Greg Krasovsky
June 20, 2022
Three interesting and thought-provoking articles on the current military conflict in Ukraine:
1. "What the Fall of Empires Tells Us About the Ukraine War -
Russia’s war can only be understood as a bloody post-imperial conflict."
Anatol Lieven, Foreign Policy, June 20, 2022
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/20/russia-ukraine-war-putin-empire-imperialism-colonialism-conquest-collapse/
2. "Trump Said We Should "Get Along with Russia". He's Right"
Mike Whitney, The Unz Review, June 4, 2022
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/trump-said-we-should-get-along-with-russia-hes-right/
3. The War in Ukraine Marks the End of the American Century
Mike Whitney, The Unz Review, June 7, 2022
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-war-in-ukraine-marks-the-end-of-the-american-century/
Selected excerpts below.
What do you think?
***
Три интересные и наводящие на размышления статьи о текущем военном конфликте на Украине:
1. Что Падение Империй говорит нам о войне на Украине -
Войну России можно понимать только как кровавый постимперский конфликт.
Анатолий Ливен, Внешняя политика, 20 июня 2022 г.
Гугл перевод: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&sl=auto&tl=ru&u=https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/20/russia-ukraine-war-putin-empire-imperialism-colonialism-conquest-collapse/
2. «Трамп сказал, что мы должны «ладить с Россией». Он прав»
Майк Уитни, The Unz Review, 4 июня 2022 г.
[Гугл перевод]
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&sl=auto&tl=ru&u=https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/trump-said-we-should-get-along-with-russia-hes-right/
3. Война на Украине знаменует собой конец американского века
Майк Уитни, The Unz Review, 7 июня 2022 г.
[Гугл перевод]
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&sl=auto&tl=ru&u=https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-war-in-ukraine-marks-the-end-of-the-american-century/
Избранные выдержки ниже.
Что вы думаете?
***
What the Fall of Empires Tells Us About the Ukraine War - Russia’s war can only be understood as a bloody post-imperial conflict.
By Anatol Lieven, a senior fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Foreign Policy
June 20, 2022, 6:16 AM
Excerpts:
The Soviet Union is commonly described in the West as the “Soviet empire”—or even “Russian empire”—and in key respects this was indeed the case. During the Cold War, Moscow occupied and controlled a collection of states along its periphery, and the historical record of Russia’s expansion through conquest and colonization is abundantly clear. But in neither journalism nor academia has this led to what should have been a logical conclusion when it comes to understanding conflicts in the former Soviet space: Namely, to place these conflicts into the wider context of what happens when empires fall.
This lack of interest seems odd, given the Western liberal intelligentsia’s deep concern with imperialism and its critiques. When I covered the collapse of the Soviet Union and its aftermath as a journalist for the Times of London, my prism was shaped by years spent working in South Asia—first as a student of imperial history and then as a journalist. It was therefore natural for me to see the disintegration of the Soviet space as a post-imperial process. This was perhaps the greatest difference between my perspective and that of most of my Western colleagues.
...
Yet empires notoriously also freeze, generate, and incubate conflicts. Sometimes this is because imperial rule suspends previous conflicts, as between Hindus and Muslims in British India or Armenians and Azeris under the tsars and Soviets. Sometimes the source of conflict is the empire’s creation of completely new states or states with new borders—such as Iraq in the Middle East—that lump together different ethnicities that had never previously lived in the same polity, divide a people among neighboring states, or force ancient enemies under one roof, as in the former Yugoslavia and many African nations. This leads not only to civil conflicts but sometimes to wars between successor states—as in Kashmir, the former Yugoslavia, and Ukraine—as successor states fight to redraw borders in accordance with their version of ethnic or ethno-religious legitimacy.
Sometimes bitter resentment is the result of mass migration set off by imperial economic development or targeted colonization: English and Scots to Ireland, Chinese to the East Indies, Indians to Fiji and the West Indies, Tamils to what is now Sri Lanka, Georgians to Abkhazia, Russians to the Baltic republics and parts of Ukraine. Nowhere have the results been free of serious tension.
Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is formal or informal arrangements such as those in Malaysia and the Baltic states, whereby the indigenous populations monopolize control over government and the security forces, while the descendants of Chinese and Russian immigrants, respectively, dominate much or part of the economy. The worst outcomes are dreadful massacres such as the killings of Chinese that accompanied the Indonesian coup of 1965 or violent spasms such as the Georgian-Abkhaz War of 1992-93 that began with Georgian armed pogroms against Abkhaz and ended with the ethnic cleansing of most of the Georgian population by the Abkhaz victors.
