• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

The Geopolitical Implications of Campism

A Defense of Authoritarianism or a Strategic Alliance?

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• What does "campism" mean in the geopolitical sense and who are its members?
• Please give some examples of specific groups or figures who promote this viewpoint today.
• What are the major social media platforms that discuss current geopolitics?
• Tell me more about the YouTuber Judge Napolitano, host of "Judging Freedom".
• Tell me more about one of his major guests, geopolitical realist John Mearsheimer.
• Please give a summary of his latest interview on Napolitano's show.
• Is Mearsheimer promoting a might-makes-right approach to geopolitics?
• Another guest of Napolitano is economist Jeffrey Sachs.
• Does negotiation with Putin not amount to surrender to his imperialism?
• Now that Trump has fully adopted Putin's perspective, what does the future of Ukraine look like?
• Is Trumps "realism" also inspired by his personal decades long business interests in Russia?
• Write an essay on the topic of this conversation.

What does "campism" mean in the geopolitical sense and who are its members?

In a geopolitical sense, campism refers to the belief that the world is divided into opposing ideological or political blocs, or "camps," often with a strong moral or strategic preference for one over the other. This concept was particularly prominent during the Cold War, when the world was seen as divided between:

The Socialist Camp (led by the Soviet Union and its allies, including China until the Sino-Soviet split)

The Capitalist Camp (led by the United States and its Western allies)

Modern Campism

In the post-Cold War era, campism persists, though the dividing lines have shifted. Contemporary campists often frame the world as divided between:

The Western Bloc – Led by the U.S. and its allies (NATO, the EU, Japan, Australia, etc.), often associated with liberal democracy, capitalism, and U.S. hegemony.

The Anti-Western or Multipolar Bloc – Includes major challengers to Western dominance, such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and various Global South nations aligned with them. Some campists also include Venezuela, Cuba, and other socialist or nationalist states opposing U.S. influence.

Criticism of Campism

Critics argue that campism leads to:

Over-simplification of global politics, reducing complex issues to an "us vs. them" mentality.

Moral relativism, where one camp excuses the actions of its allies while condemning similar actions by the opposing camp.

Geopolitical determinism, assuming nations must align with one bloc or another rather than acting independently.

Campism is often associated with "tankie" ideology (uncritical support for anti-Western states) but also appears in right-wing discourse, where figures may favor authoritarian regimes opposed to Western liberalism.

Please give some examples of specific groups or figures who promote this viewpoint today.

Examples of Modern Campists

1. Pro-Western Campists

These figures and groups consistently support the U.S. and its allies while opposing countries like China, Russia, and Iran:

Neoconservatives (e.g., figures from the Project for the New American Century, some members of the U.S. Republican Party)

Liberal interventionists (e.g., Samantha Power, Anne Applebaum)

Mainstream Western media (e.g., The Economist, The Atlantic, CNN)

Think tanks (e.g., the Atlantic Council, Center for Strategic and International Studies)

Social media influencers (e.g., Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat, Michael McFaul)

2. Anti-Western Campists

This group supports or justifies actions by Russia, China, Iran, and other anti-U.S. powers, often portraying them as resisting Western imperialism:

"Tankie" leftists (e.g., The Grayzone, Rania Khalek, Caleb Maupin)

RT (Russia Today) and CGTN (China Global Television Network)

Marxist-Leninist groups (e.g., some factions of the PSL and CPUSA in the U.S.)

Certain "multipolar" right-wingers (e.g., Alexander Dugin, some MAGA-aligned figures who admire Putin)

Social media influencers (e.g., Jackson Hinkle, The Duran)

3. Right-Wing Campists (Anti-Liberal but Not Always Pro-Russia/China)

Some figures oppose Western liberalism but don't necessarily align fully with Russia or China:

Tucker Carlson (critical of U.S. foreign policy but not explicitly pro-Russia/China)

Some elements of the European far-right (e.g., Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán)

Christian nationalists who admire Russia's conservative values but don't fully endorse its policies

What are the major social media platforms that discuss current geopolitics?

Social Media Platforms and Influencers Discussing Geopolitics

Geopolitical discourse has exploded on social media, with different platforms catering to distinct ideological and campist perspectives. Here's a breakdown:

1. Pro-Western / Liberal-Globalist Platforms & Influencers

These accounts typically align with U.S./NATO interests, promoting democracy, human rights, and Western-led institutions.

