Dr.Wang Li
In the study of International Relations, Francis Fukuyama is a known global academician for his best-seller book, The End of History and the Last Man. It was published in 1992 during the sea-change in the world order. He argued that the demise of communism had ushered in the definitive triumph of Western liberalism and democracy. Accordingly, the world had reached the endpoint of humankind’s ideological evolution.
There is no question that Fukuyama is right ideologically since there is no longer one single strong competitor to liberal capitalism as an overarching ideology. Nevertheless, geopolitically, the end of history argued by Fukuyama is fragile and misread expression.
As Joseph Nye said that the post-Cold War world could be better described as the return of history because Fukuyama’s vision suffered from trying to fit the post-Cold War world order into one universal pattern.
As early as 1981, Robert Gilpin had rejected a similar argument when he observed that the human species had remained deeply divided by race, religions, wealth, and particularly divergent security concerns.
Admittedly, though immensely controversial, Fukuyama’s analysis is seen as a piece of scholarly writing. On March 10, Fukuyama commented on the ongoing war in Ukraine and the dire consequences of the Russian invasion of a sovereign neighboring country in Europe since World War II.
Since then, he has been obsessed with his credibility of foretelling the future. This illusion has driven him to make outrageous prognostications on global issues, particularly the prospect of Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine.
First, Fukuyama claimed that Russia was heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine. Although Fukuyama has no military expertise, he pretentiously listed why the Russian military operation was doomed to fail due to Moscow’s poor military planning, Putin’s political ambition, poor logistic management, and lack of strategic reserves of forces.
Accordingly, Fukuyama foretold that the collapse of Russia could be sudden and catastrophic rather than happening slowly through a war of attrition. He even held that there was no diplomatic solution to the war since no reasonable compromise would be acceptable to Russia and Ukraine, given their losses over the past weeks.
Fukuyama’s remarks have led to a broad debate in the countries concerned. People wonder if he is a balanced political scientist analyzing international crises or a sorcerer’s thinking on human behaviors.
Numerous decent scholars and military officers have spoken out their insightful views on the origins of the ongoing war and Russian soldiers in actions. For instance, in January, Harvard scholar Stephen Walt wrote that the United States and its NATO allies had contemplated how they would make Russia pay dearly should it press forward with an invasion.
This implies that the present crisis would not have occurred in the U.
S., and its NATO allies had not succumbed to hubris wishful thinking and relied on realism’s core insights. However, now the world is paying a high price for relying on a flawed theory of liberal world order.
Regarding the Russian operation in Ukraine, it is necessary to listen to the well-trained experts and professional soldiers’ opinions rather than any liberal scholars. As retired U.S. veteran William Doug said, Russian soldiers, have performed professionally with clear and well-designed goals in Ukraine from a military point of view.
President Putin has no design to take Ukraine under control. Russian scholar of MGIMO further verified this analysis as he put it that first, it is sensible to note that inherited from the former Soviet Union, the Ukrainian army remains one of the biggest in Europe with sophisticated weapon systems and practical training.
This force has been further strengthened by receiving more advanced training, weapon, advisory support, and high-valuable intelligence from the U.S-led NATO over the past months or years. Accordingly, Russia meets a competent rival.
Similarly, due to the scenario that the Ukrainian force has committed to holding a bunch of strongholds within cities of sizable population, Russia has to make all efforts to evacuate civilians through the humanitarian corridors while moving firmly and cautiously to minimize the civilian casualties.
This is the core part of what Fukuyama has ignored or misperceived. According to Gen. Sahashi Asthana, a professional soldier and international security analyst from India, the Russian military aim was set to demilitarise the Ukrainian military to ensure Ukraine is not used as a launch-pad by NATO to threaten the security of Russia.
So far, Russia has achieved this strategic goal by extensive air and missile strikes to neutralize air defense capability and air assets, including airfields, training centers, and weaponry depot in Ukraine.
Fukuyama also revealed that the United Nations Security Council had proven once again to be useless. However, he seemed to forget the consistent peace talks between Russia and Ukraine and numerous summit talks among the major powers concerned, including the steady effort as the mediators of Turkey and Israel.
In addition, China stands ready to offer an honest broker between the two Slavic nations as both sides have a high reputation among Chinese elites and ordinary people. Given all these reasons, Fukuyama has acted like a street foreteller rather than a decent scholar on the severe issues of peace, war, and diplomacy.
For sure, Fukuyama is an American academician with the privilege to speak freely. Yet, when he speaks in public as a scholar, he has an equal responsibility to present a balanced analysis of international crisis rather than wielding his wishful predication.
Fukuyama needs to revisit his thoughts and approach. It is hollow for an academician like Fukuyama to say that “it is much better to have the Ukrainians defeat the Russians on their own, depriving Moscow of the excuse that NATO attacked them and avoiding all the obvious escalatory possibilities.” Once again, he acted foretelling the future that Ukrainian forces are already being vectored by NATO intelligence operating from outside Ukraine and are moving to destroy the Russian invaders.
It is suitable for Fukuyama to follow his faith and political preference. However, as scholarship requires a balanced, sound, and relatively fair argument, it is also suitable for him and actually for anyone who studies foreign affairs to read the classics by Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Stephen Walt, and many others.
Since geography is one of the most stable elements of national power and history is the permanent memory of nation-states, Fukuyama must explore the issue between Ukraine and Russia from the perspectives of geopolitics and the doctrine of security indivisibility. After all, realpolitik is a reality rather than wishful thinking.
*The writer is a Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Jilin University, China.
*Views expressed in this article are the writer’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of the publication.
The Diplomatic Insight is a digital and print magazine focusing on diplomacy, defense, and development publishing since 2009.
