Loyalty – the mortar of life and geopolitics

There are good reasons why people and countries that are loyal are successful in the long term – others are not. Thoughts on a quality that is becoming a rare commodity in the West.

Peter Hanseler

Introduction

In this article, we argue that loyalty in life and in geopolitics holds the world together at its core. First, we define and describe loyalty, then we observe this value in life. We then attempt to classify loyalty in geopolitics and give examples of disloyal behavior. Finally, we look at the current geopolitical risks in the major hotspots, the direction of the American thrust in Ukraine, the Middle East, and China after the presidential election, always with an eye to what might happen if loyalty prevailed – or not.

As always with big issues, you can forgive me for only touching on or omitting many aspects in order to keep the scale of this article to a digestible size.

The importance of loyalty in life

Definition

The word loyalty comes from the Latin word “lex,” which can be translated as law, regulation, commandment, contract, or condition. In French, “loyalité” also means, above all, decency. This comes very close to my personal understanding of the term. Decency implies reliability, faithfulness, and morality.

It follows that loyal behavior exists regardless of its stage of development and the prevailing social rules. In order to ensure loyal behavior in societies, norms such as laws and other rules of a secular and religious nature have been established in the course of their development.

Loyalty is a necessity

Loyalty is ultimately an existential prerequisite for every community. Without it, the development and maintenance of human communities is unthinkable.

Without loyalty, those who violently impose or attempt to impose their will through brute physical, political and economic force based on the “right” of the fittest will ultimately stand alone, as they will destroy the community through their behavior.

The “Societas Leonina” from Roman law is based on this idea, according to which all animals take part in the hunt, but the lion keeps all the prey for himself.

Loyal behavior can therefore be described as adhering to agreements even if they run counter to one’s own short-term interests and thus subordinating one’s own interests to the overriding interests of a community, business, diplomatic or personal relationship; in short, having the decency to always keep agreements in the interests of the community and not stab one’s counterpart in the back.

Loyalty is absolute

Loyalty is a quality that I consider to be absolute – like being pregnant: you are – or you are not. It is a quality that every person, no matter how mendacious and unreliable, pretends to have, a quality that everyone harbors, but very few deserve.

Heroes in literature and films are loyal; whether they prevail or sacrifice themselves, they win the hearts of the audience with this very quality.

The reality is sobering

The reality of everyday life is different. Most people are not heroes, but regularly seek the path of least resistance, because being loyal is demanding and requires conviction, discipline and backbone.

Loyalty is a difficult value to convey in societies that are driven by vanity, money and quick success, which is very often brief and allows people to shine in the spotlight for a moment. 10-second clips, which are uploaded to the Internet by the millions every second, are proof of this.

The media, for example, reduce an hour-long speech by a politician, which they have not even heard themselves, to a Tik-Tok snippet and shape it into a truth that is not a truth, just to appear as experts, earn money with it and form a narrative that is convenient. The fact that they are disloyal to their readers does not bother them, as not all, but many act in this way and this behavior is thus declared the norm.

Loyalty is exhausting

It is exhausting to be loyal, certainly more exhausting than merely claiming to be. It is not difficult to be loyal when everything is going according to plan, when the interests of the person who promises loyalty run in the same direction as the interests of the person or group to whom one has pledged loyalty. In such “good” times, even the most disloyal subjects never tire of proclaiming their “loyalty” to the public.

“The crux of the matter is that those concerned and affected must set a good example.”

If the interests of these parties no longer run parallel, i.e. if disloyal behavior would better serve a person’s short-term interests, a litmus test is applied, which very few people pass. Disloyal people then speak of “changed realities”, “changed conditions” and “misunderstandings” to justify their breach of loyalty. However, the line between loyalty and adherence to principles can be very thin.

In normal life, everyone can do their bit to strengthen loyalty in society. Society should react sharply to disloyal behavior, if necessary with the maximum punishment: social ostracism.

At present, arguments from dissenters are regularly labeled disloyal in the West. But cadaver obedience has nothing to do with loyalty.

If disloyal people had to expect and were also confronted with the fact that disloyal behavior led to social isolation, this would have a very positive influence on behavior in society as a whole. However, this process must be initiated by parents, teachers, the media, politicians and each individual. The crux of the matter is that those concerned and affected must set a good example.

Loyalty in geopolitics

In geopolitics, too, only humans act

When someone stabs you in the back in your private life, it is painful and regrettable. However, when the same thing happens in geopolitics, a person’s behavior can lead to crises and wars. The core of the evil is identical to behavior in the interpersonal sphere, even if the consequences have a different dimension, possibly in the form of a million-fold catalyst in the form of armies.

The hegemon as champion of disloyalty

Disloyal subjects survive well as long as they can get away with their behavior and their counterparts cannot defend themselves.

