A Cautious Defense of "The West" and The Liberal Multilateral World Order
The narrative of a failing "West" is nothing new. We have overcome it before and can overcome it again. However, this will require long term strategies and belief in our ideals.
This is an op-ed. All opinions expressed are the author’s own.
Historical Doubt
Prior to the Second World War a deep resentment with the inefficiency of democratic regimes was wide-spread amongst the peoples of Europe. When onlookers were observing the economic “miracle” of the Third Reich, a sense of awe and powerlessness was a common thread through the perceptions of the peoples of Deladier’s France and Chamberlain’s Britain. Albeit the horrors of fascist rule were clear from 1938 onwards, propelled by events such as the brutal Krystalnacht, many were left questioning their own government’s ability to handle the fallout of the Great Depression and the challenges of securing order in nation-states plagued by ideological and ethnic polarization.
It was only after Hitler showed his real face to the world with the annexation and proclamation of the Reichsprotektorat over Bohemia-Moravia (now the Czech Republic), a Wagnerian-Hitleresque fantasy of “conquest” void of ethnic or post-Versailles irredentism, that Germany and France started mobilizing and preparing for the inevitable war to come. Nonetheless, the policy of appeasement, (best encapsulated by the Munich Agreement that de facto sealed the fate of Czechoslovakia, without even awarding the Czechoslovaks a seat at the table), and a wide-spread doubt in our own capabilities was still hard to shake off, as movies such as Darkest Hour, brilliantly shows.
What is not so well known, however, is just how dire a state the economy of the Third Reich found itself in prior to Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland. As a result of the country’s burgeoning military industrial complex and lavish public spending on megalithic infrastructure and vanity projects, Nazi Germany’s economy was on its knees, plagued by rampant inflation, only kept down by artificial price controls – which anyone mildly familiar with economics will know is dangerous and often catastrophic terrain. In the words of Hitler himself, the need to incorporate more territories and resources to stave off an implosion of the German economy, was one of the key drivers for war. Much the same can be said about Mussolini’s Italy, which below the surface was a ticking time-bomb lacking resources fueling its need for colonial conquest (coupled with dreams of restoring the Roman Empire) in Albania and Abyssinia (now Ethiopia).
Looking back at diaries and news reports in the lead-up to the Second World War, this is hardly, if ever mentioned in “the West”. Instead there seems to have existed atleast some degree of, albeit reluctant, admiration in countries such as Britain or France, for just how far Herr Hitler had managed to bring Germany out of the ashes and of the order that Signor Mussolini had achieved in a seemingly uncontrollable nascent Italian state. Democracy and its leaders were seen as stuffery, diddery, and weak.
When I draw on this old tale, this recipe for destruction which it really was, it is because I believe there are genuine relevant lessons that “the West” can learn today from our behaviour of the past. What I will endeavour to argue is that our biggest strength, our free speech, freedom of information, and capacity for reflection and self-doubt, serves at times also as our greatest weakness. Especially today in a world plagued by new adversaries and challenges from within and without.
The Challenges of “The West”
On the surface our current situation does not look ideal, to say the least. Entering into 2025, the traditional motors or stabilizers of “Western” cohesion, the US, the UK, France, and Germany are all at least on paper finding themselves in some degree of crisis.
The first driver, the US, has with the election of Donald Trump become an expansionist (at this point happily only in rhetorical terms) great power in the old meaning of the term. Severely battering its long-standing good relationships with close NATO allies such as Canada and Denmark (never mind Panama and Mexico), over apparent MAGA desires of a North American “superstate” incorporating both Canada and Greenland into the US, this has grave consequences for the faith and trust on especially the European side of the Atlantic in the solidity of the transatlantic bond. Recently European leaders such as Olaf Scholz have expressed worries about just to what extent the US recognizes the territorial integrity of its allies, and at the worrisome use of the threat of tarriffs (or even military measures) if Denmark does not comply with the US’s proposal to buy Greenland.
The second power, the UK, is still struggling to find its feet post-Brexit, having to contend with sluggish growth for the last many years, even with PM Keir Starmer now picking up the slack of what can only be deemed a chaotic decade of Tory leadership.
The Franco-German motor in the EU is not faring much better. France, is at the time virtually a revolving door of prime-ministers coming and going, as President Macron faces challenges from both the far-left and far-right, over a proposed pension-reform. In Germany, the ruling coalition’s disagreement about the revocation of the Schuldenbremse or debt-brake has pushed the country into early elections, that Scholtz seems poised to lose, at the same time as far-right Alternative Für Deutschland storms forward in the polls.
