Our Season of Creation

  • The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that Argentina must pay hedge funds that refused to compromise on repayment of Argentinean bonds should be all the evidence Americans need that the Supreme Court is out of control. Many were jarred awake by the Roberts Court’s ruling in favor of Citizens United. However, efforts to remedy the problem have been limited to repealing the offending ruling. It’s obvious now that this approach fails to address the structural permissiveness and consequent moral threat of the Supreme Court.

    Subsequently, we’ve seen the McCutcheon ruling, which is the equivalent of a smirk and a wink on the sunny, untroubled face of Justice Roberts, informing us that Citizen’s United was no fluke. This ruling struck down aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined.

    The Court’s ruling against Argentina and in favor of hedge funds with no scruples about bringing down a sovereign nation should be the final straw, but it’s getting harder these days to drum up good old fashioned moral outrage. The hedge funds have even asked for and received a ruling that allows them to use U.S. courts to force Argentina to disclose the amount and location of its assets. This should be stopped before it goes any further.

    In case anyone is under the impression that Argentina is a deadbeat country, as the sharks would like you to believe, here is some of the history behind Argentina’s debt. After years of dictatorship and shameless colonialist collusion by a series of supposedly democratic leaders, Argentina was left with a crushing debt. The last of these mafioso-supported ‘democrats’ was shown the door by Argentina’s voters when they elected President Néstor Kirchner in 2003. Argentina’s current president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was elected to the presidency in 2007, and reelected in 2011. The Kirchners belong to the Peronist persuasion, associated with Isabel Peron who was deposed by coup d’état in 1976.

    Twelve years ago Argentina defaulted on $100 billion worth of bonds. Even though Argentina’s courts demonstrated the fraudulent origins of the debt, the government restructured its debt twice, in 2005 and 2010, in an effort to meet its obligations. Most of the holders of Argentinean bonds accepted repayment of 30 cents on the dollar. However there were holdouts—‘vulture capitalists’ who bought some of the defaulted debt at a steep discount and now want face value for the bonds plus interest. Shockingly, the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor. It is feared this will have serious consequences, both in the sovereign debt markets and in the future ability of sovereign governments to remain solvent through debt restructuring. The holdouts are New York hedge funds NML Capital LTD, a unit of billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer’s Elliot management Corp, and Aurelius Capital Management.

    They would like you to believe the Argentinean public benefited from this debt. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ever since independence 200 years ago, Argentina’s foreign debt has been a source of impoverishment and corruption. Since the first loan negotiated by Rivadavia in 1824 with the British Bank Baring Brothers, the debt was used to enrich Argentinean financiers and allow them to control finances and empty the country of its wealth. The British government donated a statue of British colonialist George Canning to Argentina in 1857 in recognition of the debt.

    Foreign debt has always gone hand in hand with big business. With complicity of nearly every government from Bartolomé Miter and Manuel A. Quintana, to Carlos Menem and Fernando de la Rúa. This created generations of technocrats and bureaucrats who favored banks and international corporations over their own country. Educated at Harvard, Chicago, Oxford or Buenos Aires, they include lobbyists Manual Garcia and Luis Belaustegui; and heads of the banking system, Pedro Pou, Roque Macarrone and Christian Colombo. These characters were administrators of a debt born in 1970s under the military dictatorship.

    This situation became much worse after America’s defeat in Vietnam. Oil prices were rising and petrodollars flooded the world. Banks were offering credit at 3%. This was the birth of Third World debt. By 1981, interest rates had risen to 16%, leading to the bankruptcy of these Third World countries. An alliance of foreign banks and multinationals came to power in Argentina. After seven years of neoliberal policies, the dictatorship left the country with $45 billion in debt. Twenty-three billion of this was owed by multiantionals operating in the country, including Citibank, First Boston, Chase Manhattan, Bank of America, Banco de Italia, Banco de Londres, Banco Espanol, Banco Frances, Deutsche Bank, Banco Rio and Banco Ouilmes, Banco Galica, and many more. Other debtors included Ess, Fiat, IBM, Ford, Mercedes Benz, Swift Pirelli, as well as local groups owned by Perez Companc, Bulgheroni-Brida, Macri, Techint, Fortabat, Pescarmona, Gruneisen, Soldati, Cogasco, Celulosa, and others. The state was saddled with this debt by a bureaucrat of the dictatorship, Domingo Cavallo. He was a ‘super-Minister’ of Finance in the Menem and de la Rúa governments.

