The War in Ukraine and the True Battle for
‘The West’

Before I start some preliminary points.

This essay is Part II of an earlier essay on a related subject titled: ‘Russia, the United States, and ‘The West’. Which was written before the start of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and took a broader look at the idea of what defines the West. I would encourage the reader to read that first, as it would make the points that I am about to raise in this one far easier to digest.

Next, I would like to make it clear that this work is in NO way meant as a defense, endorsement, or justification of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Whilst the ideas and points engaged in this essay may appear so, or verge close to such a position from time to time; my views are not to be viewed as pro-Russian. The aim here is to provide a defense of ‘the West’. Which as I have argued is fundamentally Western, Christian, and European. From that perspective the current conflict in addition to the many battles political, cultural, moral, and ultimately intellectual that are raging on in the West (apart from Ukraine), requires us to refocus on what really matters when it comes to confronting the true adversaries of Western culture.

The Anglosphere and ‘The West’ that is No Longer Western

A few times a day I tend to swipe left on my phone to check out the Google news feed, which updates from time to time. The news sites that dominate the list tend to be Anglo-American, with British news outlets dominating the feed. One of the things that I started to notice over the past few years, since 2015 has been the growing emphasis on race. Specifically on subjects related to peoples, cultures, and histories that are not Western in their character or orientation. With a specific emphasis on their ethnic and by extension culturally non-European character.

What was apparent was the undeniable increase in the, to use the term: ‘racialization’ of discourse. One that seemed to be gaining greater prominence, at least based on their preponderance in Western media. And by ‘the West’ I am here referring to the Anglo-American world: Great Britain and the United States primarily, and to a lesser extent Canada and New Zealand. Australia, for some reason, is a bit of an outlier, which I have chosen to not consider in this discussion.

So what do I mean by the racialization of discourse? Oxford (Lexico) defines it as ‘Make [something] racial in tone or character’⁽¹⁾. My definition, one that I have applied here: Is the downplaying of a person’s European or Western identity. Where the idea (or ideal) of disassociating oneself with anything that relates to the ethnically European and spiritually Christian character, and to a lesser extent, the geographically ‘Western’ idea of ‘the West’.

These three factors intertwine. And the cultural rejection of these, most significantly the ethnic character of ‘the West’, logically entails the adoption of a committedly non-European or as I suspect, anti-European worldview. This narrative or ideology, for that’s what it seems like, appears to be gaining prominence among those with an African heritage. This inference is based on the sheer number of people in ‘the West’ who are coming out of the woodwork playing up their African/Black heritage.

However, this growing unease with ‘the West’s White or European character also finds its expression among persons of other ethnic groups. Men and women and those in-between, who choose to downplay, ignore, or actively shun anything about them: beliefs and politics that can be tied in an affirmative light with that which is Western, Christian, and European.

Weirdly this anti-European phenomenon is even started to feature among those who have an ethnic European heritage. But that is a subject for another time. For now, let us consider this main problem with respect to the growing distaste towards what is European, or to use the term ‘White’.

Consider the following headlines, all of them taken from major Western news/media organizations, from Anglo-American countries:

Is Beauty In The Eyes Of The Colonizer? (NPR, 2019).
‘I Don’t Need White Women’s Allyship’: A Conversation With Raven Rodriguez About Women’s History And Liberation (Forbes, 2022)⁽²⁾.
Ilhan Omar Is Tackling Colorism. Here’s Why That Matters (New York Times, 2021)
A moment that changed me: rejecting the white ‘prettiness’ ideal (Guardian, 2017).
Is British Vogue’s latest cover the best way to celebrate Black beauty? (CNN, 2022).
Glossies so white: the data that reveals the problem with British magazine covers (Guardian, 2018).
The invention of whiteness: the long history of a dangerous idea (Guardian, 2016).
Why climate change is inherently racist (BBC, 2022).
Report: Higher Education Creates ‘White Racial Privilege’ (US News, 2013).

To give you a taste of what’s been offered here, here is an excerpt from one of the articles listed above, taken from the Forbes article involving an interview with Raven Rodriguez, where she comments on the apparent failures of (white) feminism: “White women inherited enslaved people and used their inheritances to build autonomous financial futures. White women were willing to sacrifice Black women’s right to vote. White women fought for reproductive rights while neglecting the sterilization of Black women. And today, white women are the notorious girl bosses who dominate historically male spaces while wielding the same brutal and sadistic control” (ibid).

I reckon this gives the reader a taste of the kind of discourse that has become dominant in the Western (i.e. Anglo-American) sphere. Much of which have come under the influence of intersectional theory, post-colonial studies, and with a heavy dose of postmodernism, and post-structural feminism.

Note that these social critics are not limited to the purview of the specific subject areas, but extend outward into spheres of activity that have very real practical applications in economics and technology, and by extension politics. When you read these headlines, even before you get into the body of the articles, you get the impression that in ‘the West’, specifically in the English-speaking world, there’s something amiss when it comes to its Western (notably European) character. Why is this?

America’s (Historically) European Character

The United States began life as a European colony: a British one, with various groups of Europeans migrating to it in the hope of establishing a better future, mainly to escape religious prosecution in their native homelands, and to establish spiritual independence, which came to shape the inner identity of the nation. One that would be reflected in the institutional character the nation. Its political architecture: the Constitution, Bill of Rights, State and Federal Laws. Drawing from the ideas of the European Enlightenment and other intellectual upheavals that took place in the continent of its ‘Mother country’.

So despite the changes that were brought forth by the immigration of peoples of different religious, national, and ethnic backgrounds, the United States remained fundamentally European in its character. Despite being different at a national and religious level, the immigrants were still united in their broadly European and by extension Christian character: despite denominational, and sub-racial differences (i.e. Protestant or Catholic; Anglo-Saxon or Celtic).

Despite the various European peoples uniting to form the demographic and cultural core of America, the nation’s European character was primarily one that was connected with Great Britain. A connection that has for the most part endured to this day, despite the differences that existed over the centuries between Europe and America. Or should I say various European countries and the United States (e.g. In the two World Wars, Germany was an adversary; in the War of Independence Britain was the adversary). In sum, from the time of Independence to the present day, the idea that the United States is Western, owing to its European ethnic heritage, and Western owing to its Christian character was never really in dispute. Until recently.

This is a point which I engaged in my last essay on this topic: that is the decline of the European character of the West, which has gone hand in hand with the collapsing demographics among ethnic Europeans (White Americans) in the Anglosphere. But the decline in the European character of the Anglo-American world, with the US being the exemplar, has been accompanied by a growing distaste, dislike, and potentially even unease for many in ‘the West’ with respect to ‘the Western’ character of society, notably its history; with cultural trends that appear to push the need to not just move away from its (White/European) history, but to unmake it, and rewrite it. The film and entertainment industry ‘in West’: in terms of what is being churned out by culture-creating outlets like Hollywood, Netflix, and HBO where ‘diversity and inclusivity’ dominate, provides an indication of this transition or better, rebellion.

Consider that whenever you hear words like “diversity” and “inclusivity” get thrown around, such talk invariably hearkens to the need to increase the representation, presence, and ultimately prominence of not only ethnic minorities living in ‘the West’, but also the ideas, histories, beliefs, and norms which are fundamentally non-European in character. The growing push for “diverse” characters, has often come at the expense of actors who are ethnically European being marginalized.

Going further this shift in artistic priorities is no longer a question of simply having more “diverse” or ethnically non-European actors and actresses on board but it is also a question of their presentation. By presentation, I am referring to how these “diverse” characters are portrayed, and by extension, the kind of narratives that are being woven into the story arcs that despite being made, financed, and published in ‘the West’, is forwarding a worldview that is increasingly non if not anti-Western.

To Be Anything But White

The Canadian poet Rupi Kaur: a woman of Sikh-Indian heritage, published two books that became New York Times bestsellers. The first of these, and the most popular Milk and Honey dealt with topics like relationships, coming of age, emotional and physical healing, and pertinent to this debate, her ethnic Indian heritage. Throughout her works, Ms. Kaur engages the importance of her cultural and ethnic identity, one that she affirms and celebrates in a conscious and purposeful way.

A closer reading of her works, particularly her second poetry book: The Sun and Her Flowers, reveals that her Sikh Indian identity is not only very significant to who she is-vis a vie her values and goals-but that it is the most defining feature of her identity. The message that is being communicated is that her being a woman of ethnic Indian heritage, and specifically of the Sikh cultural and religious tradition is somehow unaffected (or untainted) by the Western character of the Canadian nation that is her adopted home. Throughout her works-the first of which I responded to with a poetry book of my own-she alludes to the importance of her cultural and ethnic identity as one that is distinctively non-European, and by logical extension, non-Western.

The idea of celebrating her ‘non-whiteness’ is something that (pardon the pun) colors Ms. Kaur’s writing; one that is carried out in an open, celebratory manner throughout her works. What underlies this sentiment is her apparent unwillingness to integrate, or more specifically, her active opposition to the idea of integration into the Western culture. Speaking of Canada, a nation with a distinctively European (White) and Christian heritage.

Pertinent here is her unwillingness to follow standard writing rules of the English language. Her non-use of capital letters and proper punctuation, which is apparently done to showcase her affinity with the writing rules of her native language. In sum, her affinity with her ethno-cultural identity is almost purposeful in its opposition to a Western one. One that is bizarrely welcomed and widely celebrated in ‘the West’: with the media outlets and popular late-night shows showcasing her efforts, all without batting an eye lid with respect to her anti-integrationist worldview ⁽³⁾.

The question is why? Why isn’t there some kind of push-back from the organs of culture in the West if her works underlie a certain, and at times, an open antipathy towards not only the idea of cultural integration but with Western culture as a whole.

In one of her poems in The Sun and Her Flowers, subtitled ‘colonize’ she openly castigates ‘the West’ for having given rise to the present world order characterized by self-governing nation-states, which she intimates as being a system of divide and rule, and one that benefits (the presumably White) ‘West’ ⁽⁴⁾.

Her qualities as a poet aside, the question has to be asked: shouldn’t such ideas be viewed as problematic? Shouldn’t the organs of culture: the media, the entertainment industry, and her countless fans, many of whom are from ‘the West’ push back on this, or at least raise legitimate questions on their impacts on the wider polity when it comes to matters like social cohesion and integration.

