The End Of Self Delusion?

In what follows I’m basing this post loosely on two current essays by Alastair Crooke. I say “two current,” because he usually writes one per week, but these two were published on Friday and then on Monday. I’ve expanded on his ideas freely but remain still close to his thrust.

The colonial period of Western history was based on a triumphalist sense of Western secular invincibility. Which is to say that this sense of invincibility was not based in a sense of cultural superiority per se--the Christian cultural institutions of the West had been reduced to subservience to the new secular and materialist nation states during the transition from the Christendom of the Middle Ages to the post-Renaissance and Reformation Modern Age. Rather, this sense of invincibility was based in a triumphalist belief that Western arms and technology could reduce the rest of the world to subjection. And keep the rest of the world in subjection by the threat of overwhelming punitive military expeditions.

Two world wars, the challenge of the Soviet Union, and the revolt of 'Third World' colonies shook that certitude--the West was forced into a fearful defensive posture in Europe. With the end of the Cold War, however, the old militaristic triumphalism reasserted itself. America, at the head of the West, had won; Russia was defeated; it was time to go on the offensive once again. There was no thought that these new developments were temporary. The End of History was coming--an eerily Marxist seeming extrapolation that the Western elites eagerly embraced. The colonial project was dusted off and put into play once more. Not only Russia, but China and the rest of the world were to be neo-colonial milch cows for the West, exploited for their resources both material and human (cheap labor).

In Paradigms are fractured beyond the imagined; perhaps irreparably, Alastair Crooke maintains that that triumphalist, militarist paradigm is broken beyond repair. The NATO failures of reassertion have come fast and furious. It all looked on course for a brief few years, when NATO expanded east and bombed Serbia into submission. But Russia pushed back in Georgia and then in Ukraine, while NATO was creating chaos in the Islamic world while facilitating the dual rise of powerful and terroristic organizations--but also the rise of the true winner of our Iraq shock and awe: Iran. Then came the shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan (we're still, however, trying to bribe the Taliban into cooperation). But most telling of all is the defeat of NATO on its home turf of Europe, on the steppes of Ukraine. It turns out that Russia was never actually defeated--it had simply gone through a decade or so of getting back in touch with its cultural roots.

Now, argues Crooke, the Israeli paradigm of deterrence has crashed. That paradigm was built on the Anglo-American vision of Israel as Big NATO'S "little NATO", which would kick ass and take names in the Middle East. The West had mandated Israel into existence and had insisted that its proxy should have a monopoly on the possession and discretionary use of overwhelming force. Unconditionally. Hamas has ripped away the mask:

The Israeli paradigm crashed — both in its external, and internal manifestations of ‘deterrence’.

Jabotinsky’s “Israel” was to be a ‘nation-state’ with all the power of the 19th century model ...

So, if the current trauma in the West in respect to its defeat in Ukraine is profound, you have ... not yet seen the ‘half of it’.

The 7 October events broke the ‘deterrence myth’ — putting the West in uproar.

The West--mostly meaning America--is caught between attempting, not too successfully, to manage defeat in its war on Russia while attempting to intimidate the Islamic world into appropriate submission through a display of force projection. It's not working well.

The devastating Hamas attack has forced Israel's latent apocalyptic basis to the surface, complete with threats of nuclear attacks on Gaza. The result is that the Islamic world has also gone eschatological. It's not clear that the US is in control of Israel's reactions, nor is it clear that America's saber rattling will deter the Region that has been aroused.

A Region, hot with anger, is mobilising against “Israel”. And the Western world is threatening retribution for any new fronts that might open.

The Two State Solution is dead--just as the Zionists and Neocons had planned. Which illustrates the truth of the dictum about taking care about what you wish for. With that solution off the table for practical purposes, what is the end game in the current crisis? The goal is to somehow come out on the other side, but how the pieces are to be put back together again is rather a conundrum. The problem is that apocaplyptic believers, like those in current control of Israel, are long on visions of the end time but short on planning:

Israel has launched what appears to be the first phase of a massive ground incursion into Gaza, vowing that Hamas must be eliminated or somehow rendered irrelevant, even at the expense of smashing Gaza to pieces.