    Even though Argentina’s courts ruled that parent companies were responsible for the debts of their subsidiaries, these swindlers made the government responsible for them.

    But the foreign debt was also illegitimate. Much of it was created when the parent companies made loans to their subsidiaries. These loans were internal movements within the companies, but they were assigned to foreign debt. Dollars were bought in Argentina and deposited in the U.S. With this deposit as collateral, you got a loan to purchase more dollars and so on. This is known as ‘bicycling’ funds. Because of the difference in interest rates, participants, mainly the big conglomerates, became wealthy.

    Usury has been another problem. It is estimated that with reasonable interest rates, Argentina’s debt could have been paid by 1988. But there have been no reasonable rates, interest or otherwise. At the end of Alfonsin’s presidency, the foreign debt was close to $54 billion. Then Menem let the creditors decide what they were owed with no debate in the Congress. This ignored the constitution and the ruling of the courts that the debt was fraudulent. Ten years later the debt was $130 billion.

    Lately you’d never guess that the United States has a history of opposition to this type of fraud. In 1898, the Americans invented a concept called the Theory of the Odious Debt. At the end of the Spanish occupation of Cuba, Spanish banks were demanding payment from the Cuban government of loans they had made to the colonial government. The Americans said that if the Cuban people didn’t benefit from these loans, they couldn’t be called public debt. Further, in 1923, a British bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, lent Tinoco, a petty tyrant of Costa Rica, a sum that he used for personal goals. The bank proceeded to demand payment from Costa Rica. In a law suit arbitrated by former President William Howard Taft, it was decided this was a private debt and the public was not responsible.

    The worst of Argentina’s betrayals came from supposed democrats. Social Democrat Raúl Alfonsin promised to defend human rights, but instead took the country into austerity. Carlos Menem claimed to adhere to the policies of the neo-Peronist party. His presidency coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the theory of the ‘End of History’, globalization, and neoliberal democracies in Latin America. It took him only a few days to change his stripes. He immediately cozied up with the conservative minority directed by the former rebel officer Alvaro Alsogaray. His policies were dictated by the United States, the World Bank, and the IMF. Of course, other political leaders and labor leaders jumped ship as well.

    Menem needed a biased Supreme Court to carry out his plans, as well as control of the federal courts. Parliament delegated special powers to him. In one month he had passed his Reform of the State law, which opened up privatizations. Menem controlled inventories with no accompanying balance sheets. For the privatization of Argentina’s two largest companies, YPF and Gas del Estado, large bribes were offered to members of Argentina’s congress, which they happily accepted.

    Argentina’s budget had to be approved by Washington. The convertibility Plan, in which one peso equals one dollar, stopped inflation but ruined industries. Previously, the country had produced 95% of what it consumed. Afterward, it imported garments, meat, dairy, fruit, pasta, etc. After the artificial elimination of inflation, banks lent at 50% per year when rates in the U.S. and Europe were 7%.

    The debt was now irredeemable. Cavallo negotiated with U.S. Secretary Nicholas Brady with the result that state enterprises were purchased with national bonds pegged at 15% of face value, but redeemable at 100%. The country lost more than $30 billion. Whole concerns were sold without debt and the government took responsibility for the layoffs of workers. The main investors were Spanish and French.

    Entei was sold for a fifth of its value to Telefonica and France Telecom, who saddled it with a 6 billion dollar debt.