A requisite in multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies. Where the integration of peoples, particularly those with a non-European and non-Christian character into ‘the West’, requires the affirmation and in time the embrace of key foundational principles that transcend any ethnic affinity one may have. One that requires the embrace of values that are common to the nation and Western civilization as a whole. For example, to a be a citizen of the UK does not mean one must necessarily be of Anglo-Saxon stock, but it does mean respecting the nation’s laws and living by the unwritten rules of the nation. But clearly that is not happening anymore. Nor is this encouraged by the dominant organs of culture. Why?

How Did 'the West' Get Here?

To understand how the growing unease with ‘the West’s’ White or European identity emerged, particularly in immigrant-nations like the United States and Canada, one must confront the uncomfortable fact of its weakening European identity, vis a vie the demographic question.

The headlines that were mentioned earlier reflect a reality where the European or White portion of the West, which contains sizable ethnic and religious minorities, is growing smaller in absolute terms. Thus the accompanying rise in the discourse on ‘colorism’, ‘whiteness’, ‘de-colonization’, and the opposition to ‘white beauty standards’ is a predictable one. As these correspond to the growing strength of these non-European factions in these societies, particularly those with a history of antipathy, dislike or outright hatred of the West.

The very factions that are now empowered thanks to their growing numbers, and are starting to actively oppose the idea of integration. Which in turn is a reflection of ‘the West’s’ historical failure to assimilate the various peoples into its culture in the first place.

Exacerbating the problem further is the rather curious, and again rather bizarre affinity that European Americans (speaking of the United States) have with cultures and practices that are not Western in character. Building on my earlier point about the growing calls for diversity and inclusivity in movies and pop culture, which essentially boils down to an increase in the percentage of non-European actors and actresses. This idea of having a balanced crop of artists from different ethnic groups whilst fine in principle, however, what is really going on is the need to elevate those who are not White and culturall European. And if one wishes to take this view a step further: To elevate that which is not White, male, and heterosexual.

This is a subject for another time, but the incessant urge to advance a ‘colored agenda’: where anything and everything that is not White or European in its character is advanced, notably in parts of the world where White folks still make up the vast majority, does raise some questions. At one level it implies the growing unease that many in the West seem to have, or are supposed to have with the idea of being White, or specifically with anything that is characteristically European.

At this point the reader may ask: Why is this topic significant to our debate on the future of ‘the West’?

—

Well, if you are living in a Western nation like the United States, it is a country that is ‘Western’ in the sense that it was founded on the ideas of Enlightenment, which is European. The fact that the nation’s founding Father Fathers were European migrants, rather than native Americans or African slaves is noteworthy.

The great ideas, intellectual breakthroughs and scientific masterworks that became integral to the character of the nation were produced by persons of European and Christian heritage. And until recent times much of its great accomplishments in the fields of science, politics and economics, including the abolition of slavery and war were driven by Americans of European heritage (e.g. Founding Fathers, Abe Lincoln, General MacArthur). In other words, without Europe this great standard-bearer of Western Civilization, would have never have arisen.

And if one throws into that mix the role the US played in the WWI and WWII; especially in the latter conflict: America’s role in fighting against an unapologetically racist power (Nazi Germany) that was not only anti-Semitic and anti-Slavic but also one that considered all non-European races as effectively sub-human. And more significantly in the war against the Japanese, which was another expansionist power that treated the conquered with little regard, in which the US played a key role in defeating (i.e. The Manhattan Project was led by European scientists, notably Enrico Fermi).

So it is the United States, one that was far more European then (during early decades of the 20^th century), in terms of its ethnic and cultural character, that not only helped defeat the Axis powers but in the post-war period played a critical role in shaping the ‘liberal, democratic, rules-based order’ that people keep going on about these days.

And it is against this America that people in the West today, who are its biggest beneficiaries, including the various groups of minorities, who have come to live and thrive within its shores, are rebelling against. Or should I say, are being encouraged by certain narratives and ideologues to shun, reject or oppose. Where the opposition to integration and assimilation into the dominant Western (i.e. European + Christian) cultural matrix has become some sign of cultural liberation for the minority.

Consider the following headlines:

‘Stop telling immigrants to assimilate and start helping them participate’ – (World Economic, Forum, 2017).
‘Assimilation threatens the existence of other cultures’ – (Guardian, 2016).

So if a culture, built on the historic heritage of a nation, is no longer the center of cohesion, then what about its spiritual heritage?

The battle against Christianity and the Christian values, which have been fought and for the most part won (though this is partly owing to the failure of Christian institutions to evolve); by secularizing forces, and other irreligious stakeholders who apparently believe that a more “progressive” idea of America and ‘the West’, must necessarily entail the weakening and ultimately the dissolution of its Christian character.

Here it is fair to conjecture that the forces responsible, directly or otherwise, for the weakening of the Christian foundations of ‘the West’, have come to view another key foundation of the United States and by extension ‘the West’, as its next target: Which is ‘the West’s’ culturally European foundation.

Here the concerted and highly symbolic attacks carried out in the past few years against famous statues and monuments of great leaders, statesman, and heroes of Western culture is worth considering.

This is a point I engaged in my last essay on this subject: That the attempt to cancel the achievements of great Western men who may have had a hand in slavery and colonialism, will soon morph into an all-out campaign to delegitimize and bring down the public status of men who and their contributions to the development of the West. Which is by extension is an attack on Western culture as a whole.

This meant that any and all association with slavery, colonialism, and conquest becomes secondary to the real aim: The aim is to delegitimize the histories of these men and their achievements, and thereby, quite logically, erode and undermine the history of the West as a whole: One that is Christian, European, and of course Western. The crusade against monuments of great leaders of the West is quite literally an attempt to dismantle the ‘Western’ foundations of ‘the West’. And it is not an alien thought that real men of the West will too become a target in due time.

The leaders of the Western world, whether they realize it or not, must take note that the foundations of ‘the West’ are being hollowed out from within. From the decline of Christianity as a spiritually unifying force that can transcend cultural and ethnic divisions, to the collapsing demographics of ethnic Europeans in Europe, and parts of the world that is still considered ‘Western’. [Fun Fact: There are more Black Africans in the whole World than there are White Europeans]⁽⁵⁾.

Added to the incessant attacks on the intellectual and moral foundations of ‘the West’ by woke elements who are working to weaken the West from within. Here’s another headline for you to chew on: ‘The last days of a white world’ (Guardian, 2000)⁽⁶⁾. With the added concern, a point which I will touch on at a later point in this essay, the relentless rise of Islam: both geopolitically in terms of powerful and wealthy Islamic nations, and demographically in absolute terms [Fun Fact II: Islam will be the largest religion in the world by 2075]⁽⁷⁾.

So faced with all these challenges how does ‘the West’ effectively counter them? Well, before we can get to that, there is the foreign policy dimension to this problem that we must consider.

Ukraine and ‘The West’ That Lacks Vision

A week or so into the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the 24^th of February 2022, I started revisiting the political action drama ‘24’ starring Kiefer Sutherland as special agent Jack Bauer. I began with season 4, which is considered by some to be the best in the series, and so far it is been my favorite too (I am yet to check out season 9).

Having completed season 4, I moved on to season 3, which I remember watching the first time it aired way back in 2004. It was good then. But for some reason, it seemed a lot better this time. I couldn’t really understand why until it dawned on me that the reason I have even bothered going back to these shows from a different era in the first place, was that the majority of TV shows today are just s**t. Which… is a subject for another time. But if you are interested, here is an explantion why.

Getting back to the topic at hand, a few episodes into Season 3 of 24, Agent Bauer, who was up and about doing what he does best: getting himself into extremely dangerous situations with some of the worst vermin humanity has to offer; often becoming part of the problem in the process (i.e. a terrorist himself). In order to eventually become part of the solution, to save the lives of many, even if that means sacrificing the lives of the few.

I will save you the details, but the main plot for season 3 revolves around a biological weapon: A modified, airborne virus that kills the infected in a matter of hours, with no known cure, with the capacity to spread rapidly. The virus, if released into the atmosphere with access to a large number of hosts (i.e. living human beings), it has the potential to kill millions.

Of course, the dedicated and ruthlessly efficient Jack Bauer is not going to let that happen. So with his friends at CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit) he fights his way through every minute of the day to counter this threat, whilst battling many a personal conflict, and other obstacles that bedevil him and his colleagues in their personal and professional lives. So far so good.

For some reason, I found it difficult to ignore the point about a virus that is highly transmissible, contagious, and at one point considered potentially lethal to many; along with theories that it may have been the product of the human intervention. Not the sort of thing that may concern you and me, living in the second decade of the 21^st century! However, what did get my attention, and this was around the mid-way point of the first half of the 3^rd Season (the show runs for 24 episodes), around the time when Russia’s ‘Special Military Operations’ were well underway in the real world; when the subject of the origins of this bio-weapon was engaged.

According to intelligence gathered by Jack Bauer and co, the source of this virus with the potential to kill millions of Americans (the terrorists were trying to use it as a bioweapon against the United States) is the nation of Ukraine. You heard that right, the bad guys who were selling this killer pathogen with the aim of making a quick buck were a bunch of boffins from the Eastern European nation that borders the largest nation on Earth.

It was curious to encounter this plot point right at the time when reports by Russian officials of biological weapons laboratories inside Ukraine started to hit the news. Such reports were almost universally dismissed by the mainstream media (and I don’t mean that cynically). However what was true about the news on the matter, one that was corroborated by authoritative news organizations like Reuters, citing reports from entities like the WHO, was that Ukraine was in possession of such harmful pathogens, and that research was being conducted on them, albeit for preventive/containment purposes (8).

A Washington Post piece all the way back from 2005 (around a year or so after 24 Season 3 was aired), verified funding by the US to the Ukrainian government. With one of the institutions that received funding and other types of support was the Mechnikov Antiplague Scientific and Research Institute, located in the strategic port city of Odessa, bordering the Black Sea. As reports note, the research institute was apparently part of “anti-plague” stations, that were operative during the Cold War, when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and it was tasked with supplying lethal pathogens to bio-weapons factories controlled by the former Superpower⁽⁹^).

Why is this important?

First off, by citing these it is NOT my intention to cast American policy towards Ukraine or the US security establishment in a negative light. It is not my place to judge the relations the US has had and still maintains with the Ukrainians, which includes US military aid. Nor is it my intention to suggest that Ukrainians are in fact involved in biological weapons research. Rather it is to suggest that Ukraine is an interesting case study when it comes to the values and principles that are supposed to define ‘the West’.

