I was inspired to compose the text by a debate in which I participated on 17 May in Wroclaw on the Foum G2. Moderating her red. Krzysztof Skowroński asked a question about Poland and the European Union in a fresh bipolar world. Of the 5 speakers (subsecretary of state of the Ministry of abroad Affairs Paweł Jabłoński, prof. Wojciech Syłewski, ed. Józef Orzeł, ed. Bartłomiej Radziejewski and my modest person) as many as 4 went to the agenda on the question about the end of the U.S. hegemony, with only that ed. B. Radziejewski added that we already function in multi- and not double-polar order.
A akin conclusion (about the fall of the single-polar order) came – if I understood the message correctly – Prof. Bohdan Góralczyk, with whom I had the pleasance of taking part in the debate on 25 May at the University of Warsaw (composed of: prof. T. Grosse, panelists: Gen. W. Skrzypczak, Prof. B. Góralczyk, Dr. M. Bonikowska, ed. F. Dąb-Mirowski and KW).
Interestingly, a large part of people who agree with the explanation about the end of hegemony at the same time emphasizes the request to cooperate Poland with the US as the only real guarantor of our security. It's like saying that Poland should put money on a lost (American) horse.
The fact that a large part of the intellectual, journalistic, and political environment is assessing in this way the reality has caused my surprise, but besides my concern. due to the fact that if the reality assessment goes beyond the actual state of affairs, then you can only draw the right conclusions by accident.
However, in reasoning of the geopolitical or geostrategic situation of our country, we should follow a real assessment of the situation in the planet (including our region). Only appropriate perception should make an image on which a possible and realistic imagination of the future can be built. Which always helps to measure what decisions request to be made present to be in the right place at the right time tomorrow. The misassessment of the situation may have disastrous consequences for the state, as is the case in the case of the Russian Federation. Vladimir Putin was most likely convinced that the United States' created order had already broken down, and the West found itself in a state of geopolitical agony. This was surely 1 of the grounds for deciding to invade Ukraine, which should be read as throwing the challenge to hegemon and the existing system. The problem is that Putin believed in his own propaganda, and Russia found herself in an impossible situation. And no substance how the conflict ends in Ukraine. What I wrote in my article entitled “The Russian Federation has already lost – the question of how much more harm can it do?“
So 1 cannot escape – rather academic – a dispute over what kind of planet we truly live in? The false answer to this question may lead us to the momentum of events we do not want to find ourselves in.
What is simply a single-polar world
In order to be able to say that the United States' hegemony has ceased to exist, first of all, what do we truly realize in terms of planet hegemony or the single-polar world? Is it a strategy in which people from Washington, like puppets, manage another capitals and make decisions for them? Of course it's not, and it never was.
The concept of hegemony dates back to ancient Greece, but it would not be right to compare the ancient knowing of the word to modern conditions. For in the case of the United States hegemony, it is not a simple political-military dominance in the global arena obtained by threat or force. In ancient times, hegemony was referred to when, for example, Sparta straight dictated conditions in the Greek world. But could the United States ever, after 1991, impose their will entirely: Russia, China, India or even weak Iran? Nope. The U.S. may have exerted pressure, negotiated, concluded a trade deal, or isolated the state (politically and economically) which showed an enemy attitude towards Washington. Thus, in the modern sense of the single - pole planet order, even the course against hegemon did not undermine the position of that hegemon. due to the fact that modern hegemony does not find whether everyone in the planet stands before the president of the United States on alert and a number of another factors.
So the single-polar planet order – which undoubtedly came after 1991 – was created in a much more complicated way and in many cases with the voluntary acceptance of many countries. Acceptance, which resulted from many American advantages in terms of economic, cultural, financial, technological, industrial, political and, of course, military. The American presidents became leaders of the planet and did not consequence from their military conquests (although this was indirectly the consequence of armed conflicts, i.e. the First and Second planet War).
At the same time, it should be remembered that erstwhile defining the world's hegemony, the primacy of the leader must be global alternatively than local (as in the case of Athens and Sparta, the dominance of the world, but only Greek). Consequently, the concept of global hegemony must necessarily be understood differently from local hegemony, as it is hard to imagine the direct dictatorship of 1 state over the full world. If you took specified a sharp definition of the concept, it would mean that there is no global hegemony and never was. The reality is that present we have a completely different knowing of planet hegemony than this zero-one.
