AdSense

  • Latest News

    March 24, 2015

    The Promised Land



    March 24, 2015
    Rostislav Ishchenko for Cont
    Translated by Kristina Rus

    We live in a transition period. The modern world can be compared to the Soviet Union, circa 1989. It is clear that what used to be, will never be. But it is not yet clear how it will be. And there are still several options for further development on the table.

    What are we leaving behind?

    We are moving away from the American uni-polar world, which finally took shape after the collapse of the USSR, but in its main features, formed in the 1980's. This model has no chance to survive, even if the US can somehow win in the global confrontation. Wars are sometimes won randomly, and no one was able to change the course of history so far.

    The main American problem lies on the surface, but, as it always happens in such cases, nobody pays attention. Not accidentally a leaf is hidden in the woods. In order to achieve victory over Russia the U.S. was forced to destroy their own world order. Because by and large they set fire to their allies or countries that were willing to negotiate with the US under the most favorable conditions for Washington.


    Who perished in the fire of American aggression against Russia?


    First, Georgia of Saakashvili. Did USA have a more devoted ally? No. Michael Nikolozovich was not even an ally - a faithful servant.

    Burned the regimes of North Africa, oriented towards the US (Tunisia and Egypt).

    Burned Libya, the head of which, Muammar Qaddafi, carried out a classical multi-vector policy and was a more active friend of American allies in the EU than of Russia.

    Syria is burning, not burnt out just because it was able to rely on Russian support. Meanwhile, Bashar Assad, prior to the beginning of aggression against his country made significant concessions to the United States. He withdrew Syrian troops from Lebanon and allowed the Americans to reformat this country to suit their needs. In general, the heir of Hafez al-Assad positioned himself as an enlightened ruler of a European kind, aspiring to a gradual democratization of the Syrian political and public life.

    Burned Ukraine, in which all the governments and all the presidents were managed by the U.S. Embassy and did not even particularly conceal it. American diplomats, American business, American intelligence and American non-governmental organizations (often more dangerous than intelligence services) felt at home not only in Kiev but also in Donetsk, Kharkov, Odessa. Their structures (as well as the structures of Ukrainian grant-eaters created by them) even under Yanukovych were successfully based in Kharkov and Donetsk Universities, and local authorities did not know how to please any guest from the USA or the EU.

    And these are only the most obvious cases, and only in the last seven years. Moreover, if you carefully look at the situation in the EU, it becomes clear that in political and economic terms Europe is now much less stable than Ukraine was two years ago or Syria five years ago. Europe really is the next candidate to be set ablaze by the US. And the EU is well aware of it, and is therefore nervous.

    That is, trying to hold down, to stretch the resources of Russia, ultimately, to undermine its stability, the USA is forced (since it can't bring instability to the territory of Russia or its allies in the EEU) to destabilize the world Russia controls.

    They are not dumb or crazy. They know perfectly well that we all live in a global, interdependent world and, therefore, Russia will have to react to certain events, because her interests will be affected (including vital interests). Further the calculation is that because the United States controls a more extensive resource base, Moscow will crack earlier than the negative consequences will arrive for Washington. This calculation was wrong.

    The U.S. did not take into account that the nominal paper GDP generated using bank speculation, is good for propaganda. It also justifies the existence of such a financial instrument as the US dollar, not guaranteed by anything, working as a global reserve currency. But in crises and global confrontations, real tangible assets gain value: minerals, plants, agricultural products, etc. - all that what in recent decades the U.S. economy had been actively shedding. Of course it is good to control the company that invents iPhones. But, first, if a partner refuses to exchange iPhones (without which one can survive) for oil, gas, bread, etc., a manufacturer of cutting-edge gadgets will die of hunger. Secondly, even the production of iPhones is done in China, that is, if something unexpected happens, they may not even sell them to the Americans.

    Of course, this is a simplified example, but we have no room for a detailed examination of all complex economic connections of the modern world. For this we need to write the work of size and quality of the "Capital" of Marx. It is enough to acknowledge that the US owns assets which have only nominal value, while their opponents, including Russia have real resources. And Washington cannot change this situation overnight.

    As a result, with each new round of confrontation the U.S. has spent more resources than their opponents, and their resource base was depleted faster. Trying to break a losing campaign the U.S. lit up more and more countries and regions, gradually moving from the global periphery (which the European allies were prepared to reluctantly sacrifice) to the historical citadel of the West - Europe.

    The closer the global fire got to the EU, the more uneasy became the American allies and the more doubt they had about the American strategy. Ultimately, though very late, but in early 2015, the EU began to increasingly resist the US. That is, Washington has lost unconditional control over the resource base of its European allies, and this brings it to the level of the weakest party already by nominal GDP (not counting the endless backlog in the matter of the quality of the resource base).

    Last chance for the U.S. to avoid defeat is to ignite Europe (if the latter is unwilling to stand up against Russia on the side of Washington) and hope that a continent of half a billion will attract quite a lot of Russian (and Chinese) resources so that the US will get a break for licking the wounds.

