That is the year, after reading Dmitry Orlov’s Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American Prospects, that the possibility of some form of collapse of the United States came to my attention.
I have had plenty of time therefore to come to terms with both the prospects of histories latest edition of imperial collapse, as well as to observe the early and ongoing stages of that collapse. Given the importance of this topic to both the world and Australia’s place in it, I thought it was a topic worth writing about, resulting in essays being both published in the Australian Defence Force Journal and rejected, as well as many articles here at Pearls and Irritations.
When it comes to the mainstream thinking in Australian defence, security and foreign policy circles however, those proponents of the system defined by the hegemonic leadership of the United States supported by its Western ‘allies’, the prospect let alone the actuality of a collapse appears to be the cause of much consternation.
The tone of recent commentary by those true believers in the United States imperial system, whom Will Schryver describes as ‘Empire Evangelists,’ is becoming increasingly shrill, desperate, even unhinged. The logic of their positions is equally questionable. The cognitive dissonance resulting from the ongoing self-inflicted collapse of the United States’ imperial system has robbed them of their lucidity.
The afflicted appear locked into a narrow ideology which leaves little room to adapt their perspective to a rapidly evolving international system. An epitome of which was provided by a recent statement by the Executive Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) where he stated:
No United States, no AUKUS, no Quad, no Five Eyes, no hope.
No hope!
An incredible statement. Which presupposes that there is only one possible future for Australia. It is a perspective that ignores the numerous historical precedents of changing alliances and relationships between countries (including amongst our core allies). It also ignores the opportunities that a growing majority of countries are generating through institutional frameworks aimed at building a positive peace and mutual benefit. Opportunities that Australia could well miss out on to our long-term detriment from both a security and economic perspective.
It further confirms that ASPI is so focused on maintaining the rapidly fading U.S. imperial system that it is incapable of generating the type of advice that the Australian Government desperately requires to navigate the years ahead.
Jubilant and premature triumphalism over what boils down to dangerous theatrics is another example of the affliction. Such as a former Australian career diplomat’s enthusiastic assessment of the recent NATO conference that ‘Moscow should be alarmed.’
It is difficult to discern whose interests are served by having Moscow alarmed. After all it was Russia’s alarm about the potential for NATO forces to be based in Crimea that led to its annexation by/accession to the Russian Federation in 2014. And it has been long known that Ukraine entering NATO is the ‘brightest of all redlines’ for Russia. Yet NATO described Ukraine’s path to joining NATO as being ‘irreversible.’
On first principles it should be blindingly clear that if seeking to add a new member to a ‘defensive’ alliance requires a war to be fought over that new member, which also results in the new members destruction (and potentially the alliance itself), then either the alliance is not defensive, or it needs to rethink its membership policy.
But rather than question the risks that NATOs policy towards Ukraine poses not only to Ukraine but the entire world, up to and including nuclear war, the author merely asks,
how can Australia contribute going forward?
Then we have a retired Australian Army Major General who argues that Ukraine “needs more of just about every kind of military equipment and munitions” so that Russia can be defeated.
Month by month more and more evidence is accruing that the Western world lacks the military industrial capacity to provide Ukraine with the weapon systems and munitions that it needs to defeat Russia, whilst as the Wall Street Journal reports, high-tech precision U.S. weapons increasingly don’t work. Meanwhile Russia’s military capacity grows.
To take just one example, the production of Patriot air defence missiles is being increased to 650 missiles per year by 2027 (current production is around 500 missiles per year). Assuming all these missiles are provided to Ukraine (which is unlikely), and that two missiles are fired per target (to increase the probability of intercept) that amounts to only 250 target engagements per year, across its entire territory. Not even one engagement per day!
As Brian Berletic concludes after a typically forensic analysis, even the West admits Ukraine is out of air defence with no way to reverse it.
Vladimir Zelensky also knows that the West cannot provide sufficient military hardware:
It’s not enough. It’s never enough.
Despite it being clear that Ukraine will never have the capacity to end this war on its own terms, the Major General concludes that “There is a strategic imperative and a moral obligation to assist Ukraine to win this war as rapidly as possible.”
At this stage of the war this is a case of magical thinking, an unwillingness to face the reality that Ukraine cannot and will not win. Magical thinking that will result in the loss of more Ukrainian territory and potentially hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian lives. Meanwhile the obvious way to stop the death and destruction through negotiation is ignored.
The inability to comprehend that the world has changed, that the Western world no longer dominates nor controls events, and that there are growing alternatives (which are largely either ignored, downplayed or dismissed in Australia) to the ‘rules-based order’ is leading to a an increasingly risky rigidity and narrow mindedness of thought amongst many of Australia’s intellectuals at a time when lucidity has never been more important.
Applying Max Planck’s famous logic, the proponents of the United States decaying imperial system won’t be convinced of the need for change. They won’t ‘see the light.’
Therefore, an alternative to the existing narrative is required. A narrative that highlights that there is indeed hope for Australia outside of the collapsing U.S. imperial system. A narrative that builds a constituency amongst first the politically engaged public, and subsequently our political leadership that a change of direction for our foreign policy is not only necessary but beneficial to Australia’s future.
The basis upon which this narrative can be built is multipolarity. The stark contrast between what the United States led collective West offers and the leaders of the multipolar/multi-nodal world has never been greater. With its focus on building rather than disrupting and collaborating rather than confronting, there is little wonder that countries from the global majority are grasping the opportunities that multipolarity offers.
For several years there has been a small but growing number of individuals, largely using social media platforms to share their messages, criticising the path of the Western world and analysing the alternatives. These individuals are no longer voices in the wilderness. Many of these voices now have tens or even hundreds of thousands of followers with content being watched by millions.
Recently this disparate group of individuals has coalesced, championing a peaceful, multipolar world.
This group is providing what is sorely missing amongst the mainstream defence, security and international relations analysts and commentators both in Australia and the Western world more generally.
First, they provide a critical assessment of the increasingly self-defeating policies of the collective West. Second, they provide an analysis of developments that are building the multipolar world. Combined this is a service which enables a much clearer understanding of the world than is, and has been, offered by legacy media and legacy think tanks. Given their rapidly growing audiences, this is clearly a service that a growing number of people desire.
For Australia to successfully navigate the challenges that a rapidly changing world presents, there is an urgent and desperate need to improve the quality of thinking in this country. Thankfully, and at long last, we are now being provided with credible alternatives to inform, educate, debate and formulate a much more hopeful future than our current trajectory.