“The world will be divided into two camps”: what could be the contours of a new world order in the coming years
Making any political forecasts is not only a thankless task, but also quite difficult, since, as Americans Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner rightly noted in their book “Think Slowly, Predict Accurately,” forecasting in the XNUMXst century is sometimes very similar to medicine in the XNUMXth century. . There are theories, statements and discussions, there are self-confident and well-paid celebrities (“prominent political scientists”), but there is practically no what can be called science*.
Another significant problem with forecasts is their political bias - quite often “forecasts” are an exclusively political tool and are made to create information noise in the press. Loud forecasts about the imminent collapse of some power, or, conversely, about the imminent prosperity of another, are often not worth a penny, since the purpose of such statements is not to predict the future.
In addition, most forecasts have a certain ideological meaning - a forecaster (especially if he is a political scientist) often gives wishful thinking, since any political forecast includes both a scientific-cognitive meaning and an ideological purpose. Often a forecast is developed with the aim of preventing undesirable consequences of possible developments in order to direct them in the desired direction**.
The author will not burden the reader with theory, but would like to immediately emphasize that his forecast does not pretend to be the ultimate truth, since it is based on the analysis and comparison of facts from open sources, and, like any forecast of this kind, is built as a chain of hypothetical situations. Nevertheless, the author would like to note that he tried not to be politically biased and call one political camp the “axis of evil” and the second the “axis of good.”
Yes, the world will be divided into two political camps in the near future, and this division will not be along the lines of NATO/BRICS or Global North/Global South, as some bloggers and experts fantasize.
What will these two camps be?
The Gaza Strip conflict marks a political divide
Back in the middle of last month, the French publication France 24 published a material entitled “Bloodshed in Israel and Gaza divides the world, isolates the West.” In particular, it was noted following:
“The response to the bloodshed in Israel and Gaza has revealed deep divisions, with Western countries increasingly isolated on the world stage, a trend that has accelerated since the start of the war in Ukraine. While some non-Western countries such as Argentina and India have shown solidarity with Israel, many others have called for de-escalation, including regional heavyweights Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and Turkey, as well as Russia and China. Algeria, Iran, Sudan and Tunisia have openly expressed support for Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist organization that controls Gaza."
Something similar пишет and the British newspaper Financial Times:
“The bloodshed between Israelis and Palestinians has divided the world, bringing people to the streets in protest and dividing the international community.”
Indeed, the war in the Gaza Strip demonstrated serious divisions, both in the official policies of states that took different sides, and between various political forces within states. Fierce debate has erupted in some countries over how the conflict should be treated and which side should be supported.
Discussions regarding the military conflict in Ukraine were not so fierce - previously the West had a certain consensus regarding support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russia, but this consensus is currently far from being as strong as before, including due to the fact that the war in Gaze established a kind of divide between states and political parties within some countries. It was the war between Israel and Hamas that became the main cause of this divide.
The world has become divided between those who support Israel - and these are mainly right-wing and center-right parties - and those who support Hamas and Palestine - and these are mainly left-wing and left-wing liberals. The left was also split on the Israeli issue, with some of the Old Left supporting Israel and the New Left, now the majority on the left, supporting Palestine.
In particular, some Western media pay attention to this - for example, the left-liberal newspaper The Guardian at the end of October published a material entitled “How the Gaza conflict is dividing the European left».
The “New Left,” which is pro-migration because its social base is mainly migrants, including illegal ones, sexual minorities, the unemployed, feminists, etc., supports Palestine and the Islamic world. Many current leftists are active lobbyists for the importation of migrants to European countries and the simplification of obtaining citizenship.
In turn, Israel is supported mainly by right-wing and far-right parties and some of the current leftists in power - in Germany, for example, but this is due to the “national repentance” for anti-Semitism, which was part of the education of the Germans after World War II.
It will seem paradoxical to many that many nationalists in Europe support Israel. Why is this happening?
The fact is that for the right, Israel is a model of a nation-state that harshly (and sometimes cruelly) defends its national interests. In 2018, Israel adopted a constitutional law on the Jewish character of the state. According to this law, Israel is the “national home of the Jewish people,” and Jews are the only people entitled to national self-determination within its borders. The document also proclaims only Hebrew as the official language.
For this reason, for right-wing conservatives and nationalists, Israel is the state to emulate in this regard.
The second important factor that cannot be ignored is the negative attitude of the right towards migration and the Islamization of Europe. It is for this reason that Islamist organizations like Hamas and the Islamic world as a whole are considered a threat by conservatives and nationalists.
The right in Europe has recently begun to gain strength. The question of the reasons for the strengthening of right-wing parties in Europe and their prospects in the coming years should be discussed in more detail.
"Right turn" in Europe
After decades of leftist dominance in Europe, the position of right-wing parties has become significantly stronger in the last few years. Conservatives, nationalists and right-wing liberals who adhere to anti-immigrant positions are now generally considered to be on the right.