Platforms

Twitter/X – Hub for think tanks, journalists, and former government officials.

YouTube – Home to explainer channels and mainstream media offshoots.

Reddit (r/geopolitics, r/credibledefense) – Heavily leans pro-NATO and mainstream analysis.

Influencers & Media Outlets

Eliot Higgins (Bellingcat) – Open-source intelligence with a pro-Western slant.

Michael McFaul – Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, strong anti-Putin voice.

Anne Applebaum – Historian and writer critical of Russia and authoritarianism.

Foreign Policy Magazine, The Economist, Atlantic Council – U.S.-aligned think tank perspectives.

2. Anti-Western / Multipolar Campist Platforms & Influencers

These channels criticize Western imperialism and often support China, Russia, and other challengers to U.S. hegemony.

Platforms

YouTube & Rumble – Hub for "alternative" media opposed to mainstream narratives.

Telegram – Popular for pro-Russian and anti-NATO content.

VK (Russian Facebook alternative) – Used for pro-Russian geopolitics.

Influencers & Media Outlets

The Grayzone (Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté) – Investigative journalism critical of U.S. foreign policy.

Jackson Hinkle – Pro-Russian populist influencer.

Garland Nixon – Former radio host, anti-NATO critic.

Alexander Mercouris (The Duran) – Pro-Russian analyst.

RT (Russia Today) & CGTN (China Global TV Network) – State-backed media pushing anti-Western narratives.

3. Right-Wing / Anti-Liberal Campists

These figures oppose the Western liberal order but don't always align with Russia or China.

Platforms

X (formerly Twitter) – Popular among conservative commentators.

Rumble & Bitchute – Alternative video platforms hosting banned right-wing voices.

Substack – Long-form essays challenging mainstream narratives.

Influencers & Media Outlets

Tucker Carlson – Critic of U.S. foreign policy but not explicitly pro-Russia.

Glenn Greenwald – Anti-establishment journalist critical of Western hypocrisy.

Steve Bannon (War Room podcast) – Advocates nationalist and populist perspectives.

Vivek Ramaswamy – U.S. political figure advocating a non-interventionist approach.

Tell me more about the YouTuber Judge Napolitano, host of "Judging Freedom".

Judge Andrew Napolitano is a former Fox News legal analyst and constitutional scholar known for his libertarian-leaning views. Over the years, he has been a vocal critic of U.S. government overreach, particularly in areas like civil liberties, surveillance, and foreign intervention.

Napolitano's Geopolitical Views

Anti-Interventionist – Strongly opposes U.S. involvement in foreign wars, aligning with a non-interventionist stance similar to Ron Paul and other libertarian figures.

Critic of U.S. Foreign Policy – Believes U.S. military actions abroad (e.g., in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan) are unconstitutional and driven by deep-state interests.

Sympathetic to Russia's Position – While not outright pro-Russian, he has expressed skepticism about U.S. support for Ukraine and criticized NATO expansion, which aligns with the views of some campist or multipolar advocates.

Host to Pro-Russian Voices – His Judging Freedom podcast has featured guests like Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter, both of whom argue that Russia's actions in Ukraine are justified and that U.S. policy is misguided.

Libertarian Constitutionalism – Unlike traditional campists who favor strong state power (whether Western or anti-Western), Napolitano's stance is rooted in classical liberalism and a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Platform & Influence

YouTube (Judging Freedom) – His channel features daily discussions on geopolitics, often with military and intelligence experts.

Twitter/X – Regularly posts anti-war and pro-civil liberties content.

Rumble – Hosts uncensored discussions with guests skeptical of mainstream narratives.

Conclusion

Napolitano straddles the line between libertarian anti-interventionism and multipolar discourse. While he doesn't explicitly endorse Russia or China, his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy often resonate with those who oppose Western dominance.

Tell me more about one of his major guests, geopolitical realist John Mearsheimer.

John Mearsheimer is an influential political scientist known for his realist approach to international relations. He's a major guest on Judge Napolitano's Judging Freedom podcast and has been a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding NATO expansion and the Ukraine war.

Mearsheimer's Key Views on Geopolitics

NATO Expansion Caused the Ukraine War – He argues that the U.S. and NATO provoked Russia by expanding eastward, threatening Russian security interests.

