A World on Edge: Neoliberalism’s Fault Lines Exposed in Ukraine Conflict
The global landscape is crackling with tension. Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, now exceeding three years, coupled with simmering crises in Gaza and Lebanon, paints a grim picture of a world teetering on the brink. Amidst this chaos, the G7 ministers met in Anagni, Italy, a location steeped in historical conflict, symbolizing the clash of political and economic titans vying for global dominance.
This struggle, according to some analysts, reveals a deeper malaise: "unhappy geography." Vast regions, ravaged by economic decline and fueled by a sense of disenfranchisement, have become breeding grounds for populist revolt. This unrest, echoing Donald Trump’s rise to power in the US, transcends purely economic concerns, reflecting a broader cultural and identity crisis. People feel a profound loss of traditional values and fear a descent into global conflict.
Adding fuel to the fire is a phenomenon dubbed "malmenorism," a term coined by Miguel Urban Crespo. This dynamic sees voters choosing the "lesser evil" rather than actively supporting a candidate based on merit. While this strategy may offer temporary respite, it perpetuates the very elites the system seeks to dismantle.
This malmenorism is the fruit of competing neoliberal ideologies. On one hand, there are the brazenly undemocratic billionaires, rejecting egalitarianism. On the other, stands "advanced neoliberalism," a theory developed by philosopher Nancy Fraser. This paradoxical alliance marries economic elites with progressive causes like feminism, LGBTQ rights, and environmentalism. By championing these movements, advanced neoliberalism obscures its unapologetically pro-capitalist agenda, allowing it to thrive while maintaining a veneer of social responsibility.
The Ukrainian conflict epitomizes this ideological battle. President Biden’s decision to lift restrictions on long-range missiles provided to Ukraine suggests a deeper game afoot. This escalation, supported by Western allies, seems aimed at undermining any potential peace negotiations led by Donald Trump upon assuming office in January.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in a revealing statement during a visit to Kyiv, highlighted the underlying economic motivations: "Ukraine is sitting on a gold mine… There are between 10 and 12 trillion dollars in critical minerals, which could be the richest country in Europe. I don’t want that money to be in the hands of Putin or China."
Russia’s response was swift and decisive. The deployment of its hypersonic Oreshnik missile, capable of piercing Western defenses and striking targets at astonishing speeds, sent a chilling message.
This display of force has thrown a wrench into the West’s war calculus. While advanced neoliberals push for continued confrontation with Russia, the Oreshnik’s deployment has revealed Moscow’s formidable capabilities, tempering their bellicose stance.
As the world watches, three potential scenarios loom:
-
Nuclear annihilation: A catastrophic outcome that would devastate all involved.
-
Limited but impactful retaliation: The deployment of the Oreshnik and other strategic weapons, disrupting the current geopolitical order.
- Strategic patience: Russia biding its time, waiting for the potential change in leadership in Washington and the prospect of peace negotiations under Donald Trump. This scenario appears most probable. However, the escalating tensions between NATO and Russia, fueled by hawkish figures in both camps, increase the risk of an unforeseen turn of events.
The world holds its breath, teetering on the precipice of conflict while powerful forces clash over ideology, resources, and the very future of global stability.
