THE BIRTH OF A NEW WORLD — IS THE END OF HISTORY?

By Akmaral Batalova edited by Vincent Lyn

At the close of the 20th century, powerful governments, whether right-wing military dictatorships or left-wing communist regimes, crumbled. In this context, American political scientist Francis Fukuyama published his book “The End of History and the Last Man” in 1992. For three decades, his idea of the victory of the liberal democratic model and the end of ideological evolution has served as a political guide for Western elites, promoting the global embrace of universalism and globalism.

This ideology is strikingly similar to Marxism-Leninism, which also declared communism to be the ultimate social system and believed in its inevitable global triumph. Like the Communists, Fukuyama assumed that economic progress would lead to increasing homogeneity among human societies. However, in an ideal liberal society, ownership is capitalistic rather than socialistic.

According to Fukuyama’s new concept, all societies, regardless of their historical roots or cultural heritage, would have to abandon traditional forms of organization, achieve national unity through a centralized state, urbanize, and provide universal education to their citizens. The interconnectedness of liberal democratic societies, similar to one another and free of fundamental internal contradictions, would be maintained through global markets and a universal consumer culture. Today, we can observe with some regret how monotonous European capitals have become, their central streets lined with identical shops and billboards of global brands instead of unique Italian, French, and Spanish boutiques offering traditional products crafted by local artisans.

The American political scientist noted that the success of liberal politics and economics is often rooted in religion and nationalism, although he deemed them irrational and obstructive to the establishment of democratic political institutions. Interestingly, to dismantle and exploit traditional societies for their raw materials and markets, global liberalism ideologists have employed religion and nationalism as political tools. Examples include the use of international jihadism in Syria, support for neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine, attempts to spark a “revolution of headscarves” in Iran, and the religious belief that one chosen people can destroy another because it is divinely sanctioned.

This strategy primarily serves economic expansion and the colonization of new markets, but first, it was essential to convince the world of the benefits of the Western way of life. Societies willing to adopt it were promised the advantages of a “higher civilization.” Following the collapse of the socialist bloc and the ensuing chaos, it seemed the Old World had found a “golden mean” between a market economy and socialism, achieving the ideal of a prosperous society. Many countries aspired to join this prosperous state.

However, events such as the bombing and fragmentation of Yugoslavia, the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2008 financial crisis, the Arab Spring (or rather, the externally orchestrated regime changes in the Middle East), the global lockdown during the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, a new wave of decolonization in Africa, and the unpunished genocide of Palestinians — all these occurrences during the years of liberalism’s triumph have shattered the notion of Western civilization’s universality. We are all witnessing the disintegration of the old order and participating in the emergence of a new world. History is continuing.

The war in Ukraine is a catalyst for global transformation

The conflict in the heart of Europe, which erupted shortly after the global pandemic disrupted supply chains, has become a critical impetus for the tectonic shifts in the established world order. The military actions in Ukraine represent just one of many battlefields in the global hybrid struggle for influence and resources, yet it is among the most significant. The shape of the new world order will be heavily influenced by the outcome of this conflict.

Therefore, it is crucial to understand and not overlook the reasons behind the war and the efforts to sustain it. Those orchestrating and conducting this war are using the media and social networks as weapons, creating myths designed to instill fear, confusion, and division.

Myths about the War in Ukraine

Has Russia started an unprovoked war?

One prevalent myth is that on February 24, 2022, Russia suddenly attacked Ukraine and initiated an unprovoked war to seize its territory. However, like any conflict, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has deeply rooted historical, ethical, and geopolitical dimensions. After the collapse of the USSR, there was a clear agreement between Mikhail Gorbachev and President Bush Sr., documented and available in the US National Security Archive. This agreement recorded an unequivocal promise from the American president that if Moscow allowed Germany to reunite and join NATO, the North Atlantic Alliance “would not move an inch east towards Russia.”

However, upon becoming president, Bill Clinton broke this promise by inviting former Soviet allies to join NATO, bringing the alliance to Russia’s borders. The Kremlin reluctantly accepted this, but made it clear that Georgia and Ukraine were central to Russia’s geostrategic interests, marking them as “red lines.”

By 1994, members of the National Security Council, including Alexander Vershbow and Nicholas Burns, along with other American officials, had written a memorandum on the secret preparation of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics for NATO membership. The declassified documents published by the US National Security Journalistic Archive state:

“The possibility of membership of Ukraine, the Baltic and southern states should be supported. We should not leave them in the gray zone of Russian influence… at the moment, we should not voice this idea publicly or privately within NATO, given the sensitivity of the Russians.”

For nearly 30 years, the American establishment, including analysts, military personnel, and diplomats familiar with Russia, warned the White House that attempting to cross Russia’s “red lines” was reckless and dangerous. William Perry, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, even threatened to resign when the president broke his promise to Moscow. Other notable figures, such as CIA Director William Burns and Bush’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, unanimously warned Washington about the dangers of NATO’s eastward expansion.

Despite these warnings, NATO has steadily expanded towards Russia’s borders since 1999, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Over 30 years, NATO absorbed 16 countries that were once part of Russia’s security belt in five stages of expansion.

In Ukraine, since 2014, a series of events unfolded: the Maidan protests and a CIA-organized coup d’etat; the creation of neo-Nazi battalions infiltrating Ukraine’s army and government; the adoption of a state law banning Russian as a regional language; and attempts by the Ukrainian army to suppress Russian-speaking regions in Donbass, leading to bombings and civil war.