The U.S. Shouldn't Have Backed Ukraine – He believes the West made a strategic mistake by encouraging Ukraine to align against Russia, leading to war.

Realism Over Idealism – He rejects moral arguments about "democracy vs. autocracy," instead focusing on great-power competition.

Russia Is Acting Rationally – He doesn't justify Putin's actions but sees them as predictable responses to Western moves.

China, Not Russia, Is the Real Threat – While critical of U.S. policy toward Russia, he warns that China's rise poses a bigger challenge to U.S. hegemony.

Mearsheimer on Judge Napolitano's Show

On Judging Freedom, Mearsheimer has repeated these views, arguing that:

The West should negotiate with Russia rather than escalate.

Ukraine cannot win a war against Russia without direct NATO involvement.

The U.S. foreign policy establishment is blinded by ideology rather than strategic thinking.

Why Is He Controversial?

Critics accuse him of echoing Russian propaganda, though he insists he's making a neutral analysis.

His predictions about Ukraine (e.g., that it would quickly collapse) haven't always come true.

Some argue he underestimates Putin's imperial ambitions, framing Russia purely as a defensive power.

Please give a summary of his latest interview on Napolitano's show.

In a recent episode of Judging Freedom, Judge Andrew Napolitano interviewed Professor John Mearsheimer, a prominent political scientist known for his realist perspective on international relations. The discussion focused on former President Donald Trump's understanding of Russia and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy.

Key Points from the Interview:

Trump's Perspective on Russia:

Mearsheimer suggested that Trump possesses a pragmatic view of Russia, recognizing it as a great power with legitimate security concerns. This contrasts with the more adversarial stance taken by previous administrations.

NATO Expansion and Russia's Security Concerns:

The conversation delved into NATO's eastward expansion, which Mearsheimer argues has been perceived by Russia as a direct threat to its sphere of influence. He posited that Trump's skepticism towards NATO might stem from an understanding of these geopolitical sensitivities.

Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy:

Mearsheimer emphasized the need for the U.S. to adopt a more realist approach, acknowledging the interests of other great powers like Russia. He argued that Trump's foreign policy instincts, though unconventional, align with this realist perspective by questioning longstanding alliances and interventions.

For a more in-depth understanding, you can watch the full interview below:

Is Mearsheimer promoting a might-makes-right approach to geopolitics?

Yes, to an extent. John Mearsheimer's realist approach to geopolitics is often interpreted as a might-makes-right worldview, though he wouldn't frame it that way himself. His perspective is rooted in offensive realism, which argues that:

Great powers act in their own self-interest – Morality, democracy, and human rights don't drive international relations; raw power does.

Security dilemmas shape global conflicts – States expand their influence not because they are evil but because they fear being dominated by others.

Small states have limited agency – Countries like Ukraine exist in the "buffer zones" of great powers and must align strategically or face consequences.

Negotiation is better than idealistic confrontation – The U.S. should accept that Russia has legitimate security concerns instead of pushing NATO expansion.

Criticism: Is This Justifying Aggression?

Yes (Critics' View): His arguments can be seen as justifying Russian expansionism, implying that weaker states like Ukraine must accept their geopolitical reality.

No (Mearsheimer's View): He isn't endorsing aggression but describing how the world works. His point is that ignoring power realities leads to war, not peace.

Bottom Line

While Mearsheimer doesn't explicitly promote "might-makes-right," his worldview suggests that power, not morality, dictates international outcomes—which is why some see him as excusing aggressive behavior by great powers like Russia and China.

Another guest of Napolitano is economist Jeffrey Sachs.

Yes, Jeffrey Sachs is another frequent guest on Judge Napolitano's Judging Freedom podcast, and he brings a different but complementary perspective compared to John Mearsheimer.

Who is Jeffrey Sachs?

Sachs is an economist known for his work on global development, economic policy, and geopolitics. He was once a mainstream figure advising governments and institutions like the UN, but in recent years, he has become a sharp critic of U.S. foreign policy and Western narratives on global conflicts.

Key Views of Jeffrey Sachs

U.S. Foreign Policy is Imperialist – He argues that the U.S. pursues endless wars to maintain global dominance.

NATO Expansion Provoked Russia – Like Mearsheimer, he believes the Ukraine war was caused by U.S./NATO actions.

The U.S. Manipulates Global Institutions – He claims institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and UN are tools of Western power.

