Deepening of the Chaos

This allows one, who finds himself on the side of the authorities, to resort to the ostrich’s tactics of burying his head in the sand and not address the issues that are accumulating inside. Besides, it allows them to not turn their attention to what’s going on in Russia. There is a tangle of extremely difficult challenges piling up, which are more complicated than domestic Russian issues. In my opinion, the world is going through unruly and unknowable changes. And it seems that several key players are losing their heads.

Around two years ago, alarmist analysts like myself have pointed out that the world is changing so quickly and profoundly that the situation is beginning to resemble the pre-World War II era. I tried to reassure readers and listeners with the argument that presently the situation doesn’t appear to be so because nuclear weapons exist, inspiring a mysterious horror which could prevent great countries from trying to stop or correct the changes with the aid of a big war.

Let me remind you of several changes. Unprecedented in the history of mankind is the speed of the shift in the balance of power in the world economy to the advantage of a new Asia. In the next round of struggle, there will be a fight for resources and for the respective territory where they can be found and even produced. The fall of the old system of institutions of international governance is taking place during a time of continued globalization of almost all economic, social and ecological processes. Thhe main change: the increase in intellectual vacuity — the inability of the elite, especially Western ones, who have led this given sphere throughout all of modern history, to explain what is happening under the old theories or to invent new ones. The traditional centers of insight are not even able to fill this vacuum.

It was thought, 10 to 20 years ago, that the nation-state will disappear, slowly but surely, substituted by organs of supranational management, transnational corporations and international non-government organizations. Now all these three foundations of a new world, or so it seems, have crumbled before our eyes. The majority of international organizations are obviously weakening (the U.N., NATO, the IMF, the World Bank), while others are hardly putting up a pretense of influence (G-8, G-20). TNCs appear to be the motor of economic globalization, but their political influence on the world order is less that it was 20 or 30 years ago. The majority of NGOs have not become global players. Those who remain at the top are more likely agents of states or groups. Regarding the absolute power of a world government, NGOs and TNCs continue to believe only the most wretched of conspiracy theorists, who, however, seem to be growing in numbers.

In recent years some hope had appeared for the almost redeeming re-nationalization of world politics. According to this theory of re-nationalization, societies, conscious of the challenges of the global world and the insufficiency of supranational organs of governance, throw themselves into the safe cover of the old, but true defenders of their interests: the nation-state, which has strengthened. This theory is supported by the evident fact of the shift of world economics and politics to Asia, a region with traditional nation-states.

Such a theory sounds great even to my Russian ear. Russia is quite a traditional state, trying, with some success, to play according to the rules of the old (whether good or bad) diplomacy of balance of powers. Naturally, with some modern corrections. It seemed that even in this, in the way of the path of long-term price increases of raw materials and energy resources, Russia is lucky. The wind is blowing in its sails. The world is returning to old politics. Russia has not left old politics, and this is also where old politics is strong.

But the last year has shown this will neither save the nation-state nor the world of traditional diplomacy.

States, especially the most developed, have made mistakes that force one to think about who to trust and who to rely on in our, albeit not quite so, modern diplomacy and politics. We begin with Europe — an important partner of ours. The situation there seems very alarming. In the past two decades under the influence of the inertia of integration, multiplied by the euphoria over beating communism, Europe, united in the EU, made three mistakes. First, it announced a desire for a unified foreign policy, for which Europeans turned out to be unprepared for. The result is the emergence of policy of the lowest common denominator, which has deprived the great European capitals of influence, but without a transference of influence to Brussels. European influence has evaporated. The second mistake is too-rapid expansion, which made the EU even less tight-knit. And third, the introduction of a unified currency without the introduction of a unified economic and financial policy, which has allowed countries like Greece to live outside its means for decades. For this they are all paying the price.

A situation is developing where the island of stability, Europe, is turning into an arena of near unpredictability. What if the very system of European integration starts to fall apart? No one wants to think about that. It is easy and pleasant to live with an integrated, peaceful Europe even in the midst of all these tensions.

