Being, thinking and acting in “medias res” is not a liberal evasion of a deeper truth that would be revealed if one ascended to a supposedly superior vantage point.
Surely there is a large component of "racism" in the disparity of funding between Ukraine and Africa. It is of course natural to fund the needs of those who are easily relatable to you over those who seem to be very different from you. It is also true that funding Ukraine against Russia serves a self defensive purpose, helping keep Russia at bay from inflicting violence on the donors themselves. In addition, the scale of need in Africa and the Sahel is so great, and the necessary systems and infrastructure on the ground are weak or non-existent making investment less effective and less likely. What would the money actually do, would it stand up systems of democracy and lift people out of poverty, or be co-opted by the corrupt existing powers? As in Haiti, the needs are great, but the political infrastructure is not in place to use the donations in a manner consistent with the intent of the donors. So, it makes sense that nations with money send more money to those who are more relatable to them, and more likely to use the money wisely, in the eyes of the donor class. Political reform is a precondition for increasing donor activity. Perhaps donations above feeding/medical programs meant to keep people alive and reduce misery need to go to education and political development.
Ukraine's fate directly and immediately affects the security of Europe This war is an existential issue for Europe even if many don't want to realize this or don't care. The money going there is not simply a donation, free money thrown at Ukraine, but paying for an actor (Ukraine) to defend Europe. Ukraine is being at the outer perimeter of Europe (Russia is not European, it's an Eur-Asian empire) and is first to fall (as is the case with Eastern-Ukraine) if Russia, a hungry empire invades. Now this much is clear. Had Ukraine been overrun and occupied by Russia without much resistance, as Putin (and Viktor Orban) hoped originally, that would have surely meant that other countries would have followed in due course. Basically Putin counted with a costless, free occupation/annexation of the whole of Ukraine so Russia would certainly have spent on wars to regain the Baltics etc. from its wast reserves. (Also note that when Finland defeated Russia the winters were really tough and snowy, today this isn't the case, so Finland would also be a candidate for occupation etc. etc.). Simple as that. This has nothing to do with racism. Africa is "far"and it's fate only indirectly influences life in Europe, Ukraine is much close and if it falls, a lot of people will need to prepare to say goodbye to freedoms and democracy, because Russia will come to devour them sooner or later. It's an old, and therefore evil empire for which wars of conquest are normal part of daily life.
Your argument that Ukraine’s fate directly and existentially affects European security is built on assumptions that require deeper scrutiny. Let’s apply some Socratic questioning to test the logic.
Firstly, is it accurate to say that Ukraine’s fall would directly lead to a broader Russian conquest of Europe? History suggests that states act primarily out of self-interest and rational calculations of power, not ideological drives. Would Russia, knowing the formidable military alliances like NATO, really risk a broader European conflict? Historical precedents and the balance of power suggest otherwise.
Secondly, you claim that the money spent on Ukraine is necessary to defend Europe. But is Europe truly defenseless without Ukraine as a buffer? I would argue that European nations, particularly NATO members, have sufficient military and economic power to deter Russian aggression independently. Isn’t this more about strategic interests rather than existential threats?
Finally, you argue that Russia’s actions signal a return to empire-building. But doesn’t history teach us to look at immediate, rational goals rather than assuming expansionist motives? Couldn’t Russia’s actions in Ukraine be more about securing its near abroad rather than signaling a broader European threat?
In conclusion, while your concerns are valid, a historic perspective questions the inevitability and directness of the threat you describe. European security, according to history, depends on the power balance and strategic deterrence, not solely on Ukraine’s fate. By applying logical scrutiny, your argument may overstate the existential nature of the threat to Europe.
Those two are demonstrating, without irony, precisely the problem that Tooze is making (in his usual very careful way) about the epic cluelessness which has gripped "the good and great" of Europe.
I enjoyed this very much. Realistic, without being fatalistic.
"Again it is the undersized reaction of the rich world to contemporary global challenges that is front and center.Uncontentious estimates of global development need put the sum of investment required to achieve comprehensive sustainable develoment at between $ 3 and 4 trillion per annum. That is an immense amount, but given the rewards on offer and the fact that global GDP stands at $105 trillion it cannot be dismissed out of hand as “utopian”. "
While it's hard to discuss a 'polycrisis' with sunshine/rainbows. How about the mindset sets a more diligent, stubborn, tenacious tone? Even naive from time to time because even the effort gives young people some measure of hope in making the human capital investments as well.