As for the project, the multilateral, rules-based, liberal world order that “the West” has sought to export, especially since the end of the Cold War, as our regime of good global governance, it seems less and less credible. The war in Gaza, which happily now seems to be coming to an end, has served as an example of “Western” hypocrisy, with the US’s blatant shielding of its ally, Israel, in spite of numerous observed war-crimes, being case in point. Trump has expressed, and showed, time and time again blatant disregard for multilateralism, undermining much of the admirable work Joe Biden has done in reestablishing trust in the US by its allies.
“The West’s” main strength, our freedom of speech, media and information seems to be used against us – directly harming our democracies. Firstly, the 2016 election of Donald Trump, with recent elections in Georgia, Romania, and Moldova showing similar patterns, election interference by foreign autocracies has been rampant, shaping the popular opinion, while spreading doubt and distrust amongst the governed against our elected representatives. Secondly, what Joe Biden recently called an “oligarchy” of unimaginably wealthy business-men and tech moguls such as Elon Musk, are showing just how much influence their technological platforms and wealth can buy them both domestically and abroad, with Musk’s daily “election lottery” of USD 1,000,000 to swing-state voters in Pennsylvania and his recent interference in UK and German politics, countries of whom he is not a citizen, being the best examples of such. Thirdly, our freedom of information, both in good and bad times, on our economic well-being, statistics on unemployment, and levels of debt, are arguments served on a silver-platter to autocracies, that they can use to show to their populace just how bad we’re doing.
We Must Believe in Ourselves
It is easy to despair and falter as a citizen of “the West” when faced by all these vile challenges. However, we must learn to believe again in our strength and in our traditional ideals. Amid a narrative of failure, similar to the one that plagued “the Western” states in the lead-up to the Second World War, we must take a step back and review our capabilities and long-term strategy. If not, history is most likely due for a rhyme, if not a repetition – and being a young man at the somber age of 25 – I have plenty of impetus to react, as I imagine places more inspiring to celebrate my 30th birthday than in a trench in some field in Lithuania.
I propose four long-term strategies going forward.
1) A recalibration of our “adversaries”’ situation
2) A coherent adherence to our ideals
3) Increased regulation and education in media literacy
4) Acknowledging and leveraging the power of multilateralism in defense
Recalibration
Although it is difficult not to marvel or be ensnared by the Chinese economic miracle and the resilience of the Russian economy against our economic sanctions’ regime, there are indicators that things are not going as well for these autocratic powers challenging the liberal world order as it may seem. As much as our freedom of information is open and readily available to all, their economic indicators and statistics are opaque at best, wrong at worst.
China’s economy is built on a pyramid of shadow-banking (that is financial activity that takes place outside the traditional banking system) which accounted for 86% of China’s GDP in 2019. In a recent chat with a China-expert, I was let into the baffling world of how provincial-level governments in China finance themselves exactly through this type of loan-taking from trust-funds pooling savings of citizens that are then held in real-estate. The command-structure of the Chinese economy favors goal setting on a national plan for specific industries that are deemed strategic and of national importance. Each province then competes to be one that can create the most successful state-owned-enterprise (SOE) in that specific industry. These SOE’s are fueled by shadow-banking debt, and only 2-3 of the most successful end up making the mark and receive funding on a national level, the rest are left to their own devices. This has created a Chinese bubble of over-production, explaining its constant search for new markets to offload this excess production, the Belt and Road Initiative being a key example of such searching. Coupled with a shaky housing market, that has shown signs of collapse over the last years, with the sinking of Evergrande being the best example, the Chinese economy is a dangerous cocktail.
In East and South Asia, we also underestimate, to just how much of a degree Xi Jinping’s assertiveness has alienated regional players. Tokyo is pursuing rearmament to counter Chinese incursions into the East China Sea and has broadly taken up the mantle as the main defendant of the liberal world order in Asia since the first election of Donald Trump, taking over on initiatives such as the Trans Pacific Partnership, instigated by Obama, but saved by the Japanese when Donald Trump pulled the US out of it. South Korea is more firmly than ever reorienting itself towards “the Western” camp; even ASEAN countries that have been treading the line, pursuing a policy of non-alignment have expressed concerns about Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. A quote by former Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte sums this up well: “I love China … but … is it right for a country to claim a whole ocean?”. Xi Jinping’s stoking of nationalist fervor to rally support around the CCP and his persona only seems to bind himself as a hostage towards further unilateral assertiveness, as especially young Chinese nationalists clamor for more foreign policy “victories”, most likely in Taiwan or the East or South China Seas. This will most likely push neighboring countries increasingly into the “Western” camp.
