Pages

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Ukraine and the Shifting Orbits



One of the longer running themes I have written about at this blog is the slow shrinking of the US orbit as empire, and the slow increase in orbit of an alliance including Germany, Russia, China, and ultimately perhaps including Japan (and…Australia). 

For those not so familiar with my thoughts on this topic, perhaps my most thorough post on this topic is here.  This post was written shortly after events in Syria last summer – events that moved Russia forward and the United States backward in terms of importance of orbit.  One of the more significant events during that time was the British Parliament vote against military action in Syria.

Fast forward a few short months to Ukraine.  In November, Ukraine backed away from a closer relationship with Europe in favor of maintaining ties to Russia.  This set off apoplectic seizures in parts of the West – certainly Europe, but especially in the United States.

And of course, a recent chain of events brought us to the military posturing and belligerence of today.  No need to go through the details, I believe.

But what does this say of the evolving era, the shifting of orbits?  A couple of data points:

From EPJ, and as reported in the Telegraph:

A secret briefing document held by an individual walking into Downing Street has been photographed. It suggests the UK will oppose trade sanctions against Russia following the country’s invasion of Ukraine.

Is the photo authentic?  Is the policy position definitive?  I guess we will have to see how the British Parliament reacts in the coming days.

The document also suggests that the UK will not try and restrict Russian trade through the City of London.

The City of London isn’t London, but one square mile in the center of the larger city.  It is a distinct governmental entity.  For an enlightening, yet sanitary backstory of the City:

The City of London has been granted various special privileges since the Norman Conquest, partly due to its power as Britain's financial capital. These are also mentioned by the Statute of William and Mary in 1690.

The Norman Conquest marked the end of medieval decentralization on the island, and the beginning of centralization, including the insidious idea that all land belonged to the king).

Author and journalist Nicholas Shaxson argues that, in return for raising loans and finance for the British government, the City "has extracted privileges and freedoms from rules and laws to which the rest of Britain must submit" that have left the corporation "different from any other local authority". He argues that the assistance provided to the institutions based in its jurisdiction, many of which help their rich clients with offshore tax arrangements, mean that the corporation is "a tax haven in its own right". Writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot argued that the corporation's power "helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK's dependent tax havens" and suggested that its privileges could not withstand proper "public scrutiny".

Money that doesn’t want to be found or known finds a home in this tiny enclave:

Although there is no agreed definition of a tax haven, many authors have accused the City of London of being one.  The Tax Justice Network, goes further and accuses the City of London as being “the biggest tax haven in the world” as well as ‘a state within a state’.

Ian Doyle and Jem Bendell, summarise these claims with the following statement:

…the City “is the most powerful lobby in Britain and possibly the world, and as a result . . . exerts enormous political influence to resist regulation and extract tax exemption. It has fostered criminality by ensuring that the City ranks amongst the least accountable of financial centres on the face of the Earth”.

In other words, when one thinks of global-elite money-power, operating independent of and above government, this is a pretty good description.


So back to the EPJ post; I commented at the site:

If one accepts that the same elite that controls Washington also controls London, this is the second of at least two interesting events in the recent past, the first being the British parliament vote against military action in Syria.

Is it decided that the US state is pushing it too far?

The political actors we see every day are puppets, but not in the traditional sense.  The puppet master does not have a physical string to these puppets – in other words, no direct red-phone.

Instead, most of the key political actors are chosen due to their demonstrated propensity to act in a desired manner.  Did Bernanke need a daily call in order to decide to inflate?  Of course not; his entire academic career demonstrated how he would behave when the time came.

And why did Obama come out of nowhere six years ago when Hillary (or even McCain) would have been victorious (and seemingly perfectly acceptable)?  Perhaps because he was seen as the least belligerent of the (acceptable) bunch – while still keeping up the façade of the necessity of government as currently practiced (a trait which the non-belligerent Ron Paul lacked, and therefore made him unacceptable).  If a less belligerent America was desired, Obama has performed fairly well.

What of Germany and Russia in all this?  Pepe Escobar notes, in his article “Carnival in Crimea”:

As Immanuel Wallerstein has already observed, Nuland, Kagan and the neo-con gang are as much terrified of Russia "dominating" Ukraine as of a slowly emerging, and eventually quite possible, geopolitical alliance between Germany (with France as a junior partner) and Russia. That would mean the heart of the European Union forging a counter-power to the dwindling, increasingly wobbly American power.

Nuland and Kagan might be terrified of a lesser US orbit, because they have been trained to work for a greater US orbit.  But it doesn’t mean they are on the right train.  Events seem to indicate a different path.