But what then? Israeli officials have reportedly told the Biden administration that they haven’t engaged in any serious postconflict planning. That’s probably because none of their options is good and, despite a plethora of fantastical proposals, nobody is going to step in to bear the burden of Israel’s impossible dilemma or, put more simply, clean up its mess.

The problem, the BIG problem, is that all this may be leading, willy nilly, toward a civilizational war--not something that anybody wants, but the logical result of decades of geopolitical malpractice. Of course, the Western "realist" school isn't realist enough to take such eventualities into serious consideration. Civilizational warfare was never supposed to happen in the new Globalist World Order. In his second current article Crooke quotes former French PM Dominique Villepin in this regard

“There is this idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war”.

“That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage”.

“They’ve gone “all in” on a certain moral and ethical framework of the world, and faced with a situation where the West’s moral fabric has been openly exposed and refuted, they find it extremely difficult—and perhaps fatally impossible—to withdraw”.

This development, Crooke maintains, has put paid to the apocalyptic Greater Israel project. That project simply won't work in the new reality:

Israel will not be able to generate either the Palestinian partners, nor the global allies, it needs to co-operate in such a scheme.

The situation in the Middle East has radically transformed. Whereas Palestine was about national liberation, today Palestine is the of the symbol of a wider civilisational re-awakening – the ‘end to centuries of Regional humiliation’.

Equally, whilst Zionism in Israel was largely a secular political project (Greater Israel), today it has become messianic and prophetic.

I'm quite sure Crooke, in referring to to "centuries of ... humiliation" is intentionally reminding us of China's historical experience and its rejection of any attempt at a new colonial order. The problem is that, while the US and Israel do remain in possession of some functional hammers, they're slowing coming to the realization that not everything out there on the world stage is a nail. But what to do in this unforeseen situation?

The West however, has opted to back itself in a silo of its own making – as defined by its demand for a singularity of messaging that all of Europe ‘stand with Israel’; refusing any ceasefire; and saying ‘no limit’ to Israeli action (subject to law).

A veteran Israeli commentator writes, we are dealing with:

“an instance (Israel), where a country is so devastated, shocked, humiliated and naturally consumed by rage that retribution becomes the only end. The moment when a country realizes that its deterrence failed; and perceptions of its power have been so critically diminished – that it is driven solely by the motivation to restore an image of power”.

“It is a dangerous point where decision-makers feel they can dispense with military theorist von Clausewitz’s axiom : “War is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means”.

Europe, taking its lead from Washington, simply is disregarding the Clausewitz axiom, by tying itself unreservedly to Israel’s military operations, and at a real risk of collusion with whatsoever may transpire there.

Put plainly, the absolute command that there must be an unambiguous distinction between truth and falsehood and singleness of meaning pertaining to the Palestinian issue, plus no ‘pro-Palestinian messaging’, reflects a deep insecurity in the West – as if one-sided messaging could be the remedy to a civilizational clash. In the current climate, to even call for a ceasefire can lose one one’s job.

I like that Crooke frames this dilemma in philosophical terms, because--contrary to the dominant narrative of the modern, secularist West--philosophy really does matter. The problem is that once you've committed, wittingly or otherwise, to a false philosophy it becomes well nigh impossible to see the other alternatives:

Here, we also face the problem of material rationalist ‘old think’ – one that sees deploying aircraft carriers and scattering air defences around the region as a manifestation of such potential overwhelming, crushing force that it constitutes deterrence, whilst Israel finishes the business of quelling the Palestinian irruptions in Gaza and West Bank uninterrupted.

Here again, the myth of deterrence has been superseded by the asymmetrical tactics of the new warfare. Conflicts have become geopolitically diverse, technologically more complex and multidimensional – particularly with the inclusion of military-adept non-state actors. This is why the US is so nervous about Israel entering upon a two-front war.

