Putin wants to survive while Trump wants the same thing. Xi also wants Putin to survive…
Without Putin(ism), Europe wouldn’t spend a dime on weapons. On American weapons! America would have to develop and maintain alone the hardware needed to keep Xi at bay.
Once Putin gone, the Russian people will completely turn their attention towards Europe. Leaving the ‘Chinese model’ stranded. In limbo…
What do we want?!? Who cares?!? But now, that you’ve asked…
We want America back! The already great America… The one wise enough to save Europe from itself. Twice! The one wise enough to help Japan back on its feet after WWII. The one wise, and brave, enough to defend South Korea. The one wise enough to understand that behaving like a bull in a China shop might be fun. For a while… but inexorably produces a fine mess… Specially when the bull owns much of the china being traded in that shop!
America does have a huge responsibility in maintaining the world in a working state. For the simple reason that America’s wealth depends, directly and indirectly, on the smooth functioning of the increasingly integrated world market. Forgetting this, and concentrating your attention on ‘particular interests’, vested or not, is nothing short of blinding yourself. Of shutting reality out!
And we want Europe back! Europe has already done the same mistake America is about to commit. Behaved like the bull in the China shop. Literally. Then, overwhelmed by the consequences, left out without clearing up the mess.
Finally, but equally important, we need China – along with all other ‘wishful thinkers’ – to learn. To understand that behaving like a bull in the China shop, even if you do it at home, doesn’t help anybody. Not in the long run. Everybody, including the bull, ends up in tatters…
An inhabited planet where some of the people have finally figured out the inherently limited nature of their world. Global warming, pollution, soil erosion, loss of biological diversity, dwindling and unevenly distributed natural resources…
Two hot wars. And a huge trilateral economic contest involving a third of the population which leaves the other two thirds in relative misery.
Most of the conflict – hot and cold alike – can be pinned down to old people doing their best (worst, more likely) to conserve their status. Wealth, power, influence…
As things happen, currently there is one collective agent which yields enough power to decisively influence the outcome of the two hot wars. And to negotiate the economic contest. The attention of the people constituting that particular collective agent has been hijacked by an insurrectionist ex-president attempting to regain that position. The ex-president has curried the favor of significant political party by making it possible for the party-activists to succeed in their attempt to limit women’s access to abortion. The ex-president and soon to be presidential candidate is currently involved in a penal process. The trial attempts to determine whether the hush money he had used to silence a porn actress regarding a ‘close encounter of the third kind’ had been spent legally.
History doesn’t go anywhere. It pesters us with lessons. Until we figure out their meanings. Or until there’s no one left. No one left to be pestered! Darwin 2.0
One of the recurrent lessons history is peppered with: ‘Imperia always fail. Sooner or later, eventually all imperial social arrangements end up in abject failure. Empires as well as monopolies.’
And no, the Pharaonic empire didn’t last for 3000 years. What happened there was 30 something successive empires. Read dynasties. Whenever a dynasty lost its grip, its empire folded. Whenever a new dynasty took over, it presided over a new empire. Same thing happened in modern France. Same territory, same population, same culture, 5 republics and two empires since 1789. The fact that the last three republics have been consecutive doesn’t merge them into a single one.
Europe has been the scene of a whole host of wars. Some of them worldwide wars. Since the French Revolution, all empires which had attempted to subjugate their neighbors have failed.
Napoleon’s attempt had initiated the German ‘coming together’ and turned Russia’s attention back to Europe. Napoleon the 3rd had helped Bismark to finalize Prussia’s taking over the rest of what we currently call Germany. WWI was started by people who had no clue and put on hold by people who had no vision. Started by imperialistically thinking people who didn’t see any need to evaluate the consequences of their countries going to war and put on hold by (other) imperialistically thinking people who continued the well established tradition. Again, without any attempt to evaluate the consequences. Hence the vanquished - the only vanquished that was still standing at the end of the war, Germany – was presented with a hefty bill. And made to pay crippling war reparations. Which clumsy actions had prepared the scene for Hitler’s advent to power. WWII – or, more exactly, WWI 2.0 – was ended by far wiser decision makers. Who had chosen to integrate the vanquished rather than deepening the trenches. Although fought with ‘softer’ weapons, WWIII – also known as the Cold War – fits perfectly. It was also lost by the aggressor. Not as much won by those resisting as lost by the empire attempting to widen its grasp.
What we currently have on our hands, WWIV, is a ‘pinnacle’. Putin attempting to revive Russia’s ‘old glory’ and the reaction of the ‘free world’ are a case study. And a horrible remake. Mistakes already made since the French Revolution have been reenacted as if never happened. The aggressor failed to realize that at some point his actions will beget a reaction. That even if that reaction will be late, it will surely come about. The ‘good guys’ have forgotten – never really cared to understand? – the lessons of WWI and WWII. No real attempt to integrate post communist Russia into the democratic fold had been made. Not in an organized manner, anyway. Everybody was happy that ‘history had finally reached its end’ and Russia was left to its own devices. Even worse, it was treated as a no-man’s land. Mutatis mutandis, post-communist Russia had been treated just as South America and Africa had been treated after they had been discovered by the Europeans. Even worse, the ‘good guys’ have forgotten – or had never understood – that a bully has to be stopped early. And that the easiest way to stop a bully is to encourage his ‘sycophants’ to free themselves from his influence. And to help, in earnest, those who are bullied to overcome their plight.
