As Globalization matures, the primary effect is going to be that every country is going to have to walk a little softer regarding Foreign Relations accepting the distinctions of choice that now has greater power across global theaters; therefore, I do not take the Helenist holistic attitude that people everywhere are to learn to adapt to a common culture and a borderless global community—that is only conceivable through enforcement by oppression; rather, globalism will be required to adapt to communities but with a focus on economic objective and indeed that is how globalism started out. Culturally, people are different from area to area or country to country because culture builds on individual attributes of families, religion, social relationships and community in which they live. So to say that globalism is going to lead to a global culture is erroneous; rather, globalism will be like the era of conquerers of old. such as Alexander the Great in which each culture is going to survive as it has come through the past and will only change according to the values of the individuals where they live making of globalism strictly an economic phenomena. Globalism will mature through economics that will erect bridges of communications, education, travel and the exchange of currencies and even those states that are still largely agrarian, a developed globalism will still prosper them as well because people still eat.
Therefore, the world will not become a social melting pot as the utopian globalist claim naively venturing into others personal value systems only to stir a pot of trouble and the demand for control; do I need to assert the in that case War is inevitable—which would be counter productive to UN aspirations. However, Alexander the Great and others like him, chose to leave culture out of the picture of their responsibilities and even borders, other than claiming a territorial relationship, will not change independent of approval by individual national sovereignty. Therefore, as Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson said in their book Globalization in Question it is a myth that is being advanced that “national cultures . . .and national borders (1)” will be included as part of globalization; they will not; moreover, the ability to acquire them will be viewed as a waste of time and effort. I agree and it is my position on how to assert Foreign policy in an advantageous way in a globalist world without causing undo harm; in other words, a realist perspective that accepts the idea that people have the right to be who they are; wherever that is; while adapting to economic dynamics that have a common place both in the global community and the national—in other words, globalization will be lead by an endeavor of corporations that will by, necessity, work out the means required while the national economies thrive in concert both in terms of international, national and local dynamics of their own; that will not change.
NATO military operates under the auspice of the United Nations whose objective is that no state will be allowed to become a global threat to peace, claiming the right to invade any nation that would pose that threat; therefore, no nation may War; that is, outside their borders; and that asserts that no incrimination of spilling over will be allowed. It should be noted that national sovereignty was diluted at the end of WWII where before hand State sovereignty was absolute now it is a shared authority adding an imputed sovereignty through the members of the UN. The is a paradox of sorts where NATO is constrained that if not attacked they enter not; however, genocide, which is crimes against humanity, will give license for outside intervention to the UN; exactly how NATO, who is required to meet with the UN Security Council for direction, will respond to this variance remains to be seen. However, though NATO’s purpose is restricted to its member states; the UN’s Charter indicates that their intent is universal every where in the World.
The UN does have ambitions that eventually there will be only one Military in the world with member states agreeing, if asked, to transfer sufficient territory to the UN for military bases.
You will note that NATO approached the Ukraine three times before the Russian invasion began to become one of their members; they declined all three times; moreover, though the EU offer was accepted by the Ukrainian elites, the people of Ukraine declined that as well. You will also note that in 2013 Russia awards the Ukraine $20 billion to retain the Ukraine in their sphere of influence; this has been ignored by the West as well as Russia’s lease hold over Crimea, the bridge built by Russia connecting to the Russian penninsula and the Minsk Protocol established in 2014 with the Ukraine and the OSCE and Russia for dialogue and resolution of the Civil strife between East-West Ukraine. In my opinion the West has behaved very badly in this and their unwillingness to observe the rule of law is hypocritical with their own solutions in mind regarding in an EU membership added to the Balkan acquisition ordered by the UN following the Balkan Wars in the 90’s intending to take the entire Western half of the Ukraine territory. Russia had already announced its intent at the end of 2021 to invade Ukraine appearing to follow the UN mandate for invasion; moreover, Russia has claimed that genocide has occurred in the Ukraine Separatist event.
Original source can be found here.