China Should Be a U.S. Partner, Not an Enemy – He sees China's rise as a natural development and opposes Cold War-style containment.

Media and Big Tech Serve U.S. War Interests – He believes the mainstream Western media censors dissenting views on war and foreign policy.

Sachs on Napolitano's Show

On Judging Freedom, Sachs frequently discusses:

The Ukraine War – He blames the U.S. for blocking peace talks and prolonging the war.

The U.S. and China – He warns that Washington is pushing unnecessary confrontation.

The COVID-19 Origins Debate – He has suggested that the virus may have originated from U.S.-funded research, which has made him controversial.

How is Sachs Different from Mearsheimer?

Mearsheimer is a realist – He focuses on power politics and says wars happen because of great-power competition.

Sachs is a critic of Western economic dominance – He frames conflicts in terms of economic imperialism and global governance failures.

Mearsheimer is pragmatic about U.S. power – Sachs is more idealistic, hoping for diplomacy and cooperation.

Criticism of Sachs

He has been accused of echoing Russian and Chinese talking points on Ukraine and global politics.

His stance on COVID-19 origins has been controversial, with critics saying he promotes conspiracy theories.

Some believe he overestimates the potential for diplomacy, ignoring the role of authoritarianism in global conflicts.

Does negotiation with Putin not amount to surrender to his imperialism?

That's the core of the debate: Is negotiating with Putin a path to peace or a dangerous concession to imperialism?

The Case for Negotiation (Mearsheimer & Sachs' View)

Realism Over Idealism – Russia is a great power, and ignoring its security concerns (like NATO expansion) has led to war. Diplomacy acknowledges geopolitical realities.

Preventing a Long, Bloody War – Ukraine cannot defeat Russia outright, and continuing the war only leads to more destruction. Negotiation could save lives.

The U.S. Negotiates with Other Adversaries – The U.S. talks to China, Iran, and North Korea—why not Russia?

Ukraine's Survival Matters More Than Total Victory – A negotiated settlement could allow Ukraine to retain sovereignty while avoiding full Russian occupation.

The Case Against Negotiation (Critics' View)

Putin is an Imperialist – He doesn't just want Ukraine neutral; he wants it under Russian control. Negotiating gives him what he wants.

Appeasement Doesn't Work – Concessions to aggressors (e.g., Hitler in the 1930s) often encourage more aggression.

Ukraine Deserves Full Sovereignty – Any deal that forces Ukraine to give up land (e.g., Crimea, Donbas) would reward Russian aggression.

Russia Violates Agreements – Putin signed treaties recognizing Ukraine's borders, then invaded anyway. Why trust new agreements?

Bottom Line

If you believe power politics dictate everything (Mearsheimer's view), then negotiation is necessary to stabilize the region.

If you see Putin as an expansionist who won't stop (critics' view), then negotiation is surrender.

Would you like a breakdown of potential peace deal scenarios and their risks?

Now that Trump has fully adopted Putin's perspective, what does the future of Ukraine look like?

If Donald Trump continues to embrace Putin's perspective on Ukraine — as he has suggested in some of his public statements and interviews — the future of Ukraine becomes more uncertain and potentially grim. Trump's pro-Russia, anti-interventionist stance could lead to major shifts in U.S. policy and, by extension, in the future of Ukraine.

Potential Scenarios for Ukraine's Future Under a Trump Administration:

U.S. Withdrawal of Support for Ukraine:

Impact: Trump has indicated that he would prefer to end U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict, arguing that the U.S. shouldn't be the world's policeman. If Trump were to succeed in shifting U.S. foreign policy towards non-intervention, this could mean the end of significant U.S. military and financial support for Ukraine.

Result: Ukraine would likely face increasing Russian pressure and potential territorial concessions, as it would have less backing from the West. It could lead to a frozen conflict scenario in eastern Ukraine, similar to what happened in Georgia and Moldova, where Russian-backed separatists control parts of the country.

Forced Negotiations with Russia:

Impact: Trump has suggested that he could broker a deal to bring an end to the conflict. He has repeatedly said that he could "negotiate" with Putin and would seek a solution to the war through direct talks, implying that Ukraine may have to compromise on issues such as territorial integrity and NATO membership.

Result: If such negotiations were to happen, Ukraine might be forced to make significant concessions, such as recognizing Crimea as part of Russia or adopting a neutral status that prevents it from joining NATO. This would be seen as a defeat for Ukraine's sovereignty and a victory for Russia's imperial ambitions.