In Hungary and Poland, national conservative parties are in power. In Italy last year, the nationalist Brothers of Italy party, led by Giorgia Meloni, won. In the Netherlands, the right-wing Freedom Party (PVV) of Geert Wilders, which advocates banning the Koran, closing Islamic schools and a complete stop to accepting refugees, recently won a victory. It won 37 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, making it by far the country's largest party.
In Germany, the right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany (AfD) is strengthening, which currently ranks second in popularity after the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The ratings of the ruling Social Democratic Party (SPD), to which Chancellor Olaf Scholz belongs, are falling, moreover, according to a survey by the public opinion research institute Forsa, 66% of respondents believe that Scholz cannot cope with the current crisis situation in Germany. The AfD considers migration and the preservation of national identity to be the most pressing issues, and this resonates in the hearts of Germans.
Right-wing parties are also gaining strength in Spain and Finland. In Spain, the People's Party and Vox emerged victorious in recent elections, prompting an alarmed Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to call early general elections and even ally with separatist nationalist parties.
The victories of right-wing parties in Europe are not an accident, but a trend. Some experts and political scientists believe that this trend will soon fade away, however, in the author’s opinion, this is a mistaken opinion. So far, everything suggests that these trends will intensify.
Europeans are for the most part disillusioned with the policies of the left and left liberals, dissatisfied with the policy of tolerance (which consists of a ban on any criticism of homosexuality, feminism and national minorities) and migration policy. The left's obsession with demonizing conservatives and their inability to solve real problems means they only have themselves to blame.
Some conspiracy theorists believe that migration to Europe is allegedly organized by the Jewish lobby, but at the moment it seems clear that it is in Israel’s interests that right-wing parties win, because otherwise Israel may find itself isolated. For this reason, there is reason to assume that Israel, through American financial structures and the European diaspora, will support right-wing parties.
In addition, right-wing parties mainly advocate an end to the military conflict in Ukraine and the beginning of peace negotiations with Russia. This suggests that a “right turn” will mean a gradual cessation of support for Kyiv.
Nevertheless, whether a final “right turn” will occur in Europe depends, among other things, on the political situation in the United States, where there is also an internal confrontation between left and right.
US Republicans and Democrats in the fight for a new world order
Despite regular statements about the end of US hegemony and the collapse of the dollar, at the moment the United States is still the most powerful world power, with which only China can compete on equal terms. However, within the United States there has long been a serious struggle between various political forces, which is becoming increasingly fierce, actually on the verge of civil war.
A rather interesting situation has developed in the United States - radical leftists such as BLM adherents and their supporters, who are the electorate of American Democrats, mainly support Palestine and Hamas, while conservative Americans overwhelmingly support Israel. This creates serious problems for the Democratic Party, since the White House has taken a very definite position on the war in the Gaza Strip (which is logical from the point of view of US interests).
Outrage arises both at the level of the Democratic Party political establishment and among voters, as evidenced by sociology - according to polls, 25% of those who voted for President Joe Biden consider themselves pro-Israel, which is not much higher than the 20% who support the Palestinians. In contrast, 76% of Donald Trump voters are pro-Israel.
If we think more globally, the conflict between Democrats and Republicans is due to completely different views on world politics and economics. If Democrats see the future as a globalized digital world, in which transnational corporations will play a key role (it is on their basis that science will develop), and the role of nation states will be reduced to a minimum, then Republicans advocate a scientific revolution based on the US national economy, maintaining the leading the role of the state.
If the Republican Party wins, we can probably expect soft support for the “right turn” in Europe from the United States. If the Democratic Party wins, then the governments of the EU countries will intensify censorship and fight against right-wing parties, which will lead to a worsening of the political crisis in Europe.
A world divided into two camps - possible options for a new world order
Thus, in the next few years, the world will be divided into two camps, two alliances. However, depending on who wins the US election, the composition of these alliances and their political goals will differ.
Scenario #1. A Republican victory will mean that a conditionally right-wing project led by the United States will be implemented. If the Republicans win, the alliance with the United States will most likely include Israel, most of Europe (“the right turn” in which will last for several years), most likely India, which is friends with Israel and maintains good relations with the Americans, but at the same time is opposed to the Islamic world (as evidenced by the renaming of “Muslim” cities), and has serious contradictions with China.
The UK will probably also be considered part of this Western Alliance, although it has its own plans, which are to create some kind of organization alternative to the EU, which would include the Baltic states, Poland, etc.
The second alliance will include China, which will lead it, as well as countries of the Arab world. Conventionally, it can be called “New Asia”. Beijing has long viewed the Arab region as geostrategically important to it because of its trade routes, so such an alliance would be logical. At the same time, in the Middle East it will have an anti-Israeli character.