The behavior of the USA since the introduction of the Monroe Doctrine, but at the latest since the attainment of its status as hegemon at the end of the Second World War, is an endless succession of disloyal behavior towards other countries – friend or foe. This is so obvious that an exegesis of these events is not even necessary in this article. Treaties and alliances are upheld by the US as long as the advantages of an agreement outweigh the disadvantages. If, in the opinion of the hegemon, this balance changes to its disadvantage, it has no qualms or scruples about breaking them.

Since geopoliticians regularly think and argue in military terms, the literature almost exclusively mentions military agreements and alliances to illustrate this behaviour of the USA (alliances with Saddam Hussein, for example, to wage war against Iran, only to liquidate him later; nuclear weapons treaties with Russia, only to break them again, etc.).

However, I consider another treaty violation by the USA to be the most serious and damaging, which has already had serious consequences for the majority of the world and is set to have catastrophic consequences in the future.

It is regularly not recognized as such. It happened 53 years ago and its negative consequences have not yet developed into a practically inevitable catastrophe. In the process, the USA pulled a fast one on over 40 countries. Although of a non-military nature, its breach, which exclusively served American interests, was the most far-reaching in geopolitical terms: the breach of the Bretton Woods Agreement.

Disloyalty with long-term consequences – breaking the Bretton Woods agreement could destroy the Western economy

Even the term “agreement” for Bretton Woods is misleading. When the USA summoned over 40 nations to Bretton Woods in New Hampshire in 1944, the Second World War was decided. The USA was sitting on 22,000 tons of gold, controlled 70% of the world’s industrial output, lost a homeopathic number of soldiers – as in the First World War – had no civilian casualties and thus dominated the world.

If you read the records, you quickly realize that the agreement written there was a dictate. The US dollar became the world currency, which was backed by gold. All other currencies were pegged to the US dollar. However, the contracting states could exchange the dollars they held for gold at a fixed rate of USD 35 per ounce. Loyal adherence to the agreement could have served as the basis for a stable system of trade with each other and worldwide for all participating countries.

However, the USA acted disloyally towards its contractual partners. Economic conditions had developed considerably to the disadvantage of the USA between the signing of the agreement in 1944 and the 1970s. As described above, the US government was of the opinion that maintaining the treaty was disadvantageous for the USA, but that it could still afford to act contrary to the treaty to its own advantage due to its position of power.

The USA deceived its partners by printing more dollars than was covered by the agreement. When first France and then more and more countries realized this and exchanged their US dollars for gold, Richard Nixon broke the agreement in August 1971, thus closing the gold window and leaving “friends and partners” sitting on paper money. Since then, the US dollar has lost over 98% of its value.

Henry Kissinger invented the Petrodollar shortly afterwards and the USA enforced its use by force of arms. This was the only reason why the US dollar remained the world currency.

The abuse was expanded by the USA weaponizing the US dollar and “regulating” its use through the extraterritorial application of US laws. The peak of this unrestrained approach was reached in March 2022 with the freezing of Russia’s central bank reserves. As a result, the US dollar is now being shunned whenever possible not only by the BRICS states but also by many other countries, which is likely to lead to economic collapse for the US and thus for the entire collective West sooner or later.

How do you deal with a disloyal hegemon?

In geopolitics, social ostracism as a punishment for disloyalty in normal life would be tantamount to breaking off diplomatic relations. This only happens in exceptional cases, because the purpose of diplomacy is to maintain lines of communication, precisely in order to overcome crises.

In extreme cases, once diplomatic relations have been broken off, the only option left is war, which is a continuation of politics, as Carl von Clausewitz put it in his most famous sentence:

“War is the continuation of politics by other means”

Carl von Clausewitz, On War, 1816-1830

Russia/China and the USA, for example, have not yet come this far. However, the relationship between Iran and the USA since 1980 is an example of a break in diplomatic relations. The fact that the USA and Russia currently have no ambassadors in their respective capitals can be seen as a precursor to a possible break in relations.

Lack of trust as the highest diplomatic hurdle

The biggest problem for creating the conditions to solve the major geopolitical problems is the absence of trust. Any basis for this was destroyed primarily by the USA, but also by the actions of other states of the so-called Collective West. This was achieved through the unprovoked, systematic violation and ultimately termination of treaties that aimed to contain the most dangerous weapons systems and thus played a key role in international relations.

There is some evidence that this was done out of Western hubris, i.e. through unrealistic, excessive and inappropriate confidence in one’s own actions. Or, to put it in terms of this article: the West acted in the belief that it could afford such behavior, such disloyalty to contractual obligations, based on the assumption of political, economic and ultimately military superiority.