It is besides worth mentioning that, for example, Prof. Jayantha Jayman in his study: "The Politics of global Political Economy” (2015) listed a list of respective historical hegemons, i.e. Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, France or Britain. However, it seems (although a question to discuss) that no of these powers held a planet position as strong as the United States after 1991. However, there is no uncertainty that in any of these cases the individual hegemons did not have complete power over the remainder of the planet and there were always forces or centres of power not only assertive to the dominant but besides competitive.
Consequently, it is clear that the monopolar order concerns specified an global arrangement in which there are (and always has been so) entities which are somewhat independent of hegemon, which can compete with it and even challenge it.
There is no dispute with the fact that the United States, for example, in 1997, whether in 1999 or even in 2010, held a planet hegemon position. However, it is apparent that, for example, India has conducted a reasonably skeptical abroad policy against Washington in those years, Russia has never demonstrated a peculiar sensitivity to Americans, and in 2008 it attacked Georgia militarily. besides in the context of China, we cannot talk of a vassal attitude towards the US. Not now, not 20 or 30 years ago. Not to mention Iran or North Korea.
Therefore, we should ask ourselves, how is the planet order of anno domini 2023 different from that of 2010 or 1999? China and Russia are assertive of the US? And erstwhile they weren't? India has quite a few political independence, but was it a decade or 2 ago?
Is the growth in the Chinese GDP index itself deciding that planet governance has collapsed and a fresh 1 has arisen? And if so, where was that line? With precisely what value of Chinese GDP (or proportion to US GDP) 1 can say that yes, it was this minute of breakthrough and nothing is as it was. That's right, has so much changed due to the growth of Chinese GDP? Did the fact that the Chinese economy had grown to break American alliances, even those in the Far East? Did the Chinese armed forces become the most powerful and displace the U.S. Navy, even from the mediate East? Did the Chinese currency become desirable in global trade like a dollar or a euro?
True, only a individual with small orientation would not announcement that the foundations of American dominance are weakening. And we're seeing any kind of degradation of the American power. However, no breakthrough has yet occurred. With mention to historical examples, it is worth remembering that, despite the fact that in the 20th inter-war period the worn-out large War European powers licked their wounds, no 1 has always made the thesis that the bipolar planet had already begun in 1918 (end of planet War I) or 1929 (explosion of the large crisis). Not until at least 1945 we had a multipolar order.
Historical breakthroughs
In global relations, the process is everything. Even the decisions of ferocious Hitler were preceded by a series of events and decisions that consisted of a certain tendency. The decision to start the war in 1939 was only a consequence of many earlier circumstances (although political remilitarization of Rhineland, Anschluss, the Munich Agreement).
In history, however, it is easy to indicate the moments and even the circumstantial dates at which the breakthrough took place. Events after which no 1 had any uncertainty that the current of past was directed at fresh tracks. I think anyone could point to the minute erstwhile from the planet of multipolar global order went into bipolarity. This happened after 1945 (or more than 1947). So after the end of planet War II, in which Hitler destroyed the European Western powers. Stalin then defeated Hitler in the battlefields, and later, together with Roosevelt, he played Churchill at the table during the peace talks.
Also, the date from which the American hegemony began is not just a evidence on a calendar card. The breakthrough event here was the collapse of the russian Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Of course, the Soviets have been weak for decades, and the process leading to these events has been prolonged. However, no 1 claims that, for example, in 1987 we had to deal with unpolicity on the global stage. It took 1989 and 1991 to say that there had been fundamental changes for the full planet order. What we, as Poles, felt like fewer others.
The breakthrough moments can be recognized, among another things, by the fact that powers gaining fresh position (e.g. hegemon, or second pole) accomplish greater perpetuity than they had before. However, the powers which, as a consequence of the large change, lost their position besides lost their possible to influence in the way they could have done it before. For example, the United States confirmed its hegemon position at the time of NATO's extension in 1999 to the erstwhile Warsaw Pact. Which would have been impossible before 1991. In this context, it is besides worth noting that in 2023 NATO expanded to include Finland (and we are inactive waiting for Sweden). This proves that despite the war in Ukraine, the United States strengthened its position towards the Russian Federation, not weakened.
