In light of current events Moldova and Georgia have applied for EU membership. For its part, Moldova has been engaged in a tug-of-war between the West and Moscow and yet unlike Ukraine and Georgia it has been able thus far to avoid violence.
And yet both Georgia and Moldova will struggle to meet
EU-entry requirements as both nations have unclear borders and claims which
will prove highly problematic to the mandarins and other bureaucrats in
Brussels. Unless the nations are willing to drop their peripheral claims, it's
unlikely the EU will take them on. That said, the Ukraine War is still raging and
its settlement might resolve some of these territorial issues – especially if
Moscow is forced to retreat in the end.
It's worth stating that the US is waging a new form of
warfare – this new and aggressive sanctions programme (and the accompanying
propaganda) represents a watershed, a new type of asymmetrical warfare. It is
effectively a doctrinal statement to the world akin to Hiroshima, Gulf War I,
Clinton's 1999 Yugoslavia air campaign, and Bush's pre-emptive doctrine
regarding Iraq.
All of these incidents were strategically symbolic and
declarative. Hiroshima made a declaration regarding US hegemony and sent a
signal to Moscow regarding the post-war order and America's claims. Gulf War I
(and the Panama invasion of 1989) sent a message regarding US hegemony and
claims at the end of the Cold War. Clinton's 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia was a
statement regarding American military supremacy, the inescapable reach of its
air power, and marked a substantive move toward the goal of unipolarity. The
message was America can hit you anywhere in the world – the trans-continental
feats of the hitherto secretive B-2 were trumpeted. And Bush's invasion of Iraq
was a statement that the US cannot be opposed. Any nation that dares to do so
faces destruction.
This is not to say that these goals were moral, realistic, or
went unchallenged. Nor is it to suggest they were wholly successful. And yet
this current economic warfare is noteworthy in that it's another one of these
moments – a symbolic statement to the wider world, a kind of geo-political
white paper in action.
It represents a global warning regarding the dangers of
challenging the US-based economic order. Anyone who dares to do so will be brought
down and in short order. Russia is already on its knees and many other nations
would have already collapsed under the weight and intensity of these sanctions.
It's a kind of financial blitzkrieg that eclipses on a 'macro' level the
previous American economic attacks on nations like Venezuela, Chile, and Iran.
It has real and very sharp teeth and represents a threat to
every nation. Directed (doctrinally speaking) primarily at Beijing and the CCP
– China being the lone nation that has an actual chance of challenging and
resisting such an attack. But this is only if Beijing breaks away from the
dollar and is able (and in a short time) to build a substantial economic
coalition. If successful, it would break the US dominated world order and would
certainly signal a war with Washington. The US would have no choice and in the
past any nation or ruler that has even initiated a challenge to US financial
dominance has faced assassination, war, or at the least punitive sanctions.
The statement with regard to Russian sanctions is clear but
there are means of resistance. While Venezuela has not faced an attack of this
intensity, the nation has been effectively broken. And yet the regime has
survived but only due to authoritarian rule and an oligarchy rooted in its oil
resources. Any other nation without such a lucrative, abundant, and high-demand
resource would have collapsed. Additionally in the case of Venezuela, the US
would rather see the nation intact and its government replaced as opposed to total
chaos and destruction. This would be undesirable for US markets and Washington
wouldn't want to see that kind of instability in its own hemisphere.
And this touches on some larger questions. The Ukraine
conflict is about geopolitics but the resource and economic angles also need to
be understood. This is part of a larger context of energy, control of
increasingly limited natural resources, and the market angles to these
questions. It would be a mistake to associate this war with Nordstream-2 but at
the same time it would be just as much of a mistake to omit it from the
discussion and from the calculations.
The US fossil fuels industry and Wall Street have now scored
a major victory in this regard. Nordstream-2 is effectively dead and German
Chancellor Olaf Scholz has now announced that Germany will build terminals to
receive US Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) shipped across the Atlantic. Without
Russian gas, Germany has no choice. You can be sure champagne bottles were
being opened in Washington and on Wall Street – it was a major victory for the
Biden administration.
As recently stated by Antonia Juhasz, this war is not like
Iraq which involved the direct seizure of oil assets for Western companies –
something also seen in the US-occupied zone of Northeast Syria.
Nevertheless the issues that sparked the war and one of the
layers to the dispute is related to markets, questions of finance, and the
increasing utilisation and weaponisation of natural resources as a means of
geopolitical pressure.
For several decades academics have talked of the pending
resource wars and how they would dominate the twenty-first century. We are already
in the midst of them and Ukraine is part of this trajectory. They are not as
many imagined them, as the packaging and propaganda are obscured and
resource-related issues do not exist in a vacuum. They are connected to other
geopolitical and historical realities and yet make no mistake, the world is in
a struggle for resources and these conflicts are exacerbated by growing demand
– driven by industry, technology, and growing populations.
Contrary to the arguments made by the various Libertarian
sects, the potential for economic growth is in fact limited. Through market
machinations and fiscal alchemy they envision unlimited growth and yet they
fail to take into account that resources are finite and at present we're seeing
the deadly ramifications of their zero-sum economic character. The world is
getting desperate for these resources and the technologies being developed to
extract them are becoming reckless. And yet the extant industries (through
their political operatives) aggressively block any attempts to create
alternatives. And it must be admitted, the shift in industries and
infrastructure will certainly result in economic and social upheaval.
Contrary to the narratives posited by the talking heads on
the news-entertainment channels, there are no easy answers and the last thing
Americans want to hear is that they need to consume less.
