Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Europe Page 13 of 16

Syriza and Greece Seem to Have Been Owned

By

On February 21, 2015

Comments

So, the Greeks have an understanding for an extension of the loan agreement.  On Monday they have to present the “reforms” they will be undertaking in exchange for it.

I don’t know what those reforms will be, but I know that the agreement still gives the Troika (now called “institutions”) veto power over Greek policy.  The key text in the mealy-mouthed statement is this one:

The Greek authorities commit to refrain from any rollback of measures and unilateral changes to the policies and structural reforms that would negatively impact fiscal targets, economic recovery or financial stability, as assessed by the institutions.

The Greeks also promised to pay back everything.

Yeah, Tsipras may be attempting to portray this as a victory, but it’s not.

The bottom line here is that Syriza weren’t really willing to default or Grexit.  One can note that they campaigned on ending austerity, but staying in the Euro.

That was always problematic: yes, that’s what many Greeks want, so it was a political winner, but if they were serious (and it appears they were) it left them without the ability to actually negotiate a better deal.

Much has been made of the fact that Greek Finance Minister Varoufkis is an academic specialist in game theory.  In the the early days he seemed serious about being willing to default.  It appears he wasn’t, it was a bluff.

I’m not an expert on game theory, but I do know something about it, and about negotiation and I’ll tell you this, for threats to work they must be credible, and to be credible you must be willing to actually go through with them.  Faking is never as good as sincerity.  Having campaigned on “have your cake and eat it too”, Syriza was in a bad position to negotiate with Europe.

I had hoped they were negotiating to show the Greeks that no good deal was possible, then would be willing to say to Greeks “only default and Grexit is viable.”  So far, it appears not.

It’s worth noting that reports are that Southern politicians in places like Portugal, Spain and Italy were pushing for no debt forgiveness.  For their own political futures, they need to be able to say “there was no alternative”.  But, of course, debt forgiveness would be good for all of those countries, meaning politicians pushing against it for Greece (setting a precedent allowing it for them) are acting  against the best interests of their own countries.  There is a word for such people, and it starts with “T”.

The Greek Communist party refused to join with Syriza in a coalition government because they expected this to happen, they have been proved correct.  If Syriza does not get a very good deal, or spend the next few months making the case to Greeks for default; in other words, if they don’t turn this around, then they will have their one term and the Greeks will turn to someone else.  Golden Dawn, the fascist party, came in third, but Syriza voters, being left-wing, might prefer the Communist party.  We will see.  Syriza, after all, is not very left wing at all.

It should be noted that we don’t know what threats were made behind closed doors. My guess is that they were very harsh: Greece cannot feed itself, it cannot fuel itself, it has very little to offer in exchange for the foreign currency it requires to buy what it needs.  A default and a Grexit where the Troika and other European countries were not trying to punish it could be managed.  But one where they did seek to punish it would be difficult.  Syriza may not have properly gamed out how to survive in that scenario, and may have been surprised by how punitive the Troika intended to be in the case of default and Grexit.

If so, that is political incompetence (and game theory incompetence).  One should always know what one’s best alternative to a negotiated settlement is.

I’ve written in the past how Greece could handle such a scenario.  (Here and here.)  It’s not an insoluble problem, but it does require being willing to backhand Europe as hard as they have backhanded Greece and then to get even nastier.  Greece has a lot to offer Russia, for example, and Russia can take care of Greece’s fuel needs easily in exchange for Greek bases and so on, which essentially cost Greece nothing.

The key here is psychological. Greeks need to admit that their fellow Europeans do not care how badly they suffer; need to acknowledge that they are not seen as Europeans by their fellow Europeans, and need to look East and South for their survival and future prosperity.

Until Greeks get through their heads, and hearts, that the other European countries are not their friends, they will continue to suffer.  Until they are willing to take the losses that Grexit and default will impose, things will continue to get worse.  (Being genuinely willing to take those losses is also the only way they might be avoided.)

