3 ms·
The first paragraph of this article is not very convincing. The history of Europe over the past couple centuries is mostly about the rise and fall of industria
by photochemsyn 4y ago
The first paragraph of this article is not very convincing. The history of Europe over the past couple centuries is mostly about the rise and fall of industrial-based global empires - the French and British imperial agenda in particular dominated much of the 19th century, often in competition with Russia, and the rise German imperial ambitions in the early 20th century (in particular, I'd say, German plans to move in on the Middle East oil zones where Britain and France had been established for some times) set the stage for World Wars One and Two. With the destruction of Europe at the end of World War II, and the downfall of the Japanese imperial dream in the Pacific, the stage was set for two new great imperial powers to stuggle to divide up the world between them - American vs. the Soviet Union. By 1954 the last remnants of the British and French Empire had mostly been consigned to the dustbins of history, and although remnants persisted for decades afterwards, as in Vietnam, Algeria, etc., it was clear the struggle for control of global resources (such as Middle Eastern oil) now was dominated by Soviet-American conflict (with Vietnam in the 1960s and Afghanistan in the 1980s involving American and Soviet soldiers fighting proxy forces supplied by the opposing side). While there was a lull after the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the fact that NATO persisted to encroach eastward up towards Russian borders then set the stage for the new outbreak of war between these aging 'great powers' in Ukraine (which is quite like 80's Afghanistan/ 60's Vietam, only in Europe).
Anyone claiming the primary motivation in this record conflict had anything to do with fighting for democracy or promoting socialism should be laughed out of the room. This was all about control of mineral, oil, agricultural and similar resources and, often underappreciated, of the cash flows arising from those resources (aka petrodollar recycling on the American side). The propagandists would like to promote a story of good vs. evil but it's really just a story of two greedy thugs fighting over terriotory, not so different than the organized crime cartels portrayed in The Godfather and similar popular Hollywood movies.
As far as Ukraine today, any informed observer can see that the real prize in this conflict is control of access to the lucrative European energy market, a fight dating back to 2003 or so when Putin broke with Wall Street on petrodollar recycling, instituting his own local oligarchy of oil wealth. If he hadn't done that, this war in Ukraine would be treated the same as the Saudi war on Yemen's separatist tribal groups (who started off fighting for parliamentary democracy, in fact) - the NYT and WaPo would have wagged on about the necessity of suppressing the violent neo-Nazi militias in the region, as they did with 'Al Qaeda in Yemen' as the justification for Saudi military intervention there. This doesn't fit the desired simplistic morality play story, even if it is accurate.
This of brings us to the Italian city-states, though in something of a different light. Here Machiavelli can be seen as the original tutor of the organized crime cartels, and of the rise of the 'stationary bandits' who came to dominate political life in the region.
https://broadstreet.blog/2021/04/05/the-rise-of-the-stationary-bandit/ https://broadstreet.blog/2021/04/05/the-rise-of-the-stationa...
> "Mancur Olson famously argues that if rulers expect to stay in power for a long time, they will promote economic growth so they have something to steal in the future. These rulers become stationary bandits, which distinguishes them from the roving bandits who simply plunder and maximize short-term gains."
That seems to fit the current political trajectory in the USA over the past decade, with the rise of the robber barons aided by government bailouts and handouts over the past two decades or so. The Iraq War was a profitable adventure for some, the 2008 economic crash and bailouts for others, the Covid CARES act and now the billions being recycled through Ukraine and the boost in oil prices flowing into the trough.
- pjc50 4y ago> As far as Ukraine today, any informed observer can see that the real prize in this conflict is control of access to the lucrative European energy market, a fight dating back to 2003 or so when Putin broke with Wall Street on petrodollar recycling, instituting his own local oligarchy of oil wealth. If he hadn't done that, this war in Ukraine would be treated the same as the Saudi war on Yemen's separatist tribal groups (who started off fighting for parliamentary democracy, in fact) - the NYT and WaPo would have wagged on about the necessity of suppressing the violent neo-Nazi militias in the region, as they did with 'Al Qaeda in Yemen' as the justification for Saudi military intervention there. This doesn't fit the desired simplistic morality play story, even if it is accurate. None of this makes sense; the oligarchs stored as much wealth as possible outside Russia, where it was less likely to be seized (until the war flipped that!). The Saudi situation is a proxy war with Iran, who are arming the Houthi factions. That undoubtedly _is_ about maintaining easy flow of oil. The simpler solution to Ukraine would indeed have been to look the other way, as we did to the airliner shootdown and the use of chemical weapons in the UK. It's kind of remarkable how effective the Ukranian "propaganda" has been at rallying support for them.
- photochemsyn 4y agoThe struggle over who controls the cash flows arising from fossil fuels sales to Europe dates back to 2003, when Putin rejected an Exxon bid for 51% control in what was then Russia's primary oil center, Yukos. This would have meant Russia would have lost control of decisions over production levels, and much of the oil money from Europe would then have been recycled into the New York - London banking system. Putin's persecution of the London/New York affiliated oligarchs - Khodorkovsky, Berezinsky, etc. - dates to this era. It's no coincidence that the wave of US-sponsored 'Color Revolutions' then began in 2004, with an attempted instigation of something like the current Ukraine conflict in Georgia in 2008 being pushed hard by none other than Condi Rice (Chevron named an oil tanker after her for awhile). This dynamic also played out in Syria, where the Obama Administration was pushing Assad to take a proposed Qatar-Saudi-Israeli pipeline offer (2009-2010), which Assad rejected in favor of a Russia-Iran pipeline offer. We can be pretty sure if he'd taken the former there'd have been no massive CIA funding of Syrian rebel groups and Assad's domestic repression would have been viewed no differently than Saudi Arabia or Bahrain's by Washington. Indeed even Trump strongly opposed the Nordstream pipeline and its expansion, and promoted LNG exports to Europe as much as Biden has (although the destruction of the Nordstream pipeline with explosive charges seems to be quite the reckless escalation of that agenda). Oil stocks in the USA are up 50% since fall 2021... Again there are no 'good guys' in these conflicts, it's just organized crime cartels fighting over control of markets and resources. They do spend a lot of on PR budgets to hide this reality from the public as much as possible. Not sure whether this view would be characterized or 'misinformation' or 'disinformation', however. (They used to classify propaganda as black, grey and white, incidentally).