Western elites are dysfunctional. Here’s proof from the latest NATO Summit

Faced with the biggest challenge in recent decades and the need to make important decisions that will determine the future of the Western world, the bloc resorts to loud statements and fake actions

Thirty-four years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed and the West became convinced that this signaled the “end of history”. Western liberalism, they assumed, was the pinnacle of historical development and would gradually be adopted by all countries. They also believed that NATO would be its spearhead.

This ideological doctrine naturally gave rise to an idea of endless expansion – since the West leads the way towards the ideal and has the necessary global organizations for this, then everyone should strive to join it. How could it be otherwise?

At the time, it indeed made sense for countries from the former Soviet bloc and the Third World to join Western-controlled economic organizations which promised a common market, loans, portfolio investments, trade rules, and so on.

From the beginning, many people realized that this looked a lot like economic colonization, but, like any colonizer, at first the US convinced its new colonies that they would get all the perks of a large civilization. This made sense, and many countries expressed the desire to join the Western world.

For East European states, the idea of joining the European Union made even more sense. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell once compared Western Europe to a “garden,” and in the early 1990s the bloc indeed resembled a thriving garden. There were certain challenges, but at the time, the Old World came close to the ideal of a flourishing and prosperous society. It looked like it had found a balance between the market economy and socialism, and naturally, many countries wanted to join this community and also prosper.

The expansion of the universe

It seemed that with the collapse of the USSR, there was no need for the third pillar of the Western-centric world order: military power. The main enemy had been defeated, communist ideology was ridiculed and trampled on, and it looked like a big war could never again break out.

In the 1990s and 2000s, the prevailing opinion was that from now on, US-led military alliances – primarily NATO – would have a more “educational’ role – such as bringing some wayward dictator to his senses, dispersing isolated terrorists and turning them onto the path of democracy, or, in the case of the former USSR, carefully “guiding” what remained of the superpower and growing new life on the corpse of its former enemy.

From a full-fledged military bloc – that was created to wage a big war – NATO largely turned into a political organization.

When Western countries, especially in Europe, raised their eyebrows in response to Russia’s objections to NATO expansion, it was actually quite sincere. Don’t consider us an enemy, they said, and we won’t pose a threat to you. NATO expansion is a natural process, it is part of the expansion of the Western world, and a historically objective result of the “end of history.” Just take it easy and don’t resist.

In fact, this mindset is very similar to the Marxism-Leninism ideology which also proclaimed communism as the highest, ultimate social formation and declared the inevitable triumph of communism all over the world. And the Soviet Union was considered the leader of the global communist movement.

On the wrong side of history

For a while, this process went smoothly: the West’s economic and political sphere of influence expanded fairly effortlessly; NATO also grew, without encountering any major resistance. While there were certain problems, they were considered inevitable bumps in the road, and everyone ignored the fact that these issues piled up.

However, Russia increasingly resisted NATO’s expansion. This started in the mid-’90s, under then-President Boris Yeltsin. After Vladimir Putin came to power, this doctrine became quite consistent.

From the point of view of liberal dogmas, the actions of Russia (or of the “Putin regime,” according to their terminology) were ‘abnormal’ and a relic of the past. The West was convinced that being on the wrong side of history, Russia would never be able to resist the its natural expansion, which meant that Moscow could simply be ignored.

Everyone knows what this eventually led to: a major military conflict in the heart of Europe. However, the West’s – and particularly NATO’s – approach hasn’t really changed: it still refuses to abandon the “end of history” paradigm, even though it sees that the world has changed.

In response to Moscow’s “aggression,” the West has unleashed a total trade war and provided extensive military aid to Ukraine. We have analyzed the latter aspect in detail before, but the fallout from the former hasn’t gone as Western liberal elites intended: the entire non-Western world has silently backed away from the West, and a number of Western countries have decided to continue economic relations with Russia. For the first time since 1991 – or perhaps even in the entire post-WWII period – the West finds itself in the minority and clearly feels the limits of its own influence, which it had considered absolute.

The denial stage

This once again reminds us of the communists. The Bolsheviks considered the Russian Revolution of 1917 as the starting point of a world revolution: they expected that in the next few years, a series of socialist revolutions would take place around the world and this process would lead to a worldwide communist utopia. In every major world country, communist forces operated and together they formed the Communist International (Comintern) organization.

Just like Western liberal elites, the Bolsheviks eventually realized that their goals were unattainable. However, unlike in the West today, in the USSR there were people who were able to take this understanding and turn it into concrete actions.

