Since the beginning of Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, many Western leaders have been tripping over themselves in an attempt to be seen to be doing more than their peers to support Ukraine in its war against Russia. The UK’s government’s recent apparent political coup in getting Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky to visit Britain before their European partners was portrayed in sections of the British press as a major political victory — scored in part because of the UK’s willingness to up the ante in supplying weapons to Ukraine, now with the apparent promise of fighter aircraft in the future.
Many Western politicians seem to be prioritizing signalling their political virtue in fighting what is seen as tyranny and promoting Western liberal democracy over realistic assessments of the costs and benefits of their actions.
This attitude isn’t limited to Russia’s war with Ukraine. The recent Chinese balloon incident in the United States saw what might almost be described as political hysteria on both sides of the U.S. political divide. China is certainly — alongside Russia, Iran and North Korea — squarely within U.S. political crosshairs and labelled as a threat to a Western-dominated international system.
The fury being levelled against such states in Western political circles and the press certainly warrants the suggestion that the West has whipped itself up into a frenzy of crusading zeal. Arguments offered by other state actors for their conduct — often pointing to similar actions by the West — are simply dismissed by Western leaders who are also willing to ignore the fact that Russia and China in particular are major powers with not only significant conventional military capabilities and potentials, but also nuclear weapons.
Such crusading ideas are supported by a number of prominent public figures. For example, historian Timothy Snyder and journalist Anne Appelbaum are at the forefront of the West’s current crusade against Russia in the name of Western liberal democracy. At the same time the mainstream Western press seems unwilling to offer material challenging this world view lest it be accused of being an apologist for the actions of states than are non gratae.
As we hurtle towards increasing Western conflict with much of the rest of the world, what is certainly lacking more than ever in Western foreign policy debate today is the ability to at least attempt to see things from an alternative point of view. Dare I say it — because as it relates to foreign policy has become something of a dirty word — we need a little more realism in our dealings with Russia and those other countries who are lumped together as the bad guys in international politics.
In the black and white world of Western international relations today suggesting a more realist approach to foreign policy means that you are simply a stooge of a foreign adversary — as John Mearsheimer has found out. But if we continue to ignore the idea that other state actors might have legitimate concerns — that are backed up by significant military power — we risk careering toward a global conflict that can only end badly.
While realist theorists have gained some media exposure early on in Russian’s war against Ukraine, cultural relativism, or what we might alternatively call cultural tolerance, has been even less in evidence. In the context of this piece, cultural relativism is trying to understand another state from the perspective of the cultural norms and understandings of that society, and not our own. It is very different from moral relativism in that it doesn’t imply that we need agree with those alternative outlooks — we simply need to try to understand and appreciate them.
By at least trying to understand where other countries are coming from there is arguably more likelihood of meaningful engagement that might even lead to small steps in some of the directions that Western leaders would like to see them move.
A realist and therefore to some extent culturally relativist approach doesn’t mean that the West cannot promote those things that are of value to it. It does however mean that diplomacy isn’t a winner takes all game.
Sadly, a more realistic and culturally tolerant approach to many international issues today would not serve the egos and interests of many politicians who have boxed themselves into a corner over their maximalist stances. Nor would a change of tack, and particularly over Russia and Ukraine, suit Western energy companies or a U.S. military-industrial complex that is one of the principal beneficiaries of the war in Ukraine. However, this kind of realist engagement is ultimately going to be the only way to save the many lives that will otherwise be lost in the sort of clash of civilizations that has brought so much human misery over the few millennia that humans have been able to document their follies.
No matter how hard some might wish, Russia’s war in Ukraine is unlikely to lead to any sort of crushing Russian defeat on the battlefield, and sooner or later negotiations will have to take place. If future negotiations are to be meaningful, both sides will have to give ground and make some attempt to see something of the other side’s point of view.
We can only hope that enough political leaders come to their senses and try to acknowledge at least some credibility in the other side’s position before both the local and global costs of the war in Ukraine and the growing friction with the likes of China increase too much further.