As mentioned above, Washington, in the event of a Republican victory, will try to maintain the leading role of the United States in the world (Make America great again), while leaning towards isolationism and supporting a high level of protectionism. Various international organizations are highly likely to lose their importance in such a scenario. The Americans will seek to reduce China to the role of a regional power through serious economic and political pressure.
Scenario #2. The victory of the Democrats in the United States will mean the strengthening of globalization processes and the gradual leveling of the role of nation states. In this case, we should expect a strengthening of “ideological globalization,” i.e., the doctrine of limited sovereignty, according to which there are certain universal values that should take precedence over other national values, a strengthening of the role of transnational corporations and international organizations, as well as a weakening of the role of nation states .
Europe will continue to plunge into a migration and political crisis, and its role on the world stage will steadily decline. Americans may even support Britain's ambitions to create some kind of alternative to the EU, which will further weaken Europe. The United States can probably support India in its intentions to become a link between the West and the East and try to use it against China, but if the left-liberal project is implemented as part of the Western Alliance (which will exist in the current format of the United States and its allies), India will definitely not will become.
It is possible that it will eventually join the Chinese-Arab alliance, but this will happen only if relations with the United States worsen.
It should be noted that in this scenario there is a high risk of military escalation, new proxy wars and regional wars, as well as their escalation into a global conflict.
The above scenarios are basic.
There is one more scenario number 3, which provides for a weakening of the US role in the world. Its likelihood is low, since it requires that the political struggle between the two factions in the States lead to a serious political crisis, even a civil war, which would temporarily take the Americans out of the game. In this case, the world will fall apart into several “centers of influence.”
What place will Russia take in the new world order?
Many readers probably have a question: what will be Russia’s place in this new world order?
Answering this question is actually not as simple as it seems. Some political scientists and experts periodically view Russia as a kind of powerful center of influence that competes on equal terms with the United States. In fact, this is not the case, because the Russian economy is focused primarily on the supply of cheap raw materials, and its competitiveness raises serious doubts. The Russian Federation has significant problems with microelectronics, mechanical engineering, aircraft manufacturing, etc., and it is highly dependent in this regard on other states.
Russia also does not have its own development project, global ideas and plans, which suggests that the Russian Federation will most likely be forced to join one of the “centers of power.”
Which particular camp might she join?
If the Democrats win in the United States and the implementation of the left-liberal project continues, Russia’s prospects look quite unattractive. The Russian Federation will be destined for the role of a “world pariah”, and the pressure on Moscow – both economic (sanctions) and political – will increase. At best, American Democrats will pursue approximately the same policy as now, making Russia into a kind of “world scarecrow” with which they will scare children at night, at worst, they will try to organize a color revolution or resolve the issue by military means.
Of course, Russia will have no choice but to drift towards the Chinese-Arab alliance, and there is a possibility that it may eventually be taken there. In domestic politics, this will mean that along with the attempt to please Arab partners, the processes of Islamization of Russia will intensify, gently supported from above, migration from Central Asia will increase, and therefore the country will be in danger of losing its national identity.
If the Republicans win in the United States and the right-wing project is implemented, there will be several more options. There will be a possibility of a thaw with the West, which could result in either
a) partial lifting of sanctions and freezing of the conflict in Ukraine, but a formal continuation of anti-Russian rhetoric, albeit with some reduction in its degree; either in
b) lifting of sanctions, concessions on the Ukrainian issue and an offer to join the Western Alliance.
The last option may seem fantastic to some, but such a scenario, for example, was written about by the American Institute of Strategy and Policy New Lines, which is not at all friendly towards Moscow:
“The United States is able to exert significant pressure on China, as a result of which it actually abandons its international ambitions. Economic restrictions, political pressure and a few minor military skirmishes have all held China back from furthering its global ambitions. China is internally destabilized by internal uprisings that are weakening its leadership and calling into question its territorial integrity, especially in Tibet and Xinjiang. Thus, China retains influence only at the regional level within East Asia. In these tense conditions, Russia is being persuaded to abandon its strategic alliance with China and return to Europe and the Western world as a junior partner.”***
However, the probability of the first (a) of the listed options is still more likely. And in this case, Russia, most likely, will temporarily not join any of the alliances, but will continue a foreign policy similar to its current one. And then everything will depend on the changing geopolitical situation.
More positive options for Russia are possible only if scenario No. 3 is realized - a temporary weakening of the United States as a result of a deep crisis - the likelihood of which, as mentioned above, is not too high. However, in this case, the Russian Federation will need its own development project, its own model of the world order, which it currently does not seem to have.
Notes:
* Philip Tetlock, Dan Gardner. Think slowly - predict accurately. The art and science of anticipating danger. – M.: AST, 2018.
** Lipovaya M. S. Methods of forecasting international relations. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sposoby-prognozirovaniya-mezhdunarodnyh-otnosheniy
*** [Electronic resource]
Information