Given the proximity to Europe, it is no surprise that many eyes look to Merkel as playing a leading role:

If there is a solution to the crisis, it may lay in Berlin, in the personage of Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor and the de facto leader of the European Union.

Russia is Germany’s biggest supplier of energy, and it still regards Germany as an ally rather than a potential enemy.


Merkel, despite having criticized Russia for its human-rights violations on several occasions over the years, has maintained a businesslike relationship with Putin, who speaks excellent German.

Germany has not gone as far as others in the west regarding Russia; while signing a G-7 communiqué condemning Russia’s incursions:

…they oppose the idea of ejecting Russia from the G8 completely, which is something that Kerry and others have mooted. It isn’t even clear whether Germany would support economic sanctions against Russia, another possibility that the Obama Administration has raised. European Union rules require unanimity for the imposition of sanctions, and without Germany’s support the idea would go nowhere.

A peaceful solution to this western rift with Russia is in Germany’s interest:

That’s not just because Germany gets about a third of its energy from Russia, mostly in the form of natural gas; it also reflects Germany’s broader interests. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, no country has benefitted more from expanded ties to Eastern Europe and friendly relations with Russia. As members of the E.U., many former Communist countries, such as Poland, Slovakia, and Romania, now serve as production centers and consumer markets for German manufacturers.

Germany sees Ukraine as another possible market; Germany also sees danger in treating Russia as a pariah:

Over the past few years, Merkel has made clear she would like for Ukraine to eventually join the club of Germany’s democratic trading partners. But, like all Germans, she also knows the dangers of lasting enmity with Russia.

There is no “but.”  It seems clear that if Germany sees opportunity in Ukraine, Merkel must find friendship with Russia.

Thereby increasing the orbit centering on Germany, Russia, China, and perhaps a few others.

And shrinking the US orbit.

7 comments:

  1. This book, written in 1944, is worth reading. Its main theme is that the British Empire was covertly controlled by the "City of London"

    http://arcticbeacon.com/books/E_C_Knuth-The_Empire_Of_The_City,1944.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  2. Has the US state department been making you a job offer BM? Perhaps they should. This is the most precient article I have seen written recently regarding the Ukrainian coup. For the past month I have been racking my brain as to what the end game is regarding US foreign policy with the Ukrainian situation.


    The whole affair has been a diplomatic disaster for the US. Push Putin against a wall and he has no choice but to react. The outrage spewed forth by the Russian "occupation" of Crimea tells me that either the diplomats involved were completely clueless or they have a stratagem that mere mortals cannot grasp.

    I tend to believe the former. Poor Ukraine. Poor USA.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey BM, I've been brewin' a thought: is it possible (obvious?) that slavery (feudalism) is more easily imposed in a less globalized (complicated) civilization?

    For awhile now, I have been trying to assimilate the history of humanity and civilization as I know it: build wealth, conquer wealth, subjugate, expand, create disincentives, collapse. This much is known (to me) to be cyclical with humanity and civilization.

    Every time a ruling civilization collapses, inevitably, people rebuild, create new incentives to the political means and new civilizations begin; but, and here's the kicker, more people are introduced to more opportunities for liberty in each succeeding civilization. Sure, there are steps back; but mostly, and I think this is an apt phrase, societies limp forward, in the sense of progress towards greater personal freedoms - western societies anyway, although I imagine the trend is global; I can't think of people today that are materially, or politically worse off then they were 10,000 years ago - at least those that were subject to and in the proximity of ruling civilizations. (Of course we must discount forbidden history in this discussion!)

    So, to elaborate a general point, I think your analysis of complex political machinations is keen, and I agree that most of what we are observing in a geo-political sense, is a step back for the elite, and a step forward for liberalizing humanity; however, I do not doubt that this current civilization will, like the snake tricked into eating its own tail, fall prey to the reciprocal disincentive of the growth of the political means: too many vested interests in distributing (destroying) rather than creating material wealth.

    In my understanding, the human, like most of God's creatures, is quite a lot more simple than we (hubris-loving humans) like to give it credit - at least in terms of motivations. I believe the distribution of intelligence as well as of sociality (coined a new word?) falls on a bell-curve: most people are of average intelligence, and most people are, on average, sociable (i.e. do not exhibit psychoo, or sociopathy.) They take in the same amount of sense data as other complex creatures (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell) but perceive it through the lens of consciousness, which makes things (reality) seem more complicated than it generally is. We want for food, we are hungry; but we might just be sad and that entails a similar biological reaction and we appear hungry. Anyway, my point is, that the bell-curve of humanity may appear to like, or put up with, certain kinds of slavery, but always throws off the yoke when the elites appear to push things too far. In a sense, those generations who've accepted greater slavery (for greater security), may mortgage the future liberty of the grandkids, but eventually, the human instinct for freedom creates itself again - and even stronger than it did in the previous cycle of the previous civilization. At least, that's how it appears.