As far as developmental banks & the west. That is a long overdue discussion. The idea of debt peonage is so profoundly patronizing to me. Capital flight from crisis ridden, corrupt nations to western nations is not only the fault of the west. We are all people with agency. What it clearly shows is that funds are being misappropriated and stolen from the people of a nation and held abroad. The paper trails exist. There should be a legal arm of the UN for financial crimes which are a precursor often for local suppression. Sometimes the ill-gotten gains are a product of it. All tied into a ball.
Multilateral banks have the fiduciary duty not to launder money from criminal enterprises. And a global body should be able to legally reappropriate back into the Treasury of a nation. There are global issue. Fraud is rampant against US citizens as well. And I'm not playing into the bankers are all criminals paradigm. I just think a reforming of institutions needs to be on the table and discussed at the UN if globalization and collective well being is still on the table. Unless sustainable developmental goals are now lip service.
I'm not sure a hyper focus on our Daisen via Heidegger is going to illuminate or change much. As you say, we (the Anglo American West) are in a "polycrisis", but that is not new at all. You don't need Marx to realize that. Hegel would do just as well. What you do need Marx and Lenin, Trotsky for is to highlight how we (the working masses of western imperialism) got here and what options we have to successfully change our trajectory. I'd say the first, easy question is why is China not in full crisis? Again, if Marxism is simply too vulgar and odious for you, you can just look to Michael Hudson. He says the state actually runs the show in China. In other words, billionaires are subordinate to society in the end. Here he says that the FIRE industries have actually supplanted the state and run the countries of the west and the ROW into the ground for their own very narrow economic interests. And it seems he's right, doesn't it? Hudson, an economist like yourself, says these two models are currently in conflict. As the west is suffering so much at this point and lighting the whole world on fire to desperately cling to its lost power, one could say that the writing is already on the wall as to which of these two systems is superior. And, if Lenin is too vulgar and distasteful, you can always just read Hobson to see we are living in late Imperialism.
Long story short, I like philosophy and Heidegger is sort of an interesting figure, but a focus on first questions like "who are we" etc at this point seems to evince an effort to go down a subjective rabbit hole to avoid seeing clearly the nature and direction of the historic collapse or "defeat" as Baud would say that we are suffering in the West. Have you read him?
Nonetheless, you're very clever. I'd love to see you grapple with Hudson's view of what's happening. If you haven't already, read his work and critique it if you disagree. That would be very illuminating and probably very popular with your readers.
For the record, I think he's right and that China is a superior form of Capitalism. However, it still doesn't reflect the social progress we would be capable of as a species if all essential businesses, starting with finance capital, were simply nationalized and run in the interest of the population and not a handful of disgusting, anti social, genocidal oligarchs. Another, very simple immediate solution would be to end all the Imperialist violence abroad and reinvest every penny into rebuilding the western states into, at least, what they were in the post war boom period. That would free up about a trillion dollars and go a long way to convincing those billions across the globe so increasingly critical of the west that a sincere change is occuring.
Oh, and obviously, stop Israel's perverted effort to erase the Palestinian people from the face of the earth. That's step one. With that slaughter going on, no decent person can take the west seriously anymore.
I see the pattern of the British Empire unchanged, and the Cassandras, including Adam Tooze and many other thoughtful and articulate writers, pouring their analyses into deaf policy ears. I can only say thank you, please do not stop, and how we can arrest the marketocracy is yet to be seen.
Not mentione is the fact that Africa is a place wher the west does extraction. The price paied by Fance for Niger's uranium ore is likely a thousandth of the market price.
Also one needs to mention the wealth outflows from Africa:
US foreign aid directly relates to the political pressure in the US from our "nationality" interest groups originating in the county of need. Ukraine. Israel. The rationality you and I are looking for is swamped and almost completely obscured by the quest for votes on the part of the political class.
This really just proves what we've already known about public health spending, which is that it only exists to be weaponized by the US government. The state is only interested in health research in the first place because it is a sphere where the rentier class can easily copyright and inflate the prices of products. Before any more financial resources are committed to public health, only to be stolen by the rent extractors, we must declare and win a civil war against the US military and the rentier class that controls it.
I have been studying African nations since 1960, about the time a few of them first became independent. I wrote a hopeful master's thesis at that time on Ghana, Cotes d'Ivoire and what is now Burkina Faso. In the intervening 64 years, I have watched as African nations after African nation has wasted the aid and loans they have received, largely through graft and governmental theft. I have seen some of it myself, personally. Unless there are honest governments (according to western standards) over long periods of time, assistance is practically useless, I am sorry to say.
Hi, I am sure it is not your intent, but talk about “in media res” and “polycrisis” seems disempowering. A “crisis” is usually a once off unexpected occurrence which we are strongly motivated to deal with. But an ongoing polycrisis seems demotivating. That said, I admire your clarity in identifying the racism, hypocrisy and inadequacy of Western response to the “polycrisis”. Whereas China’s three global initiatives (on development, civilisation and security) gives us a pragmatic framework to deal with the polycrisis.
"A far larger percentage of the UK died of Covid between 2020 and 2023 (225,000 out of 67mn) than were killed by German bombs in the second world war (70,000 out of 50mn)"
This is true, but Britain wasn't all that heavily bombed by WW2 standards. Total UK casualties were about 450000. And UK casualties per population were on the lower end for the conflict. Germany had around 7 million casualties from a population of 70 million. Soviet figures were even worse.
I don't think the intention here was to be misleading, but a casual reader might get the impression that the mortality caused by covid was on the order of magnitude of that caused by world war 2 which is absolutely not the case.
Your article touched upon racism being the reason for poor investment and aid to Africa. That is a huge component. It was and is racism which allowed the continent to fall into such extreme depths of poverty. Colonialism and the effects after were not delved into in the article. Whole countries lines were almost arbitrarily drawn, the great wealth of colonies (Africa being the most richest land for resources) including human capital and ingenuity destroyed and stolen. Cultural ways of life and thought twisted and poisoned sometimes. Just like the US did not acknowledge the true damage of slavery and Jim Crow and just outright racism ands did not make any amends at all, the West refuses to look at how much they contributed to the ravage of many countries in Africa. What about looking at investment in Africa as part of reparations. There’s countless horrific evils the West wrought with colonialism. The world will only get better if there is a shared awareness and willingness for cultures and countries to acknowledge and take responsibility for their past so they can really change how they view and deal with the victims of their past actions instead of narcissistically blaming the victims as the west tends to do.
Surely there is a large component of "racism" in the disparity of funding between Ukraine and Africa. It is of course natural to fund the needs of those who are easily relatable to you over those who seem to be very different from you. It is also true that funding Ukraine against Russia serves a self defensive purpose, helping keep Russia at bay from inflicting violence on the donors themselves. In addition, the scale of need in Africa and the Sahel is so great, and the necessary systems and infrastructure on the ground are weak or non-existent making investment less effective and less likely. What would the money actually do, would it stand up systems of democracy and lift people out of poverty, or be co-opted by the corrupt existing powers? As in Haiti, the needs are great, but the political infrastructure is not in place to use the donations in a manner consistent with the intent of the donors. So, it makes sense that nations with money send more money to those who are more relatable to them, and more likely to use the money wisely, in the eyes of the donor class. Political reform is a precondition for increasing donor activity. Perhaps donations above feeding/medical programs meant to keep people alive and reduce misery need to go to education and political development.
Ukraine's fate directly and immediately affects the security of Europe This war is an existential issue for Europe even if many don't want to realize this or don't care. The money going there is not simply a donation, free money thrown at Ukraine, but paying for an actor (Ukraine) to defend Europe. Ukraine is being at the outer perimeter of Europe (Russia is not European, it's an Eur-Asian empire) and is first to fall (as is the case with Eastern-Ukraine) if Russia, a hungry empire invades. Now this much is clear. Had Ukraine been overrun and occupied by Russia without much resistance, as Putin (and Viktor Orban) hoped originally, that would have surely meant that other countries would have followed in due course. Basically Putin counted with a costless, free occupation/annexation of the whole of Ukraine so Russia would certainly have spent on wars to regain the Baltics etc. from its wast reserves. (Also note that when Finland defeated Russia the winters were really tough and snowy, today this isn't the case, so Finland would also be a candidate for occupation etc. etc.). Simple as that. This has nothing to do with racism. Africa is "far"and it's fate only indirectly influences life in Europe, Ukraine is much close and if it falls, a lot of people will need to prepare to say goodbye to freedoms and democracy, because Russia will come to devour them sooner or later. It's an old, and therefore evil empire for which wars of conquest are normal part of daily life.
Your argument that Ukraine’s fate directly and existentially affects European security is built on assumptions that require deeper scrutiny. Let’s apply some Socratic questioning to test the logic.
Firstly, is it accurate to say that Ukraine’s fall would directly lead to a broader Russian conquest of Europe? History suggests that states act primarily out of self-interest and rational calculations of power, not ideological drives. Would Russia, knowing the formidable military alliances like NATO, really risk a broader European conflict? Historical precedents and the balance of power suggest otherwise.