From the end of the 1920s, the USSR set out on a course of peaceful coexistence between the capitalist and socialist political systems, and instead of a game where no one wins, cooperation had become possible. But in order for that to happen, the country’s ideological basis had to be changed, so Joseph Stalin did away with the old Bolshevik elites who were raised in the paradigm of a world proletarian revolution – in fact, one might call them the “red globalists” of the time. Now, to be clear, nobody is suggesting using the Georgian revolutionary’s methods in 2024.

In the West, we haven’t seen anything like that so far. The NATO Summit Declaration, issued after the bloc’s 75th anniversary gathering in Washington earlier this month, does not contain a trace of critical reflection. On the contrary, it proclaims that the more challenges the world faces, the more NATO needs to unite. If China helps Russia, then Beijing is NATO’s enemy. If the whole world is not on the bloc’s side, then so much the worse for them. Oh, and another thing – NATO will continue to expand, at least on paper. It will not allow the “enemies of freedom” (sic) to dictate their terms, and will never recognize anyone else’s rights.

However, these declarations may ring hollow. Indeed, the West has certain strengths such as key military technologies, some high-tech industries, electronics, artificial intelligence, and so on. Western countries maintain a high standard of living and development in the fields of education, medicine, and social security. And some Western countries (mostly the US) are capable of innovation.

However, decades of “educational” wars and globalist deindustrialization have led to the fact that the “most powerful military bloc in history” is not even capable of waging a relatively small and traditional war.

It is not ready in terms of weapons. Stockpiles of arms, which it took decades to accumulate, have become depleted in a matter of months, and the current rate of military production can’t keep up.

It is not ready in terms of personnel: it turned out that Western armies don’t have enough servicemen, and because of social and demographic issues they cannot be quickly recruited.

It is not ready in terms of innovations: with old Soviet and new Russian and Chinese technologies, Russia has radically altered the situation on the battlefield. Of course, the West is analyzing and learning from this experience, but firstly, it does not have the necessary technologies (for example, Western drones cost a lot more than Chinese analogues and have worse characteristics, and the West does not even have FPV drones of its own design), and secondly, NATO isn’t directly fighting, which makes it harder for troops to gain experience.

But most importantly, the West is not ready ideologically. Considering the fact that several generations have been brought up on the idea that there is no need to fight for their “Garden of Eden.” They also believe that wars are started by choice, not necessity. Not to mention that in its last major military adventure – in Afghanistan – NATO was shamefully defeated. Considering all this, it makes sense that the West is terribly afraid of the idea of a direct confrontation with Russia.

The West also has certain strengths – primarily in the fields of intelligence and communications. This can help the Ukrainian army hold out, but it can’t turn the tide of the war against Russia in its favor.

Trying their best to do nothing

We have repeatedly said that when it comes to the Ukraine crisis, the West has two options: either enter into a direct conflict with Russia, or start meaningful negotiations and divide spheres of interest in the region.

This is also relevant in the context of our current discussion: the NATO summit declaration essentially proclaims the whole world as a field of confrontation, and the world majority as the enemy of the “Garden of Eden.” Therefore, it is necessary to either mobilize all forces for the coming global conflict, or look for ways of peaceful coexistence.

However, the West remains stuck in its own dogmas, and hasn’t chosen either option. Many countries declared an increase in military spending but have not implemented it, and in some (such as the UK and possibly France under the new government) military spending may even decrease. Supplies to Ukraine also continue in autopilot– the West has pledged (so far only verbally) to send aid in the same amount next year as this year – which means a death sentence for Kiev in the long run.

Ideas of creating new AI-based armed forces are groundless and resemble former Ukrainian army chief Valery Zaluzhny’s article for The Economist, in which he talked about a fantastic, currently non-existent weapon that could defeat Russia.

And so, the attempts of the “liberal Comintern” to fight for the cause of global liberalism are not backed by any real actions, and are out of touch with reality.

Is a paradigm shift possible? Can the West consider peaceful coexistence with the “Global South”? In order for this to happen, its elites must undergo a painful transformation and abandon their dogmas. Perhaps the harbingers of this process are Donald Trump in the US and the right-wing forces in Europe, but so far there is no reason to believe that they will be able to change the course in a fundamental sense.

We may assume that real changes in the West will only be possible if there is a major crisis – either a military one (e.g. a nuclear threat like the Cuban Crisis) or an economic one (e.g. the collapse of the debt pyramid).

In the meantime, the situation resembles an old Soviet joke: An official from Moscow asks a local agricultural boss: