Stop treating geopolitics like team sports 

With the annual UN General Assembly High Level Week in New York City coming to a close, much attention has been paid to geopolitics recently. The week brought together leaders from across the world under the theme “Better Together,” in an effort to foster diplomacy and peaceful cooperation among nations. This year’s assembly has drawn special attention for a multitude of reasons. No doubt the most notable of those reasons was the walkout of dozens of UN delegates during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the assembly, in protest of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. Also of note was the speech given by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where he addressed the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine and urged the other countries in attendance to continue to offer defensive aid to Ukraine and its allies. In his speech, he referenced the continuous failure of international law to address such imperialist atrocities, referencing not only its failure to protect Ukraine from Russian imperialism, but also the similar plight of Palestine, Somalia and Sudan.  

These struggles, though different in magnitude and type, share many characteristics. First, in all of these crises, the main victims are civilians. People who have no way of defending themselves and who are in no way at fault for the conflict that surrounds them are nonetheless the most harmed by it. Another common theme is imperialism. In the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, the conflict is a result of one nation believing it has the right to steal the land and rule the people of another. Despite these similarities, however, many people, especially online, hold contradictory views on these conflicts. The tendency to treat the victims of one atrocity with sympathy while blaming the victims of another for their own suffering is concerningly common.  

Though the clear victims in both conflicts are the countries being invaded and their civilians murdered, the prevalence of geopolitical opinions that seem to excuse imperialism on the part of one nation while condemning it for the other is surprising. There are many who understandably view the Russian invasion of Ukraine as and unjustifiable imperialist land grab, while making excuses for Israel’s genocidal incursion into Gaza. Likewise, many who rightfully condemn the aforementioned genocide will just as soon argue that Russia is justified in stealing Ukrainian land and killing Ukrainian civilians. Where do these contradictory positions come from? Generally, it’s well-understood what the motivations are behind support for imperialism and genocide. These range from adherence to religious dogma, hyper-nationalist sentiments or even just simple financial interests. In the context of adamant opposition to other examples of imperialism, however, these beliefs become harder to understand.  

One consistent theme in these positions that can begin to help explain their prevalence is campism. Campism is defined as the belief that geopolitics is best understood when divided into certain teams or “camps.” These camps most often take the form of alliances or friendly relationships between nations. In the case of the contradictory positions on Ukraine and Palestine, many view Ukraine as being in the same camp as the US and therefore Israel, with the opposing camp consisting partially of Russia and Palestine. This oversimplified view of complex geopolitical affairs is what I believe to be the foundation of the contradictory positions outlined above. Those who subscribe to this campist view of the world feel an obligation to pick a camp to support uncritically, excusing the very actions they condemn when committed by a country they view as being members of the opposing camp.  

Another consistent theme in these campist beliefs is the political alignment of each camp’s supporters. While far from universal, the camp consisting of the US, Israel and Ukraine is most often supported by the center and right segments of the American political spectrum, while the one comprised of Russia and Palestine is supported by some of the American left. While the reasons for these ideological tendencies are too complex and varied to adequately explore in this article, they can be briefly summarized by their historical context. The right-wing support for what is commonly referred to as “the west” mostly originates from Reagan era alliances and their subsequent evolutions. Likewise, left-wing support for their camp mostly stems from the geopolitical positions of the USSR and the Russian Federation, which is seen as a spiritual successor to the USSR. The network of international relationships set by these historical alliances serves to define today’s camps.  

While it can sometimes seem appealing to view the world through such a simple, pre-defined context, it is also incredibly dangerous. With this easy simplicity comes a blindness to real atrocities simply because the arbitrary side you’ve chosen is the one committing it. Imperialism is imperialism, no matter who’s doing it. Murder is murder, no matter who’s doing it. Evil is evil, regardless of which side is doing it. In order to approach a truly just and peaceful world, we must reject the allure of simple, uncritical campism and stop treating geopolitics like team sports.