Today we often accuse the West of sponsoring the Putin regime

  Today, we often accuse the West of sponsoring the Putin regime through the purchase of resources, as well as hosting Putin's officials and oligarchs, along with their stolen money. We blame and do the right thing, of course.When some regular McFaul begins to accuse the Russian Vasya that he did not destroy the Kremlin with his bare hands, it is worth poking his nose into the inexorable reality. However, it is also worth considering: what exactly are we accusing the West of?

  The modern political world largely rests on the premise that it is divided into sovereign states, each of which is primarily concerned with its own affairs.Yes, yes, there is international cooperation and international organizations. But in the end, everyone still has to pull the blanket in their own direction - this is considered something that goes without saying. Politicians are ultimately accountable not to the UN, but to their constituents.So, this approach dictates a simple logic. Is it possible to buy cheap raw materials somewhere? We must take. Regardless of what's inside the seller. Are they beating the natives with rubber sticks? Well, you are a sovereign state, sort it out yourself. Likewise with import money. Oligarchs and officials are coming to you, bringing capital of dubious origin, paying taxes and creating jobs. You are the British government serving British subjects. What do you care that the Russian Vasya somewhere eats up horseradish without salt?

  Approximately such motives guided the West until February 24 of this year, while buying raw materials from Russia and supplying it with chips for missiles. They forgave a lot, even Crimea was put on the brakes, because their own shirt is closer to the body than Ukrainian vyshyvanka.But now it turned out that if you put everything on the brakes for too long, then the little animal can get too fat and pile a world crisis at your door with five million refugees to boot.However, even in this case, there are those who offer to take a sovereign position "I'm in the house." Let's say the Libertarian Party of the USA, now completely stupefied, wrote today that China and Russia cannot imprison and tax you (so they are not enemies of the Americans).A similar position is taken by Trump, who insists on negotiations with Putin, explaining that it is necessary to take care of American interests, not Ukrainian ones.

  But what then to do, forget about your interests? No, not at all. Everything that happens can be presented as a conflict of long-term and general interests with short-term and private interests (the good old tragedy of the commons). So it would be beneficial for all of us if only market liberal democracies remained on the planet - we would all get very rich from global cooperation. However, the problem is that politicians are elected for only 3-5 years, and this is done not by the abstract population of the planet, but by quite specific voters who want to live better here and now (and they often do not care at what global price this will be achieved).As a result, the tragedy of the commons turns out: individually they earned, but all together they lost. At the same time, attempts to resist the tragedy are often called the abusive word "globalism". And many politicians have made a name for themselves in the fight against him. How to ensure that great interest is not sacrificed for the sake of small - this, of course, is a question...

Mihail Pojarsky 28/10/2022