The stakes are now higher than ever. And this is no longer just about the fate of Ukraine, and not even about what is at stake for us – Russia itself, that is, our future as a great power. No, we are really talking about the fate of the world, but not in the sense that it is on the verge of a nuclear war (this is not the case, no matter how they try to play on the fear of the apocalypse), but because it is now that the choice of the path to the future is being made, it is determined how humanity will develop and what form international relations and the world economy will take. This is what is being decided before our eyes. And this is understood not only in Russia, China and throughout the non-Western world – the scale of the challenge is also recognized by objective Anglo-Saxon strategists.
“The second era of globalization is rapidly fading into the past. If something is not done quickly and decisively, the world will be divided into hostile camps, regardless of what happens in Ukraine. And this divided world will not suit the West.”
This is a quote from an article in Bloomberg “Putin and Xi exposed the great illusion of capitalism.” The authors – John Micklethwaite, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, former editor-in-chief of The Economist, and Adrian Wooldridge, employee of The Economist – are Anglo-American analysts with a good “clearance level” (Micklethwaite is a participant in Bilderberg meetings), so there is no special propaganda in the text . There is an attempt to analyze what is happening – and a recipe for saving globalization. The article’s subtitle is not accidental: “If the US and its allies do not mobilize to rescue it, the second great age of globalization will come to a disastrous end.”
Why second? Because the first one ended with the First World War (starting half a century before it) – and now the threat of globalization is comparable to that of 1914. At the same time, it is categorically wrong to speak of a “Western project of globalization”. Globalization based on economic liberalism is a purely Anglo-Saxon project that meets the interests of the Anglo-Saxon elites (who have long since become cosmopolitan, supranational – but this is a separate issue).
Why did the first globalization end? According to the authors of Bloomberg, because the then elites (of course, Anglo-Saxon) were complacent and short-sighted, they did not realize the full reality of the impending global conflict due to the rise of Germany (of course, what else to expect from English authors). In the end, everything ended in disaster and the collapse of the first attempt at globalization. And now the same thing can happen:
“The current conflict may mark a lasting change in how the global economy works and how we live, however far from the carnage in Eastern Europe we may be. From ethnic wars and angry autocracies to general fury against the rich, they crawl wherever they please.
Micklethwaite and Wooldridge point out that globalization has been under attack for the last twenty years – starting from September 11, 2001, the financial crisis of 2008 (and who was its author – was it the USA that built the financial and exchange pyramid?) and Brexit, along with the election of Trump in 2016 They even admit that “the division of the world economy into Chinese and Western parts is gaining momentum”, that the coronavirus has hit integration ties and that, in general, economic integration has slowed down, and in some cases has gone backwards. But it is Ukraine that has become what can finish off globalization, because the single world market will be divided into parts:
“The Russian invasion of Ukraine marks a larger and more decisive attack on globalization than previous ones. Partly because there was an instantaneous severing of economic ties. The supply of basic commodities, from wheat to nickel, titanium and oil, was disrupted. The West is doing everything possible to exclude Russia from the world economic system: imposes sanctions on oligarchs, cuts off Russian banks from the global financial system, and prevents the Central Bank of Russia from accessing its reserves. There is talk of excluding Russia from the World Trade Organization.”
But wait, is it not the West itself that is pushing the world towards this division – with its insane sanctions against Russia , freezing our assets and threatening to impose secondary sanctions against China ? Yes, everything is so – Micklethwaite and Wooldridge do not argue with this, but they are trying to justify this “wildness” in the fact that it can be used to achieve the goals set, that is, to stop Russia, which is the main enemy of globalization:
“Western politicians meeting in Brussels say they do not intend to destroy the global order. All this economic savagery is designed to punish Putin’s aggression precisely in order to restore the rules-based system that he seeks to destroy, and with it to interrupt the free flow of world trade and finance.In an ideal world, Putin would be overthrown—a victim of his own delusions and paranoia—and the Russian people would depose the kleptocracy in the Kremlin.
This optimistic scenario will bring back to life not only Russia, but also the West. The United States will abandon Trump’s isolationism, and Europe will begin to take its own defense seriously. The “civilization wars” on both sides of the Atlantic will die down… There is a chance that this could happen.”