I note also that sheer idiotic incompetence of Syriza in not putting in place currency controls to prevent capital flight during the negotiation period.  This is virtually an own-goal it is so stupid, and should bring into question just how smart Varoufkis is (or Tsipras, if he over-ruled Varoufkis.)

I wish the Greeks the best. But as with all those who have been horribly damaged by neo-liberalism and austerity, they need to get through their heads that those in charge of the policy have no fellow feeling for them; that people like Merkel, Shauble and the Germans who support them are enemies, not friends, let alone family members in some big European family which cares about all Europeans.

This is economic war, with the casualties that implies.  The Germans and the ECB are treating it as such; the collaborators in Italy, Portugal and Spain are treating it as such. Until ordinary people, and the representatives they put their faith in start treating it as such, they will continue to lose.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

The Greek Pivot East and the Future of Greece In Europe

By

On February 3, 2015

Comments

In my most recent article on Greece and Syriza’s options I pointed out that cutting deals with other pariah nations might be wise.

Practically the first thing Greece did was say that they will not be onside for any more Russian sanctions.

Russia said they would consider, if asked, bailing out Greece.  (This is a way of saying, “go ahead, ask”.) Given Russia’s own reserve problems, one wonders where it would find the money, BUT my guess this is a “if you default” scenario.  Russia won’t pay off European banks for Greece, but if Greece defaults, it will help Greece running. (Not least, most likely, by selling them heavily discounted hydrocarbons, and probably even loaning them the rubles to buy them with.)

That takes care of one of Greek’s main problems: food, oil/gas, and medicine—what they MUST have which they MUST buy from other countries.

A few words on Greece’s negotiations with Europe are also in order.  First, note that the “bailouts” given to Greece mostly weren’t — 89% just went back to lenders.  Worse, the imposed austerity conditions caused an actual collapse in GDP and employment, which means that the cost of the bailouts was far more to the Greek government and economy than the actual amount of money received.

In other words, this was all just a bullshit way of bailing out banks, and as the FT notes, only because bailing them out direct was “embarrassing”.  To avoid embarrassment, millions were impoverished, people set themselves on fire, and Greece was devastated.

This, people, is why I say, and mean, that Merkel is monster.  A disgusting, rotting excuse for a human being, let alone a statesman.  Millions suffered, not just in Greece but in the other peripheral countries, for no good reason.  Austerity is just the voodoo economics of the modern day, but even more devastating.

The deal Greece wants is more than fair to “lenders”.  And I mean “more than fair” literally.  They deserve to be defaulted on, because they didn’t do their due diligence, and all loans since the financial crisis at the very least, should NEVER have been made.

An independent Bloc is desperately needed in the world.  BRICS plus allies, with their own payment system, reserve currency and international trade and settlement system.  Until it exists, countries like Greece will feel (and often be right) that they have no choice but to buckle under to whatever terms the West sets.

Enough.  This suffering is not required in any world which runs on rational economics AND has as its goals the welfare of everyone.  It never was required.  All of the deaths, job losses, homelessness, hunger and so on was optional.  It was chosen because it suited oligarchs and politicians like Merkel.

This is the world you live in. It must be changed.  Since core westerners are unwilling to change it from withing in time to save millions and millions from suffering; it will have to be changed by those it is most severely impoverishing.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

Let’s Talk Turkey About Greece

By

On January 16, 2015

Comments

In light of the upcoming Greek elections and the possibility of a Euro exist, this article from 2012 is worth revisiting.

1) Greece is very likely to exit the Euro.

2) When Greece exits the Euro it will be punished severely by the monetary authorities.  They intend to let Greeks starve.  They will cut off food supplies, and Greeks will not be able to afford food.  Oil is also going to be a problem.  Greeks will probably not be able to flee to other countries.

