Russia’s Approach to the Future World Order

by

JULIA VALSHTEIN

Thursday, 2nd May 2024  ukcolumn.org

The conflict in Ukraine is heating up. The called-for ceasefire isn’t happening. As a matter of fact, world reconstruction has begun. Covid was just a try-out.

The West is preparing for global war

The USA and its allies are preparing for global war. Ukraine is just the beginning. It is an opportunity to reinforce military preparations before a more global conflict.

Almost 5,200 Ukrainian soldiers have already been trained by France. Paris planned to train a total of 7,000 troops by the end of 2023, according to French Defence Minister. The United Kingdom is also heavily involved: more than 17,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been trained by London and its allies over the last year. New tranches of support for Ukraine are being announced. Obviously, the West does not intend to halt the conflict.

The West denies its involvement in Ukraine, while its actions tell otherwise. President Joe Biden signed an executive order on 13 July 2023 allowing the USA “to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct of Operation Atlantic Resolve in and around the United States European Command’s area of responsibility.” No more than 3,000 reserves, “of whom not more than 450 may be members of the Individual Ready Reserve,” may be called up. The Pentagon increased the US troop presence on the continent by about 20,000 in 2022. 64 US and British special forces operatives were active in Ukraine in March 2023, according to leaked American documents. At least 100 CIA officers are deployed there, too. The number of NATO troops in Europe is 100,000. The alliance is going to increase its high readiness forces to 300,000.

Why does the West need to increase its troop presence on the continent?  It looks like Washington and NATO countries are going to be ready to fight in Europe. In that case, it is nothing less than preparation for a full-scale war with Russia.

45% of adults in Britain consider that the size of the UK armed forces should be increased, a YouGov Survey reports. It should be borne in mind that the new Chief of the General Staff of the British Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, warned in June 2022 that British troops must be prepared to fight against Russia in a potential Third World War.

The Franco-German brigade had drills in Lithuania at the end of June 2023. 256 German and 158 French soldiers were training in “high-intensity warfare”, the same kind as the war raging on NATO’s eastern flank. Their aim was to prevent the Russians from invading NATO territory. Later, the French President announced the construction of a new military hospital in Marseilles, with the facility intended “to prepare France for a possible high-intensity war.” The Assemblée Nationale approved $450 billion military spending on 13 July 2023: the largest French defence budget in half a century. “The money would modernize France’s nuclear arsenal, augment intelligence spending and develop more remote-controlled weapons,” as the Associated Press observes.

Poland held its largest military parade since the Cold War on 15 August 2023. Warsaw is asserting itself as one of the leading European military powers. Poland has over 172,000 armed troops, according to the Polish Defence Ministry. However, Poland has recently classified the exact size of its army. Now, it is impossible to compare the growth rate of various national militaries in numbers of personnel. The Polish Government plans to create an army of 300,000 troops to resist Russia.

Warsaw aims to allocate up to 4% of its GDP—twice the NATO agreed norm—to increase defence spending. By way of comparison, Poland spent 2.42% of its GDP on defence in 2022, according to NATO estimates. 

What is this but preparation for global war? Are Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the USA, Poland and other NATO members going to fight in Europe once again? If European leaders don’t seriously reassess the consequences of a global war with Moscow, they risk making an issue of Europe’s very existence. Europe in such an eventuality shouldn’t expect a second Marshall Plan to help it cope with the economic strain: that would not be advantageous for Washington. It is a sink-or-swim world.

Worst-case scenario for Russia

There are several possible scenarios for future developments. These are the scenario of a bipolar world (the West on the one hand and the East on the other), the scenario of a multipolar world, and the scenario of a new world order, where all the power belongs to multinational corporations and other non-state actors. If Moscow is not able to deter its adversary with superior military potential, that will be the worst option for Russia. Specifically, if the United States and its allies create a huge arsenal of precision weapons and a global missile defence system to repel a Russian nuclear strike, that is a threat to Moscow.

Washington is doing its utmost for global military dominance and strategic survivability. Its efforts include conventional weapons, high-precision weapons, nuclear forces, a global missile defence system and cyberwarfare.

The United States is deploying its missile defence systems at the borders of its designated adversaries in order to be able to launch a sudden nuclear strike on their territory and defend against a retaliatory strike. (Details are given in Russian studies: Kozin V.P., Evolution of US Ballistic Missile Defence and Russia’s Stance (1945–2013). Moscow: Inforos. 2014. 351 pp.; Kozin V.P., Evolution of US Missile Defence Beyond 2040 and Russia’s Stance. Moscow: Sabashnikov Publishing House. 2016. 446 pp.) There is also a concept of a prompt global strike (whether or not there would truly be an American first use of nuclear weapons is debated) that would entail delivering a precision-guided conventional weapon airstrike anywhere in the world within one hour. This attack concept is similar to a nuclear strike in its manner. It is also known that the Pentagon is developing the concept of “pre-launch” destruction of the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) of its opponents, as well as their destruction at the stage of acceleration. That means they are supposed be hit by NATO before they are launched or before cruising velocity is attained.

The development of global missile defence has a special importance in the modernisation of US military potential. America’s new Missile Defense Review, published in 2022, names China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and non-state actors as threats. Large missile arsenals now include not only offensive ballistic, hypersonic and cruise weapons, but also Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS), alias drones. In this regard, it should be emphasised that contemporary US missile defence strategy is associated with the strategies of nuclear deterrence and the use of non-nuclear means. In particular, it has to do with the use of global Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD), which includes an integrated air defence system and missile defence of US territory as well as integrated air defence and missile defence systems of allies and partners.

Operating, upgrading and maintaining US nuclear forces is expected to cost $756 billion over the 2023–2032 period; $122 billion more than was estimated for the 2021–2030 period. The United States continues to be the top spender on nuclear weapons. US-owned nuclear weapons have long been deployed at six NATO airbases in continental Europe: in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey.

Whereas earlier the USA denied that its missile defence system in Europe was fashioned against Russia, now it does not hide its true intentions. The conflict in Ukraine has also lent impetus to the development of American ballistic missile defence systems, since the Patriot system is the part of the European missile defence shield.

Global corporations run the world

There is no doubt that the Russo-Ukrainian conflict—or, to be precise, its resolution—will have a substantial impact on the future world order. It is a foregone conclusion that the “winners” will seek to reshape it to their satisfaction, at the expense of the “losers”. However, there is a possible scenario in which none of the (super)state actors—Russia, Ukraine, the EU or the US—is a “winner”. Non-state actors—the multinational corporations—will be the ones to “win”.

Multinational corporations, or MNCs, are an integral part of the world economy, the “engines of globalisation”. They are already acting politically: actively lobbying for the laws they need to increase productivity or sales, and fronting influence campaigns to promote or introduce agendas. This is also being pursued vigorously by Big Tech firms such as Meta (Facebook). Some Western MNCs are the largest of military contractors—Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Rheinmetall, BAE Systems—and they profit from the current Eastern European conflict as never before.

NATO member states have increased their defence spending, and all that money goes directly to these corporations, bolstering their market value, influence and capabilities, both economic and political. What I am outlining may resemble the plot of some dystopian cyberpunk video game, where states have almost no authority and society is run by corporations; but it is a very possible scenario.

If the war in Ukraine continues for another three to six years, the damage to the world economy could become irreversible.  Continue reading….