In 2023, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko confirmed that the West never intended to implement the Minsk agreements, which aimed to end the civil war, but used the time to rearm and strengthen the Ukrainian army. Until 2020, the United States trained five Ukrainian Armed Forces battalions annually at a training center near Lviv.

In 2017, James Cardin, a columnist for The Nation, drew parallels between a Ukrainian army offensive in Donbas and a visit by US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham to Ukraine shortly before. During a meeting with the Ukrainian military, they said, “Your battle is our battle,” with McCain adding, “I believe that you will win. I am convinced that you will win, and we will do everything in our power to provide you with everything you need to win.” According to Cardin, these statements incited the Ukrainian side to violate the Minsk agreements and provoked violence in Ukraine.

Amid external influences, the split between the two Slavic peoples was exacerbated by internal destructive forces on both sides: Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs concerned only with profits, unscrupulous politicians and propagandists, and radical nationalists and chauvinists pursuing their own selfish goals.

As a result, Kiev began to view the Kremlin as its enemy, and Moscow, in turn, began to perceive Ukraine as a NATO-created threat to its existence.

The Architecture of Indivisible Security in Europe

For Russia, victory in Ukraine is crucial for its continued existence as a sovereign state. This sovereignty requires a security zone along its borders. Since his Munich speech in 2007 titled “Why do you want to turn us into vassals?” the President of Russia has consistently proposed creating an architecture of indivisible and equal security in Europe through negotiations.

Before the outbreak of war, on November 18, 2021, Vladimir Putin emphasized in a speech at the Russian Foreign Ministry that Russia needed reliable legal guarantees to prevent NATO’s eastward expansion and the deployment of offensive weapons in neighboring states.

“We need to raise the issue of seeking to provide Russia with serious long-term guarantees to ensure our security in this area, because Russia cannot exist like this and constantly think about what might happen there tomorrow,” Putin explained.

Security guarantees were further discussed during the December 7, 2021, video negotiations between the presidents of Russia and the United States. The Kremlin’s proposals for an indivisible security zone in Europe were published on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website on December 10, 2021. Moscow handed over the draft Treaty on security guarantees and the Agreement on security measures between Russia and NATO countries to the White House administration on December 15, 2021.

What Russia Proposed to Washington

Russia proposed that the United States:

• Consolidate the principle of the impossibility of starting a nuclear war.
• Act based on principles of indivisible and equal security.
• Refrain from using other states’ territories to prepare or carry out armed attacks on each other.
• Exclude further NATO expansion eastward.
• Avoid establishing military bases in former USSR states not part of NATO and refrain from using their infrastructure for military activities.
• Refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear weapons and from positioning warships in areas outside national airspace and territorial waters from where they can hit targets in Russia or the United States.
• Return to the principle of refusing to deploy medium- and shorter-range ground-based missiles outside national territories.

What Russia Proposed to NATO

Russia proposed that NATO:

• Conclude an agreement to resume the work of the Russia-NATO Council.
• Restore communication channels and stop viewing each other as adversaries.
• Commit to non-deployment of armed forces and weapons on the territories of other European states beyond the forces present as of May 27, 1997.
• Halt further NATO expansion and refrain from deploying medium- and shorter-range ground-based missiles in areas capable of hitting targets on each other’s territories.
• Abandon any military activity in Ukraine, as well as in Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia, and Central Asia.

The United States and NATO ignored the Kremlin’s proposals and demands. On February 24, 2022, Russia launched its special military operation.

Was the fratricidal bloodshed in Ukraine unprovoked and sudden?

Are Ukrainians fighting for their land?

Another common myth is that free Ukrainians are bravely defending their land from imperial Russia’s aggressive seizure. Ukrainians are indeed courageously fighting for the land they consider their own. However, much of it has been sold to multinational corporations, including one associated with Hunter Biden, the son of the US President. These corporations are protecting their investments in land that was originally considered Russian but was transferred to Kiev by Soviet leaders who assumed Russia and Ukraine would always be part of the USSR.

It has become clear that this conflict is a comprehensive economic, financial, and armed war between the West and Russia, led by the United States and Great Britain, with Ukraine used as a “proxy.” The West has imposed more than 18,000 sanctions against Russia, aiming to cripple its economy. Meanwhile, over the past two and a half years, the US and the EU have provided Ukraine with extensive financial and military assistance.

NATO supports the Ukrainian army with battlefield intelligence, satellite surveillance, and Starlink communications from Elon Musk. The West has supplied Ukraine with tanks, combat vehicles, Patriot air defense systems, anti-tank weapons, cruise missiles, and millions of rounds of ammunition. Western special forces are present on the ground.

An intercepted recording from February 19, 2024, of a conversation between General Ingo Gerhartz, commander-in-chief of the German Luftwaffe, and four officers discussing plans to destroy the Kerch Bridge in Crimea with Taurus missiles, further proves the close collaboration between Western armies and Ukraine. NATO views the war in Ukraine as an opportunity to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia and weaken it, as US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has stated.

A recent New York Times article, “The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin,” confirmed that American intelligence agencies provide information for targeted missile strikes, which have resulted in casualties not only in Donbas but also among civilians in Russia. Foreign instructors are also aiding the Ukrainian forces by monitoring Russian troop movements and maintaining spy networks.

However, this partnership predates the current conflict. The article provided evidence that after 2014, the CIA established 12 secret bases along the Russian border to train Ukrainian soldiers and neo-Nazi battalions for a future war with Russia. Today, Ukraine has become one of Washington’s most important intelligence and military partners in the conflict with Russia. So, who is the real aggressor?