Can we then indicate 1 circumstantial date or more of an event that has completely overturned the global order? Is the day we learned that Chinese GDP counted with purchasing power parity is higher than the dot rate. The U.S. had a complete collapse in its current order, a reversal of alliances, economical changes or any other? As a consequence of the growth of the Chinese economy (as well as the weakening of the American economy – what should be seen) has the U.S. doings decreased dramatically? Aren't Americans capable of isolation and weakening the Russian Federation? Can't the United States wage an economical and technological war with China due to the fact that they've already lost it? Can't the United States keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers outside their country and carry out armed interventions? Did planet order fall apart after the 2008 crisis, the 2020 pandemic or the second 2022 invasion of Ukraine?
There is only 1 short and correct answer to all these questions. Nope. Nothing like that happened due to the fact that we'd all know and comment. The Americans are weakening, but not due to the fact that they are bowing to Russia or China. These structural interior problems of the United States make hegemon number the money spent. However, tools (military power, political influences, alliances, currency dominance, etc.) are inactive at the disposal of the Washington elite and could be utilized if the interests of the United States so require.
The breakthrough (still) did not come, and a sack of gold came to him who could foretell the time in which it would occur. What is inevitable is that all process will come to an end. The question is, Will the U.S. hegemony last another year, a decade or half a century? This is what the global conflict is about. Challenges that are hard to predict. However, in my opinion, what I described and explained in the book “Third Decade. planet present and in 10 years” the largest enemy of American hegemony is the United States itself. Or their interior problems. Paradoxically, the greater the external challenges, the more the Americans will be mobilised and determined to deal with them. The minute of breakthrough – the fall of hegemony – may happen after the neutralization of Russia and the subjugation of China. Then American attention can focus on national issues, and political precedence can become deep economical and social reform. In that case, it would be the Americans themselves who would choose to resign as hegemon, and the slogan: ‘America First’ erstwhile again, it would be understood as "OnlyAmericaIt’s okay. ” Which would not be a novelty in the past of the United States, but would give birth to serious repercussions (and this negative) all over the globe. besides for Russia, China or the national Republic of Germany.
Russia challenges
At this point, any may point to Russia's 2022 aggression on Ukraine as a breakthrough that would attest to the end of U.S. hegemony. We are dealing with the first, so large, full-scale armed conflict in Europe since the Second planet War. A conflict that should not have happened if hegemon had existed. The problem is that the single-polar planet inactive exists, and it is only the Moscow authorities who have come to the incorrect conclusion that the time has come for the United States to "finish" and the unity of the West. Which has precisely the other effect. Thus, Putin's incorrect assessment of reality led to a incorrect decision.
This event, like China's GDP growth, did not tip over the table and did not break the existing agreements. On the contrary, the West has united. NATO has strengthened and expanded. Europe has become more independent of Russia on energy issues and has begun to invest in security. On the another hand, Russia weakened, lost its tools of blackmail against the West (export of gas and oil), and besides degraded its military possible destroyed in Ukraine.
No "Eastern Block" has been created, and there are more and more discrepancies between Beijing and Moscow. And this despite the fact that the Russians and the Chinese are trying to play a perfect matrimony towards the outside world. In fact, China does not support Russia in Ukraine, does not invest in fresh infrastructure projects (like the Siberian Power 2), keeps the distance to Moscow in fear of Western sanctions, and at the same time enters the Russian "area of influence" trying to become a mediator in the war in Ukraine. On the another hand, Putin uses suggestions and threats related to the anticipation of atomic weapons, which clearly hits Chinese communicative and interests.
The geostrategic situation of the Russian Federation deteriorated importantly compared to the 1 before 24 February 2022. Russia is even more isolated, it has not gained fresh allies, and it besides loses those to date (such as Armenia or the countries of Central Asia).