Ukraine, being formerly part of the Soviet Union has a deep connection with Russia: a country that many in ‘the West’ or should I say a dominant faction in Washington DC, view as an adversary. In which case, it stands to reason that Ukraine would become something of a natural ally, or ‘bulwark’, however you want to see it, against Russia. A nation that is believed by some policymakers in ‘the West’ that is trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union or at least destabilize the ‘liberal international rules-based order’ made up of liberal democracies.

This means that Ukraine, provided that it can be swayed to move in a certain (anti-Russian) direction will prove to be an effective force in, not exactly containing the large country, but in entangling it in a long, drawn-out conflict, that could potentially “bleed” Russia out in the long run⁽¹⁰⁾.

What is problematic about this view is that Ukraine has a considerable Russian-speaking minority, along with smaller pro-Russian Ukrainian elements. Not to mention the cultural and spiritual connection between the two countries born of their Orthodox Christian heritage. Since a significant portion of Ukraine is not only Russian speaking but is also ethnically Russian (these groups together make up around 15 million people in a country with a population of 44 million), means that this is a sizable human faction that ‘the West’ has seemingly ignored in this strategic equation, by doubling down on strengthening the strongly anti-Russian elements by materials means and in terms of resolve. To feed their opposition against a fellow Slavic country.

Further, the policy to keep Russia entangled in a conflict with Ukraine, and thus necessitate greater US and allied involvement, can be understood as a part of NATO’s (or a US-led NATO’s) strategy of expansion to the East (i.e. to former Soviet republics and satellites). One that Moscow views as a threat. And in the case of Ukraine, an existential one: owing to its geographical proximity, history, and ethnic connection.

Now to be clear, by stating this, I am NOT providing any justification for the invasion that Russia instigated. But is to suggest that the embrace of an aggressive geopolitical policy involving security and economic arrangements that are antagonistic towards a large, nuclear-powered nation provoked such an aggressive response, is not beyond the remits of reason.

The single-minded pursuit of the policy of expanding NATO’s foothold in Eastern Europe has had the effect of antagonizing a nation with the second most powerful military in the world and provoking it into conflict, raises legitimate questions on the strategic thinking that governs Western foreign policy.

Especially given the current plight of the wannabe ‘Western’ nation of Ukraine: with flattened cities, destroyed livelihoods, and thousands of deaths. This gives rise to the question, one that I will underpin one of the ethos of this essay: Is Ukraine worth it?

The justification for the support of Ukraine has centered on the idea that Ukraine is a sovereign nation. A democracy. One that is European geographically and ethnically. (I mean it is doubtful ‘the West’ would have gone to such lengths to defend a nation that is not geographically and ethnically European). But going deeper a number of problems emerge. From ‘the West’s’ strategic point of view, the level and magnitude of support Ukraine continues to receive from ‘the West’, has been justified in light of it being some kind of beacon of freedom and liberty against the tyranny of Russia. Is it though?

Is Ukraine Worth It?

The hyperbole surrounding the bravery and courage of the Ukrainian people aside, one that is seemingly best embodied by its president, who has become something of a political celebrity since the start of the conflict, is that Ukraine’s ‘Western’ character has come down to a number socio-cultural developments which are presently celebrated in much of the West, but their ideological foundations, to say nothing of their moral character and orientation is one that does not necessarily align with what made the West ‘the West’.

In other words, Ukraine’s appeal to ‘the West’, has partly come down to its acceptance of things like feminism, and LGBTQ rights among other ‘liberal’ values that are actively embraced by ‘the West’. The sort of things that appear to be regressing in its adversary: Russia. Before we get into this, the question has to be asked: Is a democratic, pro-Western Ukraine worth the trouble for ‘the West’ from a geopolitical, military, and cultural perspective?

Ukraine whilst having a democratically elected government is by no means a model democracy. If one can ignore the claims made by certain quarters that certain elements in ‘the West’ aided the Orange Revolution, that tilted Ukrainian policy further in a Westward direction (thus antagonizing the Russians); Freedom House (which has been vocal in its support of Ukraine in the present conflict) only gave the Eastern European nation a score of 60/100 designating it as “partly free”⁽¹¹⁾. Ukraine has also been ranked the most corrupt country in Europe after Russia, and globally it ranks 130 out of 180 countries for the same measure ⁽¹²⁾. Among its other notable credentials, Ukraine’s GDP per capita for 2021 is $ 3, 615, which is even lower than third-world countries like Sri Lanka ($ 3, 928)⁽¹³⁾.

Ukraine is also notorious for its sex tourism with its capital Kiev leading the way; with the nation also being designated as a center for human trafficking. It also has one of the highest HIV infection rates outside of Africa, with the highest HIV infections as a percentage of the total population in Europe⁽¹⁴⁾. To say nothing of its collapsing demographics: with high death-to-birth ratio, and abortion rates. Problems that are typical of most European countries, but feature more strongly in this nation. (Along with Russia as it happens, but trends in total abortions have started to point lower in recent years). In other words, Ukraine despite being European geographically, and European ethnically, is pretty much a third-world country inside Europe. A country that, somewhat dismissively been characterized as a nation that ‘Most Americans cannot pinpoint on a map’. So the question I pose again is: Is Ukraine worth it? Worth to whom exactly? If to ‘the West’, then how exactly?

The argument from strategy: That of using Ukraine as some kind of buffer against Russian expansion. By strengthening Ukraine militarily it can be used to bog down Russia in Eastern Europe, whilst weakening it by sanctions, along with the human costs of war, which can potentially weaken its political leadership, and potentially destabilize it from within. The ideal outcome being the ouster of Vladimir Putin, by provoking some kind of internal coup, or by fermenting unrest that results in an anti-Kremlin revolution; led by Russians who are fed up with the ill effects of sanctions and the pains of war. Whilst such things might seem strategically compelling, what they seem to ignore or at least downplay is the costs it imposes also on ‘the West’: In financial terms, the loss of strategic focus with respect to other adversaries, and most seriously the danger nuclear conflict.

The numerous aid packages, now amounting to many billions of dollars, in addition to economic sanctions all come with necessary costs to those in ‘the West’. Besides burdening the taxpayer on having to fund these foreign operations, the implications on energy and other resources that Russia provides have hit consumers in ‘the West’ and across the world due to sanctions is another pressing matter. At a time of growing inflation, energy shortages, and high debt could prove significant, given its impact, now and in the long term on the quality of life, that could have an effect electorally.

With respect to the conflict itself, what is difficult to understand is the seeming indifference to the costs of supporting Ukrainians’ battle against the Russians by many of its Cheerleaders in ‘the West’:The Ukrainians who will have to keep fighting and dying as long as this conflict goes on, and for those in the West who will have to live with higher energy prices owing sanctions against Russia, and taxes to fund the various aid packages.

Note that what I am saying is not about the defense of Ukraine in the battle against Russia. Rather the problem lies with the ideological push to make Ukraine a combative force that stands up to the Russian bear, in the name of democracy and freedom. And then to bring it under a Western sphere of influence that is purposefully opposed to Russia. In other words, if there is an alternate strategy to keep the Ukrainians and the Russians happy, so as to avoid conflict and to keep Europe stable (did I mention the millions of Ukrainians who have been displaced during the conflict) such a policy has not been pursued or formed part of the strategic calculus of the current crop of leaders from ‘the West’. Rather it is the very antithesis that is being embraced by ‘the West’.

The justification provided for this position: that of containing or destabilizing Russia, and so help the European Union expand Eastward, and help grow NATO’s presence in Europe, and geographically isolate the former Cold War advisory: that whilst not the great power that it once was, does operate outside the sphere of influence of the democratic nations that constitute ‘the West’. But here I pose a different but related question: Is this strategy: that of supporting Ukraine, and by extension to antagonize and hurt Russia worth it?

Importantly, and this is arguably the most controversial point I will make in the course of this essay: Is it worth more than having cordial relations with Russia in the long term, considering that ‘the West’ faces a number of other major threats or potential adversaries: which are geopolitical, strategic and cultural in nature.

The threat posed by China to ‘the West’s’ (albeit waning) geopolitical hegemony in the pacific and other regions, or its emergence of a new center of gravity that could potentially challenge the ‘rules-based liberal international order’ is something that is raised by experts. John Mearsheimer, who has started making the news in recent times is one such concern. To summarize Mearsheimer’s case: ‘the West’ by pursuing a policy that is antagonist to Russia risks pushing the resource rich nuclear powered nation, which is also the world’s largest into a closer relationship with China. The consequence that the West will end up losing a potential geopolitical counterweight to the Asian giant⁽¹⁵⁾.

Which is exactly what has happened. President Putin who was the chief guest at China’s 2022 Winter Olympics, recognized China’s territorial claims with respect to Taiwan and co-signed a special pact⁽¹⁶⁾. Unity between China and Russia does not bode well for ‘the West’ by any calculation. The potential or very real, depending on which experts’ advice you take, the threat posed by China to ‘the West’ is one of many. Some of them are imminent, some of them evolving, with implications that are difficult to foresee.

Leaving China aside, by directing its attention in confronting Russia, ‘the West’ risks losing focus on matters closer to home. Issues, if left unchecked, in the long run could prove to be far more significant for the defense of its identity and even survival than strategic ambitions of Putin in former Soviet nation. This is one of core points of this essay: by focusing on Russia, by seeing it as the great geopolitical threat, the West is, and in many ways, it already has, lost sight of other more subtle and insidious threats.

To cite one example before I move further: demographics. ‘The West’, which is dominated by the Anglo-American world, and Western Europe, are both collapsing out geographically. If the current demographic trends of countries that constitute ‘the West’ is anything to go by, it is fair to say that the West is… Dying. A problem that is interestingly recognized by those who are not fully sold on the idea of Russia as the biggest threat to ‘the West’.

The European ‘West’

In late 2021 France’s President Emmanuel Macron warned against the dangers of “woke culture” that was “racializing” France⁽¹⁷⁾. His comments were in connection with growing political correctness in Western academia, and the ideas that stem from them which he and other leaders in the French political class believed were beginning to infect ‘the West’ or should I say the European portion of the West.