Will Russia lose the war?

Another myth is that the situation on the battlefield is at an impasse and that Russia will ultimately lose the war. This is also not true. After the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive in the summer of 2023, Russian forces have been advancing along the front line. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are losing 800 to 1,000 soldiers daily, along with over 100 units of weapons and equipment. While official data on Russian casualties are not reported, estimates based on obituaries and publicly available information suggest that around 45,000 Russian soldiers have died in the two years of the war. In contrast, Ukraine has lost approximately 450,000 to 500,000 soldiers. No army can sustain such losses.

Russia is winning this war.

Is Russia Unwilling to Negotiate?

The fourth myth claims that Russia is not ready to negotiate. However, one must ask: What was Boris Johnson doing in Kiev? In March 2022, just a month after the war began, a bilateral agreement was initialed in Istanbul between the warring parties, potentially ending the conflict on very favorable terms for Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed this in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February 2024.

An article in The New York Times on June 15, 2024, titled “Ukraine-Russia Peace Is as Elusive as Ever. But in 2022 They Were Talking,” published a 17-page draft of the Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees of Ukraine. This draft, prepared during negotiations between Kiev and Moscow, was confirmed authentic by negotiators and people close to them. The document outlined that if Ukraine agreed to permanent neutrality, it could still join the EU. The treaty’s guarantors would include the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including Russia, who would provide security and neutrality guarantees to Ukraine.

The NYT publication indicated that Moscow sought consensus from all guarantors, including Russia, before providing assistance to Ukraine in case of aggression. This demand reportedly disrupted the agreement, as mentioned by a member of the Ukrainian delegation. Another negotiator, Denis Kireev, was killed in Kiev by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) in March 2022, suspected of betrayal. An anonymous former American official told Foreign Affairs magazine that Ukraine did not consult the US before reaching preliminary agreements with Russia in Istanbul in March 2022.

Ukrainian politician David Arakhamia revealed in November that former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson played a role in Kiev’s decision to end negotiations with Russia. Arakhamia, who led the Ukrainian delegation in the spring of 2022, recounted that Johnson visited Kiev after the Istanbul talks and advised against signing any agreement with Russia, urging instead to continue fighting. Johnson later dismissed claims of his involvement in breaking down negotiations as “Russian propaganda.”

Following Johnson’s departure from Kiev, a bloody provocation in Bucha, organized by mercenaries of private foreign military companies under Western and Ukrainian special services’ leadership, led to Kiev’s refusal to sign a peace agreement with Russia. After Bucha, Zelensky signed a decree banning peace talks with Russia. So, who is really unwilling to negotiate?

Does Russia Want to Start a Nuclear War?

The fifth myth is that Russia wants to start a nuclear war. At the onset of the special military operation, Russia’s three goals were clearly stated: the protection of the Russian-speaking population of Donbass, the demilitarization, and the denazification of Ukraine. Despite this, Western politicians and corporate media portray the Kremlin as an aggressor with ambitions beyond Ukraine, threatening Europe with nuclear weapons.

To understand the reality, one must analyze strategic documents related to the nuclear doctrines of the United States and Russia. The publicly available parts of these documents reveal significant differences. Russia’s nuclear doctrine, outlined in Presidential Decree №355 on 06/02/2020, defines the specific conditions under which it would use nuclear weapons:

• If Russia receives reliable information about ballistic missile launches targeting its territory and/or that of its allies.
• If an enemy uses nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against Russia and/or its allies.
• If the enemy attacks Russia’s critical state or military facilities, potentially triggering retaliatory actions by Russian nuclear forces.
• If Russia is attacked with conventional weapons, threatening the very existence of the state.

The document does not specify which states Russia might target with nuclear weapons, leaving that decision to the president, who may inform other countries or international organizations if necessary.

In contrast, the U.S. nuclear doctrine, as outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review published by the Pentagon on October 27, 2022, focuses on Russia, China, and North Korea. The document states that the U.S. has led efforts to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons for decades, citing treaties such as the 1991 Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the New START Treaty of 2010. These treaties have significantly reduced the number of nuclear warheads and eliminated shorter-range nuclear weapons from the U.S. arsenal.

Despite initial cooperation, the U.S. is now concerned about Russia’s modernization of its strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons, attributing this shift to NATO’s continuous expansion toward Russia’s borders, which Moscow sees as a threat to its national security.

The U.S. strategic documents do not clearly indicate the conditions under which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons. In contrast, Russia’s nuclear doctrine explicitly states that nuclear weapons can be used in response to an attack with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction or a conventional attack threatening the state’s existence.

The vagueness in the U.S. doctrine raises questions and distrust among military analysts, leaders of military departments, and other states’ leaders. While public statements from Russian reactionary politicians may suggest aggression, official statements from the Russian president and Foreign Ministry emphasize a defensive, not offensive, nuclear policy.

In 2023, Putin stated there was no need to lower the nuclear threshold in Russia’s doctrine. However, during the SPIEF 2024 International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg, he mentioned that Russia might change its nuclear doctrine if necessary, responding to NATO and the U.S. lowering their thresholds for using tactical weapons. This statement should be seen as a clear message to the West to stop the nuclear escalation and hysteria, which is increasing military tension.

Is the War in Ukraine Weakening Russia?

The sixth myth is that the war in Ukraine is weakening Russia. This is not the case. The war has caused significant changes in Russian society, including a strong push against corruption at all levels of government. The tragic events in Moscow’s Crocus City Hall have united the people, fostering a stronger sense of patriotism and support for their leader. Russia has recognized the importance of ideological work in the context of an information war, leading to a generational shift in public administration with younger leaders who have participated in the conflict and are ready to take responsibility.