Neither international law nor democracy provides clear-cut answers to any of these disputes. It was the theory of ethnic self-determination in the name of democracy, as adopted by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson at the conclusion of World War I, that provided an ostensibly liberal rationale for violent separation and cleansing across the vast ethnic tapestry of Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe. As in Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Crimea, the principles of international law and democracy often work against each other, with the result that states pick and choose between them depending on their own advantage. Majoritarian democracy is a notoriously dangerous principle in ethnically divided societies with different national allegiances, as the history of Northern Ireland from the 1920s to the 1990s so vividly demonstrates.
Finally, it is hardly reasonable to expect local people and their leaders to be automatically obedient to international laws they never made or agreed to. When the British, Ottoman, Habsburg, and Soviet empires collapsed and Yugoslavia disintegrated, it was very natural for Northern Irish Catholics, Kurds, Sudeten Germans, Kosovar Albanians, Kashmiri Muslims, Bangladeshis, Biafrans, Serbs, Croats, Pashtuns, Chechens, South Ossetians, Karabakh Armenians, and Crimean Russians to seek or support independence and/or union with co-ethnics in a neighboring state. Sometimes, as in Ireland, South Asia, and Sudan, the result (after much violence) has been internationally accepted partition. In a majority of cases, things have been decided by some combination of pragmatism and superior force.
...
None of this is to excuse the Russian invasion of Ukraine, any more than it excuses the frequently horrendous behavior of other imperial and post-imperial states. What it does suggest is two things: First, that Russian wars in Ukraine and the Caucasus are not part of some wider plan for aggression against the West. The Russian war in Ukraine is about Ukraine. We can therefore seek a pragmatic solution to the war without fearing that this will embolden Russia to threaten NATO and the European Union, with the possible exception of the Baltic states—and then only if the Balts were to take some recklessly aggressive action against Russia (for example, by cutting communications to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad).
Contrary to much Western reporting, there has been little evidence of any concrete Russian intentions to invade the Baltic states, let alone Finland or Poland. As a Russian official once told me, “We ruled Poland for almost 200 years, and all it brought us was endless trouble. Why on earth would we want to swallow that hedgehog again?” From the point of view of vital Western interests, it is therefore unnecessary to seek permanently to disable Russia.
Secondly, we should approach the search for a settlement in Ukraine in a spirit of ethical realism, aimed at a lasting peace that will secure Ukraine’s independence and potential path toward joining the EU, rather than in a mood of hyper-legalism and hyper-moralism that is all too likely to make peace impossible and which our own history does not justify. In the other post-imperial cases I have mentioned, only very rarely has absolute victory for one side or the other been possible—and then only at the cost of prolonged war and huge suffering. In the majority of cases where some sort of peace, however flawed, has been achieved, it has been through some form of pragmatic compromise. That is the best we can and should work for in the case of Russia and Ukraine.
One funny aspect of contemporary Western liberals is that even as they have publicly beaten their own breasts with contrition and shame for the past sins of Western colonialism, they go on to claim moral superiority over other countries that have inherited some of the same problems and committed some of the same sins. This sort of behavior has a prominent place in the history of religion but is neither moral nor practically helpful.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/20/russia-ukraine-war-putin-empire-imperialism-colonialism-conquest-collapse/
***
Trump Said We Should "Get Along with Russia". He's Right
Mike Whitney
The Unz Review
June 4, 2022
Excerpt:
Look at this map of Ukraine.
Can you see what’s going on? The Russians are creating a buffer zone along their western perimeter.
Why are they doing that? What benefit do they derive from a buffer zone?
Well, a buffer zone creates a distance between Russia and Ukraine which Putin thinks is necessary since Ukraine is threatening to join NATO. So, he’s creating his own DMZ on his western flank.
But what does that prove?
It proves that we’ve been lied to from the very beginning. Putin was not planning to reconstruct the Soviet Empire like the media told us. He did not want to seize the Capitol, Kiev, and he did not want to conquer the entire Ukrainian landmass. That was all baloney.
What he wanted to do, is what he has done.
Don’t take my word for it, look at the map. You don’t need CNN or Rachel Maddow to tell you what you can see with your own two eyes. This is the reality ‘on the ground’.