This is telling, since Macron, who was elected as an “outsider” candidate, despite being a career politician, and heads the La République En Marche: A political party that began life in 2016, and is categorized as “liberal”, holding the political center. But the French president’s unease with woke narratives is widely shared by persons in his government. The education ministry set up a so-called “Laboratory of the Republic” to target the insidious influence of wokism, all of which appear to be emanating from the Anglosphere ⁽¹⁸⁾. And if one takes a look at what is happening on the Right end of the spectrum of French politics this unease, let’s say, is just the start.

Another European nation that is also concerned about the dangers of the West’s cultural decline, albeit from a different dimension, is Germany. The rise of the AFD: the alternative for Germany, which is categorized as a “populist” party (i.e. owing to the lack of a unifying ideology) from the Central European nation over the past years, is another pertinent development. The party which now holds around 80 seats in the Bundestag, and has over 230 seats in state legislatures is no longer some fringe political movement ⁽¹⁸⁾. Its emergence, partly in response to the 2015 immigrant crisis when over a million people (predominantly men from the Islamic world) entered Europe, with Germany as their primary destination, had a destabilizing effect on the business-as-usual politics of Germany.

During the 2017 Federal election, when the AFD made significant ground, it ran campaign ads targeting issues related to immigration, particularly in relation to Islam and its effects on Germany’s European character. Channeling the concerns among Germans on the effects of a rising Islamic populace, some of the AFD’s campaign ads read: “New Germans? We’ll make them ourselves”; “Burkas? We prefer bikinis”⁽¹⁹⁾.

Now, much could be said about these messages, but the fact that a major party in a European nation is advancing such slogans; with images and all (speaking of the ad on “bikinis”), raises a question: Will such a political operation succeed in the Anglo-American sphere? Can such a political party in England or America be greenlit, let alone win seats in the local and national government, if it espoused such views on culture and national identity?

The point is, that the kind of political discourse that operates in many Western nations is quite different from those that predominate in the Anglo-American. Europeans unlike many Americans are keenly aware of the cultural, religious, and yes, even ethnic character, and differences that exist among peoples.

The United States as a multi-ethnic nation of immigrants doesn’t fully understand or does not want to understand the nature and importance of culture, belief, and heritage and how it ties in with that of identity, particularly in an ethno-lingusitic sense. One of the reasons why Europeans have struggled to form a cohesive political union as those across the Atlantic have managed; is due to the divisions between European states run deep. With religious, ethnic (or sub-racial), and geographic conflicts of various stripes, which go back decades, if not centuries.

Critically, what binds European peoples within the legal framework of independent nation-states is their ethnocultural character: which works into or in turn stems from differences in relation to language, religion (i.e. different Christian denominations), and race. The kind of differences that English-speaking nations in ‘the West’, notably the United States struggle to understand. In this regard, Britain, notably England is becoming a European version of America. With immigrant cultures which are non-Christian, non-European, and ultimately non-Western their outlook is elevated, celebrated and idealized, with little being done in terms of integration. The important speech that was given by David Cameroon, Britain’s Brexit Prime Minister in Munich (2010) on the failure of multiculturalism and the need for a unifying national identity is worth revising⁽²⁰⁾.

However, Europeans in the continent are not stupid. They-and I am speaking of the French in this instance-rightly infer the ‘anti-Europeanism’ that underlies the cultural shifts that are taking place in certain parts of ‘the West’: North America, in addition to the British isles. Where the relentless rise in woke, and various forms of politically correct narratives are taking a firmer hold. All of which seems squarely aimed at breaking down and weakening ‘the West’s’ European, Christian, and paradoxically Western foundations.

European Russia

During a visit to India, a month before hostiles between Russia and Ukraine began, the head of the German Navy, Vice Admiral Kay-Achim Schoenbach, commented on Russia and Putin. Referring to the Russian president as a man who deserves respect, and that Russia could be an important ally, in a potential conflict against China. His comments sparked outrage, and he was soon made to step down ⁽²¹⁾. No surprises there. But what is interesting is the nationality of the person saying it, and the country in which these comments were made, in addition to timing: For at the time Russian forces had already begun massing on Ukraine’s border, and some form of aggression in the region looked imminent.

Leaving aside the question of loyalty: since being anti-Russian is one of the accepted mantras that drives the modus operandi of the NATO alliance; at least the Anglo-American portion of it, along with the Baltic states, Poland, and Zelensky-led Ukraine. However, a closer look at Europe reveals that things are a bit different when considering other major powers that make up the security alliance.

Notably France, Italy, Austria, and increasingly even Germany, countries where Russia is being viewed not exactly as a potential ally, but as a nation, particularly a European one, with whom it is best to maintain a constructive relationship. One that is potentially worth expanding. A relationship that is not built on mutual distrust, disrespect, or directed hostility. The fact that this view is not shared in the Anglo-American world, or should I say the current leadership in the Anglo-American part of ‘the West’, is a point that is worth considering.

Before we get into, however, a few points on why closer relations between major European countries, France historically, and in recent times Germany and Russia have grown stronger (well at least until the recent hostilities began) is needed.

First, France. Which is a nation that has historically had close ties with Russia. Going back to the pre-World War era, despite the Napoleonic invasion of Russia, France’s cultural influence on the Slavic nation was significant. If I am not mistaken, there was a time when the Russian high court even spoke French⁽²²⁾. Other reasons include the role the Russians played in WWII. A point that is often ignored in the English-speaking portion of ‘the West’, but one that is not forgotten by continental European nations, particularly the Slavic ones: Is the human cost paid by the Soviet Union in defeating Nazi Germany. The role that Russia and Slavic nations, along with other states that made up the Soviet Union in blunting the German war machine is immeasurable, one that eventually led to its defeat. The French recognize this.

The world that we have today is the result of the Second World War. Or specifically the outcome: Victory for the Allies rather than Axis. The key turning point in the war was Hitler’s failed invasion of the Soviet Union. It is easy to take history for granted. But there is the question of what if? What if the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact held? What if the Soviet Union joined the Axis side of the conflict against Britain, the United States, and an already vanquished France?

The fact that the idea of ‘the West’ came about thanks to the defeat of the Axis powers, and that the enduring stability in the region has been guaranteed by American power, does not take away Russia’s contributions. Whilst Russia soon became the Cold War advisory of ‘the West’, owing to ideological differences. But that changed (or should have changed) with the end of the Cold War, the defeat of communism, and the return of Russia to a what could be categorized as a mixed economic system where the State plays a significant (i.e. interventionist) part. Also significant has been the re-embrace of its Orthodox Christian character. Making it a drastic move away from the state-sanctioned atheism of the Soviet Union. The problem of Soviet atheism the war general turned President Dwight D. Eisenhower thought worthy of mentioning as a source of contention, in his famous farewell speech⁽²³⁾.

Such shifts which may not seem significant from an Anglo-American perspective, are meaningful developments at the level of the nation-state with regional implications; especially for state actors who are concerned with problems that are particular to their own countries. Such as the immigration of non-European peoples, with a different religious character (Islam) into their lands. Developments that European nations, particularly those who are aware of their culturally European heritage and who do not harbor historical fears and hostiles against Russia (exceptions include Poland, the Baltic states, and Ukraine) would have factored in. In this regard, Russia, as I will argue, owing to its Christian and European character will be viewed as a natural ally for many in the European West.

On the subject of the Second World War, ‘the West’ and the world order that we have today owes a lot to the role and sacrifice of Russians in bringing about the ‘liberal, rules-based democratic’ system, albeit indirectly. Defeating Nazi Germany was central to this outcome. This is why victory in WWII (Victory Day- May 9) is celebrated in Russia like no other allied nation.

Paradoxically, this is a view that is even held by the Germans with respect to Russia. Despite their historical rivalry, in a curious sense of guilt and reverse responsibility, Germans today, particularly the political leadership, virtually across the spectrum view Russians as either as a regional ally, an economic partner; and based on the former Vice Admiral’s comments, a potential geopolitical counterweight to China. And potentially-for this is just speculation on my part at the moment-a cultural counterweight to the US-dominated NATO bloc, that is fast losing its European character, and hence is becoming a weaker representative of what constitutes ‘the West’.

For some time now, probably the last decade or so, relations between Russia and Germany have been getting stronger. The closer ties between the two great European nations (yes for all the naysayers, Russia is European, and probably more European than some nations that constitute ‘the West’). The most concrete and controversial byproduct of this growing connection is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. With its operations being headed by a former German Chancellor⁽²⁴⁾. The gas pipeline sought to link the two nations via an energy pact that cut across Europe and critically sought to bypass other, and presumably lesser European nations (e.g Ukraine).

Whilst the project, which was near completion, was halted following the start of hostiles, however, I suspect this divide may not be a definitive one. The connection between Russia and Germany is deeper, one could say a subconscious one. A sense of unity is being felt by both the German and Russian peoples, with its outward (i.e. political) manifestation now being channeled by Germany’s political class, pretty much across the spectrum⁽²⁵⁾. One that, I would posit, is predicated on the common European character of both peoples. From their role in the greatest conflict in human history, and the growing belief held by the citizenry of both nations of the important role that a closer Russia and Germany would play in the future of Europe and potentially even ‘the West’.

This is one of the reasons, I suspect, why the German leadership has been dragging its feet when it comes to arming Ukraine and preceding that imposing stronger sanctions on Russia, and ending or at least significantly reducing its reliance on Russian energy. If one had followed the progress of German support for Ukraine’s defense, it seems to be a progressive one: One that has been progressively getting firmer and stricter, in the face, I would conjecture, not Russian aggression in the East per se, but primarily owing to pressure coming from the Anglo-American ‘West’ (i.e America).

It is hard to imagine Germany, and quite possibly any continental European country bar Poland and the Baltic states supporting the Ukrainian cause if not for pressure from the United States. A look at the financial contributions made by nations in support of Ukraine’s war against Russia is a good indicator: With the contributions made by the United States absolutely dwarfing those provided by other nations. For the period between 24 February – 27 March, the US provided $ 7.6 billion in bilateral aid. Dwarfing the contributions made by all other nations combined⁽²⁶⁾. And since that period that number has only gone up, considerably. For the month of May, the US provided Ukraine with aid worth around $ 40.1 billion⁽²⁷⁾.

Since the United States guarantees much of European security and given that Europe is militarily decrepit and geopolitically toothless, hence its hopeless reliance on American power. Thus it is willing to go along with this anti-Russian policy, for if left to its own devices things may have turned out differently.