    Aerolineas Argentinas was profitable and owned 37 planes. The Spanish line Iberia mortgaged them to purchase the business. Then they stripped it of its assets.

    The state water utility was taken over by a European syndicate headed by Suez and Vivendi. The works agreed to were not completed and 800,000 people were left without drinking water. A million were without sewers.

    The worst case was the railroads, which represented a fatal blow to the economy.

    The state paid out subsidies to these privatized concerns and eventually owed the World Bank the $700 million it borrowed to pay for the layoffs and another $700 million in interest. Normally anyone who uses public property belonging to another country has to pay a fee. These companies never paid it, but then they financed all the campaigns, the governments, the coups d’état, and all the public works.

    Then came the liquidation of Argentina’s oil and gas industry, an industry that was said to be a model for the world. In this, Argentina is a unique case. These industries were given up without losing a war.

    Oil was discovered in 1907 in Patagonia. YPF was created in 1923 at the orders of General Mosconi. When YPF was created, it was the first state enterprise in the world. Oil was considered strategic and the sale of fuel, of national interest. If the international price rose, YPF kept the price low, based on its costs rather than the market price.

    Hell hath no fury like Big Oil scorned.

    When YPF was sold, reserves that had been allocated for the next 25 years were valued at the equivalent of 9 months. It was so irregular that Menam had to deal with it personally. An outside company was hired to underestimate the reserves. A year later they appeared in the accounts of the Spanish firm Repsol at their real value.

    Gas del Estado was estimated at $25 billion by Petrobras Company. After being appraised by international consultants it was sold for $2.5 billion. Repsol took control and polluted entire groundwater systems destroying the usefulness of the land in those areas. And Carlos Menam was honored in Washington as the creator of the Argentinean miracle. ((Argentina’s Economic Collapse. Available: http://youtube/VK494Judxvg))And now the U.S. Supreme Court seems intent on finishing the job these hooligans started.

    The Roberts Court has taken possession of an unholy fortress—a constitutional fortress of our own making. If we agree that the problem is the lack of constitutional restraint on justices, it will be clear that caution and wisdom are needed to correct it, but also that something must be done. If we fail to act, we may as well forget about trying to make the world a better place for ordinary people. If we allow Argentina to be brought down by vulture capitalists and our own Supreme Court, we don’t deserve a better place.

  • There are several criticisms of the My Brother’s Keeper initiative, but they are not what I want to talk about here. I think the most meaningful part of this discussion is a letter to President Obama voicing concerns about his initiative and signed by 200 black men. Yes, it’s another criticism, but the thing I want to talk about is the signers’ understanding that efforts at reform won’t succeed if black men leave their mothers and sisters and daughters behind. And that is exactly what such programs require them to do.

    The letter’s signers are concerned that President Obama’s initiative for helping men and boys of color lacks a comparable focus on girls and women. To be clear, they don’t want a moratorium on such initiatives, but they think this program ignores the importance of women and girls in their own right—that is, the importance of women and girls to their community. I hope there will be more debate on the supposed benefits of the addition of women to this top-down program for men, but I think the signers have hit on a sound principle that should be emphasized.

    Modern religions tell us that humans are the offspring of fallen Man. On the other hand, I’ve said humans have the potential to be great. However, I wasn’t making a case for the genetic superiority of the species. I meant to say that humans are great when they make their communities work for everyone. Human greatness only becomes visible in a true community.

    Maybe My Brother’s Keeper will have a good effect. I hope it does. But I don’t think trickle-down social schemes will ever bring lasting change. Real change begins in a community and spreads outward from there. I think this letter illustrates that you don’t need help from governments or billionaires to understand that. And in any case, it seems the kind of community these signers imagine is not what the creators of My Brother’s Keeper had in mind.

    Regardless of the immediate effect of this letter, it illustrates a powerful principle. It might just be the start of something great.

