The West Isolates Russia – Pacifism or the Calm Before the Storm?
|HIGHLIGHTS → US and EU isolate Russia.
→ Russia faces economic recession.
→ NATO fears Russian plans to aggressively annex additional countries.
UPDATES → After Majority Leader Harry Reid abandoned a provision opposed by Republicans, which would have boosted the International Monetary Fund, the Senate finally reached an agreement to aid Ukraine. Read more at Business Week.
Western allies isolate Russia from a planned summit in June on Monday in an attempt to show Russian President Vladimir Putin just how intertwined their survival is with the rest of the international community. As NATO is predicting Russia’s egregious gesture toward rebuilding their empire, the international community is shaken up and possibly even calling Russia’s bluff, because they’re hurting too.
In fact, Russia is diving head first into a recession.
Cold War Russia didn’t have Moscow’s stock market to threaten them with an economic recession like they do today. Also, the latter half of the 20th century didn’t have to deal with being overexposed either – overexposed by having the commoners communicating so easily, reading worldly articles and wild opinions, while exchanging ideas and connecting. Being exposed to the outside world was a nonexistent obstacle then.
The West’s pacifist attempts to allay communication with dialectic discussions is an historical milestone. If it weren’t for how interdependent we all are, then we’d have a blood bath by now, but instead the amalgam of economic globalization and the environmental paucity of natural resources positions Western foreign policy at an auspicious angle for pacifism.
Notice how I meticulously expressed the European Union and United States’ motives as merely a fate of circumstances? They’re positioned to respond in a civil manner. When geopolitical power is founded on a grotesque dependence on hydraulic fracturing (mentioned in an earlier article here), then their motives inevitably appear less glamorous.
At the same time, maybe the barbaric, below-third-world ways this planet has been treated is finally being exposed as well. Crimea’s annexation inundated economic wounds and political turmoil, setting off a global alarm for the deformed state of the natural energy market and the environment.
While international sanctions are being tossed back and forth, east and west, the world is waiting for Russia’s disparaging destruction to come to a halt, hoping it stops before getting devoured by the roaring flames of its own self-destruction.
Either way, it’s a step towards nonviolence and a rewarding jump away from violent dominance. Perhaps intelligence is finally taming primitive coercion, or maybe we’re inching closer. Or maybe I’m being too idealistic.
Idealistic or not, we’re living in one of the most exciting time periods to date. According to anarcho-pacifist Bart de Ligt, violence is fundamental for the survival of capitalism and any attempt to make it pacifistic is doomed to failure. Once “doomed to failure” is euphemized with “doomed to adapt and evolve,” I’m on board 100 percent. We’re about to witness a humiliating global downfall or an alacrity of constant revolutions, so whichever way we go, lackluster cards will not be dealt.
What impact will the digital age and social media have on global affairs and international crises?
Maybe World War III will be an intellectual battle, where painful stabs are disguised as economic maneuvers. A battle where diminishing geopolitical power is cured by scientific discoveries, where legally bound protection and cordial offerings win the hearts of the wounded, a battle decorated with signed chucks of writing on the matter.
Imposed sanctions and Crimea’s annexation are already believed to be the official kickoff for World War III. So what do you think?
→ Are we entering World War III?
→ If so, do you think pacifism has a shot?
→ How will a world war play out with social media in the digital age?