Consider that countries like Hungary and Austria have opposed sanctioning Russia, notably when it comes to energy, and this is with pressure coming from the Americans ⁽^28,²⁹⁾. Wonder what the outcome would be with respect to not only countries like Hungary, and Austria but major nations like France and Germany if there was NO pressure whatsoever coming from the United States?

The Geopolitics of ‘the West’

One of the factors driving greater unity among Western European nations, notably France, and in recent times Germany with respect to the vast Eurasian nation is its culturally European and geographically European character. The geopolitical realities of Europe following the end of WWII are such that American involvement in the region has been that of a virtual policeman. Its many bases in Europe serve a dual role in providing European nations security from regional and internal threats, notable here is the Aegis missile defense shield which protects Europe from ballistic missiles; and at the same time acts as a kind of deterrent against potential aggression of one European country against another⁽³⁰⁾.

The United States having aided post-war reconstruction in Europe, helps maintain the peace in the region by guaranteeing Europe’s security from threats from outside and within, whilst also ensuring that no individual European nation would follow the path of militarization, and potentially aggression. America’s geopolitical aims in the region have been complemented by its economic power, with trade deals helping to ensure open or relatively open markets, with the financial cost of conflict being too great for any single nation to risk taking the path of belligerence. The NATO alliance is key in this regard. As the unified security agreement stands for the benefit of all members when faced with nations that are outside of it, and keeps members in check when it comes to differences that exist among them.

Whilst credit is due to America and its European allies to have maintained the peace in the region since the end of WWII without major conflicts (the many wars of Yugoslavia and other smaller (but deadly) conflicts in the region, notably those bordering Russia notwithstanding).

However, to play devil’s advocate, it is worth considering, that it might make strategic sense for America to keep Europe, not exactly divided, but ‘preoccupied’ with its own set of problems or divisions; particularly as it relates to the East, where American or more broadly Anglo-American influence has not been the strongest.

With respect to Russia, the former Soviet adversary, that is now moving in a different direction culturally in contrast to many nations in ‘the West’. Russia, by embracing its Christian and European (Slavic) heritage, is manifesting a character that does NOT sit perfectly well with the Anglo-American portion of ‘the West’, which is probably why it is viewed with greater hostility in the English speaking world. But not so in the rest of Europe. Notably, since the 2015 immigrant crisis, there has been a resurgence in Christianity in a more outward, expressive form. In Bavaria for example, where Crosses were ordered to be placed in public buildings ⁽³¹⁾. This is a very European move. Unlike what is going on in the Anglo-American portion of ‘the West’.

Thus a closer union among major European powers, notably France and worse Germany with Russia, on cultural and ethnic grounds would prove tricky for the United States. Since American presence in Europe in present times has been a product of its historical role in defending Europe against possible Soviet Expansion to the West.

Given that the Soviet threat is gone, and Russia is not the superpower that it once was, but yet with significant regional capabilities, it might make sense for European countries to be somewhat levelheaded in dealing with this nation. That is to say, to allow Russia to have its own sphere of influence in countries around it. Notably with nations that have a spiritually Orthodox, and ethnically Slavic heritage.

The question must be posed: Does the pursuit of better relations with Russia, be worth it for Europe even if that means giving the Russians what they want with respect to their regional security and national stability. Which would include no NATO expansion Eastward, no Missile systems near the Russian border, and no support to anti-Russian nationalist movements in Ukraine or in any other nation that borders or is close to Russia. The justification? Well, because the same principles would apply with respect to America, or even China, and India for that matter.

One of the things that Western policymakers need to understand is that when it comes to great powers or nations that are becoming one, is that ‘the West’ at some point needs to back off. In addition to the danger of sparking a major conflict (potentially a nuclear one) as these are all nuclear-armed nations, it just makes more geopolitical sense for major powers to take care of things in and around their own backyard, and keep away from other major powers in order to avoid risking hostilities, directly or by proxy.

Then there is the issue of the matters close to home. The need to ensure national and regional stability, before investing blood, and money in a far-off land. The last time I checked America is not the epitome of national stability, regional security, and growing economic prosperity. Whilst it still has the biggest (or second) biggest GDP in the world and a very powerful military; the country is filled with major problems.

One of which is immigration. If one wishes to go down the path of territorial integrity and national sovereignty (one of the leading reasons cited by ‘the West’s’ in its support of Ukraine), we have the interesting case of the porous southern border in the United States, and the small matter of the millions of illegals who have entered the United States over the past few years. One that is having an increasingly significant effect on the character, and politics of America.

Notable here is the pro-immigrant position held by the left-leaning Democratic party: the political force in the United States, which also happens to be enamored with a multicultural view of society (diversity and inclusivity). Which in turn has apparently moved away from valuing and defending the European character of America, that is the cultural and spiritual foundations of the nation (e.g. the Founding Fathers were all ethnic Europeans). From a Conservative standpoint, which in the United States corresponds to politics of the Republican party, for whom the concerns over illegal immigration, and later its effects on the fabric of American culture is paramount; the left’s fascination with defending the national interests of Ukraine, apparently over that of the United States may seem baffling.

Trump’s election in 2016 was partly in response to the immigration question. Notably on the problem with the ethnocultural character of immigration. Right-leaning politicians and intellectuals rightly recognize that current immigration patterns (where people from developing – third world countries flood into what was historically a European-Christian America) would adversely affect the integral character of the United States.

The question in mind for many Americans who espouse a traditional (i.e. European) character of America is: does illegal immigration, particularly of people from different cultures, and beliefs (non-European and non-Christian, at this magnitude count as an invasion? One that could, at least in the long term, constitute a threat to the nation’s sovereignty? Maybe not in a military sense, but in a cultural one.

Added to this, there is a geopolitical question with respect to Mexico. It is no secret that the Federal government in Mexico is doing little to stem the flow of illegal immigrants through its lands, who wish to make their way north to the United States. Considering that Mexico and other countries that makeup South Central America are Hispanic, this poses another geopolitical variable (or challenge) with respect to the character, identity, and future of ‘the West’.

Returning to the topic of European unity. One of the complaints the Trump administration had during its time was how little the Germans were spending on their military, with its negligible contribution to the NATO alliance being unfair to the American taxpayer. Whilst this criticism is valid what was overlooked by the Trump camp (though not by Europeans) is that if Germany starts to spend around 2 percent or more of its GDP on the military, in terms of total spending, that number will surpass the expenditures of Britain and France: the two main European powers.

Now that Britain is out of the EU, the question of German rearmament (which is what it is) is arguably a more pertinent one. And the signs are thanks (or no thanks) to the Russian invasion, Germany is going to spend more and naturally would come to have a greater say in European and potentially regional security in the future⁽³²⁾.

So what are we to make of these developments? Going back to the last essay on this topic, where I argued that the two critical factors that define the core of the West are one: Its (ethnic) European character, and two: Its Christian heritage. Followed by geography, which is undoubtedly more important for Europeans with respect to Russia, rather than America which is an Ocean away; along with the market system, which is built on world trade, which in turn is guaranteed by America’s naval power and its broader global security umbrella, which Europe benefits from. In geopolitics, the power equation essentially boils down to allies, adversaries, and neutral parties.

Since Russia, as I have argued, has a strong European character, more so than the United States as things currently stand; the Slavic nation, quite naturally would come to be viewed as, if not more trustworthy in certain respects in certain European quarters, than the increasingly less European, and less Christian America. Especially if current demographic trends keep up.

And since Britain is no longer in the European Union, its input will naturally be viewed as less significant, particularly in certain French quarters, in addition to a degree of suspicion. Not only with respect to the historical hostilities between the French and British (e.g. Quebec was formerly a part of ‘New France’ until the French defeat in the Battle of Quebec), but also given the nature of Anglo-American culture that ties the two English speaking nations together (“special relationships”). With the greater affinity that Britain, unlike other continental European countries has towards things like multiculturalism, “diversity and inclusivity” and greater acceptance of Islam (It is difficult to imagine Parisians electing a Mohammad as the Mayor of the French Capital).

Faced with these challenges, the focus on Russia from a European perspective, notably with respect to the strategy to contain or destabilize it on the behalf of Ukraine; a poor, corrupt, third world country in Europe, that has little going for it besides its geography, and ethnic European character is questionable. Especially at a time when ‘the West’ is facing credible medium-term challenges that are developing on other fronts, which could prove to be more serious in the long term.

Taken together the idea of ‘the West’ led by the increasingly less-Western America and Great Britain, who are the nations spearheading the support for Ukraine, against a fully European and increasingly Christian Russia, poses a dilemma for many European nations.

What Does the West Stand For?

One of the major problems ‘the West’ has today concerns its identity. Does ‘the West’ know what it really stands for? Besides its commitment to concepts like democracy, open markets, rule of law, and gender identity? My understanding is that there is growing uncertainty in ‘the West’ with respect to what it truly is. The most notable facet of this uncertainty is the very idea of ‘the West’.

There is a reason why I have chosen to put this often-used term in quotation marks. For as much as this term has been evoked in present times, particularly in opposition to Russia, to characterize a group of nations who are united by a set of values and beliefs, who choose to stand against another nation with an apparently different value system; I cannot help shaking off the feeling that ‘the West’ as it currently stands (e.g. NATO alliance, European Union), at its core, is losing itself. And this conflict with Russia via Ukraine is a desperate attempt to generate some kind of geopolitical unity among nations, where the cultural and spiritual one is in the process of hollowing out.

Considering that the vast majority of people who are flooding into the United States are not ethnic Europeans is a problem for America’s (a Western nation) European identity. For the question of can a person become an American without having an ethnic European or culturally Christian heritage or at least have some affinity with the West? What happens if America ends up losing its European and Christian character further, to a point where these two groups become the minorities. This is a pressing question, for it comes at a time when the historically dominant White population of Europe, and now the United States is in headlong decline. The difference in America is that the immigrant numbers are far greater. Does this or should it pose a threat to the character and cultural identity of Europe and ‘the West’ at large? Some in Europe, and possibly in America seem to think so.

This takes us to the next question on Western identity: Does ‘the West’ know what it is willing to stand up for, given what is taking place in ‘the West’, specifically the Anglo-American world when it comes to issues like illegal immigration, demographic collapse among Europeans, the erosion of its cultural heritage in the face of woke politics, which are, as I have argued in terms of their intellectual foundations, are inherently anti-Western. So ‘the West’ despite its apparent bravery and resolution in opposing Russia geopolitically, doesn’t seem able or willing to stand up for itself culturally, and spiritually within its own borders. And given the broad support for woke politics on the left, seems to be in the process of undermining it internally.