Russia’s international relationships are strengthening, as evidenced by its construction of nuclear power plants worldwide, space missions, and hosting international events such as the World Youth Festival, BRICS Parliamentary Assemblies, and the Olympic Games. These developments show that Russia is not isolated or weakened by the war, but is instead building stronger global ties and demonstrating resilience.

Is Russia’s Economy Unaffected by the War?

The country’s revenues from oil and gas sales in 2023 showed no signs of decline, partly due to the agreement with OPEC countries to not increase oil production. Additionally, Russia’s defense production, largely state-owned rather than privatized, has seen significant increases. Moscow is also expanding military cooperation with countries like Iran and North Korea.

The extensive sanctions imposed on Russia have driven it to focus on domestic production and seek new markets in the East. Despite the West’s economic restrictions, Russia’s economy is growing faster than Europe’s. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts a growth rate of 2.6% for Russia in 2024, compared to just 0.9% for Europe.

Conversely, European countries are sliding into recession. The war in Ukraine appears aimed at weakening Europe’s economy, particularly Germany’s, and preventing an alliance between Berlin and Moscow. The explosion of the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline underscores this. Historically, similar tensions have sparked both world wars. Yet, European political elites, influenced by Washington and driven by Russophobia, are compromising their nations’ well-being.

Upcoming elections could potentially change Europe’s direction. Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary has taken steps to foster global cooperation, visiting the Vatican, Moscow, Beijing, and Washington. In response, EU officials have suggested stripping Hungary of its role as chair of the Council of the European Union, as reported by The Financial Times. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell criticized Orban’s actions as undermining EU principles.

The war in Ukraine does not weaken Russia. Instead, it highlights the deep social impacts: the hatred between two fraternal peoples, the long-term struggles of wounded servicemen with post-traumatic syndrome, and the needs of orphans and widows of fallen soldiers for social, psychological, and financial support. However, Russia will emerge with a battle-hardened, well-equipped military, a robust economy, a unified society, and new national elites.

Five Critical Mistakes by the West

Due to these misconceptions surrounding the Ukrainian crisis, Western countries have made five critical mistakes:

1. Ignoring the 2014 Ukrainian Coup: The West did not respond to the coup in Ukraine, despite France, Germany, and Poland acting as guarantors of agreements between the Ukrainian government and the opposition.
2. Not Recognizing Crimea’s Change in Status: The West refused to acknowledge Crimea and Sevastopol’s change in status following the 2014 coup. The regions’ fates were decided by residents through a referendum, not by Russian authorities.
3. Ignoring the Civil War in Southern Ukraine: The West overlooked the civil war and its casualties in southern Ukraine. Many countries refused to acknowledge the conflict, mirroring the stance of many Russian liberals since 2014.
4. Dismissing Russia’s Concerns in 2021: The West ignored Russia’s list of “red lines” provided by the Russian Foreign Ministry, missing the last chance to prevent the war.
5. Rejecting Putin’s Peace Plan: The most significant mistake was the West’s refusal to accept Putin’s peace plan for resolving the Ukrainian conflict. Announced on June 14, before the summit on Ukraine in Switzerland, the plan called for the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from certain regions and Kiev’s rejection of NATO membership.

In summary, the West’s actions and missteps have fueled the ongoing conflict and economic tensions, rather than fostering peace and stability.

Is Russia Ready to Negotiate?

According to many Russian commentators, adopting Russia’s peace plan would completely end the conflict in Ukraine, not just lead to a temporary truce. However, the White House dismissed the plan as lacking common sense, and Ukrainian President Zelensky called it an untrustworthy ultimatum.

A definitive resolution to the war in Ukraine seems possible only when the collective West agrees to Russia’s proposal for a new European security system, including guarantees to halt NATO expansion, and engages in negotiations.

Ukraine’s Path to NATO

In early July, Kiev expressed dissatisfaction with the promises made at the NATO summit in Vilnius in 2023, seeking firm confirmation of its inevitable NATO membership. Despite this, the declaration from the crucial NATO summit in Washington from July 9 to 11, while affirming Ukraine’s “irreversible path” to NATO, stated that an invitation to join would only be extended once all necessary conditions are met. These conditions are not expected to be fulfilled soon, meaning Ukraine will likely continue its conflict with Russia for the promise of eventual NATO membership.

Bill Evers from the Independent Institute believes that if Donald Trump were to become U.S. president, Ukraine would not join NATO, citing the ongoing conflict and the implications of NATO’s collective defense agreement.

NATO’s Stance on Russia

The NATO summit’s declaration identified Russia as the main threat to alliance members, stating the conflict in Ukraine has undermined global security. NATO remains open to communication with Moscow to minimize risks and prevent escalation. The alliance announced new support measures for Ukraine, including 40 billion euros by 2025, a mission to train Ukrainian military personnel, and the appointment of a senior NATO civilian representative for Kiev. The Aegis Ashore base in Poland will also enhance air and missile defense efforts.

NATO’s Criticism and Nuclear Weapons

At the summit, NATO leaders condemned Russia’s “irresponsible nuclear rhetoric,” including its deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus, as strategic intimidation. However, Russia’s actions mirror NATO’s longstanding practices. The respected Christensen Foundation reports that approximately 200 B-61 nuclear bombs are stationed at seven NATO airbases, including Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base. The U.S. has consistently withdrawn from European arms control treaties and has yet to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which Russia ratified in 2000 but withdrew from last year in response to U.S. inaction.