A Shift to European Support:

Impact: With the U.S. stepping back, Ukraine might seek to strengthen its relations with the European Union and NATO, although this would be more challenging without the U.S. as a guarantor. European powers, particularly Germany and France, have been more cautious in their approach to the war and would be less inclined to provide the same level of support as the U.S.

Result: The EU could try to mediate and push for a diplomatic solution, but with limited military support. Ukraine may become more isolated and vulnerable to Russian influence in the long term, possibly having to make strategic compromises to survive.

Escalation of the Conflict:

Impact: A reduced U.S. presence in Ukraine could embolden Russia to take more aggressive actions, possibly leading to an expanded invasion or even regime change in Kyiv, especially if they believe that the U.S. and NATO will not intervene to protect Ukraine.

Result: Ukrainian resistance might continue, but with less Western aid, it would face greater challenges. The war could devolve into a long, drawn-out insurgency, leading to more death and destruction.

Trump's Policy Could Be Checked by Congress:

Impact: Even if Trump were to push for closer ties with Russia and a pullback from Ukraine, Congress could act as a check. There is bipartisan support in Congress for continuing aid to Ukraine and opposing Russia's aggression.

Result: Trump could face political pushback from both parties in the U.S. government, meaning that his foreign policy on Ukraine might not fully materialize as planned, or it could be limited by ongoing support for Ukraine in Congress.

Implications for Ukraine's Sovereignty and Security

Under a Trump administration that adopts Putin's perspective, Ukraine faces the risk of losing its territorial integrity and sovereignty. A negotiated settlement in favor of Russia's demands would not only weaken Ukraine but also set a dangerous precedent for other post-Soviet states. If Russia is rewarded for its aggression, it could embolden further expansionist actions, not just in Ukraine but in other parts of Eastern Europe.

Conclusion

The future of Ukraine, should Trump adopt Putin's position, is fraught with risks. Ukraine may face a hard choice between negotiation and resistance, with its sovereignty and territorial integrity at stake. While Trump's inclination for negotiations could bring an end to the fighting, it would likely come at the cost of major concessions to Russia — a scenario that many would view as a form of surrender to Russian imperialism.

Is Trumps “realism” also inspired by his personal decades long business interests in Russia?

Yes, Trump's “realism” on Russia, particularly his soft stance towards Putin, has often been scrutinized through the lens of his business interests and potential personal ties to Russia. Over the years, Trump has maintained a complex relationship with Russia, and his business dealings and political rhetoric raise questions about how much his policies are influenced by personal financial interests. Let's explore this more deeply.

Trump's Business Ties to Russia

The Trump Organization's Business Interests

Real Estate Deals: Trump has long been involved in attempting to build real estate projects in Russia, most notably the Trump Tower Moscow project, which was pursued during the 2010s. The deal was never finalized, but it was a clear indication of Trump's interest in the Russian market. There have also been reports of potential business dealings with Russian oligarchs and investors in various parts of the world.

Russian Oligarchs: Trump has been linked to Russian billionaires, particularly through his real estate ventures. His properties have attracted significant attention from wealthy Russians, some of whom have been accused of ties to the Kremlin. In fact, Trump's properties in the U.S., especially in places like Miami, have been favored by wealthy Russian individuals for investment.

Financing and Loans: Some reports suggest that Trump had difficulty obtaining financing for his projects from traditional American banks, but was able to secure loans from Russian-backed institutions. This raises questions about the influence Russia may have had over his business dealings and whether it could have shaped his views toward Russia as president.

Trump's Statements on Russia and Putin

Over the years, Trump has made several positive remarks about Putin, sometimes even praising him for his leadership style and strength. He has repeatedly downplayed Russia's interference in the U.S. elections, calling it a "witch hunt" and often shifting the blame onto other factors.

Trump's “Realism”: His approach to foreign policy, especially in regard to Russia, aligns with his personal business philosophy of “deal-making”. Trump often stresses the importance of making deals with adversaries, including Russia. In his view, the U.S. should engage with Russia to avoid unnecessary conflict, even if it means downplaying Russia's actions in Ukraine, Syria, and other global issues.

Potential Influence of Personal Business Interests

It's plausible that Trump's personal business interests in Russia have contributed to his softness toward the Russian regime. Here's how his financial dealings may have played a role in shaping his foreign policy positions:

A Conflict of Interest?

