One of my aphorisms, already posted somewhere on this blog, says this: “Statesmanship is politics at its best, which is the practice of enlightened nationalism.” What is nationalism, then? At its best, it is an acute appreciation of one’s nationhood, history, tradition, continuity; and a pursuit of one’s country’s interest above personal or any other interests, should they ever come in conflict with the national interest. Patriotism and nationalism are clearly interchangeable in this context, but I am deliberately using the more ambiguous word to contrast its positive implications against the backdrop of Globalism, or Internationalism, or a "world without borders-ism," which is of course one of the phoniest concepts ever invented by the strong to justify their intrusion in the affairs of the weak. (No two-way street here!) In reality, however, Globalism has turned into a perversion of the idea of “superpower interest,” becoming pernicious in its effect on the American nation, completely diffusing the real concept of American national interest, and also resulting in a catastrophic underestimation of the power of nationalism in modern world, which has effectively undermined American foreign policy and America’s erstwhile lofty standing and great prestige in the perceptions of the world, resulting in failure and humiliation.
Indeed, nationalism around the world is alive, and extremely well, in fact, far better than could be normally expected, thanks in large part to Washington’s global push to impose a superpower-US-controlled world order on the unwilling “them.” (In case this was not noticed, here was a little play on us and them.)
Capsulating this thought, America’s international posture of the last two decades, although claiming to be a representation of American national interest, has been a substitute for the latter, and at the latter’s expense. What is even worse, no self-delusion can delude a keen observer who has his own stake in the game. In our interconnected and interdependent world, one party’s folly leads to another party’s folly, as that party seeks to take advantage of the perceived missteps of its opponent instead of pursuing a normal course of the game as ought to have been the case under normal circumstances.
Under normal circumstances, as we are speaking about America and Russia now, it would have been useful for us to first examine what constitutes the particular brand of Great-Russian nationalism, with its necessary and natural projection into the concept of Russian national interest. Instead, however, we are obliged to discuss, albeit very briefly, the practical matter of Russian behavior under an American global offensive.
In such a case, as I have observed elsewhere, Russia’s policy becomes much more manipulative than during normal times, in the sense that oftentimes Russia appears more interested in taking an anti-American action than in pursuing a principled pro-Russia course, which is, of course, a matter of tactical nuance, where the difference of a particular manipulative action from a strategy-based action is determined by the difference in their underlying priorities. In other words, the desire to punish prevails over the constructive imperative, or, differently put, the tactical urge trumps the strategic objective. Needless to say, this situation cannot be seen as healthy either for the one side or for the other.
Who was the first to spoil the good game of superpower sportsmanship? A wise man will answer by putting his finger on the Russians for rigging the chess game through a devilishly ingenious sacrifice, which looked like a self-immolation. I would, however, blame America for taking the bait and stupidly starting the feast of victorious gloating before all the pawns had been counted. For, as we should know from the game of chess, in the absence of a surefire checkmate, one must always watch for the pawns, who are the only combatants on the board, capable of a surprise promotion…Boom!!!
As a result of this obscene gloating, the reservoir of goodwill, which Russia had always had for America, in normal times, had evaporated, and now, instead of being perceived as an esteemed ‘rival-as-usual,’ America has become a mortal enemy, switching Russia’s mental attitude to the war mode.
...Having been forced, by the dictates of current events, to focus on an abnormality, it is still imperative for us to understand Russia’s normal actuality of inherent nationalism, and the way to start looking at it, is, first, to understand what constitutes the concept of Russian Russianness.
This will be the subject of my next entry.
No comments:
Post a Comment