How big is this chance? The British admit that it is as small as “regime change in the Kremlin”, and at the same time they do not flatter themselves about the ability of Biden, Johnson, Macron and Scholz (that is, the leaders of the West) to meet the challenge of globalization. Moreover, the same Biden says things that are simply deadly for globalization – for example, that “everything, from the deck of an aircraft carrier to the steel on the highway fences, will be made in America from beginning to end.”
So the process itself is moving in the opposite direction of globalization:
“And the crisis in Ukraine is especially accelerating such changes in both geopolitics and the capitalist worldview that are deeply hostile to globalization.
Changes in geopolitics come down to one thing: China is becoming the central geopolitical factor with its rapid rise, which seems invincible …
Right now, the outcome we’re sliding into is that the autocratic East gradually separates from us, and then begins to rapidly bypass the democratic but divided West.”
And here Micklethwaite and Wooldridge find the only way to save globalization – and the West. It is simple: you need to unite. But not just like that, not in words and slogans, but really, economically – that is, in fact, to create a single system. Accelerate globalization on a Western scale:
“Biden must recognize that expanding economic interdependence among US allies is a geostrategic imperative. He must offer Europe a comprehensive free trade agreement to bind the West together.
It could be a slightly modified version of the rejected Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, based on regulatory convergence (according to which a product that can be safely sold in the EU can be safely sold in the US – and vice versa). It should also join the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – bringing together Australia , New Zealand , parts of the Asian and American states).”
That is, two stages are proposed – first to unite the USA and Europe into a single economic organism, and then to connect part of Asia with Latin America to it . This should give a huge advantage over the “autocracies” – China, Russia and the countries that joined them:
“Biden is a mature enough politician to remember that the United States won the last cold war peacefully because it united the entire free world around itself. This is the way to win the next game peacefully as well. economies of Latin America and Asian democracies — and it could do more than just do away with autocracies, it could pull them to freedom.”
This is a beautiful model – that’s just completely unrealistic. After all, in fact, it proposes the continuation of globalization in the Anglo-Saxon style, but with the exclusion of several large countries from it – in the expectation that over time they will break down and also join the “free and liberal world.” But after all, the current project of globalization has broken down – and Micklethwaite and Wooldridge themselves admit this – for two reasons: the discontent of non-Western countries and the lack of agreement within the West. The same project of the Transatlantic Partnership collapsed even before any Trump, because Europe did not want to be completely subordinate to transnational corporations and elites (that is, the Anglo-Saxons). And why now everyone will agree to go to the Anglo-Saxon stall? Because Russia is dealing with Ukraine, and the West in response detonates “atomic bombs” of economic sanctions, undermining the foundations of globalization built by him? To put it mildly, it’s illogical.
It is clear that hope dies last – hence it is said that “we still have time to shape a very different future: a future in which Western wealth increases and Western alliances are strengthened”, and it is argued that now “The West is more united and resolute than in recent decades,” therefore, according to Biden, must “cement the free world together.” But there is not enough cement, and even those who are ready to join the ranks of the cemented. Even within the framework of a united West, the chances of integration (that is, the subordination of Europe to the Anglo-Saxons) seem to be minimal – let alone the rest of the world. And the United States itself is economically almost doomed to isolationism, to becoming a besieged fortress, with unclear prospects for unity within it.
The quote from Micklethwaite and Wooldridge’s article at the beginning of the text continues:
“If something is not done quickly and decisively, the world will be divided into hostile camps, regardless of what happens in Ukraine. And this divided world will not suit the West. Look at the resolution of the UN General Assembly condemning Russia’s special operation in Ukraine. The most widely publicized the figures in the results are that only 40 countries did not support the resolution (35 abstained, and five opposed), but voted for 141 countries. But these 40 countries, including India and China, account for the majority of the world’s population. “
And the point here is not even in the percentage of the population, but in the fact that the Anglo-Saxon claims to world domination, colloquially called globalization, turned out to be untenable. The Anglo-Saxons created a global system unprecedented in the history of mankind, but eventually overstrained, and key non-Western civilizations refuse to continue to play by their rules. The second attempt at Anglo-Saxon globalization failed – and, given the state of affairs within the core countries themselves (USA and Great Britain ), they will definitely not have a chance for a third. Neither a third globalization, nor a third world war – the new world order will not be built according to their scenario. And not in their interest.