I was reading this article about the geopolitics surrounding the Ukraine/Russia conflict. Unfortunately this Medium link may be inaccessible to you. Regardless, I will just bring up some interesting lessons from this article.
(1) Geopolitics is often about powerful nations’ self-interest.
(2) Geopolitics always works with questionable morals in the background.
(3) Geopolitics has immediate and long-term consequences for the world.
(4) Citizens’ can move the needle in their politicians’ geopolitical decisions.
Before I get into these four lessons, I will first provide my personal metaphor for geopolitics.
Geopolitics and Indoor Soccer
My seven-year-old son is somewhere on the lighter side of the autism spectrum. Danny is definitely more work to a parent than your average kid. If I do my job well, he should still be a functional adult in society.
Part of my job is to give him life experiences, especially for learning and practising social skills. So I have enrolled him in indoor soccer. This program has two one-hour practice/game sessions a week.
Let’s just say Danny is not really into soccer. But he gets out of the house to run around. He is interacting with coaches (who understand his autistic nature) and other kids (who are learning about his weird ways). While I am prepared for the day when he no longer wants to play indoor soccer (and probably other team sports), I want him to continue in this sport for as long as possible. There are life lessons he can still learn. And maybe he’ll find a liking for soccer later.
So here is my dilemma. Danny often loses interest about 45 minutes into the 60-minute session. He wants to go home.
If I allow him to quit early, is this not sending a signal to quit things when they get a little tough to handle?
If I make him stay for the full 60 minutes, do I not risk him wanting to quit indoor soccer earlier than I would like?
I don’t know the better answer here. I just make my best guess.
Like my dilemma with Danny’s soccer practice, so many geopolitical decision-makers do not have the right answers staring at them in the face. The future is murky, yet decisions have to be made, one way or the other. Even though the face behind the decision will claim to know the final outcome, no one really knows the final outcome.
For example, a democratic nation may desire a less democratic nation to aspire to better democratic principles. Does the democratic nation take a friendly approach — overlooking some the of democratic shortfalls — in hopes that the less democratic nation will eventually adopt more of those principles? Or does the democratic nation take a chastisement approach, which then risks estrangement and having less influence? When should powerful leaders use carrots? When should they use sticks? Again, no easy answer.
Lesson #4: Citizens’ can move the needle in their politicians’ geopolitical decisions.
Peaceful protest is a cornerstone in today’s democracies. When the politicians get out of line with the wishes of the citizenry, protests can be the tool to bring the politicians back in. Geopolitics can be swayed by the public.
But who’s to say the protesters are right? What about the counter-protesters? What about the stakeholders that do not have the organizational skills or resources to protest? What about the good energy that goes to one good cause but not to another?
How effective is really moving the needle?
Or maybe the politicians have become better at moving the needle in the direction they want it to go?
Lesson #2: Geopolitics always works with questionable morals in the background.
Let’s go to Haiti. This small country is going through a period of civil unrest. There is a power struggle between the wealthy elite and street gangs. The wealthy elite has run the country for decades, based on a libertarian model of governance.
But this model has done little to uplift the masses out of their poverty. This poverty has led to street gangs earning political credibility from the people. But the gangs have employed a lot of criminality to gain their new power.
If a western nation sides with the traditional Haitian powers, then does that not condone the elite’s selfish political actions for many decades? If a western nation sides with the street gangs, then would that not risk bringing a more ruthless regime in place? If a western nation waits for a clear victor, then will it be in a position to be of influence on that victor?
In geopolitical terms, there is no high road in Haiti. Yet the western nation still has to make a geopolitical decision: one side, the other side, or wait.
Lesson #3: Geopolitics has immediate and long-term consequences for the world.
One Canadian analyst said that Russia and Ukraine will need at least one more big battle before a political solution can be found. I think he is right.
