Den of Conquistadors

“Putin’s trip has been a very public display of the strong relations between Russia and North Korea, whose alignment has deepened in the face of shared animosity toward the West.” Sophie Tanno, CNN, June 20, 2024.

In mid-February, 2022, my neighbor and I shared a whiskey. Politically, we both lean middle, but from different directions. We both have isolationist tendencies rooted in our common, rural upbringing where we took care of our own and expected others to do the same. That evening, in addition to commenting on the bite and burn of what we were sipping, we discussed the recent saber-rattling of Russia towards Ukraine. We concluded that Covid had apparently run its course, so the media needed something else to hype. Putin was just posing to extract some compromise from the West. There was no upside to invasion. He wouldn’t do it.

We were wrong. Less than one week later, Putin invaded Ukraine.

As a businessman in the post-Cold War period, I shared the common Western view that sensible trade diminished the tensions that could otherwise lead to war. But throughout my life, my otherwise isolationist views often put me at odds with both my conservative and liberal peers.

Contrary to conservatives, I never truly bought into the “domino theory” of the Cold War. I have no interest in projecting United States’ values to the rest of the world. I have always felt that NATO’s interests were best represented and funded by the Europeans. I never understood why the US military should intervene in the Yugoslav War. I was torn when Bush invaded Iraq, because I otherwise liked him. I was satisfied when Obama didn’t engage in Syria. Biden’s decision to vacate Afghanistan seemed like a tough choice that needed to be made.

Contrary to the liberals, I was defensively pragmatic. I was a fan of Reagan’s “peace through strength” approach. I applauded his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, otherwise known as Star Wars). I still rue the fact that it was abandoned. I wanted to be able to shoot down anything headed in our direction, so nobody would try. But if we had to fight, I thought Colin Powell had it right. Clear mission, overwhelming force. To hell with “proportionate response.”

Observing the world since that whiskey with my neighbor, I fear my pre-conceptions are wrong. Trade is not the international balm I thought it was. My isolationist ideals are a utopian dream, dashed by the actions of four world leaders: Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Ali Khamanei, and Kim Jong Un.

These leaders disdain the Western-dominated world order. They all project charisma yet retain power with fear and force. They all subordinate the well-being of their populations to fund goals of regional conquest (and their personally lavish lifestyles). They have all benefitted from forty years of one-sided interactions with the West, whom they all hate. They all believe that now is the time to change the West-centric world order. They are collaborating to displace it, ignoring that such collaboration may not serve them well in the end.

Why? The West shows no ambitions for conquest. What vision of a post-Western world order do they share? Do they have some common dream of a brotherhood of man? A singular, peaceful, prosperous world government? “The Global Union of Soviet, Chinese, and Islamic States?” (And maybe “Korean.” Apologies to Kim. But face it. He doesn’t matter.)

Far from common, their ambitious goals diverge dramatically. Putin wants to rebuild a Soviet hegemon in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Xi wants to build an Asian autocracy on Chinese Communist Party principles, enslave the non-compliant, and control world trade. Khamanei wants to establish a global Islamic caliphate. Un just likes to hang with those guys, hoping to not blow himself up building their bombs while he extorts food from whoever he can.

For now, the West is their biggest impediment. But their next impediment is each other. They’re like four players in a game of Risk, agreeing not to roll the dice against each other, until they don’t. Four world leaders cheering each other on, “Overthrow the West!” But without a common view of a better outcome, success is the worst thing that could happen to three of them.

In other words, it’s personal. Each of them, for their own distinct egomaniacal or ideological reasons, just doesn’t like Western influence. Four sociopaths want to displace the West, outcomes be damned, and they are willing to go to war to do it. I suspect these leaders are not negotiating with each other in good faith. I also suspect each of them knows that. (Except maybe Kim. He’s an idiot.)  It was a trick coming up with the word “den” to describe their relationship. “Cult” didn’t work. They don’t share a divine vision. “Club” doesn’t work. They’re not chummy. “Den” works best because of its illicit implication. “Den of vipers,” “den of thieves,” “opium den,” etc. There is a Hole-In-The-Wall Gang feel to them, skirmishing hither and yon, then regrouping within their safe confines. But destined to separate.

The sad thing is, they are going to break so many good things and kill so many innocent people along the way. They already are. That’s why non-sociopaths hate war. Single-minded ruthlessness is required to win. Just like when Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, and Mussolini wrecked the world to pursue what? The world is going to inherit a similar mess, and our children and grandchildren will have to make the best of what’s left. Sooner than we might think. Putin and Xi are both 71. Khamanei is 85. They must act soon to have their impact. (Kim is supposedly only 40, but he’s the Mussolini of the group. He really doesn’t matter.)

I am neither a historian nor a politician. As a late boomer, I’ve lived in an increasingly peaceful and interactive world. My observations may be nothing more than the fears of an aging farm kid having read too much historical fiction. Barrack Obama, another late boomer slightly younger than me, described an “arc of history” that bends towards justice. Typical optimistic boomerism...

That arc describes the past. It should come with a disclaimer like an investment prospectus, “past performance is not indicative of future results.” Now, nearly half the world is being led to conquest by charismatic psychopaths; while the other half doesn’t care to defend itself. Is overthrowing the West a projection of that arc? Can we in the US just isolate, like I’ve always dreamed, and ignore it until it blows over? Or do we need to do something principled in response? Contrary to my preferences, I suspect the latter. I just hope that our Western leaders, and the rest of us, are up to the task.