U.S. and Russian Nuclear Transparency

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) reports that the U.S. government declassified nuclear stockpile information from 1945 to 1994 and again in 2010. However, transparency ended during the Trump administration and resumed briefly under Biden before halting again. As of the last declassification, the U.S. disclosed its nuclear arsenal numbers up to September 2020.

Russia’s Nuclear Arsenal

The FAS estimates Russia controls around 5,580 nuclear warheads, with about 1,200 decommissioned but mostly intact, and 4,380 in active service. Of these, 1,710 strategic warheads are deployed on various missile systems and bombers. An FAS report for 2024 indicates that while Russia’s nuclear rhetoric is concerning, its arsenal and operations have not significantly changed since 2023, apart from ongoing modernization efforts.

Criticism of the Sentinel ICBM Program

Over 700 scientists, including ten Nobel laureates and 23 members of National Academies, have signed a letter urging President Biden and Congress to reverse the administration’s decision to endorse the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program. This program is reportedly 81% over budget and two to three years behind schedule. Critics argue that it does not enhance U.S. security or global peace efforts and represents an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers.

NATO’s Expansion and Influence

The final declaration of the NATO summit highlighted the alliance’s plans to expand cooperation in the Balkans and the Black Sea and to strengthen its presence in the Middle East and Africa. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg emphasized that the alliance is intensifying collaboration with Indo-Pacific partners and the European Union in response to the growing influence of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. However, this approach is based on the rules established by a diminishing world hegemon rather than international law.

Stoltenberg also noted that China plays a significant role in Russia’s war against Ukraine. It is worth noting that the position of NATO Secretary General, which Stoltenberg will soon vacate, was created to facilitate political dialogue and cooperation among member states, a role that military leaders could not adequately fulfill. Despite the prominence of many past Secretaries General, the role lacks voting power in the North Atlantic Council and is limited to fostering cooperation and representing the alliance’s statements.

Lord Peter Carrington, who led NATO from 1984 to 1988, expressed disappointment with the role due to its lack of real authority. Interestingly, any EU citizen can be appointed as NATO Secretary General, while the position of NATO Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces in Europe is reserved for a U.S. military officer.

Another notable detail is that B-61 nuclear bomb storage facilities in NATO countries are guarded exclusively by U.S. special forces, with only American personnel having access. This raises questions about the sovereignty of NATO member states regarding the deployment and use of nuclear weapons.

Taiwan and Ukraine: Parallels and U.S. Actions

The NATO summit’s declaration expressed deep concern over the strategic partnership between Moscow and Beijing. This partnership has roots in historical and geopolitical factors, similar to the situation in Taiwan. Taiwan, historically part of China, was occupied by Japan in 1895 but was returned to China after World War II. The international community recognizes Taiwan as part of China, with 161 countries acknowledging the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government.

The Taiwan issue emerged from the Chinese civil war and U.S. intervention. In 1950, President Truman declared that the U.S. would prevent any attack on Taiwan, leading to U.S. military support for the island. Despite the U.S.’s recognition of only one China in diplomatic agreements after 1972, recent U.S. actions, such as increased arms supplies to Taiwan and legislative moves to elevate its diplomatic status, mirror the provocative actions taken before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

U.S. Policy and Tibet

In mid-July, China’s Foreign Ministry criticized a U.S. bill signed by President Biden that addresses the Tibetan-Chinese dispute. The bill, which recognizes the concept of “Greater Tibet” and urges the U.S. government to counter misinformation about Tibet, was deemed by China as undermining its national interests and violating U.S. obligations. The Chinese government views the bill as a serious interference in its internal affairs and has formally protested against it, asserting that it sends a problematic signal to Tibetan independence advocates.

China’s Response to U.S. Tibet Policy

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has called on the United States to adhere to its commitment to recognize Tibet as part of China and to refrain from supporting Tibetan independence. A Ministry representative warned that continued U.S. actions seen as arbitrary could prompt China to take decisive steps to protect its sovereignty, security, and developmental interests. The National People’s Congress and the Tibet Autonomous Region’s regional legislature have also issued strong condemnations of U.S. actions.

U.S. Economic Strategy Against China

The United States has launched an economic offensive against China, aiming to hinder its technological progress by pressuring European, South Korean, and Japanese companies to halt investments in China. Meanwhile, Washington plans to shift microchip production from Taiwan to the U.S., with a $20 billion investment in Intel to build chip manufacturing facilities in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon.

However, challenges abound. The U.S. lacks the technical infrastructure and skilled workforce needed for chip production. This has led to delays and criticism, as seen with TSMC’s difficulties in Arizona. The opening of Samsung’s factory in Texas has also been postponed to 2025, with South Korean and Taiwanese firms bringing their own engineers, which has sparked protests from American trade unions.

A blockade of Taiwan could trigger a severe global chip shortage and impact the world economy. The U.S. is also implementing a strategy to encircle China with allied states, including Japan, Australia, Guam, and South Korea, equipping them with advanced weapons similar to those provided to Ukraine.

Military Tensions and Strategic Movements

China’s military exercises have grown increasingly extensive in response to U.S. policies. Analysts from The Rand Corporation predict that a naval blockade of Taiwan could be a likely outcome if tensions escalate. China has demonstrated its capability to rapidly deploy ships and bombers to Taiwan, potentially leaving the U.S. unable to respond in time. Taiwan’s dependence on energy imports and the Democratic Progressive Party’s green agenda, which includes closing nuclear power plants, could leave the island vulnerable in a major conflict.