Critics argue that Trump's desire to maintain positive relations with Russia could stem from his business interests, as fostering a cordial relationship with Putin could open up lucrative deals for his company.

During his presidency, Trump's personal financial ties to Russia were scrutinized in investigations, particularly during the Mueller inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. While no direct evidence emerged of wrongdoing, the question of conflict of interest has persisted.

Pro-Russia Stance as a Diplomatic Strategy

Trump has often labeled his pro-Russia stance as pragmatic realism, emphasizing the need for cooperation over confrontation with Russia. This could be seen as his approach to achieving personal business success — focusing on mutual interests rather than ideological differences. By promoting dialogue, Trump may have hoped to carve out opportunities for his businesses.

Additionally, financial considerations could have influenced his skepticism about NATO expansion and military intervention, areas where he has been critical of past administrations. A more pro-Russia stance in the geopolitical realm might have been part of his broader strategy of fostering peace to create favorable conditions for business ventures.

Trump's Personal Relationship with Putin

Trump has often made favorable comments about Putin's leadership, praising him for being a strong and decisive leader. He has also appeared to have a personal admiration for Putin, which has raised eyebrows regarding the potential influence of his business dealings in Russia.

While Trump has denied having any substantial business relationships in Russia during his presidency, his personal rhetoric and past attempts to do business there raise the question of whether his diplomatic stance could have been influenced by those interests.

A Broader Context

Trump's approach to Russia should also be seen in the context of his broader foreign policy, which has often favored “America First” pragmatism over traditional alliances and multilateral agreements. His business instincts — looking for favorable deals and avoiding conflicts that could harm potential opportunities — align with his non-interventionist approach and the idea that countries like Russia should be treated as partners rather than adversaries. His stance could be seen as an attempt to negotiate with, rather than confront, powerful nations for long-term benefits.

Conclusion

Trump's “realism” on Russia could very well be influenced by his personal business interests in the country, even if he frames his approach as pragmatic and focused on great-power diplomacy. His tendency to downplay Russian actions and avoid harsh confrontations could be driven by a desire to maintain positive relations with Russia, both for economic reasons and as part of his broader geopolitical worldview.

This raises important ethical and policy questions about whether such personal interests should influence the foreign policy of the United States, particularly when it comes to critical issues like Ukraine's sovereignty and global security.

Would you like to explore more on how personal interests impact foreign policy or another aspect of Trump's views on Russia?

Write an essay on the topic of this conversation.

The Geopolitical Implications of Campism: A Defense of Authoritarianism or a Strategic Alliance?

Campism is a term that has emerged in recent years to describe a geopolitical stance that tends to support authoritarian regimes and dismisses or downplays the actions of these regimes in favor of a perceived anti-imperialist position. It is particularly associated with defending Russia, China, and other non-Western powers, often within the context of their rivalry against the West, especially the United States. The concept is highly controversial, as it involves balancing support for these nations while ignoring or minimizing human rights abuses, authoritarianism, and imperialistic actions by these governments. This essay aims to explore the implications of campism in geopolitics, how it intersects with current global politics, and the motivations behind such a perspective.

What Is Campism?

At its core, campism involves an ideological position that sees certain authoritarian regimes, particularly those in Russia and China, as allies in the global struggle against Western imperialism, especially the perceived dominance of the United States and its allies. Campists view these countries not necessarily through the lens of human rights abuses or authoritarian tendencies but through their opposition to U.S. hegemony and the Western liberal order.

The term is often used pejoratively by critics who argue that campism entails blindly defending authoritarian regimes regardless of their domestic actions or foreign policies. Those who hold a campist perspective typically frame their support for countries like Russia, China, or even Venezuela as part of a larger anti-imperialist struggle, seeing them as necessary counterweights to U.S. hegemony.

The Historical Roots of Campism

Campism has roots in the Cold War era, when political lines were often drawn between the West (led by the U.S.) and the East (led by the Soviet Union). During this time, the ideological and political support for regimes within the Soviet sphere was often justified as a defense against Western imperialism, even when those regimes were involved in oppressive actions against their own populations or engaged in wars that were seen as expansionist.

In the modern era, campism has taken on new dimensions, with Russia and China replacing the Soviet Union as the primary counterweights to the U.S.-led global order. Campists now focus their attention on the geopolitical struggle between the West and these nations, often sidelining the domestic issues of authoritarianism, human rights violations, or military aggression.