So far, the Russians have not achieved any strategical goals they had hoped for in connection with the second invasion of Ukraine. And even if they defeated Ukraine on the battlefield, their geopolitical situation would not improve. This will not solve the issue of political isolation, and a fresh problem will arise with respect to the pacification of occupied Ukraine. On the another hand, the West has already dealt with the fresh situation on political and economical levels. At the same time, he is working on an adequate military deterrent potential. But for now, we're just considering an alternate for the benefit of Russia. Meanwhile, this war in Ukraine may inactive lose. The conflict may besides take place further years, which time will simply kill the Russian Federation due to its structural interior problems, as well as accelerating their detonation of sanctions.
On February 24, 2022, Putin made an even bigger mistake than in 2014, erstwhile Moscow lost all Ukraine to its sphere of influence, but thanks to the hybrid war she managed to regain Crimea and Donbas. The problem is that this kind of "success" did not limit losses at all, but enlarged them. For the sanctions introduced after 2014 as well as the "implantation" of Ukrainians – which allowed them to prepare for 2022 – contributed to further defeats of Moscow. After these events, there was no longer a chance for the alleged second reset of the US-Russia relationship, or repetition of the 2009 maneuver. erstwhile Barack Obama decided to make a deal with Vladimir Putin after the Russian-Georgian War (the U.S. notabenes had no another choice then, as I described in the text entitled: “Reset Obama saved the planet and Poland?).
It is clear, however, that Russia threw a hegemon challenge in 2008, 2014 and 2022. In the second case, acting in the hope that the seizure of Ukraine will lead to a disintegration of a planet order based on American dominance. It's just as apparent that Putin lost. The example of Russia and the situation in which this country found itself due to aggressive abroad policy has not encouraged anyone to follow the Kremlin's footsteps. On the contrary, it seems that even the Chinese rapidly sobered up and assessed that the full affair proved unprofitable for Moscow. This besides gives the Beijing decision-makers reasoning about regaining Taiwan. Despite expanding force on Formosa, Beijing authorities are far from making hasty decisions. I'm certain it's not that time yet. Therefore, a long-term horizon (until 2049) was set to deal with the “rebellious province”.
This does not change the fact that the global planet order and the U.S. hegemony passed the Russian test. The United States – not even entering the fight – exhausts Russia by providing support to Ukrainians. Skeptics have pointed out over the years that Americans are weak due to the fact that in their own doctrine they considered that they were incapable to win parallel 2 large wars at different theatres of action. However, it is forgotten that the United States is able to defeat its opponent without beginning even 1 front. This was the case during russian intervention in Afghanistan, and this is the case with the Russian “special operation” in Ukraine.
Written by: Buying the latest book: “#This is our war”, in which you will find analyses concerning, among others, the interests of Poland in the context of the war struggles in Ukraine; the large strategy of Poland in the context of the construction of the armed forces of Poland; relations between Poland and Ukraine present and in the future. All books ordered by the blog will be signed
This is our war. Ukraine and Poland on the common front
It is besides forgotten that before the United States defeated the Soviets, earlier with a bang they lost the Vietnam War... And while leaving Afghanistan in 2021 looked terrible, it should be remembered that Afghanistan was no key front in the American conflict against Russia or China. This event not only did not reduce the possible of the United States, but did. It can be written that the Americans withdrew from Afghanistan at the last minute, making them prepared for the Ukrainian script of 2022. alternatively of transporting equipment and supplies to Central Asia, they diverted logistics chains towards Kiev.
Second pole?
