To answer the headline question, we must first of all recognise that ‘winning’ means very different things to the states involved. For Russia and Ukraine, it means being left alone. Russia, too, is a poor, comparatively backward country with little ability to project much power beyond its borders and therefore cannot hope for much more than to be left alone, at least for the foreseeable future. For the state that has played a major role in the development of the crisis, namely the United States, it means preserving its global hegemony.
Does it have any chance of doing this? This question is not easy to answer, but it can be helped by studying the rise and fall of various hegemonic powers in the past.
This is what George Modelski and William R. Thompson did in their 1996 book Leading sectors and world powers. They start with the Song era in China a thousand years ago and continue until the end of the 20th century.
What they find is this.
- Political hegemony cannot be achieved without developing and controlling the most powerful technology of its time. Song China invented and harnessed paper and printing and revolutionised the dissemination of information; it invented and harnessed rudders and compasses and revolutionised transport technology; it invented and harnessed cast iron which cheapened the manufacture of metal objects; it invented and harnessed firearms and revolutionised and cheapened defence. Portugal developed ocean-going ships and an administrative system to keep them running. Holland revolutionised shipbuilding and developed the stock exchange to attract unlimited credit. England invented and exploited mechanical machinery in the textile industry, plus steam engines and railways. The US developed mass production of steel, cars, aeroplanes and consumer electronics plus companies big enough to do this.
- It is also not possible to have very stable political power – hegemony – without having something to offer other states. It has to be worthwhile for others to let the hegemonic power decide. Either in money or security. Something the United States was able to do after the Second World War, for example through the Marshall Plan, but now seems unable to do so.
- Every hegemonic power comes to an end. After a while, its rulers tend to become attached to old, once successful, solutions to old problems. That is, they get stuck in old technologies, old organisational models and old ideas. Moreover – though Modelski and Thompson do not mention this – its capitalists eventually tire of complicated production and settle for managing (speculating in) money, or land. Normally, hegemonies tend to last between a hundred and a couple of hundred years. Then new hegemonic powers emerge, based on even newer technologies and different organisational models.
In this light, it now looks like the US has its future behind it.
Modelski and Thompson, supported by many other observers, argue that the leading technology today is microelectronics. When the book was written, the US position there was strong. But it has eroded significantly; of the two companies that led the industry in 1996, Intel has faded and companies from East Asia, such as Samsung and TSM, have emerged in their place.
Nor does the US have much to offer other states. Getting the protection of the US nuclear umbrella now seems to mean economic ruin. Having currency denominated in dollars seems to put you at risk of being looted, and borrowing money denominated in dollars does too. Indeed, most states now seem to want to break away from dependence on a superpower and take a more independent stance.
Sweden and Finland are exceptions.
There may be other factors in the question, which I have not been able to find out from Modelski and Thompson. For example, it may be that the US is trying to rely on its grotesque advantage in weapons of mass destruction. That might last for a while. But it is hardly something to build on in the long run. As soon as it is used in practice, there is no world left to dominate.
Which of course everyone knows.
So reasonably, the answer to the question at the top of the article is “none”. Ukraine and Russia will annihilate each other, Ukraine of course the most annihilated, the US will gain nothing because hegemony requires more than war, and the US’s Western European vassals will lose even more.
It is therefore essential that it ends as soon as possible.
Activists for Peace 