  • Considering the big part played by corporate greed in the run-up to World War II, and the confusion of analysts about U.S. policy in Ukraine, I thought it might be interesting to find out what American corporations have against Vladimir Putin. I found an article on the Global Research website that I’ll share here. It seems if you are American, you can’t defend your own country without defending the devil. Read this.

    Ukraine: The Corporate Annexation. “For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It’s a Gold Mine of Profits”.

  • I’ve been saying that we need to reexamine the influence of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle in politics and religion. As it happens, that conversation is already underway. The following discussion is based on an article about Plato’s influence in Russia. Those who like to divide Russian and Western thought may be shocked to discover Plato’s Iron Fist in the Soviet Union.  Mikhail Epstein, Professor of Russian and Cultural Theory and Co-Director of the Center for Humanities Innovation, identifies the Russian approach to Plato as the source of totalitarianism in the Soviet Union. However, the Russian experience has as much meaning for the West as it does for Russia.

    In this article I will demonstrate that both Marxist and non-Marxist ideologies are influenced by Plato’s authoritarian tendencies.

    What is Philosophy?

    Epstein begins by asking, What is philosophy? He answers by saying that although there is no simple, universal definition, the most ‘credible attempt is a nominalistic reference: philosophy is what Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel were occupied with.’ Then he provides what he calls the most broadly cited definition, that of A. Whitehead: ‘philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato.’1

    Plato's Iron Fist in the Soviet Union
    Immanuel Kant

    Russian Philosophy is Part of the Western Intellectual Tradition

    If this is accepted, he argues, Russian philosophy must be seen as a part of the Western intellectual tradition. Russia, and especially the Soviet Union, has been unique in its literal incarnation of the teachings of Plato. This was made possible by the tendency of Russian thought to ‘philosophize reality, to transform it into a transparent kingdom of ideas.’ In the Soviet Union, this resulted in philosophy becoming a supreme legal and political institution, and ‘in its unrestricted dominion [it] was equivalent to madness.’ However, non-Marxist and anti-Marxist thinkers in Russia belong to the same tradition. The hard-won understanding they achieved in this process can provide an invaluable lesson for the West.

    Non-Marxist and Anti-Marxist thinkers in Russia also Belong to the Platonic Tradition

    “One might even say that the philosophy of the Soviet epoch is the final stage of the development and embodiment of Plato’s ideas in the Western world. During this stage, the project of ideocracy came to a complete realization and exhausted itself. The czardom of ideas arrived at the threshold of self-destruction because the substance of Being resisted the yoke of idealism, and it is now in the process of returning to its primordial identity. Thus Russian philosophy both summarizes and punctuates more than two thousand years of the Platonic tradition and points the way for a return to foundations which are not susceptible to ideologic perversions.

    “A relatively short period of years sums up a two-millenium adventure of Western thought which escorted Plato in his search for the world of pure ideas. Among these footnotes to Plato, Russian philosophy appears to the attentive eye as the final entry, signifying ‘The End’.”

    Is the Problem Confined to One Particular Approach to Plato?

    Still, I suppose someone could argue that the problem is not Plato, but one particular approach to Plato. Epstein mentions this as a possibility, but says the question has yet to be answered.

    “The question is: Now that Platonism in its Marxist guise, has been overcome by Russian thought, is it still possible to find inspiration in Platonism as such, in its sublime idealistic and religious interpretations? Or does the experience of Russian history convincingly argue that Platonism has exhausted itself as a spiritual resource for humanity and that all attempts to Christianize it are just wishful illusions? (Russia slipped into the pagan version of Platonism, while in the West, Plato’s ideas were Christianized.)

