing more territory, finally cease the war under more unfavorable conditions.
Europe: Although most EU countries understand that Ukraine will not win, the EU does not have the ability to make decisions that are best for itself. EU will continue to support Ukraine's war under pressure from the United States. But eventually support for a negotiated ceasefire in Ukraine will become mainstream. After the war, the decline of Western European countries will become increasingly obvious. The countries of Eastern Europe will not gain anything from the Russia-Ukraine war.
The recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven that the US strategy of withdrawing from the Middle East and oppressing China and Russia will not succeed. What the West wants to maintain is global hegemony. The Indo-Pacific, the Middle East and Europe are the backbone or main body of hegemony, and Africa and South America are the two wings of hegemony. Lose any piece of its backbone and the hegemony will disintegrate. If either of the two wings is lost, the hegemony will not disintegrate. The West's miscalculation was that they could launch offensives against China and Russia at the same time. This is why the United States supports Ukraine's war with Russia, while fiercely competing with China. The result is that China and Russia have seen clearly the bottom line of the United States, turning their loose strategic collaboration into firm strategic allies. The combined potential of China and Russia for war is huge and cannot be defeated by the West. The best policy of the United States should have been to divide China and Russia, but using Ukraine to compress Russia's strategic space is a wrong judgment made at the wrong time, which led to the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war. After the war broke out, US did not support peace talks and mobilized allies to aid Ukraine in an attempt to defeat Russia with the hand of others. This prematurely exhausted the resources and patience of allies and caused European allies to enter recession early. The West is facing defeat in the Ukraine war. This war will be an inflection point of Western hegemony turns from prosperity to decline.
更多我的博客文章>>>