Opinion | We don't live in a zero-sum world anymore, the US is in denial
By Tom Fowdy
It is not in the least surprising that Xi Jinping's visit to Moscow and summit with Putin was met with universal disdain by the western media and the United States government. The Biden administration even went as far as pouring cold water over China's proposal, rejecting it on the premise that it would "consolidate Russia's gains" and therefore not conclude the war on "Ukraine's terms".
Sitting behind this rhetoric is the same line of thought that has dominated western capitals for almost a year now, that the only acceptable outcome to the Ukrainian war is a zero-sum, absolute defeat of Russia which subsequently liberates all occupied territory in the country, including the Crimean Peninsula. As the war has dragged on and Ukraine has had some successes, western leaders have only been emboldened in this requirement, truly believing that Kiev can win a decisive victory on its own terms.
Much attention recently has been placed on a proposed, upcoming "counteroffensive", which according to most sources, may see Ukraine attempt to cut Russia's military axis in two through attempting to capture the city of Melitopol, which would place Crimea in jeopardy by cutting the land link from Donbass. Given Ukraine is set to be supplied with a number of western tanks, the outcome is assumed by many to be just a matter of time, discounting Russia's current grinding offensive in Donbass. As such, it is no surprise that western leaders are not going to change their negotiating position now.
Yet despite that, it is easy to lose track of the practical reality that there are few likely scenarios where the Russian Federation can face absolute "total defeat" in Ukraine, especially given its size, total available manpower, and of course nuclear arsenal. The west are gambling Putin's regime will crumble as opposed to such scenarios emerging, yet this is a dangerous miscalculation that poses great risks for the world at large, and either way will come again at continued death, destruction and desperation throughout the country of Ukraine.
A push for this kind of conclusion of course is perfectly illustrative of the "zero-sum" mindset which dominates the US policy elite, the belief that in seeking to shore up hegemony, the United States should not under any circumstances seek to compromise with its perceived "adversaries" but that every situation should be rendered that the US can attain maximum strategic gain. The answer is always more sanctions, more force, with any balance being considered a form of weakness and appeasement. The fanaticism which drives Washington D.C. is dangerously, surreally unhinged.
Therefore, it is the will of Washington and their clientele that no peace is better than a so-called "bad peace", and that China's bid to be a broker, as opposed to capitulating to western will, constitutes a strategic loss. But the world has changed. China has demonstrated that it is a major power with the ability to secure geopolitical outcomes according to its own interests, as shown by the overseeing of the Saudi-Iran normalization deal last week, and as such as the world of American unipolarity, where only the United States gets to determine outcomes, effectively no longer exists.
The US, however, believes that its right to undisputed dominance is a right of destiny, and is not able to accept such geopolitical shifts under the premise that the world must be reverted to a "1991 scenario". Hence, its preferences for everything remain "zero-sum". While this of course sporadically increases the prospects of war throughout the globe, as we are seeing in the Taiwan Strait, and likewise on the Korean Peninsula, the reality is that this attitude and approach to everything will only further consolidate the geopolitical shifts as to which Washington resents the most.
Is it not clear already that the very deepening partnership of China and Russia itself is being driven by dual US attempts at militarily containment? That other countries are seeking new options and to hedge up their options and power, as the international environment becomes more uncertain? Sure, the US sees this as a means to attaining clout over its "allied" countries, creating the Cold War atmosphere it so yearns for, but there is little inclination this time round that the United States may so "win" this time. China after all, is not the Soviet Union, and to what extent can be hypothesize that the China-Russia partnership of today, is doomed to failure like the Sino-Soviet alliance of old? Let's put it this way, the United States won the original Cold War precisely because they understood the concept of geopolitical compromise, and did not pursue zero-sum outcomes when it was blindingly obvious they could not be achieved. When the US failed during this era, they knew when to give up, and when to cut their losses. They recognized it was best to end the Korean War, to withdraw from Vietnam, and to engage with Communist China as opposed to treating it as an enemy. The same cannot be said of the post-1991 extreme arrogance manifest in crusading against everything challenging American hegemony.
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 US says other countries can choose their paths, except when it's against them
Comment