    Thus society/civilization limps forward.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm trying to develop a general trend of humanity as exhibited by the micro-incentives of the range of different perspectives. I find that historically, people have not changed much, and can been seen to react to incentives quite predictably, at least in retrospect :) I think it helps to know the micro-trends as you and the Daily Bell (miss you there BTW) elucidate them; but I find that I can only take in the information and rarely have much insight into those short-term predictions.

    I fear that I've gone off the rails again, and my point was lost in the thicket...I'm trying to say that the elite machinations require greater and greater subtlety as a civilization increases in complexity, in order to rule over a populace largely motivated by unconscious (simple) desires. The juggling act is bound to implode in my opinion. Too many balls, and gravity and the limits of concentration are against them. Not to mention the audience is losing interest.

    I check your blog most days; appreciate the keen edge of truth and integrity. Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alaska, so much food for thought…

      “…is it possible (obvious?) that slavery (feudalism) is more easily imposed in a less globalized (complicated) civilization?”

      There are many aspects to this query, it seems to me. If by “less complicated” you mean less integrated and even less automated, then the answer is likely yes – due to the fact that automation replaces labor trained in simple tasks (e.g. slaves or serfs).

      Also, in a less complicated society, brute force suffices to bring men under the chain. In a more developed society – well, we see glimpses of the tools necessary: public education, compliant media and think-tanks, etc. Brute force is certainly easier to impose.

      “For awhile now, I have been trying to assimilate the history of humanity and civilization as I know it: build wealth, conquer wealth, subjugate, expand, create disincentives, collapse. This much is known (to me) to be cyclical with humanity and civilization.”

      I can’t argue with this; however, it seems to me even in the same time the waves can be different.

      For those living in the US, or the West generally, it is somewhat easy to point to a decline, headed even toward collapse. More government intrusions and the like. However, this is really only true for the white race in the west, and perhaps more specifically the Anglo.

      For American Indians, African Americans, etc., life was certainly rotten 100 years or more ago – various versions of being killed and enslaved under power of the law. For the Chinese today? Those living in the former Soviet Republics? East Germany? Anyone living in the continuous war-zone between Germany and Russia in the first half of the last century? They might all argue that the trend is positive, or at worst stable.

      “Every time a ruling civilization collapses, inevitably, people rebuild, create new incentives to the political means and new civilizations begin; but, and here's the kicker, more people are introduced to more opportunities for liberty in each succeeding civilization.”

      There are many reasons to agree with this statement, some empirical and some conceptual. As a modern, division-of-labor economy cannot be centrally planned, I suspect the people will push back violently if the intrusions threaten too much their safety, security, and some degree of prosperity. This seems to be where we are headed, although I believe the elite will take every civil action to hold on to regulatory democracy in the west.

      I also see it in the internet – or, more accurately, polls that identify that the majority does not believe the narrative. They don’t for JFK, they don’t for 911. Go back 60 years – it seems clear that the majority at that time believed the narrative about Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima.

      As the narrative is discredited, those doing the narration will lose influence as the society they try to centrally plan crumbles.

      “I do not doubt that this current civilization will, like the snake tricked into eating its own tail, fall prey to the reciprocal disincentive of the growth of the political means: too many vested interests in distributing (destroying) rather than creating material wealth.”

      This battle will be with us as long as humans are humans, and in charge – the ebb and flow between liberty and control. For those of us who believe God will one day make His rule evident on earth, well, that is the only time this dynamic will cease.

      Every advancement brings more tools for control and centralization: currency, banking, the internet – each comes with a means both to improve life and to control life.

      Delete
    2. “I'm trying to say that the elite machinations require greater and greater subtlety as a civilization increases in complexity, in order to rule over a populace largely motivated by unconscious (simple) desires. The juggling act is bound to implode in my opinion. Too many balls, and gravity and the limits of concentration are against them.”

      Your summary captures well my views regarding the current situation, as I have somewhat expanded upon in my earlier comments.

      “Not to mention the audience is losing interest.”

      Yes, withdrawing consent – Boétie!

      Delete