Secondly, you claim that the money spent on Ukraine is necessary to defend Europe. But is Europe truly defenseless without Ukraine as a buffer? I would argue that European nations, particularly NATO members, have sufficient military and economic power to deter Russian aggression independently. Isn’t this more about strategic interests rather than existential threats?
Finally, you argue that Russia’s actions signal a return to empire-building. But doesn’t history teach us to look at immediate, rational goals rather than assuming expansionist motives? Couldn’t Russia’s actions in Ukraine be more about securing its near abroad rather than signaling a broader European threat?
In conclusion, while your concerns are valid, a historic perspective questions the inevitability and directness of the threat you describe. European security, according to history, depends on the power balance and strategic deterrence, not solely on Ukraine’s fate. By applying logical scrutiny, your argument may overstate the existential nature of the threat to Europe.
Those two are demonstrating, without irony, precisely the problem that Tooze is making (in his usual very careful way) about the epic cluelessness which has gripped "the good and great" of Europe.
I enjoyed this very much. Realistic, without being fatalistic.
"Again it is the undersized reaction of the rich world to contemporary global challenges that is front and center.Uncontentious estimates of global development need put the sum of investment required to achieve comprehensive sustainable develoment at between $ 3 and 4 trillion per annum. That is an immense amount, but given the rewards on offer and the fact that global GDP stands at $105 trillion it cannot be dismissed out of hand as “utopian”. "
While it's hard to discuss a 'polycrisis' with sunshine/rainbows. How about the mindset sets a more diligent, stubborn, tenacious tone? Even naive from time to time because even the effort gives young people some measure of hope in making the human capital investments as well.
As far as developmental banks & the west. That is a long overdue discussion. The idea of debt peonage is so profoundly patronizing to me. Capital flight from crisis ridden, corrupt nations to western nations is not only the fault of the west. We are all people with agency. What it clearly shows is that funds are being misappropriated and stolen from the people of a nation and held abroad. The paper trails exist. There should be a legal arm of the UN for financial crimes which are a precursor often for local suppression. Sometimes the ill-gotten gains are a product of it. All tied into a ball.
Multilateral banks have the fiduciary duty not to launder money from criminal enterprises. And a global body should be able to legally reappropriate back into the Treasury of a nation. There are global issue. Fraud is rampant against US citizens as well. And I'm not playing into the bankers are all criminals paradigm. I just think a reforming of institutions needs to be on the table and discussed at the UN if globalization and collective well being is still on the table. Unless sustainable developmental goals are now lip service.
Indeed. The "comprador elites" in these places have much to answer for.
Excellent analysis Mr Tooze as always. Chartbook is truly a blessing, thank you.
I'm not sure a hyper focus on our Daisen via Heidegger is going to illuminate or change much. As you say, we (the Anglo American West) are in a "polycrisis", but that is not new at all. You don't need Marx to realize that. Hegel would do just as well. What you do need Marx and Lenin, Trotsky for is to highlight how we (the working masses of western imperialism) got here and what options we have to successfully change our trajectory. I'd say the first, easy question is why is China not in full crisis? Again, if Marxism is simply too vulgar and odious for you, you can just look to Michael Hudson. He says the state actually runs the show in China. In other words, billionaires are subordinate to society in the end. Here he says that the FIRE industries have actually supplanted the state and run the countries of the west and the ROW into the ground for their own very narrow economic interests. And it seems he's right, doesn't it? Hudson, an economist like yourself, says these two models are currently in conflict. As the west is suffering so much at this point and lighting the whole world on fire to desperately cling to its lost power, one could say that the writing is already on the wall as to which of these two systems is superior. And, if Lenin is too vulgar and distasteful, you can always just read Hobson to see we are living in late Imperialism.
Long story short, I like philosophy and Heidegger is sort of an interesting figure, but a focus on first questions like "who are we" etc at this point seems to evince an effort to go down a subjective rabbit hole to avoid seeing clearly the nature and direction of the historic collapse or "defeat" as Baud would say that we are suffering in the West. Have you read him?
Nonetheless, you're very clever. I'd love to see you grapple with Hudson's view of what's happening. If you haven't already, read his work and critique it if you disagree. That would be very illuminating and probably very popular with your readers.
For the record, I think he's right and that China is a superior form of Capitalism. However, it still doesn't reflect the social progress we would be capable of as a species if all essential businesses, starting with finance capital, were simply nationalized and run in the interest of the population and not a handful of disgusting, anti social, genocidal oligarchs. Another, very simple immediate solution would be to end all the Imperialist violence abroad and reinvest every penny into rebuilding the western states into, at least, what they were in the post war boom period. That would free up about a trillion dollars and go a long way to convincing those billions across the globe so increasingly critical of the west that a sincere change is occuring.