3) The reason they will punish the Greeks is because they can.  They couldn’t punish the Argentinians (well, they’re working on it) or the Icelanders, because both those countries can feed themselves.  They can punish the Greeks.  They need to make an example, because they are worried about Spain, Portugal, Ireland and other countries.  (Heck, even the Dutch are having problems.  The Dutch!  If the Dutch can’t make it in the Euro, no one can.)  This isn’t, contra Lagarde about “bad Greeks”, while it is true that Greece should never have been let in to the Euro, well, everyone knew that.  Including the countries that let Greece in.

4) Greece is going to have get hardcore and creative about creating a new economy.  Since the monetary authorities intend to starve them and deprive them of oil, they must retaliate hard.  Greece has a number of options, and this is what Greece should do You don’t play nice with people who are trying to cause a famine in your country.

  • Greece has a large fleet.  Use it to strip mine the Mediterranean of all resources possible.  Yes, the Med is a fragile ecosystem.  If the other Euros don’t like it, they can not punish Greece, otherwise Greece will have to feed itself.  The Euros could send fleets, but as the British-Iceland fishing war proved, that’s prohibitively expensive.
  • Start gun-running and other black market activities up.  European gun-running currently goes through Albania.  Greece has much better ports.  If the Euros don’t like it, they can militarize Greece’s borders at a cost much higher than feeding the Greeks.
  • Become a full on black-hole for banking.  If anyone wants to store money in Greece, they can.  No questions asked, no forms needed.
  • Make deals with other “pariah” and semi-pariah nations.  Start with Iran and Russia for oil (Iran will be happy to give oil in exchange for black market help).  Make a deal with various 2nd world nations for food, start with Argentina, they have no reason to love the IMF or the European Union, which promised to “punish” them for nationalizing oil in Argentina.  In exchange Greece can offer use of their fleet, for cheap, and port rights for the Russian navy.  They’ve wanted a true warm water port for some time.  Offer them a nice island in the Med with a 30 year lease.
  • Hold on for a couple years.  Odds are that soon enough Ireland, Spain, Portugal and maybe others will leave the Euro.  They won’t be in any mood to screw Greece for their ex-Euro masters.  Heck, odds are 50/50 that there won’t be a Euro zone at all in 3 years, since Germany wants to screw everyone, including France.
  • Nationalize basically every industry.  It’s unfortunate, but it’s going to be necessary.  Hundreds of billions of dollars have fled Greece in the past 3 years, in fact that was one of the main reasons for dragging out the “bailouts” (really, bailouts of German banks), to let the money flee.  All Greek assets are going to be frozen overseas, so the Greeks will need to work with what they have.
  • No more money goes out of the country.  Slap on currency controls, to make sure what money is there doesn’t leave (this is aimed at Greece’s rich).  If any banker or anyone else circumvents them, throw them in jail, the sentence should be life, generous, since they are committing treason.
  • Seriously change the tax system, and insist on really taxing the rich.  Go to heavily progressive taxation, reduce the burden on the poor (a large number of people now), this will buy support.
  • A food rationing system, with cards and delivery to every person in the country will be necessary.  It won’t be fun, but combined with the above, you can make sure that no one starves.

Greece has been under siege for years now, and traitors within its own country (its politicians) have betrayed it.  This means Greeks are in serious danger of suffering a famine.  The response to that, by Greeks, will have to be pragmatic and severe.  If non-Greeks don’t like it, that’s too bad.  When millions of people are in danger of starving, a country does what it has to.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

In Light of Charlie Hebdo, are some lives worth more than others?

By

On January 8, 2015

Comments

One of the most important ethical questions is what the value of life is.  Are all lives equal, or are some lives worth more?

This seems like an airy-fairy question, but it’s not.  It under-girds how we dole out punishments for crime, how we spend money on healthcare and public services and when and how we go to war.  It is at the heart of the NYPD turning their back on New York’s mayor and in their reaction to the killing of two police officers.

And it is at the heart of our societies reaction to the murders at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

If you haven’t seen any of the Charlie cartoons in question, take a moment to do so.  Or see this cover, if you’re Christian. 

What Charlie was doing was clearly political commentary.  It was also clearly intended to be offensive.