    “Whatever the answer may be, it is indisputable that the ongoing relevance of Platonism for Russian thought will provide the ground for its intensive dialogue with…Western philosophy also rooted in Plato’s heritage.”2

  • Previously I said that it was Putin’s turn to respond to Ukraine’s attempts to restore harmony. Recently he has demonstrated his good intentions. He sent a special envoy, Vladimir Lukin, to the region to help facilitate the release of international military observers being held in Slovyansk. He’s also called for dialogue between Kiev and the separatists. ((Ukraine Resumes Operations Against Separatists, Stratfor Global Intelligence. May 2, 2014. Available: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/ukraine-resumes-operations-against-separatists))

    According to one analyst, the framework of the Geneva Accord still has the potential to promote peace, in spite of the fact that it appears to have broken down. ((Pro-Russian Separatism Poses a Threat in Eastern Ukraine. Stratfor Global Intelligence, May 1, 2014. available: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/pro-russian-separatism-poses-threat-eastern-ukraine)) The least the West can do at this point is take Putin seriously. It can’t be denied that he has clearly defined Russia’s stake in the region and in this conflict. The degree to which Ukraine and the West are willing to compromise with him will determine the extent of Russian aggression.

  • I’ve changed my tune on Ukraine. What made the difference? We live in an us-or-them world in which people are eventually forced to take sides. This is not only true of Ukraine. Even if Ukraine is never anything more than a waiting game there will always be places in the world where conflict is possible and where political leaders feel they must protect their interests. Unfortunately, the last four posts illustrate how this can derail the conversation. The us-or-them world won’t change unless we change it, and if we want to change it we have to continue the conversation.

    How does change happen? I’ve begun to think that on a certain level it’s simply a choice. However, before we can choose, the choices must be discovered and described. One of the most basic choices would be peace and prosperity—peace is a choice, not a happy accident. The basis of peace and prosperity is justice. What does justice look like? That remains to be discovered, but we could start by describing what injustice looks like.

    Reformers always base their ideas on historical models. The model for our age was constructed from the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas have even influenced the world’s main religions. The first step in investigating our choices would be to question these ideas and the structure of inequality they have created. I’ve argued that the creation of this structure was no mistake; it was deliberate. Yet every reformer accepts it as a basis for society.

    That discussion could go on for years, but I’m trying to stay with the idea of choice. As an example I’ll use my theory that inequality begins with the subjugation of women. Even though oppression is personal to the oppressed, on a policy level it is impersonal and utilitarian. The oppression of women is the foundation of a particular social and political organization. This may not be very encouraging, but it could also indicate that the oppression of women is not an unchanging, inescapable fact of human existence. It’s part of a specific cultural construct.

    In my opinion it would be a mistake to assume from this that women must change the system single-handedly. I don’t think that’s how it works. While there are plenty of women today who speak out against patriarchy, I suspect that women as a group are no threat to the status quo. What does this say about our culture, or about women…or about change? There have been woman-centered communities in the past. Is human nature different today? How about the female gender? Maybe the world suffers from a lack of female role models and archetypes and we just need a female priesthood and a system of goddess worship. Again, I don’t think so.

    My model is Minoa. Some will object to this on grounds that we don’t have enough information about the way the Minoans lived. However we do have archaeological evidence that they prospered for at least 3,000 years, and their city was never fortified. The adjective normally used to describe Minoan civilization is ‘confident’. By the way, those arguing for a return to goddess worship also admit that they know nothing about it. Yet the same people—the ones I’m familiar with are university professors—accept the idea of human sacrifice.

    Others might object to my using Minoa as a model because I reject goddess worship. Maybe they remember reading somewhere that Minoa did indeed have goddess worship. This requires more discussion as well, but apparently this belief is due to Jane Ellen Harrison’s influence on the interpretation of Minoan artifacts. I intend to discuss this later also, but I’ll say that although Harrison claimed to be revealing ancient Greek religion, her books are categorized today as Hermetic philosophy. Harrison was a colleague of Charles Darwin. And it is no dark conspiracy that our science is hermetic. It’s descended from the Rosicrucians by way of the Royal Society.