We similarly seem to overestimate China’s ability to speak with one voice. It is in my opinion ludicrous to view China as uniquely an extension of what Xi Jinping says and does. To believe that 1,3 billion people think with one hive-mind is a gross overestimation of the CCP’s hold on power, and frankly an insult to Chinese intellectuals of whom prominent voices, such as Jinghao Zhou or Zhongying Pang are raising concerns about the increasing stranglehold of the CCP on every aspect of life and the regional pushback against China’s increasing unilateral assertiveness.
Russia on the other hand has shown itself remarkably resilient to “Western” sanctions with its economy contracting by 2.1 percent in 2022 but growing in both 2023 and 2024. Nonetheless, this growth has been fueled by increased defense spending, and as its economy has transitioned into a full-scale war economy, rampant inflation has been the result. Similarily, shortages of certain supermarket goods and rising prices on daily amenities, such as eggs, is felt by the average Russian consumer. Vladimir Putin, who seldom directly comments on problems related to Russian society even admitted recently in his annual televised Q&A session, that inflation and an “overheating” of the Russian economy are major concerns at this point.
On the diplomatic front, Russia’s allies are increasingly reserved to international “pariahs” such as North Korea. The much-heralded China-Russia axis, that some have claimed to be the next geopolitical block facing “the West”, is not much more than an economic partnership, where China is by far the senior partner. And China is dead scared of “Western” economic sanctions, due to the ramifications that an economic downturn could have for the CCP’s hold on power, which in turn will most likely keep it from entering into full-scale military cooperation with Russia anytime soon.
By highlighting these two cases I do not by any means want to signal that they can be directly compared to the case of Nazi Germany before the Second World War. It is merely an exercise of reflection, my “Western” god-given right be that, to reevaluate our situation vis-à-vis our “adversaries” which should serve as some degree of antidote to the notion that we are a failing “civilization”. Nonetheless, there is also some danger at merely relishing in the hardships of our rivals. That is not the goal of this article. We risk, and especially now with Donald Trump at the helm of “the West”, to be moving into a world seen as a “zero-sum game”, where the total amount of goods on a world level is limited, and where our situation, if it is to be improved, must come at the detriment of others. In other words, it is them or us. Here I want to diverge from the “hawks” in Bruxelles or Washington. For if we are to work towards a brighter future, and not into the morass of darkness and war, we must use this new realistic perception of our rivals’ capabilities, to increase our faith in our own strength. The question then is becomes not; if we are still strong, it becomes what we want to use our strength to do?
Coherence and Ideals
This is where the next long-term strategy comes into play. With a firm belief in our continued strength our next step is to defend and adhere to our ideals. The best ace in our sleeve, has always been, and will continue to be a model built on justice, human rights, freedom, and rules ensuring peace in the world. This might sound idealistic, and we have battered this model time and time on end, but when the darkest hour comes, as in the Second World War, it is these ideals that make people flock to our banner. It is thus paramount that we start adhering to the principles that we ourselves preach as universal.
The greatest risk that I see in 2025 is that we continue to show ourselves as hypocrites with a double standard facing conflicts such as the one in Gaza. Similarily in the South China Sea, the US cannot claim that China should abide by the UN Convention on the Law of the SEA, if the US itself is not even a signatory to that same convention.
We should also be adamant in protecting other countries fighting our fight. That includes standing up for Taiwan when China, threatens the island militarily or breaks cross-strait agreements, as these in the eyes of some scholars even can be viewed as documents of international law. And we can absolutely not allow ourselves to forget Ukraine, the most violent breach of international law in decades. It was only after Eastern Europe saw Britain’s and France’s betrayal of Czechoslovakia that they lost faith entire in our protection, and joined ranks with the Axis.
When we preach sustainability and the importance of the green transition, and our companies afterwards poison the rivers in the Global South and export low grade toxic“jungle-fuel” to African countries, it is understandable that public perception in these countries turn against us. In general, when engaging in development in the Global South, we should move away from calling it “aid” and instead learn from the Chinese model and provide assistance with a focus on development. We should also learn from the Chinese, and drop the notion, so built into our Euro-American societies of us vis-a-vis “a third world”. Instead we should roll out the red carpet for African and Asian leaders whether they are from Swaziland or Burkina Faso. The Chinese are trailblazing us. Everytime the Chinese hold a Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, which has been held since 2000, it is like a small UN General Assembly, with more than 50 African leaders attending. The key here is to learn how to become a partner and not a patronizing other. The export of human rights and good governance can still be a core tenets of our operations, but we must be better at listening and meeting Africa and Asia on equal footing to understand what African nations require to build their desired future.