As a consequence of such greed and consumption, we're going
to see more war – all the more as so few people understand this and the elite
that are heavily invested in this larger economy are desperate to perpetuate
the existing order. They are clearly willing for millions to die in order to
have the mastery and control these resources. And the deaths will come not just
in the ranks of their political opponents or the people of other nations, but
even among their own expendable populations.
The geopolitical chessboard is moving even while the forces
behind it are complex and rarely understood.
And yet in this hour we're also witnessing other nations ramp
up military spending. Militarisation has long been the goal among certain
elements within industrial society and those political and financial forces and
interests are capitalising on this moment of angst and hysteria. Suddenly
military budgets are soaring and yet clearly it's not simply because they want
to help Ukraine or are afraid of Russia. They're riding the wave of cultural
fear and passions – an old but very effective trick.
First, there's Australia. Since Evangelical Scott Morrison
took office as prime minister, the desires of the nationalist factions in
Canberra and the American Right have been fulfilled. Morrison has steered his
nation into an anti-Beijing coalition and has put Australia on a path toward
militarisation. Boosting the military budget in terms of weapons purchases and
personnel, Australia is now committed to building a nuclear submarine base and
has further committed itself to anti-China military provocations at the behest
of the United States. The entire tone has changed and Morrison has taken an
openly militarist line.
Having kicked the pendulum of Australian politics, it would
seem the whole country is now on a different trajectory and politicians are
clamouring to outdo each other in their calls for anti-Chinese opposition and
increased military provocation. Given the present ramped up climate surrounding
the anti-Russia campaign and the war in Ukraine, their calls are dangerous and
even fanatical.
But more important than Australia is the question of Germany.
For now Berlin has given in to the demands of Wall Street regarding natural gas
and the energy markets but it's clear that under the leadership of Scholz and
his coalition with the Greens, Germany is planning for the future and re-militarising
under the cover of the Ukraine War. Thus, the episode is being used as a
justification for dreams long held within the corridors of German power. Since
unification in 1990, there have been those in Germany who have dreamed of the
nation reassuming its place of historic leadership and honour. Haunted by the
nation's terrible history, there has been a long struggle over how to pursue
these goals and to ensure that the same traps don't ensnare them once again. It
was clear that about ten years ago the pro-militarisation party had won the
debate and Right-wing nationalism would once more be accepted. It was just a
question of implementation, and the Ukraine War (it would seem) has provided
the moment. Scholz has now tripled the budget and there's a frenzy of buying.
It's also lining the pockets of the US weapons industry and American
stockholders are sure to profit from the move – even if in the long term it
counters the wishes of Washington's strategic thinkers. I know for a fact that
local trucking companies connected to Pennsylvania's foundries and
manufacturing industry are experiencing a serious uptick in work related to
German orders for bombs and other military equipment.
The US may have the upper hand in European politics at the
moment, but the SPD and other political actors in both Germany and Brussels are
planning for a post-US European order – one that will require a European Army
as opposed to NATO. It won't be possible unless the leading nations like France
and Germany 'step up' and militarize.
Unilateral militarisation by Germany raises red flags –
though not as many as might have appeared in the 1990's. And yet with the
Ukraine War no one is even questioning the move. In fact Zelenskiy is permitted
to berate Germany for not being aggressive enough and (in a somewhat stunning
move) can even openly appeal to their militaristic past (and its Ukrainian
collaborators) and this is not even considered taboo.
The proxy war with Russia is being used as a cover. In the
short term the spending is directed against Russia but in the long term the militarisation
campaign is about Berlin's wider set of goals vis-à-vis Europe and the United
States.
It interesting that this would take place under an SPD
government which has historically been friendly (or at least friendlier) to
Moscow, but they are pursuing larger long-term domestic and European goals. And
the Greens in Europe (who again are part of the coalition government with the
SPD) actually have a rather militaristic edge to them having adopted the
humanitarian couched imperialism that became so popular in the 1990's. In this
respect they (like the Democrats in the United States) are despite their claims
not actually Left-wing.
Like Germany, Japan is also pursuing a record breaking
military budget. Riding the wave of Ukraine war hysteria, Tokyo is also
pursuing its own militarisation plans – dreams long sought by the Japanese
Right. And as the situation in Ukraine escalates and becomes more tense, the anxiety
and stress are spreading to the Asian theatre and stoking the US campaign to arrest
Beijing's challenge to its hegemony and its empire in Asia.
In Canada, we're also seeing an increased military budget.
Now Deputy Prime Minister, and arguably the most influential member of
Trudeau's cabinet, Chrystia Freeland has long pursued a militarist line
especially with regard to questions of Russia and Ukraine. Canada has a
significant Ukrainian minority and Freeland herself is part of that community
and has familial ties to Kyiv's fascist past. And clearly she's seeking higher
office and if Trudeau doesn't toe the line and demonstrate proper zeal for the
Anti-Russia campaign he may find that his powerful deputy supplants him.
Once again there's the real and growing danger of a
1914-style frenzy. The calls for war and escalation are becoming louder and
Biden may find he's unable to manage these forces – their unleashing is in no
small part due to his machinations. The situation can become unmanageable and
one cannot but think of the Guns of August and the miscalculated march toward
world war. Sadly the lessons of history are not learned and indeed more than a
decade ago it was clear that the world was headed down this dangerous road. The
events of the past few years and now the Ukraine War in particular have brought
the world to the brink. And rather, than pause, reflect, or work to counter
this trajectory, the heirs of 1914 are simply stoking the fire and waving
bloody shirts.