    As long as I seem to be making an outline of the conversation, I’ll also mention that Protestant Christianity is heavily influenced by Hermeticism. I once thought that if you found a system with elements of magic and the occult, it must be a pre-Christian, or non-Christian system. That’s not true. Protestantism is indebted to mystical and occult beliefs. In fact, elements of the occult can be found in all religions. The same goes for our form of democracy. For this reason, I would argue that Christianity can’t be excluded from the conversation. In fact, it seems it would be impossible to carry on an American conversation about the past, the present, or the future, without acknowledging the influence of the church.

    But I’ve gone off the track again. I wanted to talk about choice. I’ve said that I don’t think justice is imposed single-handedly on a society by oppressed people, or by anyone else for that matter. I think it’s a choice made at a cultural level. It’s possible that theology would have a place in this process, but I’m afraid our theology has become inseperable from utilitarian elements.

    In support of the idea that people must choose justice, here is an interesting fact about Minoa. The Minoans were aware that their way of life was coming to an end and they didn’t resist. Maybe they understood that if some members of a society choose to take advantage of others just because they are able to do so, the good times are over and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

  • U.S. involvement in Ukraine is counterproductive because it pushes all the wrong buttons for Russia, especially now that relations between Putin and President Obama are at an all-time low.
    “From Moscow’s point of view, any form of direct U.S. involvement in Ukrainian security operations could grow over time into stronger assistance, possibly including U.S. troops on the ground.” ((Possible U.S. Involvement in Ukraine Could Heighten Tensions. Geopolitical Diary, Stratfor Global Intelligence. April 25, 2014. Available: http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/possible-us-involvement-ukraine-could-heighten-tensions))

    However, the Russians are convinced that the latest operation by Ukrainian security forces is evidence of U.S. military assistance. On Thursday, Ukrainian forces stormed several Russian separatist checkpoints in Slovyansk, killing five separatists and one police officer. Similar to a previous operation on April 15, the Ukrainians withdrew suddenly, reportedly after receiving intelligence of an increased risk of Russian troops crossing the border. However this time the Ukrainian personnel were better prepared and had more professional gear, such as body armor and small arms equipped with high-end reflexive fire sights. For the Russians, such a drastic improvement can only mean direct U.S. involvement, specifically through the U.S. security firm, Greystone.

    Their evidence is circumstantial and the Ukrainians have been denying similar claims for some time, but on Wednesday the Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister didn’t help matters when he said, “Each day we receive [dozens of tips] on how to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We even conducted consultations with American experts, which…have decades of experience on combatting terrorism and they said that we are conducting a good anti-terrorist policy.” [backref name=“Possible U.S. Involvement Could Heighten Tensions”]

    If the United States really wants a diplomatic solution, this is not the way to go about it.

  • The situation in Ukraine has alternated between rhythm and discord. The music began when Ukraine decided to pursue an Association Agreement with the EU. The first discordant note sounded when the Ukrainian president was told that he must end relations with Russia. His decision not to sign the AA resulted in local protests, which culminated in Victoria Nuland’s phone call. In retrospect, this phone call was probably misleading. Unfortunately, it’s given credence to Putin’s focus on the United States. Conflict between Russia and the United States is certainly safer for Putin in the short term than conflict with the EU. However, he seems to be using the U.S. to avoid dialogue with his closer neighbors. In my opinion, Putin is on the line to respond appropriately to Keiv’s latest attempts to restore harmony.

    Ukraine’s leaders have responded to his concerns in two ways: by addressing the radical right, and by indicating a willingness to discuss the federalization of Ukraine. These things should have the potential to end the crisis, but at this time the pro-Russian groups in Eastern Ukraine are out of step. Regardless of whether Russia is supporting them, if Putin fails to call them to order he is at fault.