The war in Ukraine, which is being played up as a great battle of democracy and freedom against tyranny and hate, is a lot more complicated when one considers the geopolitics of NATO expansion, the fueling of anti-Russian nationalism in Ukraine by elements in ‘the West’, and the paradoxically, the strengthening Western character of the Slavic adversary to the East.

Russia as an ethnically European nation with a Slavic character and Orthodox heritage, in addition to being a regional power, means that it shares a lot in common with many European nations. Notably, those which are Slavic and Orthodox in character. And if one goes back to imperial times, Russia has had a long and deep connection with the rest of Europe notably its major players: France, Germany, and even Great Britain. [Fun Fact: Czar Nicholas II, King George V, and Kaiser Wilhelm were first cousins].

In recent times Russia’s relationship with major European nations has grown thanks to trade and the demand for Russian energy. Thus European nations recognize Russia as a major regional power, with shared characteristics and hence a potential regional ally, despite their commitment to NATO. As a nation with vast borders, the second most powerful military in the world, the largest nuclear arsenal, and one of the main centers of Orthodox Christianity, Russia is a nation that deserves its own sphere of influence. One that a lot of Europeans in the Slavic world, and increasingly the French, Germans, and Austrians until very recently, valued.

Considering America’s disproportionate military strength in relation to its peers in the NATO security alliance, its proclivity for unilateralism (e.g. Iraq invasion), combined with some of its geopolitical ambitions (such as attempts to contain or destabilize the Russian Federation), and apparent military failures (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) do not always align with Europe’s broader goals. Goals that are paradoxically pro-Western in a culturally European sense. Which the English-speaking portion of ‘the West’ (i.e. the Anglo-American world) appears to be knowingly or otherwise distancing itself from.

This state of affairs, evinced by the vacillating commitment shown by various European nations on the subject of Ukrainian defense: with Poland and the Baltic nations being the most supportive, with other European nations being somewhat on the fence when it comes to this matter, again raises the question: Is Ukraine worth it? Or more specifically is Ukraine worth more to European nations than Russia? The answer to this I would speculate is no, despite what is taking place on the ground at the moment.

The comments made by the key figure in the German navy, that Putin and Russia are important for European and by extension for Western security are worth revisiting. Especially when it comes to the question of China. Which many experts feel is the real threat to ‘the West’. A view that is shared by nations like India, which views China with great unease.

Since Russia is European, many European countries, notably (for curious reasons) countries that fought on the Axis side against Russia: Austria, Romania, Hungary, and to a lesser extent Bulgaria, along with most Slavic nations, with exception of Poland, express either overtly or indirectly a level of neutrality on subject of Russia. Which again raises the question: Why? The answer is proximity: proximity or closeness in a cultural, geographical, and yes also in a racial and spiritual sense.

Whilst ‘the West’ dominated by the Anglo-American sphere is busy looking at this problem purely from a geopolitical Russia vs ‘the West’ perspective. Those in the European continent seem to be guided by a frank sense of realism, that when it comes to geopolitics one of the best ways to guarantee regional stability is not to play hardball with major powers who live next door, particularly a nation (or civilization) that one shares a deep historical connection with. Instead, it could be wise to seek to work within a framework of partnership and accommodation, even if that means seeking common ground with a regional power that is not a paragon of democracy and liberal values and is willing to use military force with neighbors that prove unaccommodating or hostile to its power.

A War for ‘the West’ that Costs the West

This brings us to my main concern with the war in Ukraine. And here the reader best prepares himself (or herself) for what is to come. OK, so the real problem when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine in relation to ‘the West, one that I have been hinting at throughout this essay is race.

To be blunt, as someone who admires the West, I don’t like the idea of a Western nation, or specifically a predominantly White Western nation, going to war against one another. Looking back in history, I kinda find it hard to stomach the monstrous conflict between the Germans and the Russians in the greatest war of the 20^th century if not human history. Call me… Whatever, but I just don’t like the idea of seeing Europeans having to kill Europeans. And any policy that instigates such a conflict among and between European nations, and nations that have a European heritage I find unacceptable. Before I explain why let’s look at this problem from the standpoint of an imaginary third party. Or third parties, who are hostile to the West.

Since the financial crisis of 2007-08, the subsequent European sovereign debt crisis, and now in the post-COVID era, and in more recent times, following the US and allied withdrawal from Afghanistan, the rise of China; the demographic explosion in Sub Saharan Africa, the rise of the Islamic world, has meant that talk of a multi-polar world with emerging powers that can not exactly challenges the US-led hegemony, vis a vie NATO and America’s naval power, but at least become alternate centers of power, influence, and leadership when it comes to geopolitical questions, in relation to issues like trade, energy, infrastructure but also on the question of values, beliefs and principles have emerged. Here ‘the West’ faces a number of challengers, who could mutate into future adversaries. I have listed the main three.

China

No surprise here, as we have China on the geopolitical and military front. A vast nation with over 1.4 billion people, the second-largest economy in the world (or the largest according to purchasing power parity). A nation that is investing vast sums in R&D, and military technology: notably in naval expansion, and missile systems, and making great strides in semiconductor technology with other engineering feats in transportation and energy infrastructure. In other words, China has all the ingredients for becoming the quintessential adversary of ‘the West’, at least regionally, in the South China Sea, the Sea of Japan, and possibly beyond.

Given its vast populace, ethnic homogeneity (around 92 percent of China’s populace is Han Chinese), its nuclear capabilities, and growing economic power that is underpinned by vastly superior infrastructure to any that is found in ‘the West’. China is a challenger to ‘the West’ if there ever was one.

In terms of values and beliefs, the small matter that China is not democratic stands out. In sum China, unlike Russia, is not Western ethnically (Han), spiritually (Confucianism /Atheism), politically (Single Party Communism), and frankly even economically (Socialist State Capitalism). So the problem for Western policymakers in Europe, America, Oceania, and everywhere else is: How do we contend with this reality. Whilst there have been some initiatives with respect to China (QUAD), the problem is that in getting entangled in a costly conflict in Eastern Europe, ‘the West’ is taking its eye off the ball.

Hispanic-co

This point is more on the speculative side, so the reader best stays with me. The problem with America and the Southern border with Mexico, the flow of immigrants, many of them illegal, poses a number of different problems. From the economic costs of supporting them, the problem with the influx of narcotics, and the growing sway of drug cartels and other non-state actors in the United States, who already dominate much of the region inside Mexico. The potential long-term problem I see with Mexico is one of national integrity. One that is born of history and the demographic trajectory in the US.

In history, the war between Mexico and the United States (Mexican-American War 1848), which resulted in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, where Mexico ceded over 525,000 square miles to the United States, is a pressing matter. Now I am not sure what the thinking is like within Mexican intelligence circles, but it is a fair conjecture that some do harbor aims or at least visions of reclaiming those lands back to, not just Mexico, but to the Hispanic world. One that is ‘Western’ in a certain sense: Given it is Christian (Catholic), and partly European (Latin) character. However, it is not European proper. In that, it differs from the characteristically Northern European and Protestant character of America. And even considering that Roman Catholicism is the largest single Christian denomination in the US.

My concern is that, if immigration from the South, includes not just Mexico but much poorer countries in South Central America, including anti-American ones like Venezuela. The kind of people who are getting in given their Hispanic or Latin loyalties may prove to be a destabilizing force in the US. Which could stem from their divided loyalties to the Latin world vs the Anglo-American English-speaking one.

This is a strict hypothetical, and I am not insinuating anything negative against persons of Hispanic or Latin heritage, even if it may seem so (if it helps yours truly has a Catholic heritage). My point is: This is how geopolitics works, whether you like it or not. If you bring in people, a very large amount of people, tens of millions in a short period of time, from a part of the world with a different culture, ethnic/religious heritage, and value system, before giving them time to assimilate. In time they could prove to be a destabilizing force. Especially when the host nation has not been in the mood to assimilate its immigrant populace.

To provide one extreme hypothetical: If for example, the Hispanic/Latin population in Arizona gets to a point where it surpasses that of European Americans (though technically Hispanics are European, at least partly), and these groups still maintain a close link to their Hispanic homelands, and then being to exert such demands electorally, which is aided by a Mexican government that desires the return of territories it lost in the war with America. Then we might be faced with a scenario where some of the Southern American states with high Hispanic/Latin populations might vote for secession, or for such States to break from the Union and join with another Hispanic/Latin country that would want them back: Mexico (also known as the United Mexican States). With greater affinity with South Central Latin States, it could lead to a newly forged ‘Union of Latin American States’ Or ‘Hispanic-Co’.

The Islamic World

As noted, Islam is set to become the largest religion in the world in terms of total adherents by the final decades of the 21^st century. Christianity laid the groundwork for the development of Western civilization. Much can be said about what combination of forces and events gave rise to the idea and reality of ‘the West. What is indisputable is the role of Christianity involving the three main branches of the faith: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox traditions, via the contributions of the faithful to the formation of the core of what would become ‘the West’.

Needless to say, the Islamic conquest of Europe, had it succeeded (i.e. in turning Europe Muslim) would have ended the Western project. The many Crusades and battles fought by Christian kingdoms in defense of Christendom, morally questionable as they were, were important to protect, a then budding Western civilization from an alien power.

For whenever the many incursions of hostile Islamic powers into Europe over centuries succeeded, the consequence for ‘the West’ had been dire. From the Barbary White Slavers, where over a million European Christians were enslaved by the Islamic powers of North Africa ⁽³³⁾. One of the significant successes of Islam in the West was the expansion of the Umayyad Caliphate with its conquest of parts of Europe. Scholarship has shown that during the years of its conquest and occupation of Spain, its overlordship of ‘the West’ was to the detriment of Europe’s European (i.e. White + Christian) character ⁽³⁴⁾.

In modern times, we have the problem with Islamic extremism and its militant manifestation which has been well scrutinized and has been the main strategic preoccupation of ‘the West’ since 9/11. however what has been lacking in attention is the problem with Islam with respect to its culture: in terms of its religious character that markedly differs from those found in ‘the West’: notably the concept of the separation of State and Church. And in turn, the kind of socio-political order that it gives rise to. A survey of the Islamic world, vis a vie the major Muslim majority nations, reveals a number of differences: From the type of political order: such as theocracies and absolute monarchies among other non-democratic polities. A social order that exhibits a marked intolerance towards other beliefs and cultures (e.g. Christianity, and modernity).

