This is a topic that has come to light; growing countries, powers, demands for hegemony are on the one hand, securing the security demands of countries, societies and people on the other. Any situation where this cannot be achieved harms humanity, existing systems need to be changed. I will explain this great dilemma to you in the dimension of the Ukrainian War.
As the growing and empowered party sets the rules, it puts the safety of others at risk, and even exploits security. Is this possible? The USA has grown, strengthened, and is putting its weight on the global system in every dimension. Russia asks what will happen to my security. Because he, too, learned what he would want from the powerful of the past. What about Ukraine? In between…
It was with great pleasure that I read Dani Rodrik’s article titled “Taming the Security Dilemma“ published in Project Syndicate and decided to sign under it. I recommend it, you should read it. We desperately need such large-scale readings, especially at a time when there is a great war going on (including the Third World War among the discussions), systems are being accounted for, and why Russia attacked Ukraine.
Nobody wants war, but wars never end. The soldiers of the war are mostly from the lower and middle classes of the countries, less often from the upper classes. This is also a fact. If the issue turns into an economic war, everyone from the top of the business world to the working day laborers will get their share from this war. Terrorism was globalized and bombs exploded at random points, including in crowded cities, but eventually, whoever passed by, rich or poor, fell under the influence of these actions. As the world population, production and consumption, technology and global welfare values increased, they did not change; There is still war in the world.
The issue of the relationship between the USA and terrorism is mostly discussed in Turkey, perhaps there are similar discussions in the world. It is this; The USA supports the terrorist, changes the clothes of the terrorist and legitimizes it, calls it democracy and freedom, even puts it into the field in a proxy war with a gun, all these attack the people of another sovereign country, meanwhile innocents die, all this is not a contradiction, but what?
Consider today the war between Russia and Ukraine that seems to have set in motion the sweeping dynamics that actually took place between the United States and Russia. Does the issue of Global Strategic Isolations(sanctions) only punish the Russian people and army, does it want to defeat the Russian leadership, will it enable Ukraine to take back the occupied lands, or does it demand the impoverishment of almost everyone in the world?
Yesterday, the former United States Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul had a tweet: “More Weapons for Ukraine! More Sanctions for Russia!“
So I wrote on it: “Mr. McFaul summed it up: Weapons to Ukraine Sanctions to Russia and much, much more… To what extent? For Ukrainians and all the poor of the world, I ask is this the only solution (former) Ambassador? You never mentioned peace.“
I think these two tweets reflect what Dani calls the “dilemma” in a practical way! While McFaul reflects the policies advocated by US President Joe Biden, he also acts as the spokesperson for the liberal democratic order. But that doesn’t mean everything!
As I also reproached; unable to prevent geopolitical conflicts; does not meet the effects of hyper-globalization; does not meet the cultural efforts and demands of the other side of the world, such as Russia and China, which are global powers and the main rivals of the USA (the USA sometimes calls them enemies); it does not even guarantee to bring peace and stability to the world; While paving the way for the healthy development of global trade, it is not enough to eliminate hostilities; It does not establish more health as the world and humanity on important issues such as climate change or pandemics, does not provide a climate of compromise and trust.
Socio-economic sanctions with guns are fully developed. What does “more” even mean? But that’s how it is. I know this as a soldier; I’ve seen a lot of blood and trickery. What I want to tell is for you. Dani and McFaul reminded me to recount this dire contradiction, thank you.
So what about the war, will it end? For humanity pregnant with a great power struggle, the war does not end, the narratives, laments and of course the types of defenses change. It is necessary to prepare for it, there is no room for weakness for all the creatures of this world!
You can make the Chinese swallow opium and exploit it for years, you can build skyscrapers, ports and open big banks in Hong Kong, you can sell hamburgers and cola today, and you can even say let’s share while we eat, but when you say Taiwan is not China, they don’t accept this. Politics is like that. As the rising power becomes evident and the money is full, it becomes a global target and means “more”. America, Russia or China, it doesn’t matter, they will say “more”. It is a very simple idea to say that my goods are in demand in the market, but it may even be possible to explain the Ukraine war in this way today. Look at the sanctions and isolation that stand out at the expense of deaths!.. This is the well-known story of humanity! This must be the main feature in Dani’s narrative of the dilemma.
After a saturation point, global demands cause war. Moral values and basic principles are at the forefront until satiation. In fact, the free market economy is a system that opens the channels of this growth, isn’t it? The board of trustees asks why our company grew by 10 percent while the competitor grew by 50 percent, find a way and close this gap. As long as the savings in that safe are “more, more, more”, even war may be permissible.
At best, this could be the main strategy of another new development. Because the New Normalization patterns seen after what I call Global Force Majeure is an important strategic move in order to multiply the growth and make innovations accepted. This must be the point that is not well understood in the great events of our century. Despite climate change, pandemics and great economic depressions, risking a war and forcing to be a pole in the world for it can only be explained based on such a strategic move. The nature of the rivalry of the great powers uses the necessities of the age. Today’s table covers the Fourth Industrial Revolution blessings and Smart Power models.
I have pictured for you that Ukraine is caught in the middle of today’s war. I pointed to the war of the USA and Russia as the main parties. From this point of view, while Russia has to be insecure for the security of the USA, the risk of the USA being insecure for the security of Russia can knock on our door at any time. I think business people see this better than economic sanctions. Everything triggers one another…
Look from above please, what was the real reason why Ukraine was burned and destroyed so much? In the global power race, by planning after 2040, G7 countries (USA, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Japan), by establishing partnerships from the Atlantic, Oceania and Indo-Pacific, to rival China and Russia. They started a tug-of-war game against or by using the possibilities of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This is a realistic point of view.
Dani asks, if Russia achieves military goals in Ukraine, but as a result of this war the West (I call it the US and its Partners) emerges weak in technology and markets, will the world have found what it was looking for? However, it seems that the answer to this question, like the Post-Corona process, is in the field of Post-Ukraine‘s New Normalization. Can it be said that Ukraine is being sacrificed for Post-Ukraine today?
Another debate is the issue of morality. In the Ukraine War, the USA and its partners are moral and good people, but are the Russians immoral or bad? You know, Joe Biden said, “killer” for Putin. The Putin administration is an “autocrat”, while Ukraine is fighting for “democracy and freedom”, this is a “humanitarian” struggle… Do we feel comfortable if it is explained like this? Wars are explained by “intention”. Who is good and who is evil here? Is it enough to just look at the attacker and the defender? What about attacking or giving weapons for defense? Then, although the main purpose is explained as ideology, it is essentially to defeat the opponent in the global rope pulling race. Other explanations can only be an intermediate cause. The rules belong to war anyway, as Sun Tzu points out; War means deception. What I am looking for as a strategist is whether the concept of New Normalization can be filled today. If I explain in terms of “exceptionalism”, I cannot brand one side as good and the other as bad. In historical perspective, I can’t want to make exceptions to the US, at least I wouldn’t have the right to.
NOTE: Due to intellectual property rights, you can use this information by reference.
 Project Syndicate, Taming the Security Dilemma, by Dani Rodrik, March 9, 2022, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-world-order-avoiding-zero-sum-competition-by-dani-rodrik-2022-03
 Both I and Dani Rodrik have articles on this subject. I published on January 14, 2022: The Effects of Hyper-Globalization. https://politikmerkez.com/konular/ekonomi/hiper-kuresellesmenin-etkileri/
 My Post-Ukrainian post in this title was accepted: https://politikmerkez.com/konular/politika/post-ukraine/