Quite frequently raised argument related to the alleged fall of hegemony is the fact that never before in the past of a competitor (adversary) of the United States was as strong economically compared to the US as the modern Chinese People's Republic. However, this is not as apparent as it is presented. The economical and economical power of the country is not measured by the GDP index alone. The economical and economical power of the State is besides expressed, inter alia, by the fact that the country is independent in this area. In the meantime, it must be stressed that The full Chinese economy and its growth depend on imports of energy natural materials by sea, as well as exports of Chinese goods – besides by sea – to the West. On the another hand, the Chinese manufacture has proven to be dependent on modern semiconductors whose technologies are in the hands of the United States and allies. Moreover, profits on trade with the US and the EU account for almost half of the full commercial income of the People's Republic of China. And let's remember 1 thing. It's American. US Navy controls planet sea routes. Chinese prosperity depends on the safety of the United States and the existence of a single-pole order (and thus globalised supply chains). If the Chinese had created a second pole and attacked clearly US interests, then the United States would have broken supply chains and started the process of isolation of the "second pole" as it was in the Cold War. I don't think we request to explain what would happen to the Chinese economy without adequate oil, gas and an absorbent Western market. Of course, this would besides be painful for the United States and the West. It is so argued that, given the synergy of economies, it is impossible to break Western-Chinese ties. However, the Washington authorities have a policy towards this. It is besides worth mentioning the synergies between Europe and Russia in relation to dependence on Russian: gas and oil. Where is this synergy now? This example shows that there are no inseparable bonds. It should be borne in head that both the EU and the United States, after experience with COVID and the war in Ukraine, have launched processes aimed at shortening supply chains and bringing production into their own backyard.
The envisaged effects of this kind of outlook seem so severe for the People's Republic of China that the Beijing authorities did not take any chances and cast no authoritative challenge on the United States, as Russia did. They like to grow stronger, accept American punches (like semiconductor sanctions and sanctions against circumstantial companies like Huawei) and wait for a more convenient moment. Hoping that this would always happen, and this would happen before the Chinese face interior problems, which they were eagerly sweeping under the carpet for years (from 1 child's politics, "empty" investments, mismanagement and falsification of statistic etc.).
It is worth mentioning that the Chinese are trying to build advantages that would let them to chess the USA in the future. However, it should be remembered that the US is not busy either. The Chinese dominance in the marketplace for uncommon earth metals (of 94% in 2016) was reduced (60% in 2020). 1 Elon Musk alone has overshadowed Chinese achievements in space in fresh years, and The technology race continues. Its result will not be determined by the number of patents applied for (which is immense for China), their quality, innovation and, above all, the efficiency of implementing fresh solutions on the private market, as well as the state sector (also military).
The fact that the United States seems to be weakening, and China is inactive expanding its possible does not make planet order already transform. This transformation has not taken place at all, and if you are looking at it due to interior problems of the US, it is besides worth looking at this possible second pole... For the People's Republic of China is on the verge of a gap, as I wrote in my analysis: “China on the eve of the crisis. They will not hit Taiwan.”.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the concept of planet governance is closely linked to political dominance alternatively than the economical competitiveness of individual players on the global stage. Of course, the increase in economical power then allows military power to be built and political influence increased. But this kind of dependence is not automatic and depends on many factors. In the meantime, let us look at the political sphere. The People's Republic of China – which would be according to any of the another poles – is trying to save the order created by the Americans (supply chains). due to the fact that it is in this planet order that the Chinese state can and could increase its possible and develop. So since this expected “second pole” is curious in maintaining the planet order (at least at this moment), can we claim that it is simply a real second separate pole?
What does the notion of polarity mean in global politics? Isn't it that an entity becomes any kind of gravitational force that attracts another players to each other? Which in turn allows alliances to be formed, or to make political and economical structures at the expense of the influences of the erstwhile hegemon. If so, a modern example of a country that would choose to usage the U.S. strategy voluntarily would choose an alliance with China by giving up all the privileges to participate in a globalised economy. The Chinese have had a relation with North Korea for decades, as well as flirting with Pakistan, which became their ally for the minute of Imran Khan's rule. North Korea has been completely isolated for decades, and Pakistan – not as pro-Chinese as before – barely stands still. Iran, on the another hand, made no choice, simply after the Ayatollahs took over the regulation of Tehran, the country was completely isolated from the remainder of the world. This was erstwhile no 1 had always thought that the Chinese would leave the rice fields and start working in modern production facilities.
Many at this point would point to BRICS, which is simply a complete misunderstanding, due to the fact that India belongs to this organization, which became China's enemy at Beijing's own request. At the same time, it would be hard to say that Brazil or South Africa would be willing to challenge the United States especially in the context of their geographical location and dependence on maritime routes. The letter ‘R’ and its current location are described above. BRICS is the same loose initiative as V4 or the Weimar Triangle. Have these initiatives always and in any way posed a threat to the EU?