    Some are now saying that the United States’ presence in Poland is part of the problem. However, the American strategy has clearly been defensive so far. The administration probably wants to demonstrate support for Central Europe, as has been stated. The reason: if these countries believe they have been left on their own to face Russia, they might decide they have no choice but to make peace with Putin. NATO can’t handle Central Europe’s requests for help because NATO is cash-poor and divided. Therefore, the United States has to take up some of the slack. [ref]From Estonia to Azerbaijan: American Strategy After Ukraine. Stratfor Global Intelligence. March 25, 2014. available:http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/estonia-azerbaijan-american-strategy-after-ukraine?topics=286[/ref]

    All things considered, it’s difficult to make the case that this is another Cold War as some on the Left would like us to believe. It’s not a conflict between the United States and Russia, except perhaps for purposes of propaganda. The U.S. has clearly been playing a supporting role to the EU and Obama’s continuing restraint supports this view. Harsh retaliation has been ruled out because it would damage the EU as much as Russia.

    No one is forgetting that Russian security was threatened, but Russia is not under threat from the United States at this time. Putin must work with his neighbors in the EU and Ukraine. Perhaps he believes his focus on the U.S. will win support for his personal agenda. Too bad Obama hasn’t taken his bait.

    It’s Putin’s turn to strike a chord. He should end this.

  • I’m reading George Friedman’s “A Forecast for the 21st Century”. So far, it’s reinforced something I’ve read between the lines in analyses of past administrations.  The world’s governments don’t act irrationally.  Our current administration is no exception.  A 2012 article on stratfor.com helps to explain the U.S. behavior.  Perhaps it even explains Harper’s panel discussion on the EU in which representatives of the UK, the United States and France expressed concern about Germany’s power.  It certainly provides a different slant on so-called American imperialism. While America’s actions might appear as evidence of an offensive strategy, they are primarily defensive. U.S. foreign policy is the result of unheard-of power combined with fear.  I’m not qualified to answer the question of whether the level of fear is grounded in reality in any particular circumstance, but after reading this article, you can decide whether it is justified in the case of Ukraine.

    Largely due to the rise of competition with Russia’s role as supplier of Europe’s natural gas, Russia is trying to create strong buffers in Central and Eastern Europe.  She hasn’t been hugely successful, but her cause has been helped by decreasing military budgets in the EU.

    The wavering of NATO’s focus on Central Europe has added to NATO’s problems, for example in Afghanistan. In addition, France has supported military coalitions in places not strictly of interest to NATO, such as Libya.  

    For the past ten years, NATO has easily contained Russia militarily, while the EU contained her economically, but since the Greek economic crisis of 2010 the EU has had fewer resources.  Russia, on the other hand, has a $600 billion surplus from energy sales and $500 billion in reserves.  

    By 2012, the Russians had increased their troop presence near Estonia.  They had an agreement with Belarus to deploy troops there in a wartime scenario, and they had deployed S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems in Kaliningrad. They also had plans to deploy the Iskander missile system there.  

    Russia has also been buying assets at the end of the energy supply chain in Europe, which will give it more leverage in the foreign policies of European states.  In this case however, Russia is in need of European investment, which will increase EU leverage over Russia. 

    These facts provide some of the background for Russia’s current involvement in Ukraine, which is tremendously important to her strategic plans.  Russian influence in Ukraine would integrate Russia into Europe, but it would also allow Russia to truly challenge Europe.  

    In view of Germany’s rising power in the EU, this writer believes–or he did in 2012–that a German-Russian condominium is a possibility.  Germany has always been conflicted between Atlantic Europe to the West and land-bound, autocratic Europe to the East.  A subtle turn by Germany toward Moscow would be a serious matter.  

    Europe is very much in play. Its future as an economic, political and moral powerhouse is not written in advance — as was smugly assumed a few years ago. The EU debt crisis is only the beginning of the story, with geopolitical aftershocks that will only become apparent over time.[ref]Global Affairs, Stratfor.com, May 23, 2012. Available: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/europes-russia-factor#ixzz2vCJdWzhd[/ref]

error: Content is protected !!