China is aware that any military action against Taiwan could lead to economic sanctions similar to those imposed on Russia, which could severely impact its economy and potentially trigger a global economic downturn.

Despite these challenges, Washington anticipates that China may initiate conflict over Taiwan by 2027. The Pentagon, however, recognizes its unpreparedness for direct confrontation with China, given China’s rapid military advancements. The U.S. might risk its entire Pacific fleet to break a blockade militarily, and there are plans to use Japan as a strategic asset against China, though this raises concerns about Japan’s role.

U.S.-China Relations and BRICS

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have emphasized the strength of their bilateral relationship, describing it as the best in history. Xi has called for greater influence from developing countries in global affairs and highlighted the importance of Russian-Chinese relations. Putin invited Xi to the BRICS summit in Kazan this October, and China was the first country visited by Russia’s President after his re-election.

In July, China and Russia began joint military exercises, with further exercises taking place in Belarus. Bloomberg reported that the strengthening ties between Russia and China are leading more Asian countries to seek BRICS membership. Xi Jinping has urged developing countries to take a more prominent role in international affairs and to counteract U.S. influence globally.

U.S. Response to China

On July 8, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson announced that Congress is set to enact a substantial legislative package aimed at countering China by the end of 2024. Johnson described China as “the greatest threat to global peace,” emphasizing the need for Congress to use “all available tools” to address this challenge.

Johnson characterized China as leading an “axis of adversaries” that includes Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, alleging that Beijing exerts influence over these nations to undermine U.S. global influence. This marks the first time in U.S. doctrinal documents that specific countries have been labeled as primary adversaries.

Iran’s Foreign Policy Vision

Iranian President-elect Masoud Pezeshkian has outlined his foreign policy vision in an article titled “My Message to the New World.” Pezeshkian emphasized Iran’s commitment to fostering a “strong region” without any single country dominating others. He highlighted the enduring support from China and Russia during challenging times, and expressed Iran’s intention to prioritize cooperation with these nations, particularly within the frameworks of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Regional Integration and International Cooperation

The Eurasian Economic Union

The EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union), along with the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and BRICS, is pivotal in shaping a new multipolar world amid global fragmentation. These organizations are key in establishing a comprehensive framework for regional integration.

In the Eurasian region, the EAEU represents the first tier of integration. Comprising Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia, the EAEU operates within a complex and turbulent environment marked by issues such as resource distribution, radicalism, terrorism, drug trafficking, and corruption. Progress in integration is slow due to these complexities. Nevertheless, the leaders of Central Asian countries and Russia recognize that collaborative efforts are essential for survival and influence in the global arena. They also view Ukraine’s role as a proxy for NATO under U.S. influence and are keen to avoid becoming a tool in a conflict against Russia.

Trade and economic cooperation are central to the EAEU’s agenda, with synchronized legislation and developing regional logistics. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which includes the EAEU member states along with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, plays a role in regional security. Member states are committed to resolving disputes peacefully and avoiding military alliances or actions against each other. In the event of a collective security system being established in Europe and Asia, member states will engage in immediate consultations.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization

The second level of regional integration is represented by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes India, Iran, Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The recent SCO summit in Astana on July 3–4 marked a significant geopolitical moment, as Belarus became the first European country to join the organization, expanding its membership to ten.

The summit was characterized by strict adherence to protocol, with no English signage, as the SCO uses Russian and Chinese as its official languages. The decision to exclude English was explained as a reflection of the SCO’s serious and rule-bound nature, symbolizing the end of unipolarity, as noted by a French journalist.

The Role of the SCO as a Power Center

The SCO, despite its diverse and sometimes contradictory membership, serves as a forum to address differences, conflicts, and modern challenges. Key discussions at the summit included:

1. Security and Stability: Emphasis on countering terrorism, extremism, organized crime, drug trafficking, and cybercrimes.
2. Eurasian Security Architecture: Adoption of Russia’s proposal for a unified Eurasian security framework, echoing earlier proposals that were ignored by Washington and Brussels.
3. Economic Cooperation: Expansion of trade, removal of trade barriers, and establishment of joint ventures, including the creation of an SCO Investment Fund.
4. Energy Collaboration: Strengthening energy cooperation, advancing green economy initiatives, and ensuring energy security.
5. Digital Sphere: Enhancing cooperation in digital technologies.
6. Ecology: Designation of 2024 as the SCO Year of Ecology, with a focus on environmental cooperation.
7. Cultural and Humanitarian Ties: Promotion of cultural and humanitarian connections, reflecting the region’s rich history and traditions.
8. Organizational Improvements: Efforts to refine the SCO’s structure and activities.

The potential for integrating SCO economies into a unified market depends on balancing common goals with individual member interests. All SCO members and their dialogue partners agree on the need for a new security system extending from Europe to Eurasia.

Observers at the Summit

The Astana summit was attended by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. For the first time, an SCO-plus meeting was held, including heads of observer states (Mongolia) and dialogue partners (Azerbaijan, Qatar, UAE, Turkey), along with representatives from international organizations such as the UN, CICA, ECO, and CIS.

The Astana Summit: Key Developments and Strategic Shifts

Turkey’s Involvement and Prospects

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan participated in all major sessions of the Astana summit as a dialogue partner and held bilateral meetings with various leaders. Although Turkey is a NATO member and not part of the SCO, Erdogan showed significant interest in the SCO’s vision of a pan-Eurasian security framework.

