There is yet another consequence that is spinning out from the Anglosphere's foreign policy insanity vis-a-vis the Ukraine, Russia, and the imposition of sanctions on the latter: the breakdown of the very globalist-New World Order agenda - we call it Globaloney here at Giza Death Star - that the CFR, Trilateralists, Bilderbergers, and so on have been so assiduously busy about building since the end of the Second World War (if not before):
Of course, you'll notice a certain tendentiousness in this article, perhaps best revealed here:
"There is a mood abroad that says history will record that sanctions against Russia marked the start of an epochal retreat from globalisation. I heard a high-ranking German official broach the thought the other day at the German Marshall Fund’s Stockholm China Forum. It was an interesting point, but it missed a bigger one. The sanctions are more symptom than cause. The rollback began long before Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, began his war against Ukraine.
"The case for calling a halt to business as usual with Moscow is self-evident to anyone who considers that international security demands nations do not invade their neighbours. The valid criticism of the West is that it has been too slow to react. At every step, the Russian president has ruthlessly exploited US hesitation and European divisions.
"He will do so until Nato restores deterrence to the core of European security. Putin’s irredentism demands tough diplomacy stiffened by hard power. He will stop when he understands that aggression will invite unacceptable retaliation. To make deterrence credible, the alliance must put boots on the ground on its eastern flank. The Baltics have replaced Berlin as the litmus test of western resolve.
"Some, particularly though not exclusively in the rising world, have seen sanctions through a different prism. By punishing Russia economically, the US and Europe are undermining the open international system. Economics, this cast of mind says, must be held apart from the vicissitudes of political quarrels. Why should new powers sign up to a level international playing field if the US and Europe scatter it with rocks in pursuit of narrow interests?"
There are four points here that leave me scratching my head in disbelief, and the first is, the idea that this is "Mr. Putin's War."
Now, granted, I don't watch much tv, but the notion of Mr.Putin having begun "his war against (THE) Ukraine" strikes me as not only a BIG FAT WHOPPER OF A LIE, but one so ridiculous that it strains imagination. Most regular readers here are probably as ready as I to assign equal if not more responsibility for the mess in THE Ukraine to the West in general and to America in particular. As far as this blogger is concerned, Russia's only responsibility in the affair appears to have been the misfortune to have their country so close to the Ukraine. One gets the impression, from some western "spokespersons" that the Russians are also to be blamed for the location of their country (How dare they place it so close to our interests!) and that Washington would be much happier if the Russians lived in another solar system.
I've heard the usual stuff about a Russian invasion of the Eastern Ukraine, though admittedly, I haven't watched much tv news lately to see how the American media is spinning the whole thing(frankly, I can only stand about two minutes of it before I switch it off in disgust). But I'm just not seeing it. This is Russia we're talking about folks, and if Mr. Putin wanted to invade the Ukraine, he wouldn't muck about. We would be seeing massive air and missile strikes against C3 targets (communications, command and control), airfield strikes to cripple the Ukrainian air force and gain air superiority, interdiction of transportation and logistics, road blocks and check points everywhere, a clamp on all foreign journalists, massive columns, armor, &c... you get the idea. In other words, you'd see a military operation with all that entails, and from what I can tell - I may be wrong, after all, I don't watch TV and I don't live in Donetsk - this is not happening.
The second problem here is, sure, you don't invade friendly and non-hostile "neighbours", and that's the point: Mr. Putin didn't, and even if he did, there has been some provocation. Left out of this mix is of course, that one also doesn't sponsor neo-Nazi coups and bloody covert operations against a legitimate sovereign government that is moving in a direction you don't like, but not doing anything threatening to you or your interests, just so the Vice-President's son can have a cushy job (ok ok...I exaggerate).
Thirdly, the Baltics have replaced Berlin as the test of Western resolve. Really? Funny... I don't recall hearing recently that Mr. Putin or Mr. Glazyev or anyone else were massing troops and tanks on the border of Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. Could you produce some satellite pictures from Brazilian, German, French, Japanese, Chinese, Indian satellites showing us this? What I suspect is REALLY being said here is "we need American bases in those countries in the guise of NATO bases so we can more easily interdict that Russian-German gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea."
However, it's that fourth component that really is where the rubber meets the road, and two more paragraphs expound on this:
"These critics are right to say an integrated global economy needs a cooperative political architecture. Sanctions against Ukraine, though, fit a bigger picture of the unravelling of globalisation since the financial crash of 2008. They testify to a profound reversal in US attitudes. Washington’s steady retreat from global engagement reaches beyond Barack Obama’s ordinance that the US stop doing “stupid stuff”.
"The architect of the present era of globalisation is no longer willing to be its guarantor. The US does not see a vital national interest in upholding an order that redistributes power to rivals. Much as they may cavil at this, China, India and the rest are unwilling to step up as guardians of multilateralism. Without a champion, globalisation cannot but fall into disrepair."(Emphasis added)
I have to admit, I read the last paragraph in disbelief, for the BRICSA nations, Russia and China in particular, have repeatedly made statements to the effect that "globalization" must be genuine and not unipolar. In other words, they have dared call a spade a spade, and pulled off the phony term of "globalization" as simply a convenient name for the imposition of American and for that matter private financial and corporate will on the rest of the world. Think only of the secret agendas behind the drive to push standards of US Patent Law through the WTO - with all the associated GMO issues that go with it - the whole creation of the WTO-IMF system:
"The open trading system is fragmenting. The collapse of the Doha round spoke of the demise of global free-trade agreements. The advanced economies are looking instead to regional coalitions and deals — the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Pact. The emerging economies are building south-south relationships. Frustrated by a failure to rebalance the International Monetary Fund, the Brics nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are setting up their own financial institutions"
And the "masters" in the City, Wall Street, London and Washington have only themselves to blame. But there's a lament here, and it's a significant one:
"Globalisation needs an enforcer — a hegemon, a concert of powers or global governance arrangements sufficient to make sure the rules are fairly applied. Without a political architecture that locates national interests in mutual endeavours, the economic framework is destined to fracture and fragment. Narrow nationalisms elbow aside global commitments. Sanctions are part of this story, but Russia’s contempt for the international order is a bigger one.
"Sad to say, we learnt in 1914 that economic interdependence is a feeble bulwark against great-power rivalry."
Reading between the lines a bit, this is both an admission, and perhaps a bit of a desperate prayer. The admission is, the USA cannot be the unipolar "enforcer" any more for any attempt to do so will only exacerbate an already deteriorating situation, and secondly, the old system of alliances is collapsing under the strain of new emerging regional coalitions, financial realities, and their accompanying geopolitical commitments. In other words, the USA must make sure those new bases in Eastern Europe that are being called for here must be perceived as NATO bases. And there's the rub... selling that idea in Rome, Madrid, Paris, or Berlin is going to be difficult.
Now, one final question: do any of you think that "global enforcer" will be genuinely fair? a genuinely responsive government to the peoples of the world? to their middle classes? Or do you think it will be what the corporatized governments of the west have become?
I suspect most of us know the answer to that already.
See you on the flip side.
(My thanks to Mr. Z.Y. for sharing this important article.)