In view of the above-mentioned aspects, it can be written with full work that the People's Republic of China does not presently make any second pole on the global stage. inactive – as in the last century – it is rather a lonely and self-controling country that flirts with Russia, but is afraid of the consequences of an open war with the United States. A country that not only has not broken the existing order, but is trying to keep it as long as possible. At the same time, preparing for its possible breakdown, which, of course, should be seen.
Assessment of reality and conclusions for Poland
If we consider that we already live in a multi-polar world, then the consequences of this constitution would should be crucial for the decisions that Poland should take in the geopolitical sphere. The multipolar management is characterised by the division of the globe into regional spheres of influence, which would mean that Poland should search an agreement with Berlin or Moscow. due to the fact that American guarantees would not be respected in our region, so they would not give any sense of security. However, it is rather the opposite. Moscow's urges are hampered by decisions taken in Washington, D.C., and German ambitions (for EuRussia) had to quit alliance commitments and accept US will as Atlantic leader.
If the Polish political elite had stated after 2014 that it was essential to focus on Germany (for the U.S. hegemony has already fallen), I would not like to see the destiny of Ukrainians today, who, begging for help, would only get a wreath of flowers from Warsaw and Berlin with a note of deep regret that Europe is incapable to take the full list of actions due to deficiency of resources and method possibilities. With the addition of "good luck". Of course, if the United States were inactive a hegemon, then the attitude of Germany and Poland would be modified in this respect, but the example of Berlin shows that even by doing the will of a hegemon it is possible to do this quite... It's slow. In the meantime, this hold in events in Ukraine could mean the defeat of Kiev and a powerful threat to Poland, the European Union and NATO.
Such a variant of events shows the disastrous consequences of misassessment of realities. The reality is that In fresh years and months, we have seen the awakening of the Hegemon, who has pacified Berlin's assertiveness, tamed Moscowand decided to prove to Beijing who's giving out cards internationally. Most importantly, all of these actions have consequences, and so far the tools that Americans have are working. It cannot be said, therefore, that the US has lost its possible for impact, which it had previously had, and consequently has reduced their status. It's precisely the opposite. The United States is demonstrating that the tools are inactive in their hands and Washington can usage them. Russia's challenge in Ukraine proves this. Military reinforcement of NATO's east flank and expansion of the alliance. Sanctification of Russia, China, Iran or North Korea. US Navy demonstrations in the West Pacific. All this is expected to convince you that rumors of hegemon's death are premature. And the fact that Russia is losing, and China is afraid to enter a direct clash shows that the United States is inactive dominant internationally. Although it is surely not as much dominance as we faced 15 years ago. The request to show force is due to the weakening of the image of the US as a planet leader. However, it needs to be stressed that the existence or non-existence of a given strategy can only be established if an empirical test is carried out. Only the consequence of specified a test is evidence. Meanwhile, Putin's last test of planet order was in 2022. And the strategy passed successfully.
It is crucial to be aware, however, that the hazard of a breakthrough and of reorganising planet governance is surely higher than a fewer years ago. Therefore, Poland should support hegemon – due to the fact that we have a community of interests – but at the same time prepare plan "B" in case it has to take greater care of its own safety than before. I described and justified this, among others, in a survey entitled: “Great strategy of the Polish State – ArmyIt’s okay. ” 1 cannot only live in the hope that the United States will win and everything will stay the same. This would be quite a few naivety that Poland and Poles cannot afford. The current global situation needs to be measured clearly, but besides the future. Variant and prepare for these unfavourable scenarios. In 1987, no of the then surviving would dare to say that they live in a single - pole planet order. 2 years later, however, there was a fast and clear change. Are we as close to a breakdown as we were in 1987? Personally, I seriously uncertainty it (maybe it's more around 1980?). But surely already feel the wind that can bring change. By this point, however, we must make maximum usage of the time of Poland's increased function in the hegemonic arrangement of the United States.
In turn, in terms of the fall of hegemony, I am convinced that if this minute had come, no 1 would have been able to miss it, even if he tried very hard.
Krzysztof Wojchal
Geopolitics, politics, economy, law, taxes – blog
In the package cheaper
Package: #This is our war + 3rd Decada
