Opinion | American hegemony is rooted on an unwillingness to compromise
By Tom Fowdy
US Secretary of Defence Llyod Austin, on making an official visit to support Ukraine on April 25, remarked that it was the goal of American foreign policy now to use the war to "weaken Russia" and to ultimately degrade its military capabilities, by escalating its support to Kyiv. The comments were interpreted by the media as provocative and ultimately served to raise the stakes in the conflict, with America hoping to impose defeat on Moscow, setting a grim course for escalation. But in addition, such remarks also serve to illustrate that Russia's own narrative of America seeking to contain and degrade it through multiple means, including the expansion of NATO are in fact based on reality. The United States ultimately wants to expand its hegemony over Eastern Europe, and the desired outcome for them is a weakened and subordinate Russia as it were in the 1990s.
Such a policy decision: That being to escalate the war in Ukraine and to strive for a zero-sum outcome against Russia, as opposed to trying to end the conflict, is illustrative of America's long-held foreign policy doctrine that in order to maximize its own strategic gains and preferences, it avoids compromise and peace with adversaries at all costs, and always instead strives to exert maximum leverage over that given opponent. American goals are never relative, but always absolutist, and the US in turn is happy to advocate the total destruction of Ukraine in a prolonged conflict, as opposed to possibly considering the outcome of bargaining with Russia for the sake of peace.
"Appeasement"
A critical turning point in the development of international relations theory was the Munich agreement of 1938 whereby British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain sought to bargain with Hitler in the bid to prevent war in Europe. The agreement ceded land in Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, but only served to embolden Hitler in his expansionism and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War II the following year. The policy became derided by historians as "appeasement" and led to a consolidation of the realist school of thought in international relations who argued that the only metrics which matter between states are that of power and national interest, as opposed to idealism, and that aggressors ought to be contained with deterrence.
The legacy of Munich has had a clear influence on how American strategic thought has developed in the 20th century, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 whereby its absolute hegemony over the globe became the "norm". Facing new challenges to it, American foreign policy strategy now centers upon seeking to uphold this hegemony more than ever, which includes maintaining military supremacy in every region of the globe and using every instrument of state power to sustain its advantages, which include maintaining a monopoly over global capital and technology, and aiming to exclude rival states from these privileges with sanctions.
As a result of this strategic outlook, the US does not aim to bargain or compromise with its enemies but ultimately aims to force them to capitulate to one-sided strategic preferences. For example, American talks with North Korea over denuclearization failed because the US will not accept any outcomes whereby it compromises with Pyongyang and allows it to keep its nuclear program, instead insisting on a zero-sum rendering of "complete denuclearization", and will similarly not make any concessions to its presence on the Korean Peninsula. Likewise, the US left the Iran deal because it was deemed to make unacceptable concessions to a state deemed a competitor. Similarly, the US is unlikely to lift trade tariffs against China unless the country capitulates in giving the US all the preferential economic changes they want to see.
In each instance, the US believes its position is better staked by simply refusing to change course and attempting to inflict punishment on the target country than good will. There will be no agreement until the US attains its fundamental goals. Thus, in terms of Russia and Ukraine, American policy has been to continue the expansion of NATO unabatedly and to refuse to make any concessions with Moscow, instead preferring a longer and more destructive conflict. The US does not do compromise, the US does not do co-existence under any circumstances, but a policy of perpetual containment and subjugation against every potential adversary. Accepting a shift in the balance of power is not an accepted outcome. Of course, not all peace is in fact "appeasement" and such a cynical worldview fails to adhere to the other end of the sword that a constant policy of seeking to deter and contain other countries is precisely what promulgates arms races and, in this scenario, catastrophic wars. It is true that peace cannot be premised on selling out to your opponent completely and compromising your own position, but neither can it be premised on attempting to crush them either, and this is precisely where we've gone with Russia, and might end up with China too.
The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | The Principles of China's zero-COVID approach remain correct
Comment