Following the summit, Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for the President of Russia, commented on Turkey’s potential accession to the SCO. He noted that Turkey’s commitments and position as a NATO member present contradictions with the principles outlined in the SCO’s core documents.

The Taliban’s Role

A notable development at the summit was the presence of a large Taliban delegation as an observer. This is significant because the SCO is considering incorporating Afghanistan as a full member in the future. The inclusion of Afghanistan could facilitate a broader regional effort toward normalization and stabilization. The Taliban’s Labor Minister even addressed the summit, discussing Eurasian integration, which marks a shift from previous norms.

Expanding SCO’s Format and Cooperation

The Astana summit introduced a new format for SCO meetings and expanded the organization’s mechanisms for engaging with interested countries and international bodies. The SCO aims to bridge the geopolitical divide between East and West, but achieving this requires collective effort.

SCO and Its Nature

Some observers label the SCO as the “Asian NATO,” but this characterization misrepresents the organization. Unlike NATO, the SCO is not a military alliance; it was founded to combat terrorism, separatism, and extremism and has evolved into a geo-economic cooperation body. At the summit, significant time was devoted to discussing transportation corridors, highlighting the importance of logistical integration from a geo-economic perspective.

SCO’s Position on Palestine

The SCO members condemned the situation in Gaza and affirmed the necessity of establishing a Palestinian state. However, they avoided using the term “genocide,” in contrast to the official statements of Russia, Iran, and China. The SCO’s stance reflects a broader critique of an international order manipulated by dominant powers to justify actions contrary to the UN Charter and international law.

Key Outcomes of the Astana Summit

1. Establishment of the SCO Anti-Drug Center: Located in Dushanbe, this center will focus on combating drug trafficking.
2. Support for Kazakhstan’s Initiatives: Endorsement of Kazakhstan’s proposal for a UN Regional Center for Sustainable Development Goals for Central Asia and Afghanistan, to be based in Almaty.
3. Proposal for Biological Safety: Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev proposed the creation of an International Agency for Biological Safety in Almaty, accountable to the UN Security Council.
4. Rejection of Protectionism: The SCO and its members opposed protectionist measures, unilateral sanctions, and trade restrictions, advocating for a fair, inclusive, and multilateral trading system.
5. Adoption of the Astana Declaration: The summit saw the adoption of 25 documents, including the Astana Declaration “On World Unity for Just Peace and Harmony,” initiated by Kazakhstan. Nurlan Yermekbayev was appointed as the SCO Secretary General for 2025–2027, and China will assume the SCO presidency for 2024–2025. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Kazakhstan coincided with the summit, resulting in over 30 cooperation agreements between China and Kazakhstan.

Central Asia’s growing prominence within the SCO highlights the region’s increasing importance in the organization’s activities and future development.

Global Integration and the BRICS

The BRICS alliance represents the third stage in the global integration of the “world majority,” initially established in June 2006 during the St. Petersburg Economic Forum with Brazil, Russia, India, and China participating. South Africa later joined the group. As of January 1, 2024, the BRICS has expanded to include the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Iran.

Interest in BRICS membership is growing, with 40 countries expressing interest and over 20 submitting official applications. However, the process of admitting new members is currently on hold until a clearer procedure is defined. Meanwhile, two new categories, “Partner States” and “BRICS-Plus,” have been introduced for prospective members. The organization lacks a permanent leadership structure, rotating its presidency annually among member states.

In 2024, the BRICS+ bloc encompasses approximately 3.5 billion people, or 46% of the global population, and holds 45% of the world’s land area. The group represents about 46% of global GDP, 25% of global trade, 32% of global natural gas production, 43% of crude oil reserves, and 38% of oil imports. Recognizing the challenges of acting unilaterally against globalist agendas, member states are uniting within various multilateral frameworks to establish new norms based on mutual respect.

Both the SCO and BRICS share similar goals, though the SCO focuses on Eurasia, while BRICS operates on a global scale. These organizations, alongside entities like the EAEU, SCO-10, BRICS-10, China’s One Belt, One Road project, CICA, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, emphasize the importance of the UN Charter and international law. Collectively, they contribute to the formation of a united Eurasia.

Putin and Modi’s Meeting

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Russia was a significant event. India, part of the Global South along with countries such as Turkey, Iran, Yemen, and Indonesia, engaged in discussions with President Vladimir Putin on three key issues: establishing a payment system alternative to SWIFT for bilateral transactions, enhancing military-technical cooperation with potential joint production of weapons, and advancing the International North-South Transport Corridor. Contrary to some expectations, Modi also actively discussed the development of the Eurasian security system, underscoring India’s role as an independent actor in the new multipolar world.

Challenges to Dollar Dominance

Managing the BRICS, which lacks a clear structure, presents its own challenges. However, member countries are moving towards creating their own parliament and payment system. The outdated Bretton Woods financial system faces pressures from rising economic costs linked to climate change, high interest rates, US protectionism, and global debt. According to Foreign Policy, the G7’s actions, including the transfer of $50 billion in aid and the seizure of Russian assets, are undermining the international financial system’s legitimacy. This move may prompt Global South countries to reconsider their reliance on the dollar and euro.

The European banking sector, concerned about potential investor backlash, was initially resistant to transferring profits from frozen Russian assets. Nevertheless, the recent EU summit decision to allocate 90% of these proceeds to Ukraine for weapons, with 10% reserved for unforeseen expenses and taxes, has proceeded. This shift further pressures BRICS nations to strengthen their financial institutions and macroeconomic cooperation. In response, BRICS countries are developing an alternative payment system to challenge the dominance of the US dollar. For example, Iran has integrated its payment systems with Russia’s, and India plans to link its RuPay system with the same Russian network.