As a result three young Muslims killed twelve people.  And we are having a collective freakout over it.

I note that during the 90s hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died, and we did not freak out this much.

More people die in car accidents, electrocution or by falling from ladders than die due to “terrorism” in Western nations.  Certainly more people die of the flu.  Police kill far far more Americans than are killed by terrorists.  (Though French policemen are far less trigger happy.)  The French led invasion of Libya killed many, and the deaths are ongoing, deaths which quite likely would not have occurred without that invasion.  In Syria the insurrection against Assad led to far more deaths than would have occurred otherwise, and that insurrection was supported materially by many Western nations.

9/11 was a huge tragedy, but the western blockade of Iraq in the 90s had killed far, far more people without anyone in the West getting nearly as worked up over it.

Some lives are clearly worth more than others.  Our lives, the lives of those we identify with are worth more than their lives, the lives of those we don’t identify with.

So one American life is worth, what, fifty Iraqi lives?  A hundred.  What’s the metric?

To the police, and most Americans, a police life is worth more than a civilian life.  Certainly a police life is worth more than an African-American’s life.  And I think it’s clear that to most whites a white life is worth more than a black one.

We are intensely tribal, and we care far more about the deaths of people “like us” than the deaths of people “not like us.”

So, in part, the deaths of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and other workers cause so much outrage because they were white and European.

We spend our time killing brown people and black people and Muslims in large numbers, using paramilitary weapons domestically, and military weapons and economic warfare internationally, killing far more of them than us, then act surprised when, deeply offended, they strike back.  (Yes, yes, this was a symbolic target and they really should have killed French politicians or military, but it’s not like we are discriminate (don’t even pretend we are.))  Somehow our outrage is valid, but we don’t grant them the right to theirs, including their vengeance.  We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq for 9/11, but bin Laden explicitly said that he attacked the US because of American killings of Muslims, including all those dead Iraqi children.

His vengeance is evil.  (It is, actually.)  Ours, not so much apparently.

So let us be clear “our lives are worth more than theirs”.  A lot more.

If you die a “wrongful death”, and the time comes for monetary compensation, how much your relatives receive will be based on what your income was.  The more you made made, the more your relatives have lost in monetary terms, and they will receive more.

People who earn more, are worth more to us, in hard monetary terms.  The life of a minimum wage worker just isn’t as big a deal as the death of someone who makes a lot of money.  This is based on our actions, not our words.

That doesn’t have anything to do with the Charlie dead, they earned virtually nothing.  Apparently the French didn’t feel like paying for the sort of satire they engaged in.  Nonetheless, the lives of those who make more money are worth more to us.

In the old days there used to be the idea of “woman and children first” — that their lives were worth more than male lives.  That may have been honored more in the breach, as with the Titanic, but one can also find occasions where captains of ships did insist that women and children went on the lifeboats first.

We see children as innocent, and we calculate that they lose more years than adults, so we value their lives more highly.  And, perhaps, it also has to do with a parental instinct which most of us have.  As for women, the biological “realists” would claim that those who can create new humans are more valuable, but whatever the reason most societies hate the idea of them being killed in war or raped far more than they dislike the idea of either of those fates happening to men.

Many feminists would argue that there are many ways we show that we value women’s lives less than mens—we certainly pay them less and for most of history we gave them less rights.

But tribalism trumps the women and children exception.  Half a million dead Iraqi children speak loud and clear on this.

Our children are precious and worth anything.  Their children.  Whatever.

Is the value of someone’s life based on what they do?  Or what they were doing?  We would certainly feel more outraged at the death of a search and rescue worker than a gangster.  Large parts of our society value police lives over civilian lives, and certainly our legal system, which almost never tries police for killing civilians does.

The Charlie Hebdo victims were engaged in “free speech”.  Satire.  They were mocking those who values they disagreed with, and doing so in a way intended to offend them as much as possible.  (Take a look at those cartoons and try and argue otherwise.)