This catastrophic strategic miscalculation, which is now visible to all, not only destroyed all basic trust on the part of Russia, but also in the entire Global South. The accelerated development of BRICS is testimony to this.

In order to even create a basis for assuming that the West is loyal to contractual agreements when it signs them – the minimum requirement for entering into any commitments – the collective West needs fundamental proof that it is able and willing to do so.

After the deliberate disloyalties officially admitted by the West as early as the signing of the Minsk 1 and 2 agreements, the damage is gigantic. The fact that Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande openly admitted this in no way heals the damage.

These were the last security agreements that Russia entered into with the West as a guarantor power.

It takes a great deal of imagination to envision what fundamental confidence-building measures could look like in order to restore Russia’s belief in its loyalty to treaties with the West.

Many interrelated hotspots

The three biggest trouble spots and geopolitical problems at present are (1) the war in Ukraine, (2) the war in the Middle East and (3) the tensions between China and the USA. This is a deliberate simplification to avoid going beyond the scope of this article. For the sake of simplicity, we have omitted many problem areas, such as in Africa.

Ukraine

President-elect Trump claims to want to end the war in Ukraine and to take Russia’s interests into account in such a solution.

I am formulating this with extreme caution, because Donald Trump is a non-intellectual gut man; this was already evident during his first term in office. He presents himself as an anti-establishment president, which should actually give hope to every peace-loving person, because the establishment in the USA is the deep state itself or people and organizations that are dominated by the deep state and advocate perpetual war.

One wonders how Donald Trump managed to bring people like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, neoconservative warmongers in short, into government during his first term. It was hoped that Trump would not make such capital mistakes when putting together his second administration: however, should he include Marco Rubio and other Zionist warmongers in the government – and all indications are that he will – these hopes have been shattered.

The reason why Trump has a fundamental interest in ending the war in Ukraine, however, is not because he sees eye to eye with Putin on the causes of the conflict. It seems that Trump simply wants to free up forces, money and weapons so that he can use them against other opponents – Iran and China. Trump’s so far unclear proposal also gives a clear indication that the US wants to return to the eternal fight against Russia; otherwise, it would not simply want to postpone the NATO issue regarding Ukraine for 20 years.

“Trump’s statement during the election campaign that he would achieve peace in Ukraine within 24 hours should be interpreted for what it is: the marketing statement of an American salesman.”

The Russians are in no way interested in freezing the conflict on the line of contact and putting the NATO issue on the long bench instead of resolving it. Trump’s opportunistic approach clearly shows that he is not aiming for a sustainable solution.

Ultimately, the matter is doomed to failure for another reason. Such an agreement would have to be signed by Ukraine as a contracting party. The legalistic Russians rightly take the view that neither (President) Zelensky nor the Ukrainian parliament would have the legitimacy to sign an agreement, if it were to come about at all. Zelensky’s presidency expired in May and the parliament would have had to be re-elected in August, thus both acting without a legal basis.

Russia’s war aims have not changed since 2022: Demilitarization and neutrality, denazification and cultural sovereignty of the ethnic Russian population in the future Ukraine. The Russians will establish facts in these matters. The five regions – Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea – are part of the Russian state according to the Russian constitution and are therefore not up for discussion in negotiations.

It is therefore evident that certain unofficial previous proposals for the Russian government cannot be accepted as a basis for negotiations under any circumstances. Trump’s statement during the election campaign that peace in Ukraine would be achieved within 24 hours must be interpreted for what it is: the marketing statement of an American salesman.

There is much to suggest that the Russians see it approximately as described and will not rely on the USA in any way, but will go their own way. It is impossible to predict where the future border between Russia and Ukraine will ultimately run.

Middle East

The fact that there are many more parties with completely opposing interests in the Middle East makes the situation immensely complex. Based on Trump’s statements and the composition of his government proposed to date, Israel can be sure of continued support for its Zionist expansionist policy.

In addition to Israel’s objectives in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, which are being pursued by means of genocide, there is another that is quite capable of triggering World War 3.

The rhetoric of Netanyahu and Smotrich, for example, to attack Iran, coupled with the cries from Washington, must be taken seriously. Bellicose shouting in the same direction can also be heard from Washington since Trump’s victory. One feels transported back to 1940, when Adolf Hitler, in his delusions of strength, actually set his sights on the Soviet Union and, despite many warnings – especially from the logistics experts – invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, heralding the downfall of the Third Reich and thus the end of Germany’s sovereignty.

If you listen to military experts, the previous attacks on Iran have failed. In military terms, this undertaking is a suicide mission. Israel is also completely overstretched in Gaza and Lebanon. The Israelis already have their backs to the wall militarily. It borders on military, if not state suicide, to want to take action on this basis against a huge country like Iran, which sets military standards – especially in missile technology. Even support from the USA does not change this if one takes into account its unsuccessful action against the Houthis.

Moreover, it seems that the Americans themselves are not aware of the network of relationships between Iran, Russia and China. Iran has not only been a full member of BRICS since January 1, 2024, but also a full member of the SCO since July 2023. Whether Russia, China and Iran have agreed a formal military assistance pact, as exists between North Korea and Russia, is irrelevant due to the realities of the situation, as the real backing for this tripartite alliance is the special relationship between China and Russia. The key word is loyalty. The Russians and the Chinese will not abandon Iran under any circumstances, even if they have not the slightest interest in a war in the Middle East. They will therefore subordinate their short-term interests to the good of the whole.

If the Americans are foolish enough to allow themselves to be drawn into a war against Iran by Israel, Russia and China will support Iran militarily and economically by any means necessary. In other words: World War III.

China

It is obvious that China is seen as the big enemy – across party lines – in the US for that matter. The US, which has fallen completely behind the Middle Kingdom economically, also believes it can solve this problem with confrontational and possibly even military means. Taiwan, a small island 140 km from China and over 11,000 km from the USA, is a good pretext for military intervention. It is hard to imagine how the Americans could imagine any successful military conflict with China, as the US is bound to fail in any case.

The problem is not the agreement, but the adherence to it

The cards are clearly stacked militarily and so are the chances: Russia is perfectly capable of bringing the conflict in Ukraine to a military end without negotiations. If NATO does not intervene with direct military action – and this organization simply lacks the means to do so – we do not expect a further escalation. The Russians will certainly negotiate with the US, but on their terms.

They will first create facts that protect their interests. Failure to comply with agreements based on these facts would then be detrimental to the US and its vassals. This is a completely new and unfamiliar situation for the West.

“Current efforts” is cheap marketing to maintain an appearance that is incompatible with the established facts.”

The Ukrainian and Russian people are paying the price for the West’s disloyalty, in blood and deprivation. A price that the Russians are prepared to pay, but which, on the other hand, will drive up the price for the West in future negotiations. After all, an agreement at this point in time that is subsequently broken – see the Minsk Agreement – will only lead to more bloodshed at a later date.

In the Middle East, an exegesis of agreements is not even necessary, as Israel and the US are not interested in negotiations. Current “efforts” is cheap marketing to maintain an appearance that is incompatible with the established facts. It is to be hoped that Israel’s military failures in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran will show the Americans that a further escalation with Iran will not only fail but is likely to trigger World War 3.

The Americans could indeed still negotiate with the Chinese – no shots have been fired yet. From the American point of view, however, such negotiations would be aimed at driving a wedge between China and Russia, as was the case in 1972. However, the relationship of trust between China and Russia has now grown to such an extent that such a strategy by the US is doomed to fail. It is surprising that the US political leadership is unable to recognize this.

Even if one were to sit around the table with regard to these three trouble spots and even reach agreements, the chances of achieving a sustainable solution would be minimal. The West – under the leadership of the US – is not capable of behaving loyally and honoring agreements. Agreements are made by the West to stabilize a current problem and are easily broken at a later date when “realities change”.

Conclusion

All of the crises discussed in the article could easily be resolved through negotiations and the conclusion of agreements.

The Kremlin’s reserved reactions to Trump’s election and his plan to settle the Ukraine conflict immediately are testimony to the fact that the Russians simply lack faith in the loyalty of the US as a contractual partner. After all, Donald Trump had already been president for four years, so President Putin was able to get an idea of Trump’s reliability from his new American counterpart. Vladimir Putin’s only clear statement after the election victory concerned the courage of the loud American – which he had indeed demonstrated in his attack in the summer. This statement in itself is an indication of how Putin thinks about Trump.

“A miscalculation that is well suited to triggering the Third World War.”

The aggressive stance of Washington and its new administration towards Iran is astonishing. Incomprehensibly, it looks as if the new masters in Washington believe that a war against Iran can be waged without the Russians and Chinese kinetically intervening. This attitude is a clear indication that the leaders in the US simply lack the understanding to recognize and classify the loyalty of the Russians and Chinese for what it is – on both sides, it is the result of more than a thousand years of cultural history.

The demonization of China is also helpless. When Nixon and Kissinger made the pilgrimage to Beijing in 1972 to drive a wedge between the Soviets and the Chinese, China was an underdeveloped, poor country and the Soviet Union was an inert, inefficient giant that did not trust the Chinese. The relationship between China and Russia today is as close and complementary as it has ever been. At best, China and Russia see the US as a parvenu, a young, unreliable upstart that has never really been under geopolitical pressure at any point in its existence, but has been sowing discord in the world since time immemorial.

It is therefore not surprising that the US as a state neither understands loyalty nor is able to use it as a means – as a mortar for a stable world.