As noted by The European Conservative, BRICS’ efforts to de-dollarize are driven by economic growth and the desire to protect member countries from dollar-based sanctions that could arise from displeasing US domestic policies.

Alternative Perspectives on Global Integration

Countries rich in mineral resources are increasingly hesitant to accept unsecured American currency for their goods. Historical events, such as the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi — both of whom proposed selling oil for a “gold dinar” — have served as stark warnings. Their subsequent downfall and the devastation of their nations have prompted others to unite in resistance against what they perceive as dollar dominance.

Financial analysts point out that BRICS nations face significant challenges in establishing a new payment system. These challenges include the relatively weak and non-convertible currencies of member states, which have depreciated against the dollar over the past five years. However, proponents of de-dollarization argue that the primary goal is to enhance the convertibility of these currencies. Hence, BRICS countries are increasing their trade in national currencies to boost this effort.

The BRICS bloc asserts that its aim is not to eliminate the dollar but to level the playing field, making it just one of many global currencies rather than a dominant force. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has acknowledged that the dollar’s global appeal is diminishing due to sanctions against Russia. She expressed concern over de-dollarization, noting that the aggressive measures taken against Russia have unsettled major reserve-holding nations. Although the Global South has not entirely abandoned the dollar, many countries are seeking alternatives for international transactions. Yellen also highlighted that while the dollar currently maintains its dominance, its future is uncertain.

Evaluating BRICS and US Relations

American researchers have developed a BRICS Convergence Index to gauge the alignment of BRICS countries’ policies. This index assesses three main areas: institutional efficiency, interstate and transnational communication, and intra-block intergovernmental cooperation. The study, which analyzed joint declarations, expert reports, and official statements, revealed that convergence among BRICS nations has increased significantly since 2009, with institutional efficiency rising from 6% to 48.6%, and interethnic communication reaching 93.7% by 2021.

Comparisons between BRICS and US policy positions show that while there is broad agreement on many issues, differences have emerged, especially during Donald Trump’s presidency, which saw a shift in US policies on the WTO and climate change that diverged from BRICS priorities.

Some view BRICS as a “counter-hegemonic bloc” opposing a unipolar US-led world, but this characterization might be premature. Nonetheless, the organization is making notable progress and demonstrating positive development dynamics.

Sovereignty and Mutual Respect

While the SCO and BRICS have different histories, economies, and objectives, they share a common goal: to build a new, fair, and secure world based on sovereignty and mutual respect. Future consolidation of these two organizations might be possible, given their similar objectives to provide alternatives to Western economic systems.

Conclusion

The era of “Western universalism” or “Western liberal supremacy,” as articulated by Francis Fukuyama, appears to be faltering. For nearly 30 years, global affairs were largely dictated by the US and multinational corporations. The prospect of the US losing its dominance in economics, finance, and technology, much like the decline of Pax Britannica in the 20th century, is becoming more tangible.

We are witnessing a transformative period where technological advancements are leading to greater global interconnectedness. This shift is challenging the traditional unipolar model and questioning the role of Western-led globalization. The pandemic highlighted the efficacy of centralized state management compared to liberal democratic systems, with countries demonstrating greater resilience and social justice through mutual aid.

The so-called autocracies, such as Russia, China, and Iran, have adapted more effectively to crises, developing new transport corridors and navigating the logistics challenges exacerbated by the pandemic and Western sanctions. The global focus on human rights, often criticized as overly intrusive and driven by ideological agendas, has sparked ethical concerns in traditional societies.

The ongoing global confrontation, driven by Western interests in resource control and geopolitical influence, has shifted from what was once seen as a path to liberation towards a broader conflict. This evolving dynamic suggests that the pursuit of global dominance may be leading us closer to a larger-scale confrontation, rather than achieving the liberation promised by Western ideals.

Amidst these shifts, populations previously influenced by neoliberalism — who for about 30 years aligned their national identities with Western ideals and sought to emulate foreign values and cultures — are now reevaluating their perspectives. Being part of the neoliberal world is increasingly seen not as a privilege but as an imposed burden that undermines their national identity.

Countries in the Global South are recognizing the need to establish new frameworks in this emerging world order. They are eager to collaborate on the basis of principles such as openness, inclusivity, equality, mutual respect, solidarity, consensus, and mutually beneficial cooperation.

Furthermore, few acknowledge the key figures driving these historical transformations. These are individuals who stand out as true national elites — independent thinkers, dedicated military personnel, insightful state and religious leaders, members of intelligence and special services, scientists, social activists, humanists, and philanthropists. They possess critical thinking, a deep sense of responsibility for their societies and the world, and a strong commitment to social justice, combined with kindness and compassion.

These individuals form a global network of influence, akin to a vast, interconnected lattice across the planet. Their efforts are pushing back against the notion of the end of history, offering humanity a chance to continue evolving and thriving.

Akmaral Batalova

Studied International relations at Diplomatic academy of Kazakh ministry of foreign affairs

Studied at Universidad Complutense de Madrid UCM

Studied International Relations at Escuela Diplomática de Madrid

Vincent Lyn

CEO & Founder of We Can Save Children

Deputy Ambassador of International Human Rights Commission (IHRC)

Director of Creative Development at African Views Organization

Economic & Social Council at United Nations (ECOSOC)

Rescue & Recovery Specialist at International Confederation of Police & Security Experts Lyn