who says we care?

about that international system we claim to value

I haven’t counted the calendar day but we have been away from the scene below about as often since 1 January as we have been here. Would you believe we are home for the next six months, almost to the day, with perhaps a brief jaunt or two from the Creek?

We didn’t plan the schedule this way but we are both still active in studying the world so we take advantage of opportunities to talk with various groups given the chance. In truth, we both thrive on our work, even after all these years. Our time at the Western Naval History Association and the joint University of Missouri Kansas City-International Relations Council was energizing, even if the travel schedule became wearying.

Upon return, however, the focus in the Beltway remains the Russian invasion of Ukraine, tomorrow marking the second anniversary. The Republican preference also remains for autocratic Russia over a democracy in Kyiv. As someone who grew up during the Cold War, an ideological struggle over the future of the post-World War II world in hopes of preventing another existential conflict, this remains hard to grasp.

But, the key to me is not the regime type as much as the aggressive destruction of the world we knew. You know, that system we set up and led after the massive upheaval of World War II to prevent another conflict wiping out tens of millions of people around the globe?

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine represents the most fundamental of challenges to the Liberal International Order, or Bretton Woods system, that we claim to cherish. Sovereign nation-states, defined as a government controlling a populated territory and recognised by other similar nation-states regimes, are the units of this system. The multinational organisations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, or the North American Free Trade Association are made up of these units, known as nation-states. The multinational bodies exist only because those nation-states within them.

So many fears reside about China seeking to overturn that system but China’s actions are considerably less overt, no matter how you look at it. China is not invading sovereign (as defined above which comes out of international law, not my head alone) nation-states. It is seeking to use its size to cower other states or to use its wealth to coerce, perhaps, other nations into deals that create ‘debt traps’ as governments struggle to repay loans. But, China is not currently invading other countries.

Yes, but they might invade Taiwan, you say. Yes, they might well do that but this is why I keep reminding you that Taiwan is a nation-state in the eyes of only 12 nation-states as shown by those states granting Taibei diplomatic relations: Paraguay, Belize, Haiti, Guatemala, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Eswatini, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Palau, and the Holy See (which isn’t a nation-state either but is usually cited on this list). That’s it. No more as of today. (You’ll note who isn’t on that list: the United States, Japan, Russia, Australia, Germany, and more than 175 other nation-states.)

Again, China is hacking into IT systems globally, China oppresses its people, China violates human rights at home and around the world, and it engages in a number of