The ‘other reality’ is that unalloyed fire-power is ‘not everything’. The management of controlled escalation is the new dynamic. The US may think (material rationally) that it alone possesses escalatory dominance. But does it, in this new multidimensional, asymmetric world?

The "Palestinian question" is no longer a local problem that can be managed on a local level. To treat it as such is likely to simply exacerbate the situation we find ourselves in. But are our ruling elites capable of stepping out of the box of their own fantasy world?

To view the Israeli-Hamas war as a local event would be another error of ‘old think’. This has become a war for Palestinian existence – between the Hebraic vision of Israel, and the Islamic vision of its own civilizational Renaissance. In this second vision, the Palestinian wound constitutes a lacuna that has festered for 75 years, as a result of western mal-management.

This Palestinian question will not now fade away – nor be resolved by restoring the discredited Palestinian Authority, nor vague ‘talks’ about some ‘one-day’ Palestinian State. We must re-configure our thinking – onto the longer plane – to take account of the intrusion of shifting dimensions in consciousness.

Now, while all eyes are on Palestine, we can see that some of the nations of the former Soviet Bloc are also engaged in mental calculations that are not all that different from those just described. These countries had welcomed the expansion of NATO and the EU eastward, and embraced the Western narrative of revenge on Russia. The front was never entirely solid. Hungary was outspoken in rejecting the call to condemn Russia as the ultimate enemy. NATO’s defeat in Ukraine has also led other countries to look for an off ramp—they, like, Hungary can see that their interests are not well served by the Neocon’s apocalyptic vision of destroying Russia. Slovakia, after its recent elections, has broken ranks. Moldova is now, at the least, wavering. Russia, confident of victory, is once again renewing—in its own way—its overtures to Poland, the big geopolitical enchilada in Europe as far as Russia is concerned. All these countries appear to be reassessing security arrangements and their own economic interests, as well as cultural differences with the West. Despite threats from the West, events appear to be moving beyond the control of NATO and the EU.

The situation in Poland is particularly interesting, and has recently taken a turn that can only be termed bizarre. Poland, of course, had its parliamentary elections a good two weeks ago. It appeared that the ruling Russophobic Law and Justice party would be unable to form a government, and ueber EU eminence grise Donald Tusk would return to power. But the political dynamics in Poland are in flux. In the months leading up to the election Law and Justice realized that the public mood had shifted heavily against Ukraine—not that Poles were becoming Russophiles. That would never be in the cards. But there was a reassessment going on. Now, even Western elites are admitting that, whatever government is formed in Poland, it appears doubtful that Poland will ever return to its former Neocon lockstep. And so Russia is suggesting to Poles that, if Poles reconsider their enmity for Russia, all things are possible.

That’s where events turned really weird. Obviously, while Poles are suspicious of Russia, relations with its other arch-enemy, Germany, have been extremely prickly under Law and Justice’s government. Somehow—and you’d have to be German, I suppose, to regard this as a sensible strategy—the German former ambassador to Poland weighed in, waxing eloquent about how Tusk would restore cordial relations with Germany. This was clearly intended to counter Law and Justice efforts to peel off smaller parties from Tusk’s coalition. But the German ambassador also thought it would be a good idea to take the opportunity to suggest that German troops should be permanently stationed in Poland. To defend Europe, of course. As you can imagine, Law and Justice jumped on this with both feet—it’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out, but it won’t make for a smooth road ahead.

A lot of Americans may think that, for Poland, WW2 began and ended in September, 1939. Nothing could be further from the truth. Suffice it to say that by the end of the war 20% of all Polish children were orphans. Let that sink in. Many of those children are still alive and probably have strong views on the presence of German soldiers in Poland. Other Poles do, too. They know all about the revanchist elements in German society—rather than worrying about the submersion of Germany in waves of immigrants, some Germans actually do prefer to dream of recovering lost territory from Poland and Czechia.

It’s a crazy world out there. And Zhou and his Gang are in charge of sorting it out. Thanks to Bluto Barr and Turtle McConnell.