This is a buffer zone. It creates a distance between Russia and Ukraine, it protects the ethnic Russians in the Donbass region, and it establishes a landbridge to Crimea where Russia’s vital deep-water port of Sevastopol is located. In other words, it achieves what Putin wanted to achieve from the very beginning, that is, enhanced security along his western border.
What we are seeing is the basic parameters of Russia’s “Special Military Operation”. Yes, many people will prefer to call it a “war”, but the term is not nearly as precise as “Special Military Operation”.
Why?
Because “Special Military Operation” indicates that the main objective is to save the lives of the ethnic Russians who had been under constant bombardment for the last 8 years and, also, to create a security zone that prevents a hostile NATO army and its missile system from being deployed to Russia’s border. These are the goals of the “Special Military Operation”; to “demiliterize” and “denazify” the area under Russia’s control. Get it?
Will the “Special Military Operation” go beyond the Donbass to Kiev and cities in the west?
Probably, not. Going beyond the Donbass would likely involve a complete mobilization of men and resources which has not yet taken place in Russia. By not mobilizing, Putin is signaling to the west that he will limit his operation to the area on the map. (With some slight expansion) Putin is indicating that his main concern is security, and since his concerns were casually brushed aside by Biden and Zelensky, he took matters into his own hands. In other words, he imposed his own settlement.
Okay, but if these are the parameters of the Special Military Operation, then what are the chances of a wider war?
That depends on Biden. If Washington continues on the path of escalation –by sending weapons systems that can strike targets in Russia– then Putin will respond. We should know that by now. Putin is not going to back down no matter what. If Washington wants to up-the-ante, then they should prepare for an equal response. That’s the way it’s going to work. For now, the “Special Military Operation” is just a “Special Military Operation”. But when it becomes a war, then all bets are off. Then we will see a full mobilisation, a complete rupture in US-Russo relations, and a halt to all hydrocarbon flows from east to west.
Do you think Europe and the United States are prepared for that? Do you think the EU can replace the 25% of the oil and 40% of all the natural gas it presently imports from Russia? Do you have a wind-powered car that will get you to work on time or a factory that will run on solar power? Do you have a plan for heating your house with hydrogen or perhaps a battery from an old Prius?
No, you don’t, and neither does Europe. Europe runs on fossil fuels. America runs on fossil fuels And the more fossil fuel that is consumed, the more the economy grows. The less fossil fuel is consumed, the more the economy shrinks. Are you prepared for life in a shrinking economy with high unemployment, skyrocketing inflation, unending recession, and deepening social malaise brought on by your government’s misguided desire to “stick it to Putin”?
That’s a bad choice, isn’t it? Especially when a face-saving deal can be made at anytime. In fact, Biden could stop the fighting tomorrow if he extended the hand of friendship to Putin and declared that, yes, Ukraine will accept neutrality til the end of time and NATO expansion will stop ASAP.
That’s all it would take. Just extend the olive branch and Putin will ‘call off the dogs’. Guaranteed.
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/trump-said-we-should-get-along-with-russia-hes-right/
***
The War in Ukraine Marks the End of the American Century
Mike Whitney
The Unz Review
June 7, 2022
Excerpts:
“The ferocity of the confrontation in Ukraine shows that we’re talking about much more than the fate of the regime in Kiev. The architecture of the entire world order is at stake.” Sergei Naryshkin, Director of Foreign Intelligence
Here’s your ‘reserve currency’ thought for the day: Every US dollar is a check written on an account that is overdrawn by 30 trillion dollars.
It’s true. The “full faith and credit” of the US Treasury is largely a myth held together by an institutional framework that rests on a foundation of pure sand. In fact, the USD is not worth the paper it is printed on; it is an IOU flailing in an ocean of red ink. The only thing keeping the USD from vanishing into the ether, is the trust of credulous people who continue to accept it as legal tender.
But why do people remain confident in the dollar when its flaws are known to all? After all, America’s $30 trillion National Debt is hardly a secret, nor is the additional $9 trillion that’s piled up on the Fed’s balance sheet. That is a stealth debt of which the American people are completely unaware, but they are responsible for all the same.
In order to answer that question, we need to look at how the system actually works and how the dollar is propped up by the numerous institutions that were created following WW2. These institutions provide an environment for conducting history’s longest and most flagrant swindle, the exchange of high-ticket manufactured goods, raw materials and hard-labor for slips of green paper with dead presidents on them. One can only marvel at the genius of the elites who concocted this scam and then imposed it wholesale on the masses without a peep of protest. Of course, the system is accompanied by various enforcement mechanisms that swiftly remove anyone who tries to either break free from the dollar or, God help us, create an alternate system altogether. (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi come to mind.) But the fact is– aside from the institutional framework and the ruthless extermination of dollar opponents– there’s no reason why humanity should remain yoked to a currency that is buried beneath a mountain of debt and whose real value is virtually unknowable.