    Please note, the US is forced to destroy the world, which was the base of their military-political and financial-economic domination. But that is like burning down your own house, in the hope that the fire will spread to the neighbor and his estate will also burn. What will happen to the neighbor is up in the air, but your own house will suffer for sure. Any dominance rests exclusively on a voluntary agreement to comply. There are always few masters, compared to the oppressed, and no armed force is able to ensure the preservation of power, if the oppressed rise up all at the same time. Therefore, the master must provide the oppressed with the bare minimum, under which, a rebellion becomes unprofitable. If the oppressed have a roof over their heads, food for self and family and a guarantee of preservation (and ideally a slow improvement) of the standard of living in the future, then no one will jump on guns. Similarly, countries will not rebel against a world hegemon, able to send gunboats, if at least their ruling class is guaranteed a certain stability and a minimal level of prosperity and independence in making internal decisions.

    But when all this disappears and the hegemon itself ignites his world, he becomes a threat for its partners, allies and vassals. They want a modest but stable life behind the owner, and the owner makes them die for unclear reasons.

    Thus, in case of defeat of the US, their world will be dismantled, as unfair and not acceptable to the majority of the population and the countries of the planet. And a hypothetical American victory can be achieved only with the full burning down by America of their own world. Otherwise it can not compensate for resource deficiency.

    That is, even if the US wins, it will be depleted, traditional ties broken, politico-economic system, which brought the planet to disaster, compromised. Meanwhile, the rest of the world must be so destabilized and fragmented that no force is sufficient to establish control over it. Under conditions of long-accomplished transfer of industry outside the West in general, and specifically the U.S., being a country of bank clerks and central offices of trans-national corporations, will not be able to ensure the supply of necessary resources in sufficient quantity and at the right time to critical points. Globally, it will be comparable to the rupture of economic relations during the collapse of the USSR.

    That is, the victory of the United States in the global confrontation will cause mankind to begin to restore the system from the level of economic and trade relations of around the XVII century. A paradox, but for US this is defeat, as any part of the global economic system can survive under autarky, except for the USA. USA - is the administrative center of the American world, and when any system is falling apart, the management center suffers first. It doesn't produce anything except administrative services and if its administration is no longer needed (in a collapse of an administered system), then it has nothing else to offer on the market to exchange for the required goods. For this reason, the specialists of the federal level suffered with the collapse of the USSR, and their former subordinates on the Republican level won. The first lost the system which they administered, and the second lost the bosses and they became independent administrators of new, albeit smaller systems.

    Thus, the world as we know it is doomed irrespective of the outcome of global confrontation, but, as in the case of the normal development process in the foreseeable future (medium term), the US should lose, and the question arises, what are the potential winners going to built?

    The Future

    For now the answer is disappointing. Everything that is created today within the BRICS or the EEU, everything that China and Russia are trying to offer the world - the creation of structures, alternative to American or those working in the interests of the United States, but founded on the same basis. Instead of IMF the BRICS Bank is created. Yuan is successfully trying to displace the dollar from the position of the world's reserve currency, and the ruble and a number of other currencies are fighting for the right to keep the company of the yuan. BRICS countries are trying to dominate the markets from which they are more or less successfully pushing the US exactly the same way, as the USA used to dominate them.

    That is, so far the struggle is not for the creation of a new system in place of the obsolete, but for changing the system administrator. And the sole administrator (USA) is going to be replaced by the team of administrators. The problem, however, is not that the U.S. poorly controlled the system, but that the system is expired and cannot exist in its original form. Simply due to some objective and subjective reasons the US was not able to begin to reform the system, in order to preserve its dominant role in the new world.

    But the task that the US had failed, possessing all the resources of the system and forced declarative loyalty (at least until 2012) of all the major potential competitors, especially will not be resolved by a collective hegemon, which will inherit the system, which degraded and squandered resources in a global confrontation. In addition, the fact of a replacement of the US by a collective hegemon will reduce its administrative capacities, as many issues will not be resolved quickly in a need to reconcile divergent positions and interests of the major players, and in certain cases, of associated groups of states.

    In order for the instability plaguing the planet for the last decades to be finally over, there is a need to offer and implement the idea of a new system, which will replace the expired one. I want to make a distinction, new does not mean fair. In the history of mankind many systems had changed. Every time people had the illusion that the new system will be fair, humane, and a wonderful new world will be created on the planet. And each time they were disappointed.

    In fact, the task of the new political-economic system has always been to emancipate the relevant social forces and, on this basis to give a new impetus to the development of socio-political and economic relations. In the first stage the needs of establishing, implementing and running the new system dramatically increased the vertical and horizontal social mobility, causing an impression in a society of greater social justice and greater opportunities, but in twenty or thirty years the system would stabilize, harden, the new elites strengthened their dominant position and everything went back to normal.

    This is neither good nor bad, it is a property of any system, it is inevitable. Ultimately, it is the gradual change of systems from the obsolete to promising that ensured the progress of humanity, by which today we don't live in neither caves nor chicken huts.

    Today our problem is not a lack of abstract justice, but that we know what we want to get rid of, but we don't yet know what we want to create. And until we find it and create it we will wander around a desert for 40 years and look for the promised land, which can be very close.

    • Blogger Comments
    • Facebook Comments

    0 comments:

    Post a Comment

    Item Reviewed: The Promised Land Rating: 5 Reviewed By: Kristina Kharlova
    Scroll to Top
    \