Christian majority countries are in no way comparable to Islamic ones in terms of values and laws when it comes to issues like human rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, not to mention the rights for women and LGBTQ people. A closer look at the world from a religious standpoint indicates a marked divide between the West (formerly Christendom) and the Islamic world when it comes to issues like tolerance and acceptance. It must be stated that the kind of freedoms and rights that followers of the Prophet Mohammad experience in ‘the West’ is one that is not forthcoming to those of other faiths in the Islamic world.

Take the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The spiritual home of the Islamic faith: a country where Christian Churchs are forbidden, evangelization is disallowed, and conversion from Islam to another faith is a crime punishable by death (). In the book: Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam co-authored with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, Marcello Pera notes: “while we allow mosques to flourish right next-door to our parish churches, in almost no Muslim country are Christians allowed to build a Church” ⁽³⁵⁾.

When it comes to the future of ‘the West’ this subject is pressing if one marries it with the demographic question. The question has to be asked: what happened when (not if) the immigrant, Islamic population in many Western nations reaches demographic dominance? Will they be as tolerant and inclusive with respect to things we hold dear?

Ukraine: ‘The West’s’ Stalingrad?

During the course of the ongoing conflict, there have been a number of calls for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Which in practice would require NATO forces to shoot down Russian fighter aircraft over the skies of Ukraine among other the security guarantees that would come with such an arrangement. The reasons for calls for the establishment of such a no-fly zone make sense, in that it could deter Russian incursions into Ukraine. In the event that it does not: That is if the Russians proceed to risk being shot down, and choose to carry on with the war in the Eastern European nation. That would lead to a scenario where Russian aircraft do get shot down by NATO forces. Thus bringing both powers into head-on conflict.

In addition to further calls from certain quarters that the US should send in American forces to actually fight on behalf of the Ukrainians, President Biden in responding to such speculations rightly stated that would this mean: “World War III”. And it would be a nuclear one. As President Putin made it clear very early on, citing the superiority of NATO’s military power against that of Russia in terms of conventional forces would mean that Russia, being one of the world’s leading nuclear powers, with a modernized arsenal of missiles, rockets, and delivery systems, with Satan II being a new deadly addition, would be compelled to go nuclear. Which would mean a global nuclear storm leading to, what could amount to MAD: Or ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’. Where much of ‘the West’ and Russia will be destroyed.

Now, why is this significant? You see if I was a real cynic. Someone who also absolutely hated ‘the West’, I would want nothing more than for ‘the West’ and Russia to go to war. A nuclear one specifically. For if the conflict in Ukraine were to escalate into a nuclear showdown with all major ‘Western’ nations launching their nuclear weapons. The consequence would be… You guessed it: The near-total destruction of ‘the West’.

As any nuclear confrontation would invariably annihilate the whole of Eastern and Western Europe, with the British Isles not likely to escape. As for the United States, particularly for those who think that Russia is a faraway country that lies beyond the Atlantic Ocean. Note that Russia’s far-Eastern regions, which consist of Islands and other landmass are only a few miles away from America’s North West. The closest point is around 2.4 miles from the borders of Alaska⁽³⁶⁾.

A March 2022 piece in the Boston Globe observes that even after decades of investment worth hundreds of billions of dollars the United States missile defense system “is no match for a Russian nuclear attack”. Going on to state, rather ominously I might add that the ability of America to defend against an attack by Russia, which is estimated to have nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads and highly sophisticated missile technology, is practically nonexistent. That the US is no match against a large number of incoming missiles, which is “precisely the kind of attack that Russia would launch”⁽³⁷⁾. In other words, in the face of a nuclear war with Russia, the United States, all things considered, is not going to come off well.

Considering what’s likely to happen if the conflict in Ukraine escalates further: where ‘the West’ which is apparently so united against Russia, in that it is even willing to risk nuclear war on Ukraine’s behalf. The key question is: Has anyone pondered what such a potentiality could mean? Nuclear Armageddon resulting from an atomic war between Russia and ‘the West’ will primarily destroy nations of ‘the West’, which paradoxically includes Russia: owing to its ethnic European and culturally Christian character.

But, speaking as a hypothetical cynic, who hates ‘the West’, whose affinity lies with a different political order: One that seeks to replace Western hegemony with a Middle kingdom mentality. Or a civilization that espouses a different spiritual heritage: one that considers the West to be morally decadent, and spiritually bankrupt. Or a civilization (currently in the making) that is antithetical to anything White: A civilization consisting of people who are opposed to anything European, and couldn’t wish for anything better: That of thermonuclear war which would see all White, Western, Christian countries fight and destroy themselves, and in the process drive the Caucasian races that populate ‘the West’ including Russia as it happens, to extinction.

So that when their destruction is complete, I and my fellow (non-European, Christian) tribesman could take over their lands and resources. Well, what is left of it anyway; and decades later, once the radiation levels have gone down. Which makes perfect Darwin sense if you ask me!

Crude and inhuman as it may sound, that’s the kind of future ‘the West’ may be walking into if it persists in this fight on behalf of Ukraine. Whilst much has been made of ‘the West’s commitment to defending its frontiers from potential Russian aggression, such as the growing number of NATO forces being deployed in Baltic states, and other nations close to Russia. The point seems to be missed by many that the closer NATO and Russian forces get the greater the likelihood of not just war in a conventional sense, but a nuclear one that could destroy Western civilization.

Once again I ask the question: Is Ukraine worth it? Is this nation worth not just the security and stability of Europe, but the very survival of ‘the West’?

The nuclear scenario aside, which is the worst one, there is another danger. One that is more insidious, but yet also destructive in the long term, which the conflict in Ukraine could inflict on ‘the West’, along with Russia.

My reference to Stalingrad refers no doubt to the great battle (or the greatest battle, and arguably the most significant of the Second World War). Germany’s reversal in this titanic struggle, with vast human and resource cost; culminating in the defeat of the German 6^th Army. Following this reversal, Germany, which until then, at least on ground battles, had seemed almost invincible, was in retreat.

Soviet counterattacks on the Eastern front, and its relentless advance towards Berlin since 1943 was pivotal in the downfall of the Axis power. Germany’s defeat no doubt involved considerable support from British and American forces and resources. But the key factor in the war remains the human cost borne by the Soviets. With the Wehrmacht being bled out in the East, where the core of Germany’s forces were deployed, combined with the social and economic cost of the war, slowing down Germany in other areas. Ebbing its energy, resources, and will to fight on the Western front, until D-Day when Germany’s defeat was all but certain.

In late April 2022, when President Biden requested Congress for an additional $ 33 billion in funding, it indicated to me that the United States and possibly its allies in Europe recognize that this war will be a long one^(ibid). A military defeat of Russia in the form of a complete retreat from Ukraine will take some doing, considering how committed the Russians have been, and how weak European militaries are.

Problematically for everyone, the signs are this war is not going to end soon. And the longer it goes the weaker and unstable it would become, particularly in light of the other, very real threats it faces.

Despite the rhetoric surrounding ‘the West’s’ unified response to Russian aggression, one that assumes everyone in ‘the West’, or at least the vast majority are happy and ever ready to go along with this. This, however, is not a given. Considering that a sizable faction of the electorate in many Western nations are, whilst not exactly pro-Russian, their views (up until the conflict) were warming towards the Slavic, Orthodox nation. Returning to one of the central points that has underpinned the two essays is the importance of the Christian heritage as a foundation of Western culture. Russia under Putin seems to not only embrace its Orthodox heritage, but also comes to view itself as the standard-bearer of Orthodox Christianity in Europe, and potentially, given the de-Christianization of ‘the West’ as the new standard-bearer of world Christianity. Given than Orthodox Christianity is the third major branch of the Christian faith, the Slavic nation could be seeing itself as a spiritual center.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, writing on the rise of Europe through the ages says the following about Russia: “Moscow declared itself to be the third Rome, and founded its patriarchate on the principle of a second translatio imperii, or transfer of political power. Russia thus emerged as a new metamorphosis of the Holy Roman Empire, as a distinct form of Europe, which nevertheless remained tied to the West and was increasingly oriented toward it, culminating in Peter the Great’s attempt to westernize Russia”^(ibid). This point made by the German pope has not gone unnoticed by the current Russian leadership both temporal and spiritual. The closeness between the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church seems to have imbued Russian policy with some kind of spiritual zeal. There seems to be a deeper logic underpinning Russia’s domestic and foreign policy. A spiritual one.

The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 was given new justification as the region is considered the spiritual foundation of Russia’s Orthodox heritage⁽³⁸⁾. Russia’s reconnection with its Christian character, notably its embrace of traditional family values, and its opposition to feminism and homosexuality, has not gone unnoticed in ‘the West’. With various segments of the American right viewing the Russian leader and the direction the nation has taken, positively.

Even mainstream conservatives and right leaning thinkers in ‘the West’ don’t seem to view Putin and Russia as this great big villain. The (in)famous monologue by Tucker Carlson on Fox News, just days before the war, ended with the question ‘does he eat dogs?’ in reference to the Russian leader.

The popular conservative presenter listed out the areas where Russia is not in opposition to the United States, unlike China for example, when it comes to its core values. The point is ‘the West’ as it currently stands, represented by the leaders of major NATO nations, must not overestimate their unity of purpose. One that could very well change in future election cycles. The gains made by the historically pro-Russian Marine Le Pen, whose vote percentage went from around 33 percent in 2017 to over 41 percent in 2022 is one such indication⁽³⁹⁾.

If one is to prognosticate, what I am sensing with the Ukrainian conflict is that this war, which now involves the active support of virtually all major Western nations against Russia could have the effect of bleeding out both powers. For Russia this is an existential conflict. A battle for survival, as the rhetoric from Putin’ side, indicates. In which case, it is fair to assume that they would keep fighting, possibly to the end (Recent threats of potential nuclear strikes against Britain is another indication).

As for the Ukrainians? Well, what can you say! They’re the ones paying the human and social cost of this war. For ‘the West’ seems prepared to fight a long, worn-out war, even without direct involvement, against a nation that is hell-bent on meeting its goals. But the costs of such a war, a ‘forever war’ so to speak? In terms of the economic, social, and in time, potential political implications it would. With no real winners, but only losers. Or in the cynical mold: there would only be White, Western Christian losers.