Key Features of Campism

Anti-Westernism

Central to campism is a deep-rooted anti-Western sentiment, particularly directed at the United States and its allies. Campists often view the West as imperialist, accusing it of manipulating international politics to maintain a global hegemonic position. They see the West's involvement in military interventions, economic sanctions, and efforts to spread liberal democracy as forms of neo-imperialism aimed at undermining the sovereignty of other nations.

Support for Authoritarian Regimes

Campists justify their support for authoritarian regimes like Russia and China not based on their democratic credentials but on the idea that these regimes act as counterforces to Western power. They often argue that these countries are acting in self-defense against Western interference or imperialism. In this view, Russia's annexation of Crimea, for instance, is often explained as a defensive measure against NATO's eastward expansion rather than a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.

Deflection of Criticism

A critical aspect of campism is the deflection of criticism toward the actions of these authoritarian regimes. Rather than engaging with the problematic aspects of governance in these countries, campists often focus on the perceived hypocrisy of the West, arguing that the U.S. should not criticize Russia or China for their domestic actions when it has engaged in similar behavior in the past. This creates a moral equivalence, where authoritarian regimes are excused or overlooked in favor of focusing on the West's perceived moral failings.

Alignment with Anti-Imperialist Movements

Campism often aligns itself with movements that oppose Western imperialism. Supporters of campism tend to view their stance as a continuation of the anti-colonial struggles of the 20th century. They argue that, just as former colonial powers sought to dominate and exploit weaker nations, the West today seeks to exert control over countries through economic coercion, military force, or political pressure. In this context, nations like Russia and China are seen as resisting the global dominance of the West.

Key Members of the Campist Movement

The movement's support base is diverse but often includes individuals, political groups, and online communities that fall under certain ideological categories. While campism is not a formalized political movement, its supporters can be found in the following groups:

Far-left Political Groups

Many far-left groups, especially those who see the world in terms of anti-imperialist struggles, are the primary supporters of campism. For these groups, the idea of supporting Russia or China as an alternative to the U.S. represents a rejection of capitalism and a desire for a multipolar world where the U.S. cannot dictate global affairs.

Right-wing Populists

Interestingly, campism has also found support among certain right-wing populists who are critical of U.S. foreign policy, particularly its interventions in the Middle East and its support for global liberalism. Some of these groups see Russia's traditionalism or China's economic model as a more attractive alternative to liberal democracy and globalism.

Online Communities

Much of the campist discourse has flourished in online communities, particularly on platforms like Reddit and Twitter. These groups often espouse conspiracy theories about U.S. involvement in global conflicts and advocate for a more nuanced or favorable view of authoritarian regimes.

Public Intellectuals and Commentators

Figures like John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, and Glenn Greenwald have sometimes been associated with ideas that align with campism, particularly when discussing the U.S. role in global conflicts. While they may not explicitly identify as campists, their critiques of U.S. foreign policy and defense of countries like Russia or China often resonate with campist ideologies.

The Ethical and Geopolitical Dilemmas of Campism

Campism poses several ethical and geopolitical dilemmas. The most significant of these is the moral justification of supporting regimes that engage in human rights abuses and authoritarian practices. The justification often hinges on the belief that opposing U.S. imperialism takes precedence over the domestic actions of other countries. This can lead to a compartmentalized view of morality, where the actions of authoritarian states are overlooked because they are seen as part of a larger struggle against Western dominance.

Moreover, campism often undermines genuine dialogue about the complexities of international relations. By reducing conflicts to a binary struggle between the West and anti-imperialist states, it can obscure the internal contradictions within countries like Russia and China, where the governments' imperialist actions abroad may be at odds with their domestic political systems.

Conclusion: The Future of Campism in Global Politics

As the world increasingly becomes multipolar, with countries like Russia and China asserting themselves more forcefully in global affairs, campism will continue to serve as a lens through which certain factions view the international order. Whether this will lead to deeper alliances with authoritarian regimes or justification for more aggressive foreign policies remains to be seen. While campism presents itself as a defense against Western imperialism, it faces significant ethical and moral challenges, particularly regarding the support of regimes with troubling domestic policies. Its future influence on global politics will depend on how effectively it can reconcile these contradictions while maintaining its critique of U.S. hegemony.