We claim to value free speech greatly, and since the Charlie victims were engaged in mocking people who didn’t appreciate it, and since that’s “a fundamental value of Western society” we class their deaths and more tragic than those of Iraqi children who died due to lack of medicine they would have had if the West hadn’t been sanctioning and blockading their country.

One might, however, question our commitment to freedom of speech. Oh, the French themselves are pretty good on free speech these days, but Americans with their Free Speech zones and punitive whistleblower prosecutions; the British with their draconian libel law, Official Secrets Act and anti-terrorism legislation; and Australians with their obscene internet censorship laws (to highlight just a few) seem hardly to be icons of “free speech”.

So, are some lives worth more depending on what people are doing?  To be sure.  But, the French themselves aside, perhaps what the Charlie writers were doing that makes them martyrs wasn’t just “free speech” but the target of their free speech, some of whose members responded violently to the insults: Ilsam.  And that isn’t “free speech”, it is “Us vs. Them.”

And, as wonderful as France is on free speech these days, one remembers the Evo Morales incident, when France denied the Bolivian President’s plane right of way because of suspicion that Edward Snowden might be on board, so that the plane was forced down in Austria in an attempt to apprehend the famous whistleblower.

Some free speech is more important than others.  Cartoons mocking Islam and Christianity are far more important to protect than a man who has revealed wholesale spying on the citizens of
Western nations.

But perhaps it is more simple, Snowden was only going to be locked up in a maximum security American prison after a trial whose result we all know, in effective isolation, till that drove him insane.  The Charlie victims were killed.

And that leads to the final category: are some deaths worse just because of how they happen?  Is being beheaded worse than dying in a car accident? Is being shot by terrorists worse than being shot by police?  Is death from starvation worse than—oh why bother.

Yes, some deaths are clearly worse than others.  I’d rather be shot than tortured to death, or die of starvation.  But really what we mean are “deaths out of their time” or perhaps “deaths by violence”.  The Charlie victims weren’t “due” to die yet.  But then, neither were those Iraqi children, or all the Irakis who died of being shot in a war based lies (no WMD, no ties to 9/11).

But many deaths are preventable: easily preventable, and we fail to do so.  Effective public transportation in the US, reducing the use of cars, would prevent a lot of deaths. But Americans like cars, or something, and so those deaths are considered acceptable.  More effective restrictions on guns meant for killing people (as opposed to hunting rifles, say) and on ammunition would save a lot of American lives, but many Americans value their guns highly and think the deaths are a worthwhile price to pay.

All of this has been about what lives we, demonstrably, value more than others.  It hasn’t been about what lives we should value more.

Perhaps the answer is simple.  All lives have equal value, and in the event we are forced to choose between lives in a situation which doesn’t involve self-defense, we should indeed choose the young over the old.  Or maybe not even that, the old perhaps not being willing to volunteer.

I, myself, don’t know.  But I do know this.  As long as Western lives are valued at something approaching infinity to one versus Muslim lives, Muslims are going to continue to be radicalized.  John Paul VI once said that those who value peace should work for justice.  I believe that.  The Charlie killers appear to have been radicalized by the Iraq war.  No Iraq war, no radicalization, no Charlie victims.

But that’s a pragmatic argument.  The human argument is simpler: those Iraqi children’s lives were worth as much as any white child’s life.  Anyone who believes otherwise is a monster acting on tribalism.  And one day your tribe will be the weak one, because all Empires fall.  And when that day comes, members of your tribe will rail at those who kill your children and don’t care, because your skin is white and theirs isn’t, and they can and you can’t do anything about it.

The only clear justification for killing is self-defense.  More on that, perhaps, in another article.  But if you must kill, let me suggest some old-fashioned mores: kill military not civilians, kill adults not children; kill those who have actually harmed you (politicians who decided on wars which devastated your country), not those who haven’t.

If you want vengeance, shoot at the guilty and shoot at those who can shoot back.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Looks like Scottish Independence is a “No”

By

On September 18, 2014

Comments

The calls are coming in.

