Japan recently welcomed its new prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, a strong advocate for an “Asian version of NATO”. In his first policy speech on 4 October, the hawkish Ishiba reiterated the warning that today’s Ukraine could be tomorrow’s East Asia, even though he did not mention NATO. This indicates that Japan will maintain its current diplomatic and military policies, and follow the lead of “big brother” US.

After the Cold War, the US continuously expanded NATO eastward in Europe, gradually closing in on Russia and triggering the Russia-Ukraine war. What is the purpose of creating an Asian NATO? The answer is obvious. Through NATO and the proxy war in Ukraine, the US has dragged the whole of Europe into conflict, attempting to weaken Russia while letting Europeans pay the price. In this way, Washington can focus more on the Asia-Pacific region and strengthen its suppression and containment of China.

But it is difficult to talk about establishing an Asian NATO because it knows that most Asia-Pacific countries do not wish to choose sides, so the message is relayed through Tokyo. In fact, the US, Japan, Australia and the UK have already formed a mini Asian NATO.

Whether it is the real NATO or a mini Asian version, it actually reflects the same American hegemonic thinking. Simply put, the US wants to maintain its hegemony and will not allow other countries to challenge its position.

According to so-called offensive realist strategists, the US must never allow the emergence of a regional hegemon anywhere. These strategists only differ in who they believe could potentially become a regional hegemon.

Recognising this hegemonic mindset is crucial because thoughts determine actions. Whether the US will continue to act according to this mindset or change its course to face reality will ultimately determine the formation of the new world order.

According to American international relations scholar John Mearsheimer’s school of thought, Russia cannot become a regional hegemon because NATO has blocked it, which is why the war in Ukraine is viewed as a strategic mistake. The primary threat is China becoming the hegemon of Asia. Thus, the US should focus its efforts on containing China instead of wasting them on Russia.

Recognising this hegemonic mindset is crucial because thoughts determine actions. Whether the US will continue to act according to this mindset or change its course to face reality will ultimately determine the formation of the new world order.

The current turbulent situation tells us that the US and its Western allies are bent on maintaining the post-Cold War unipolar hegemony. If the West insists on this, global chaos will intensify because major powers opposing unipolarity can no longer tolerate a hegemon that does whatever it wants, orders people around and bullies other countries under the guise of democracy and freedom. They want to construct a new, or rather return to the old, Westphalian system of multipolar power balance and peaceful coexistence.

According to Norwegian political scientist Glenn Diesen’s new book The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order, the post-Cold War unipolar world order established by the US and the West is now dead, but the new order is yet to be born, leading to intense turbulence and conflict.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the US was faced with two choices — to establish a unipolar world order or to return to the Westphalian system of peace. It chose the former. This also underpins NATO’s continuous eastward expansion, which is aimed at establishing a pan-European security framework that maintains and strengthens the Western-led liberal hegemonic order. While post-Soviet Russia has vehemently opposed this, it has been unable to do anything about it.

Both China and Russia are unwilling to submit to the unipolar hegemony dominated by the US and Europe, and are striving to create a multipolar balance known as the “Eurasian-Westphalian world order”.

However, Diesen thinks that 30 years later, with changing circumstances, Russia ultimately decided to invade Ukraine, leading to the collapse of the European liberal hegemonic system. More importantly, China is also rising at the same time.

Both China and Russia are unwilling to submit to the unipolar hegemony dominated by the US and Europe, and are striving to create a multipolar balance known as the “Eurasian-Westphalian world order”. This multipolar system rejects the Western framework based on values like democracy and freedom, and emphasises respect for the diversity of civilisations and the equality of sovereign independence. Thus, it opposes the West’s imposition of its values and models on other countries.

A new Eurasian world order is quietly beginning to take shape. This was what the late renowned US geopolitical thinker Zbigniew Brzezinski feared most in his book The Grand Chessboard. He referenced British geographer Halford Mackinder’s concept of the “World-Island”: whoever rules East Europe commands the Heartland; whoever rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; whoever rules the World-Island commands the World.

The so-called “World-Island” refers to the continental block that joins Asia, Europe and Africa when viewed from a global perspective. In contrast, the US, Australia, Japan and the UK are smaller islands. The heartland of the World-Island roughly encompasses the area from the Volga River to the Yangtze River, and from the Himalayas to the Arctic.

Based on this geopolitical concept, whoever controls Eurasia controls the fate of the world. Brzezinski thinks that the US must painstakingly manage its relationship with Eurasia and not allow any challenger from this continent to rise up, dominating Eurasia and challenging the US.

… it would be the greatest change unseen in a century. The outcome of this battle will indeed impact the fate of the world.

After the Cold War, the US did not dissolve NATO but even aggressively expanded its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, seemingly aligning with Mackinder’s ideas. Subsequently, China’s grand Belt and Road Initiative seems to correspond with the idea of controlling the World-Island and the heartland. If so, it would be the greatest change unseen in a century. The outcome of this battle will indeed impact the fate of the world.

In any case, the fact is that the more the US fears losing its hegemonic position and resorts to military deterrence to disrupt the order in Eurasia, the more it will lose popular support and drive more countries toward advocating for a multipolar world. Diesen thinks that this is the current situation — most countries want the Westphalian world order but the US-led Western world is trying to regain its position as the global hegemon.

As the US has been unable to subdue China and Russia through various economic means, the battle over the future world order will continue to become increasingly militarised. If the situation worsens, a major war could erupt. As the world is transitioning from unipolarity to multipolarity, the shared rules have largely disintegrated.

It seems that the US is unwilling to accept a peaceful transition, and it is likely to continue to frame this struggle as a battle between good and evil, democracy and authoritarianism, and as a contest for global leadership between the US, China and Russia. The author concluded that if the West maintains this thinking, humanity will face a major catastrophe.

In other words, the outbreak of a nuclear war is not that unimaginable. During a recent debate with Mearsheimer, renowned American economist Jeffrey Sachs expressed deep concern about this issue. He strongly opposed Mearsheimer’s view that a rising China will inevitably seek hegemony, arguing that China does not pose a threat to the US. But if Washington’s strategic thinking remains unchanged, a nuclear war might break out.

Will the US change its thinking? Former US President Barack Obama — a black man — once said that the US will never accept being number two. What more a white president?

The question of who will dominate the future development of Asia, Europe, and Africa (the World-Island) is relevant to us.

It is said that the US’s foreign policy is not determined by Washington but by a small group known as “the Blob”, so it does not matter who sits in the White House. At present, suppressing China and Russia is a consensus shared by both the Democratic and Republican parties, and is difficult to change. US-China competition is no longer fair as well — everything the US does is aimed at puncturing China’s rise.

Undoubtedly, while Diesen is considered pro-Russian, his geopolitical views, especially his views on the Ukraine war, share many similarities with Mearsheimer’s, offering an alternative perspective on the global situation that is worth considering.

The world’s geopolitical landscape is undergoing profound changes, with intense competition between traditional Western maritime powers and Eurasian land powers. The question of who will dominate the future development of Asia, Europe, and Africa (the World-Island) is relevant to us.

The intense competition and shifting alliances among major powers on the World-Island, both now and in the foreseeable future, will constantly affect us. The future evolution of the global situation is related to the formation of a new multipolar world order, which will have far-reaching impacts on all countries. It is especially crucial for small countries to remain highly vigilant.

Lianhe Zaobao via thinkchina.sg