After years of fruitless maneuvering, it was only in August that there appeared a spark of hope. Sarkozy and Merkel proposed a plan, according to which, if enacted, the EU would have the theoretical ability to throw members out of the Euro zone, and possibly from the EU itself, or simply to grant first and second level membership. But based on the initial reaction of other member countries and knowing how decisions are made in the EU, the hope still remains weak.

Europe suffers partly from the excesses of supra-nationalism. The situation inspires great alarm in one of the most sovereign of existing states. Thanks to, to say the least, the extravagant foreign and financial policy of the United States in recent decades, they are stuck in a systematic crisis, which has threatened the whole world.

Several years ago America found in itself the strength to elect Barack Obama, a president of hope. In many respects, he fulfilled these hopes. America began to withdraw from its military adventures. America did not crawl into Libya, where it was being dragged toward. But in economics the neo-Keynesian recipes proposed by classical economists did not work. The United States remained in semi-stagnation, increasing the debt almost by a trillion.

But the most important thing is not in this. The world did not only trust the American economy, even if it is the strongest. They trusted its political system and quality of governance. America has foisted its debt obligations to no one. They bought dollars gladly, considering investments to the U.S. the most reliable.

But this is coming to an end. The recent fits regarding the increase in America’s debt ceiling have shown that the American political system has “drifted.” The Republicans, basing their opinion on ideological postulates proven to be inadequate and are just trying to sink Obama, have emasculated his programs to combat the crisis without offering their own. It turned out that in the Republican half of America there are practically no longer any sensible, practical internationalists. Liberal imperialists, as they used to be called.

The American state and its society have turned out to be unable to exercise effective leadership in this era of great changes, or even to simply behave responsibly. The risk of statesmen coming to power with a parochial mindset is rising.

What happened in America during the summer regarding the problems of the debt ceiling is similar to a show of suicide. Advocates to the theory of re-nationalization have hoped that the state will fill up the vacuum of control. But the largest of these states appears to be unable to do so. It is evident that a new place of leadership has been freed up. While Europe has simply given away its own leadership position, international institutions should step into this position. But the process of international regulation of climate change has been killed. Climate change, it is now clear to all, is surely a great threat. But the Americans prefer to ignore that.

The new leaders are in no hurry to occupy the void being formed or to take responsibility. Apparently the deepening is not a dip, but a gap in handling the world. It will not work, and already the world is falling into chaos.

There are increasingly more signs that the ability of states to control the financial system is lost. The old West is drawn into a long-term economic crisis, which almost certainly will draw in the rest of the world. Every one was afraid of trade wars, but given the seeming insolvency of the financial problems of the U.S. in the medium term, financial wars will probably soon begin.

At first, the competitive devaluation of the dollar will occur, but then the devaluation of other currencies seems increasingly likely, if not inevitable. Devaluation drags along with it massive impoverishment of people and difficult-to-predict social consequences, as we saw this summer in riots on the streets of London, Spain, Germany and other countries. There will be a much harsher deepening of geopolitical struggles. At the same time you have to rely even more on the insurance from this recklessness which the fear of nuclear weapons gives us. But no one knows how to secure this insurance in a world where political leaders have lost their bearings.

It is very much wished that my fears do not become realized. But for the present, the world, at least the world of the old West, is not developing according to the better scenario.

In these conditions the question is not who will be president of Russia, but it is whether Russia will be able to leave its inertia of stagnation, which will lead us into a state of being unable to maneuver and lead in the chaos of a new, but all the more dangerous world that does not provide a direct and clear threat to us. It is foolish and insulting that we do not wish to see the new challenges and possibilities, while we discuss who will be our president in an inspired or an uninspired manner, instead of deciding what and how to do something. In the new world we need a strong state, supported by a strong society and strong institutions, and not simply president A or president B.