Assuming they are correct, I think this vote is a mistake, and I note that having been given a clean vote to leave and a chance to live their own values, but having given in to fear; for me, at least, Scottish complaints about privatization of the NHS and other cuts to the social state will now ring rather hollow.

However, as with Greece voting to have its economy destroyed by refusing to take a chance on Syriza, people are voting their fear and for the status quo.  Older folks seem to want to just hang on, and are unwilling to take chances for a better future and they can’t really believe that their own elites are intent on impoverishing them, and, effectively, in many cases, killing them. (Because that’s what deliberate austerity policies do.)

The Great Complacency will come to and end; but people aren’t going to like how that happens.  Oh well.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Scotland, England and Hegemonic States

By

On September 16, 2014

Comments

When you’re on your way up, everyone wants to join or be your friend.  When you’re on your way down, well, it’s the opposite.

Scotland, with free education and a belief in social welfare that England has lost, is on the edge of voting to leave in a referendum vote. It probably doesn’t hurt that they stand to gain a lot of money from North Sea oil, but the bottom line is “why stay with England?”

The reasons offered by England are essentially “on your own, you’ll be screwed”, with an ugly undertone of “we’ll make sure of it.”  There have been some efforts to offer more money and more independence within the UK framework so they can maintain social spending, but are those offers believable from Cameron, or from Millibrand, who has said that he won’t undo most of the austerity and destruction of social policies (including piecemeal NHS privatization) under the Conservate/Lib-Dem government.

Even if they are, it isn’t credible that some future PM, and by future we mean “less than a decade” will decide that Westminster needs the money more than Scotland.

We see in Spain, the Catalonians are trying to leave as well, with as many as 2 million on the streets.

This is simple enough: under an elite consensus of austerity, why stay?

The best argument for not breaking up the United Kingdom is that local elites won’t really be better: they still want to be part of the EU, they’ll still get on the austerity train, and if they don’t, the various threats by England and other elites will, in fact, materialize, and Scotland will be destroyed so it can’t afford to give benefits to its citizens.  After all, if Scotland leaves, who’s next?

The West, with a few exceptions like Norway and Finland (even Sweden is slipping) just doesn’t offer that bright shiny future to its residents any more. There is no real narrative of “this is just going to keep getting better”. To be sure, you may get a smartphone, but it’s used to tie you to your job 24/7 and spy on you, and your job is shittier than the one your parents had, which was shittier than the one your grandparents had, at least if you’re young.

There’s still a bit of narrative power left in Europe, as we can see by how some Ukrainians so desperately want to join, thinking they’re going to get the deal Poland got. (You’re not, you’re going to be destroyed by the IMF and Europe, with the full collusion of your own oligarchs, who are what you need to deal with first.)  But there isn’t much.  The WTO can’t get new rounds through, and the new, truly terrible bilateral deals which are going through are vastly unpopular, and designed to reduce the bargaining power of workers so that even more money flows to elites.

And so the decline in legitimacy of the West will continue: the narratives are broken because the reality is broken.  Not everyone has got the message yet, and there are still many countries even worse off, but the West, for over 90% of its population, is in decline.

Devolution will only work if the people who devolve don’t assume it’s a solution by itself and stay right on top of their local politicians. Otherwise those pols will turn around and betray them as well.  If those pols don’t betray, assume international elites will want any new counter-examples to the inevitability of austerity crushed, and will make sincere efforts to do so.

Scots who think they can devolve and stay on the British pound are, thus, making a mistake.  Likewise it is unclear to me that they should stay in the EU, after how the EU has treated the PIIGS.  There is no “us” in the EU, only elites with interests: if they perceive it is in their interest for Scotland to prosper (they might, if it can be sold as a poke in England’s eye), then they will. If not, they will have no hesitation in crushing Scotland’s economy.

Best of luck to the Scot… and to the Catalonians.  The West has failed, and must be reborn.  Let us hope independence for smaller states is part of that rebirth.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Rumors of the Ukrainian Rebels demise

By

On September 9, 2014

Comments

were exaggerated.  Or rather, the information in the Western press was essentially propaganda.