It is not strategic bankruptcy to defend and follow the rules-based world order. If we preach it, we must follow it, and on equal terms. By following a consistent approach to international conventions and rules, we may lose some short-term advantages, but the EU in specific (as my hopes for the US under trump are relatively meager) must show states “on the fence” that “the West” puts action behind its words, and can be viewed as a trustworthy partner both in trade, development, and security moving forward. That's was and still is, our strongest card. In the words of Joseph S. Nye:
“When you can get others to admire your ideals and to want what you want, you do not have to spend as much on sticks and carrots to move them in your direction. Seduction is always more effective than coercion, and many values like democracy, human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply seductive.”
Increased Regulation and Media Literacy
As we move into a new age of true-to-life AI-generated imagery, disinformation bots, and alternative news sources from especially social media, we need to learn how to synergize or at least find a way to fuse our freedom of information with the challenges of social media. Autocracies do not face this challenge to social cohesion – China’s restricted version of TikTok does not need to worry about Russian bots.
For “the West”, this is probably the most ethically challenging issue moving forward, as its solution is the one that goes the most against our own ideals. For many, the notion of limits on our digital freedom of expression, or even moderation goes against the core of what it means to “liberal” (or conservative if you are in the US). MAGA and President Trump are to be found on this side of the spectrum. Mark Zuckerberg’s recent u-turn with regards to content moderation on Facebook is just one example of how much traction this “digital-world-version-unshackled” is gaining especially in the US. Especially when the tech-giants can save vast sums of money cutting content-moderation and fact checking.
Our democracies are entering into a new age, for which they are not prepared. Media literacy, the nurturing of critical thinking and analysis of digital content, especially amongst our youngest, must be made mandatory if we are to sustain a degree of belief in our system of government. The same goes for some degree of fact-checking, age limits, and content moderation, This can only be done through regulation, and this regulation has to come from the very top. The EU should be at the forefront of this. Especially now that the tech-giants are “bribing” the Trump family with lucrative show deals about Melania Trump worth tens of millions of dollars or trying to enlist him as their protector against future lawsuits targeted against them by the EU.
We need to make sure these platforms are still serving the interests of citizens, not peddling them on as products or breaking social cohesion through engagement-driven polarizing algorithms.
The Importance of Multilateralism in Defense
“The West” should also not forget that we are a force to be reckoned with, but that this force is one based on multilateralism – not short-sighted bilateral recklessness and extortion, as the leader of our alliance seems to make it out to be. Granted, the prior Trump administration was a great driver in getting European countries to finally consider proper defense spending. Nonetheless - if the Americans don’t want to go at it alone that is – they need to recognize that the security infrastructure that has kept “the West” safe for 80 years is one based on mutual trust and multilateralism. Although it may seem inconsequential to Trump, US power projection capability is too, contingent on the goodwill of its host nations. The US Sixth Fleet is docked in Naples, its European military hospital in Germany, its strategic space force base in Greenland, not to mention its gigantuan bases in South Korea and Japan. Trump’s disdain for alliances and preference for dealing with countries on a one-on-one basis sets a dangerous new precedent, with potential to drive wedges between us. Even though hemispheric isolationanism may seem like a low-hanging fruit for a populist such as Trump, the loss of our combined Western capability, including the awesome militaries of countries such as Poland, Finland, and Japan, would be detrimental both to US prestige and power projection capability in the future. We need to cherish the strength and uniqueness of an organization like NATO and its affiliate partners, bringing peoples of shared values together from Tokyo to Lisbon.
The West is Still Standing
In short“The West” is still here. We have the strength. We need to be more trustworthy, not out of altruism, but for our own safety’s sake. We must listen, learn to be open but also ready to defend what we believe in, inside the framework of the liberal rules-based order that I – and I firmly believe, also we – deem worth fighting for.
"And we can absolutely not allow ourselves to forget Ukraine, the most violent breach of international law in decades."
...that the US, Germany and France provoked, and also tried to provoke through color revolutions in Georgia and Tajikistan, among others. Any discussion of the war in Ukraine from now on must recognize that Western policy was an existential threat to Russia from NATO, and will be until it is changed.