For presuming this war is going to carry on indefinitely into the future, the question has to be asked: What becomes of ‘the West’s’ strategy with respect to other challengers I have outlined earlier, who may prove to be a more tangible threat closer to home, even if not an existential one, as things currently stand and evolve in time?

Is ‘the West’ is able and willing to fight a proxy war against Russia, and at the same time confront and contain China geopolitically, and deal with civilizational challenges posed to the West by other emerging powers, with some being supranational religious entities with vast and growing demographic presence in the West?

Given the trouble ‘the West’ has historically had when it comes to integrating peoples who are not of a Western, Christian heritage into its own, and when combined with the coming demographic collapse of Western nations: Where minorities from Africa and the Islamic world (who tend to have higher birthrates) start to match and in time surpass native Europeans or European Americans (or European Canadians) in their own countries. What happens then? People from alien cultures, who are not integrated into the Western polity, who in time will begin to import and assert their own cultural practices and values on ‘the West’, what would happen then?

To think of an insanitary example: take FGM (female genital mutilation), which is a horrific practice that is almost entirely of African origin, that is increasing in ‘the West’ thanks to immigration. The question is what would happen to ‘the West’ when such things get normalized owing to demographic change?

Given the weak demographics among ethnic Europeans, and the lack of will and confidence on part of the native or local population to assert its values and to legally demand that aliens entering its shores integrate and assimilate to a Western cultural edifice, seriously undermines the future of ‘the West’ as a real human entity, with its distinct values and belief systems. In the words of the former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal: “immigration without integration is not immigration, it’s invasion” ⁽⁴⁰⁾.

Here I am reminded of a conversation with a British friend of mine (native) during my time in England. As we were making our way to the campus site, our conversation revolved around the subject of immigrants and British culture, notably on the topic of integration or the lack thereof. Based on my short stay in England I had made a few observations about the nation’s capital vis a vie the ethnic make-up of certain parts of the city. As I went through a list of places in London (based on train/tube stops) and proceeded to get his reaction to each of them. His one-word response as I went through the list. Starting with: Lewisham, Turnpike Lane, Woolwich Arsenal, Hounslow, East Ham, Brixton, was “sh** h**l”. And with respect to Brixton, he went on to say that “Not only is Brixton a sh** h**l, but there isn’t a White person in site”.

So while ‘the West’ is fighting against Russia on behalf of a corrupt, poor, morally bankrupt, third world country called Ukraine, all in the name of democracy and freedom, with the human cost being paid by Ukrainian citizens, and others from demographically declining West, its heartlands of its culture are being eroded by alien peoples who don’t integrate, who rather feel empowered to import their own values, beliefs and norms into the West. With its native birthrate collapsing out this does not bode well for the future of ‘the West’ no matter how successful it is in thwarting Russia.

This is coming at a vast economic cost to ‘the West’ when it is raked by a multitude of problems. Which exacerbates problems that underlie the human side of the West’s equation. Taken together it means that those who believe in the West, and Western values dwindle with every passing year. The question is: What happens next?

References

Lexico Dictionaries | English. 2022. RACIALIZE | [online] Available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/racialize [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Asare, J., (2022), ‘I Don’t Need White Women’s Allyship’: A Conversation With Raven Rodriguez About Women’s History And Liberation. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2022/03/19/i-dont-need-white-womens-allyship-a-conversation-with-raven-rodriguez-about-liberation/?sh=70f3eb8f1cd0 [Accessed 17 May 2022].
The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. 2022. Rupi Kaur Reads Timeless from Her Poetry Collection The Sun and Her Flowers. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHkFFA5iGlc&t=4s [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Kaur, R., (2017), The Sun and Her Flowers. 6th ed. Ontario: Simon and Schuster.
World Population Review. (2020), How Many Black People Are in the World. [online] Available at: https://worldpopulationreview.com/economics/how-many-black-people-are-in-the-world [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Guardian, (2000) The last days of a white world. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world [Accessed 17 May 2022].
USA Today, (2015) Islam projected to be world’s largest religion by 2070. [online] Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/02/religion-muslims-christians-populations-pew-research/70769318/ [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Reuters (2022), EXCLUSIVE: WHO says it advised Ukraine to destroy pathogens in health labs to prevent disease spread. [online] Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-who-says-it-advised-ukraine-destroy-pathogens-health-labs-prevent-2022-03-11/ [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Washington Post, (2005), U.S. to Aid Ukraine in Countering Bioweapons. [online] Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/08/30/us-to-aid-ukraine-in-countering-bioweapons/72059ed1-90ca-4381-ac6f-10f4e205f09e/ [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Fox News, (2022) Russia in for nasty guerrilla warfare campaign that will bleed them dry, former Green Beret says. [online] Available at: https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-in-for-nasty-guerrilla-warfare-campaign-that-will-bleed-them-dry-former-green-beret-says [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Freedom House, (2021), Ukraine. [online] Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/country/ukraine/freedom-world/2021 [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Guardian (2015), Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt nation in Europe. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/04/welcome-to-the-most-corrupt-nation-in-europe-ukraine [Accessed 17 May 2022].
World Bank, (2021), GDP per capita (current US$) – Ukraine. [online] Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=UA [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Independent, (2022), Ukraine has one of the highest HIV rates in Europe. Russia’s war could set back fight against virus 20 years. [online] Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-hiv-aids-war-b2051692.html [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Crux (2022), John Mearsheimer On Who Gains The Most From The Ukraine-Russia War & What Could End Putin’s Assault. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgiZXgYzI84 [Accessed 17 May 2022].
WION, (2022), Russia recognizes Taiwan as part of China, opposes island’s independence. [online] Available at: https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-recognises-taiwan-as-part-of-china-opposes-islands-independence-450437 [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Newsweek, (2021), Macron, France Reject American ‘Woke’ Culture That’s ‘Racializing’ Their Country. [online] Available at: https://www.newsweek.com/macron-france-reject-american-woke-culture-thats-racializing-their-country-1634706 [Accessed 17 May 2022].
BBC, (2021), France resists US challenge to its values. [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61474732 [Accessed 17 May 2022].
Spiegel International, (2017), U.S. Ad Agency Boosts Right-Wing Populist AfD. [online] Available at: https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/u-s-ad-agency-boosts-right-wing-populist-afd-a-1164956.html [Accessed 22 May 2022].
Government of UK, (2011), PM’s speech at Munich Security Conference. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference [Accessed 22 May 2022].
The Print, (2022), Why German naval chief wanted West to respect Putin & what India-China have got to do with it. [online] Available at: https://theprint.in/opinion/global-print/why-german-naval-chief-wanted-west-to-respect-putin-what-india-china-have-got-to-do-with-it/812031/ [Accessed 22 May 2022].
Russia Beyond, (2018), What languages did the Romanovs speak? [online] Available at: https://www.rbth.com/history/329404-romanovs-language-spoke [Accessed 22 May 2022].
C-SPAN (1961), President Dwight Eisenhower Farewell Address [online] Available at: https://www.c-span.org/video/?15026-1/president-dwight-eisenhower-farewell-address [Accessed 22 May 2022].
New York Times (2021), The Former Chancellor Who Became Putin’s Man in Germany [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html [Accessed 22 May 2022].
Financial Times (2021),Germany’s bridges to Russia split open Europe [online] Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/a43a3639-6cff-4dea-81ed-4cd4deb27399 [Accessed 22 May 2022].
Euro News (2022),Which country has given the most money to Ukraine?’ [online] Available at: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/04/19/which-country-has-given-the-most-money-to-ukraine [Accessed 22 May 2022].
New York Times (2022), Four Ways to Understand the $54 Billion in U.S Spending on Ukraine [online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/20/upshot/ukraine-us-aid-size.html [Accessed 22 May 2022].
Politico (2022), Austria rejects sanctions against Russian oil, gas [online] Available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/austria-rejects-sanctions-against-russian-oil-gas/ [Accessed 22 May 2022].
Bloomberg (2022), Hungary Floats Veto Threat as EU Works to Ban Russian Oil [online] Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-01/hungary-would-veto-eu-sanctions-on-russian-energy-minister-says [Accessed 22 May 2022].
US European Command (2021), Aegis Ashore Romania: Supporting European Missile Defense for 5 Years and Counting [online] Available at: https://www.eucom.mil/pressrelease/41296/aegis-ashore-romania-supporting-european-missile-defense-for-5-years-and-counting [Accessed 22 May 2022].
BBC (2018), Germany’s Bavaria orders Christian crosses in all state buildings [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43892329 [Accessed 22 May 2022].
DW (2022), Germany commits €100 billion to defense spending [online] Available at: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-commits-100-billion-to-defense-spending/a-60933724 [Accessed 22 May 2022]
Ohio State News (2004), When Europeans Were Slaves: Research Suggests White Slavery Was Much More Common Than Previously Believed [online] Available at: https://news.osu.edu/when-europeans-were-slaves–research-suggests-white-slavery-was-much-more-common-than-previously-believed/ [Accessed 22 May 2022]
Dario Fernández-Morera, (2016), The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Joseph Ratzinger (2006) Without Roots, Basic Books: New York.
Geography Realm (2016), These Two Countries are Separated by 2.4 Miles and 21 Hours [online] Available at: https://www.geographyrealm.com/separated-by-2-4-miles-and-21-hours/ [Accessed 22 May 2022].
Boston Globe (2022), After four decades and $200 billion, the US missile defense system is no match for a Russian nuclear attack [online] Available at: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/12/nation/after-four-decades-200-billion-us-missile-defense-system-is-no-match-russian-nuclear-attack/ [Accessed 22 May 2022].
Washington Post (2015), The Christian zeal behind Russia’s war in Syria [online] Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/01/the-christian-zeal-behind-russias-war-in-syria/ [Accessed 22 May 2022].
Wikipedia (2022), French presidential election [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_French_presidential_election [Accessed 22 May 2022].
Economic Times (2015), Immigration without integration is ‘invasion’: Bobby Jindal [online] Available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/visa-and-immigration/immigration-without-integration-is-invasion-bobby-jindal/articleshow/48743309.cms [Accessed 22 May 2022].

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Damian Tharcisius

MAKING SENSE OF
CULTURE

The War in Ukraine and the True Battle for ‘The West’