Wars always end somehow. Here are six outcomes from that big battle:
1. Russia takes over and controls all of Ukraine. The Ukrainian nation disappears from history. The probability for this outcome is low.
2. Russia gets its Black Sea corridor from Donbass to Transdniestria. A little higher probability. But the Russian goal will be the rest of Ukraine later.
3. Crimea and Donbas are ceded to Russia in exchange for peace. Possible. But expect another invasion from Russia if it is not soundly defeated today. Russia needs to realign its internal conqueror psyche.
4. Ukraine drives Russia out of its 1991 boundaries. Possible.
5. Russia drops a nuclear bomb on a Ukrainian city, forcing the west into a very difficult geopolitical situation. Possible.
6. Russia breaks apart and is unable to continue this war. Possible. Good for Ukraine, but there will be other geopolitical ramifications for the world.
I put this six-item list together because it shows the uncertainty of any geopolitical action.
When a do-nothing approach is being championed, I wonder whether the do-nothing approach is motivated by the difficulty of dealing with all this uncertainty.
But we should not use uncertainty to be absolved of geopolitical responsibility. Like it or not, "doing nothing" is still a geopolitical decision.
Lesson #1: Geopolitics is often about a powerful nation’s self-interest.
There is usually some neocolonialism motive for many geopolitical decisions. Even when that motive is mixed with lots of altruism, the geopolitical decision is tainted with corruption.
For example, should Ukraine be a pseudo-colony of Russia or a pseudo-colony of the West? Especially when the Ukrainian people want Western influence, with all its flaws? If Ukraine pushes the Russians out, there will be western interests earning profit in Ukraine. Who supplied the weaponry?
As the world is currently structured, it seems we have to accept that some corruption is going to be part of any geopolitical decision. Maybe we can maximize the altruism and minimize the corruption. A well-thought-out geopolitical decision — with some corruption — may be a lot better than a do-nothing decision.
Geopolitics and Political Parties
My article Life Inside a Political Party describes the forces shaping the psyche of elected politicians as they climb up the ladder in their political party.
In brief, aspiring politicians are learning how to play the game of politics. Part of that game is to accept the sacrifice of principles for political gain. They learn to build the right alliances, exchange favors, and reward the right people in the right way. Failure to gain these soft skills can be described with this adjective: “unelected.” And unelected means little chance of being influential in the geopolitical arena later.
So, when these politicians climb the political ladder and find themselves in geopolitical situations, they will bring their political skills and attitudes to that situation. They have learned that self-interest is normal. And this self-interest hurts the credibility of any geopolitical decision.
Geopolitics and Tiered Democratic Governance
For 26 years, I have been working on an alternative democracy: Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG).
This system has no political parties. TDG representatives are elected without any party affiliation.
My TDG book gives the reasons why the parties need to be cast aside. It also explains the new skills and attitudes we need to develop to make the TDG work. And Chapter 6 explains how we move from HERE to THERE. You can read the book for further insights.
What happens when we put our elected TDG representatives into a geopolitical situation?
Unfortunately, geopolitics will still be difficult. There will still be uncertainties. There will still be moral and ethical balances. There will still be great ramifications from any geopolitical decision.
But without the political party clouding the deliberation, these decision-makers need not worry about appeasing their voting base or wealthy donors. They need not worry about their re-election. They need not worry about finding some self-interest for themselves or their nation. Not bringing these concerns to the decision-making table, the TDG representatives have only viable alternatives and their pros and cons to consider. The geopolitical issues will become more clear.
This does not mean geopolitical decisions coming from a TDG will always go in a rightful way. But when self-interest is removed from the discussion, deliberation, and decision, the decision stands a better chance of being the better alternative and a better chance of being properly implemented.
To remove that self-interest clouding the judgment and perception, we need a new kind of democracy.
I am proposing an alternative democracy.
Unfortunately, my alternative democracy is also an unpopular opinion.
Published on Medium 2023
"New World Coming" that we cannot see