Oh, and obviously, stop Israel's perverted effort to erase the Palestinian people from the face of the earth. That's step one. With that slaughter going on, no decent person can take the west seriously anymore.
Darn it! Fully agree with everything including all the full stop of yrs.
Hudson's work is excellent. Kudos to you for raising it here.
Once you understand that the West is ruled by sociopaths, everything starts to make sense.
Some of the western countries are ruled by psychopaths, but the anti-west nations like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea definitely all are.
Because only a sociopath would resist being dominated.
This was an excellent thought provoking piece for me.
I see the pattern of the British Empire unchanged, and the Cassandras, including Adam Tooze and many other thoughtful and articulate writers, pouring their analyses into deaf policy ears. I can only say thank you, please do not stop, and how we can arrest the marketocracy is yet to be seen.
The current crop of right wing crazies in US government won’t invest in human health for the population of the U.S., let alone the rest of the world.
Great work
Not mentione is the fact that Africa is a place wher the west does extraction. The price paied by Fance for Niger's uranium ore is likely a thousandth of the market price.
Also one needs to mention the wealth outflows from Africa:
https://unctad.org/es/isar/news/africa-could-gain-89-billion-annually-curbing-illicit-financial-flows
Add to that the "licit" capital flows...
So much this.
US foreign aid directly relates to the political pressure in the US from our "nationality" interest groups originating in the county of need. Ukraine. Israel. The rationality you and I are looking for is swamped and almost completely obscured by the quest for votes on the part of the political class.
The "vote count" that matters most to our American political class is not compiled at the polls.
Also the vast bulk of US foreign aid to is buy weapons -- US weapons, of course ...
This really just proves what we've already known about public health spending, which is that it only exists to be weaponized by the US government. The state is only interested in health research in the first place because it is a sphere where the rentier class can easily copyright and inflate the prices of products. Before any more financial resources are committed to public health, only to be stolen by the rent extractors, we must declare and win a civil war against the US military and the rentier class that controls it.
I have been studying African nations since 1960, about the time a few of them first became independent. I wrote a hopeful master's thesis at that time on Ghana, Cotes d'Ivoire and what is now Burkina Faso. In the intervening 64 years, I have watched as African nations after African nation has wasted the aid and loans they have received, largely through graft and governmental theft. I have seen some of it myself, personally. Unless there are honest governments (according to western standards) over long periods of time, assistance is practically useless, I am sorry to say.
Hi, I am sure it is not your intent, but talk about “in media res” and “polycrisis” seems disempowering. A “crisis” is usually a once off unexpected occurrence which we are strongly motivated to deal with. But an ongoing polycrisis seems demotivating. That said, I admire your clarity in identifying the racism, hypocrisy and inadequacy of Western response to the “polycrisis”. Whereas China’s three global initiatives (on development, civilisation and security) gives us a pragmatic framework to deal with the polycrisis.
"A far larger percentage of the UK died of Covid between 2020 and 2023 (225,000 out of 67mn) than were killed by German bombs in the second world war (70,000 out of 50mn)"
This is true, but Britain wasn't all that heavily bombed by WW2 standards. Total UK casualties were about 450000. And UK casualties per population were on the lower end for the conflict. Germany had around 7 million casualties from a population of 70 million. Soviet figures were even worse.
I don't think the intention here was to be misleading, but a casual reader might get the impression that the mortality caused by covid was on the order of magnitude of that caused by world war 2 which is absolutely not the case.
Your article touched upon racism being the reason for poor investment and aid to Africa. That is a huge component. It was and is racism which allowed the continent to fall into such extreme depths of poverty. Colonialism and the effects after were not delved into in the article. Whole countries lines were almost arbitrarily drawn, the great wealth of colonies (Africa being the most richest land for resources) including human capital and ingenuity destroyed and stolen. Cultural ways of life and thought twisted and poisoned sometimes. Just like the US did not acknowledge the true damage of slavery and Jim Crow and just outright racism ands did not make any amends at all, the West refuses to look at how much they contributed to the ravage of many countries in Africa. What about looking at investment in Africa as part of reparations. There’s countless horrific evils the West wrought with colonialism. The world will only get better if there is a shared awareness and willingness for cultures and countries to acknowledge and take responsibility for their past so they can really change how they view and deal with the victims of their past actions instead of narcissistically blaming the victims as the west tends to do.
China with its massive investment in Africa should then be considered the least racist superpower, right?
I search in vain the historical record for China's habit of overseas colonialism.