I think it’s worth acknowledging that I swallowed it, only to be corrected by a number of readers.  The Ukrainian rebels were tougher than I expected, Russian support seems to have been more significant and the Ukrainian military was simply not up to the task.  They couldn’t win the street fighting.

This means that Russia still has a strong negotiating position with regards to Ukraine’s future: their preferred option, of course, is federalization and forbidding NATO expansion into the Ukraine.

Meanwhile we must continue to keep an eye on sanctions.  The risk here is real sanctions being imposed on Russia, Russia retaliating with a gas shut off and an economic collapse in Europe.  Note that the key player here is actually China, who can easily keep Russia afloat if they choose to (China is printing far more money than the Fed was at the height of its unconventional monetary policy.)  The West keeps assuming it is the only game, and that it controls the money spigots: shut them off and they can crush anyone.  That is no longer true.  The question will be “what does China want to keep Russia afloat, or alternately, from the West, to cut them off.”

In my opinion, while China and Russia have some differing interests, those pale compared to their need for each as allies against the West.  The American Foreign Affairs and security establishment has been clear that they want to pivot against China, whom they see (correctly) as the largest threat to American hegemony.  For China to allow the West to crush Russia would be a colossal mistake, especially when the cost of keeping them alive is not that significant a world awash with printed money.

As for Europe, they are being fools and they will pay the price for it.  Satraps of a self-interested and cruel hegemonic power are never treated well, and Europe does not need to be a satrap, yet chooses that path against their own self-interest.

So be it.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Enough Russian Roulette with Nuclear Fire

By

On August 2, 2014

Comments

As commenter OldSkeptic points out, Russia has now called up reserves:

“Russia’s Defence Ministry plans to call up military reservists across the country for two months of training exercises on new weapons, news agency Interfax reported on Friday.

Moscow has previously used such exercises to boost troop numbers on its border with Ukraine. There are concerns in the West that Russian forces could intervene in the conflict between the Kiev’s government forces and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

The exercises were planned last November, the defense ministry said, and will last from August until October.”

I have covered the Ukrainian crisis closely since it began for a reason: the real antagonists: Russia and the US, with NATO as an American proxy, are nuclear armed.  Let us review:

  • The Ukraine was part of Russia for about 200 years.
  • Crimea is Russia’s most important naval port.
  • The Maidan protests overthrew a government which, whatever you think of it, was democratically elected.  The Maidan protests were heavily backed by US money and aid.
  • The Russian deal with the Ukraine was far more generous than the EU/IMF deal, which requires cutting pensions in half and likely doubling gas prices, if the gas supplies continue at all. Russia, on the other hand, offered subsidized gas and a fifteen billion dollar loan at nominal prices.
  • While there are those in Crimea who did not want to join Russia, I am aware of no convincing evidence that a supermajority did not wish to. The referendum was somewhat coercive and produced results in line with the last referendum in the region.
  • The rebellion in the East and the South is in regions where the strongest economic ties are with Russia.  While I have seen no polls indicating majority support for the rebels, I have also seen no polls indicating majority support for the Kiev government.
  • Ukraine is very close to Moscow.  Moscow is not defendable, in war, if enemy forces are in Ukraine.
  • It is American doctrine that Russia without Ukraine is not a European Empire; with it, it is.

In 2008, during the Georgian war, I wrote that the next flashpoint would be Crimea.  The experts sneered at that: it could never happen, Russia and the EU had nothing to gain and everything to lose by allowing it.

The EU is, as Old Skeptic points out, however, not in the driver’s seat.  The US is, and NATO is, and NATO is currently led by a hawk.  What Merkel, or Germany, think is irrelevant  unless they are willing to threaten to leave NATO and follow through if necessary.  While Mark From Ireland has pointed out that there are signs of German and European realignment away from the US, they seem to be signs that will take years to develop to actual estrangement.  The current leaders, like Merkel, are of a generation which grew up under American hegemony. While many balked at Iraq, it will be far harder for them to refuse to act if NATO, including Britain and the US, goes to war.