It wasn’t always like this. There was a time when the dollar was the strongest currency in the world and deserved its spot at the top of the heap.
...
The real reason the dollar has remained the world’s premier currency is because of the cartelization of Central Banking. The Western Central Banks are a de facto monopoly run by a small cabal of inter-breeding bottom-feeders who coordinate and collude on monetary policy in order to preserve their maniacal death-grip on the financial markets and the global economy. It’s a Monetary Mafia and– as George Carlin famously said: “You and I are not in it. You and I are not in the big club.” Bottom line: It is the relentless manipulation of interest rates, forward guidance and Quantitative Easing (QE) that has kept the dollar in its lofty but undeserved spot.
But all that is about to change due entirely to Biden’s reckless foreign policy which is forcing critical players in the global economy to create their own rival system. This is a real tragedy for the West that has enjoyed a century of nonstop wealth extraction from the developing world. Now– due to the economic sanctions on Russia– an entirely new order is emerging in which the dollar will be substituted for national currencies (processed through an independent financial settlement system) in bilateral trade deals until– later this year– Russia launches an exchange-traded commodities-backed currency that will be used by trading partners in Asia and Africa. Washington’s theft of Russia’s foreign reserves in April turbo-charged the current process which was further accelerated by banning of Russia from foreign markets. In short, US economic sanctions and boycotts have expanded the non-dollar zone by many orders of magnitude and forced the creation of a new monetary order.
How dumb is that? For decades the US has been running a scam in which it exchanges its fishwrap currency for things of genuine value. (oil, manufactured goods and labor) But now the Biden troupe has scrapped that system altogether and divided the world into warring camps.
But, why?
To punish Russia, is that it?
Yes, that’s it.
But, if that’s the case, then shouldn’t we try to figure out whether the sanctions actually work or not before we recklessly change the system?
Too late for that. The war on Russia has begun and the early results are already pouring in
...
Does anyone in Washington think about these things or are they all so drunk on their own press clippings they’ve completely lost touch with reality?
Here’s more from an article at RT:
“Even as the collective West continues to insist – against all observable reality – that the conflict in Ukraine is going well for Kiev, major media outlets are becoming increasingly uneasy with the situation on the economic front. More and more observers are admitting that the embargoes imposed by the US and its allies aren’t crushing the Russian economy, as originally intended, but rather their own.…
“Russia is winning the economic war,” the Guardian’s economics editor Larry Elliott declared on Thursday. “It is now three months since the west launched its economic war against Russia, and it is not going according to plan. On the contrary, things are going very badly indeed,” he wrote…
In a May 30 essay, Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins also said that the embargo had failed…
As Jenkins points out, the sanctions have actually raised the price of Russian exports such as oil and grain – thus enriching, rather than impoverishing, Moscow while leaving Europeans short of gas and Africans running out of food.” (“As sanctions fail to work and Russia’s advance continues, Western media changes its tune on Ukraine”, RT)
Did you catch that part about “Russia winning the economic war”? What do you think that means in practical terms?
Does it mean that Washington’s failed attempt to maintain its global hegemony by “weakening” Russia is actually putting enormous strains on the Transatlantic Alliance and NATO that will trigger a re-calibration of relations leading to a defiant rejection of the “rules-based system.”
Is that what it means? Is Europe going to split with Washington and leave America to sink beneath its $30 trillion ocean of red ink?
Yes, that’s exactly what it means.
Uncle Sam’s 30 Year Bender
Proponents of Washington’s proxy-war have no idea of the magnitude of their mistake or how much damage they are inflicting on their own country. The Ukraine debacle is the culmination of 30 years of bloody interventions that have brought us to a tipping point where the nation’s fortunes are about to take a dramatic turn-for-the-worse. As the dollar-zone shrinks, standards of living will plunge, unemployment will soar, and the economy will go into a downward-death spiral.
Washington has greatly underestimated its vulnerability to catastrophic geopolitical blowback that is about to bring the New American Century to a swift and excruciating end.
A wise leader would do everything in his power to pull us back from the brink.
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-war-in-ukraine-marks-the-end-of-the-american-century/
***
No comments:
Post a Comment