The recent developments around the Sea of Azov represent a good example of one aspect of the end of rule-based int'l politics: the lack of inhibition of escalation. No doubt the dispatch of the three naval ships was a childish Ukrainian provocation. Russia reacts with a disproportionate escalation by using military force, and no doubt the West will react with a further escalation in the form of more sanctions. The ease with which such escalations get started today is a striking newcomer. The diplomatic rules which would earlier have counteracted the spirals, are disappearing. Instead political acts are carried out in the media.
I have been somewhat ambivalent towards the emerging declined late modernity. Should this condition be rejected or embraced?
The historical philosopher Oswald Spengler together with Arnold Toynbee has conceived the ideas on historical periodicity from which this blog has departed. In parts of his major work Spengler seems to regard it as nostalgia leading to weakness if one clings to the good old days of humaneness and rule-based behavior. Thus a man like Cicero who in the late Greco-Roman modernity fought against chaos and the approaching dictatorship, is called a weakling. Instead politicians should embrace the new era, adapt to it and ruthlessly use it in the competition for internal and international power. Otherwise one will be left behind as a looser. As Spengler puts it: Fate guides those who will and drags those who will not.
Another good example of such thinking are the Legalists in the first Chinese modernity, men like eg. Han Feizi (3. century BC). For the Legalists the power of the state/country was the only important thing. People and other countries were subordinated under this need for power of the state. The Ghaznavid state (around AD 1000) in the late Oriental modernity functioned along the same lines. The ultimate consequences of Legalist reasoning were the raids of the Chinese country Qin into enemy countries with the purpose of killing parts of the male population in order to reduce the number of potential soldiers. Compared to such excesses the Romans seem rather humane. Nevertheless they started their late modernity by destroying Carthage and Corinth in146 BC because these cities were trade competitors.
Now, should we go along with such rule-less excesses of late modernities? Clearly, if powerful politicians and states ignore humane behavior and rules, those who do not will have a disadvantage, unless they are in majority amongst the community of nations and have big strength. This was the case in 1939-1945. Today the forces in favor of rules and int'l organizations are becoming a minority.
Thus let us accept that the new era with politics not based on rules and restraints is a fact, and the only rule is the wish for political, economic, military and cyber- power. Should this acceptance be unconditional? Should everything be allowed? No rules or limits whatsoever?
No. Certain facts are new and unseen compared to late modernities before our:
1) Weapons of mass destruction can kill millions and billions of people and ultimately destroy all civilization. In this category we may add the possibilities of cyber-warfare.
2) The threatening and eminent climatic changes can destroy life spaces, produce enormous suffering and cause huge numbers of refugees. Here teargas over the border will not suffice.
Maybe we should all agree on a minimum of rules of behavior to avoid escalations bringing us close to the use of any weapons of mass destruction. And of course continue the efforts to limit climate change. Could such rules be accepted ?
Even agreement on this minimum of rules seem difficult to achieve with rulers like Bolsonaro, Trump and MBS. Therefore a continuance of the rule-based int'l politics seems outright impossible. Thus we may as well embrace the unavoidable. But let us agree on avoiding destroying civilization and our habitat.
Apart from these few rules you are free to unleash chaos.
But this does not take away responsibility. It should be self-evident that suffering is only acceptable insofar as it is necessary in order to prevent bigger suffering.
As history shows, if we open the box of Pandora we risk gruesome excesses of death and oppression.