It would take an incredibly brave leader to say no if NATO mobilizes to help Ukraine in light Russian regular forces.

The question, then, is whether Russian regular forces will be needed, or used.

We have, meanwhile, sanctions. So far they have amounted to not much, though they will increase financing costs.  However threats of greater sanctions continue, and slowly the strength of the sanctions has been increased.

I don’t know if OldSkeptic is right, and the plan is to force Russia into a humiliating retreat in the face of sanctions, with the use of military force ok’d to break Russia.  I actually doubt it, because it would be insane.

You don’t risk a shooting war with a nuclear armed state like Russia, who has enough nuclear weapons not just to destroy the US and Europe, but the world, multiple times over; and which has second strike capability which NATO cannot credibly expect to take out.  If either side starts losing and resorts to nukes, things can get out of hand very, very quickly.

But something being insane, or boneheadedly stupid does not mean it won’t happen: if Iraq or Syria (and the rise of ISIS) has not taught us this, nothing will.  American leaders are ideologues, drunk with power, who believe they rule the world and everyone else must bow.  Putin tweaked them hard over both Snowden and Syria, and they have worked since the fall of the USSR to move NATO right to Russia’s borders, something George Bush Sr. promised they wouldn’t do.

Russia feels itself under threat.  The military believes it cannot defend Russia from NATO if NATO is in the Ukraine, and notes also the constant moving up of anti-missile defense, closer and closer to its border; something it believes is meant to degrade its nuclear deterrent (it is, how well it will work is another question.  My suspicion is “not nearly well enough”.)

There is West’s sanction threats have been all stick: there is no upside to Russia buckling to the sanction threats, all they get back is the status quo.  Going forward, Russia having given in to sanctions once, they would have no independent policy the West could not veto by threatening them again.

So how does this play out?

I don’t know.  I do know that the people in charge in America, Britain and NATO are stupid, mad-drunk with power, and ideologues who believe in American primacy at any cost.  I do know that Russia believes it faces a potentially existential threat, and that Putin personally could not survive a humiliating capitulation.  And by not survive I mean he would probably wind up, personally, dead.  Russian leaders like Putin rarely leave office except in a casket.

This confrontation is over Russia claiming some right to interfere in territory it ruled for about two centuries.  Longer than the US has ruled most of its territory, I might note.  If the West can interfere in practically any country in the world, the Russians see no reason why they don’t have the right to interfere in their sphere of influence.

This is not, necessarily, to say that Russia should have the right to interfere with other countries, but given the West’s record of invasions, occupations and coups, it is simply laughable hypocrisy to make any claims that this is about territorial integrity of Westphalian states.

Please.

So if it is happening, it is happening for a reason.  To bring Ukraine into the Western fold, to force Russia to bow, and to show the world that even a power like Russia, with nuclear weapons and a huge arsenal, was forced to bow.

As much as the Gaza assault is an endless series of war crimes, and tragic, the greatest danger in the world today is in the Ukraine.  We are closer to nuclear war than we have been since the early 1980s when the Russian leadership was crazed by fear by US deployment of first strike missiles to Europe.

I will suggest, simply, that NATO needs to be disbanded.  The Europeans should simply step outside of it and put together their own military.  They can defend themselves from Russia if it comes to it (it won’t if they don’t poke Russia repeatedly with sticks).  They have a nuclear deterrent (I’m talking France here, not the UK, who probably can’t even use their nukes without American approval, and whose leadership are complete poodles for DC) and can build more if they so desire.

It’s time for Europe to grow back up, take responsibility for their own defense and future, and stop allowing America to drive the world to war, the brink of war, and possibly nuclear armaggedon.  As for the Ukraine, the Russian proposal of keeping it together, minus Crimea, but with a decentralized structure, and out of any Western alliance is entirely reasonable.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 13 of 16

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén