Fifty Shades of Gray

In the third year of the war, it is becoming increasingly clear that we live in strange times. The era of "gray leaders" is when there are leaders, but there are no decisions for them to make. "Grey leaders" think about how to be elected to a certain public office, and not solve the problems of the society that elected them. They know how to use technology, but they are not capable of analysis and lack the ability to calculate at least two steps ahead. Among them there are those who can be called bright stars on the global political horizon, but such people are rather the exception than the rule.

"Grey leaders" are not a new phenomenon, but at the current stage, their short-sightedness and indecision have rather serious consequences. When it is necessary to remind again and again that Ukraine is now defending the very foundations of the world order established by their predecessors, that with every day of the war the reincarnation of fascism in nuclear Russia becomes more and more obvious, and when it is important to remind again that flirting with the devil or blocking the borders of Ukraine under any circumstances is a crime against one's own future and all other considerations are small compared to this, the question of the role of the individual in history seems far from being resolved.

The presence of leaders who are unable or unwilling to make strategic decisions significantly complicates the formation of a new world order. It is worth noting that healthy fears and caution are not bad advisors at the stage of analyzing the situation, but a clear idea of how to influence the course of events is an excellent means of overcoming fear. The repetition of the history of the end of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), when we were persuaded to sign a new union treaty, fearing the collapse of the evil empire, instead of resolutely bringing it to an end, is especially surprising. Now the "gray leaders" are afraid of the collapse of the Russian Federation, instead of without hesitation to provide Ukraine with effective means of military warfare to replace those that were destroyed after the conclusion of the Budapest Memorandum in the 90s. For now, it is worth thinking seriously about what to do with the epidemic of fascism in the Russian Federation, and not counting on the resumption of "business as usual" as soon as a chance appears. Putin's Russia is more than Putin, who sooner or later will move first to a mausoleum, and then to a landfill, so instead of trembling with fear, we should develop plans for the future, moving, relatively speaking, the way of Thatcher, not Chamberlain. A long-term policy of dismantling the last of the empires must be developed, in particular, political decisions regarding the return home of the territories occupied by Russia not only of Ukraine, but also of other countries, their demilitarization and restoration.

At one time, General MacArthur, who accepted the surrender and received extraordinary powers to settle affairs in post-war Japan, was by no means a "gray leader." He knew how to make decisions that determined the future, and did not tremble from uncertainty. Fortunately, he relied on the advice of experts who were well versed in the matter, and he made a number of key decisions regarding the future of Japan precisely with the help of a strong personal will, against stereotypes and emotions, even against the demands of the White House. Preserving the person of the emperor as a symbol of the country's unity, albeit with a changed status, the possibility of forming a Japanese government that took further steps to rebuild the country, albeit on the basis of a new Constitution and electoral system, were bold and absolutely correct decisions. MacArthur had a clear sense of Japan's future role in the region, the need to punish war criminals while preserving traditions that were important to the nation's essence, and a desire to give Japan room to breathe and correct past mistakes. The success was not long in coming.

Today there is something close to panic in both the West and the East over the possible return of Donald Trump to the White House. "Grey leaders" are sure that because of this, the apocalypse will almost come. But no one promised that it would be easy. Many remember the late Shinzo Abe, the prime minister of Japan during Trump's first term. By universal recognition, he was the only one of the leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) who found a common language with Trump and knew how to talk with him. Currently, in numerous publications on the topic of the future, "gray experts" ponder the question: what to do now that Abe is gone? Once again, one gets the impression that the lack of will and ability to analyze has become one of the trends in international politics. A system that depends so much on the results of elections in one, albeit extremely influential state, is neither effective nor sustainable.

The European Union has just demonstrated with the approval of the aid package to Ukraine that the institution can resist the will of "gray leaders" if it is about strategic decisions and there is a firm intention to implement these decisions. Institutions should act in the same way in other cases. The sovereignty of democracy excludes external interference in the electoral process, but the international community must take care of its own immunity in case of an infection of "greyness". It is possible that the next test will be the strength of character and strength of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) body.

Wikipedia has an article "Unsolved problems in physics", which, as the name suggests, contains a list of problems in physics that have remained unsolved for decades despite the efforts of thousands of scientists around the world. However, there is no article "Unresolved problems of foreign policy" in Wikipedia. It can be assumed that it is the "gray leaders" who are interested in ensuring that such a list never appears anywhere. Because then many questions will arise that need to be answered. For example, what is the relationship between peace and security? How to solve the problem of Jerusalem, which lies at the very center of the so-called Middle East settlement process? How are religion and freedom related? How effective is a collective security system if it has never been tested before? Why is Russia's obviously illegal membership in the United Nations (UN) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) not contested by the completely legal members of these organizations? How to ensure effective international justice, fair use of resources, how to restrain aggressive and revisionist regimes that, despite all sanctions and restrictions, are able to create nuclear and missile weapons? Why does everyone keep talking about the "Global South" if by that name everyone understands different things, in whose interests "economic growth" takes place and what "development" really is? Why is the lengthening of the average life expectancy, on the one hand, considered as a sign of the civilization of the country and society, and on the other hand, it is declared an obstacle to development? States and corporations – who controls whom and how to establish the optimal balance between state policy and the desire of corporations to obtain maximum benefit? Who and how shapes national interests and to what extent do they depend on the will of the individual? How can you combat climate change by stimulating consumption and burning record amounts of petroleum products and coal, because otherwise the "development" indicators will be insufficient? After all, how is it even possible to change something without actually changing anything?

Of course, you can find completely rational answers and explanations to all these and many other questions. Just as supporters of the American political slogan Make America Great Again (MAGA) explain very clearly and simply why Trump should become president. In the same way, "gray leaders" are able to explain why Ukraine should not be provided with weapons or aid. It is very difficult to argue with "gray leaders" because during the discussion a reasonable person will be forced to descend to his or her level, and at this level the "gray leader" will win because he is a professional at his level.

It is wrong to equate "grayness" with lack of education or specific knowledge. In fact, lack of will and the ability to foresee may or may not coexist with intelligence. When you look at what Twitter has become after the change of ownership, it becomes clear why its new owner is investing in artificial intelligence. Despite the interesting technologically useful things AI can do, investing in artificial intelligence is easier than developing your own. Similarly, when television appeared, it was thought that it would stop the development of the theater. In 1899, an employee of the American Patent Company, Charles Duell, sadly wrote in his diary that he would obviously have to find a new job, because "everything that should be invented has already been invented." Dmitri Mendeleev considered the most difficult technical problem of the 20th century to be the disposal of manure, because "the horse population will continue to grow at a rapid pace" due to the need to increase horse power for economic development. Many such examples can be cited. The relationship between intelligence and "greyness" is one of the unsolved problems that needs further study.

The ancient Chinese philosopher Han Fei, an apologist of legalism, claimed that "the orderliness and power of the state cannot be brought from outside, they are hidden in its internal politics." It can also be argued that the ability and will to make decisions cannot be instilled from the outside, they must come from the inner strength of the individual. If it is not there, it is important to take care of precautions that compensate for the lack of bright colors. There are certainly more of them than fifty shades of "grey". 

Read this article in Ukrainian and russian.