Now, almost two years after the aggression organized by Putin against Ukraine has become ‘hot’, there still are people who consider Ukraine should negotiate. Should accept the inevitable. Other consider that helping Ukraine is ‘money down the drain’. That there’s no way for Ukraine to win.
The way I see this, we’re back in 1942. Nazi troops were controlling most of Europe and most of North-Africa. But the signs were already there. Russia, nor Britain, didn’t collapse under the onslaught. The nazis had been driven out from Moscow’s suburbs and Leningrad remained out of reach. From there on… Hitler kept making stupid moves. Until the Third Reich crumbled under its own weight. Helped by the Allied bombardments. And let’s not forget the huge amount of western weapons and munitions shipped by Russia’s then allies to Murmansk. Nor those hauled using the Iranian railway.
Now. Will we relearn the lessons which are readily available to us? The lessons we should have already learned? What’s keeping us? Does anybody still think Putin, or any other dictator, will ever stop? Tired of waiting? Be glad Ukraine isn’t. Be glad Ukraine isn’t tired of fighting!
It ends almost like it had started. Make good use of the interval!
Life and death are two strange words. Very different yet they describe the very same thing. If you think of it, death and life are like the faces of a coin. After all, the exclusive qualification for being able to die is to have been born… And it’s only us, languaging rational beings, who make the difference between living and dying. At the conceptual level, of course. OK, many others are capable of making the functional distinction between a corpse and a living body. We are impressed by the mourning behavior displayed by the elephants, for example. And even more so by the chimpanzee mothers who continue to carry the bodies of their deceased babies… But since we are the only species – known to us, humans – who uses language to relate to each-other, to think about the world and to plan ahead, I’m going to discuss here only the languaging/reasoning aspects of us making the difference between life and death. By making this difference we actually separate the inseparable. With momentous consequences. For us – individual human beings, for the species as a whole, for the rest of the species and for the rest of the world. The world as we know it… The origin of this difference is our conscience. Which is sophisticated enough to be able to make it and to talk/think about it. The elephants are also conscient enough to act upon the difference between a living body and a corpse. To recognize the skeleton of a deceased relative. To remember it. But, at least apparently, they are not able to speak about the whole thing. Nor to transmit over generations that those particular bones belonged to a particular individual who had been related to … As soon as all individuals who had directly known the deceased individual, all information about the identity of the corpse/skeleton are lost. For a while, the survivors remember only the fact that their ‘mothers’ used to ‘mourn’ over this particular set of bones but nothing more. Again, this is what we know, now, about the manner in which the elephants treat their dead. Which is very different from how we treat ours. And from how we relate to matters pertaining to life and death. We cherish life and we dread death. We cherish our lives and we dread our death. Ours and that of our (cherished) relatives and friends. And we are somewhat indifferent to the lives of others… To the tune of being able to dispatch animals, and plants, for food. And to kill other human beings. In war but not exclusively.
The problem with this approach being that this understanding degrades war to a simple instrument.
Something used by a decision maker towards the achievement of certain ‘goals’.
The problem with this approach being that it obliterates the decision power of all other people involved in it. Of everybody else but of those calling the shots. Pun intended!
All analysts commenting Putin’s ‘special military operation’ babble on about Putin’s goals. ‘Ukraine will never be able to crush Russia, militarily, so we need to understand what’s going on in Putin’s mind. In order to be able to ‘bribe’ him into ending the war. Or to black mail him. Only we need to understand first what will constitute a too big of a price for him to pay.’
On the other hand, Putin seems to be thinking along the same lines. ‘I need to preserve my position. MY power. Ukraine is a bad example for the Russian people. They have shifted their ‘allegiance’ and want to build a real democracy. I cannot allow this to happen, otherwise I’ll be next. Now, how much pain do I have to inflict in order to achieve my goal? Directly, upon the Ukrainians and indirectly, upon the rest of the world?’
Meanwhile, the rest of those involved in this situation bear the brunt of the war. Directly and indirectly.
Some of them understand what’s going on and some don’t.
My point being that not all instruments are born equal. While all are nothing but mere ‘sticks’ in the hands of the agents wielding them, choosing to use a certain instrument among the available alternatives speaks volumes about the agent making the choice.
What are we, reasonable creatures, to understand when an agent chooses an instrument which debases all other creatures to the role of ‘kill or be killed’? For whatever reason and under whatever pretext? Is that agent ever going to stop? To stop setting ‘goals’, further and further away?
Specially after having the ‘first installment’ safely tucked under the belt…
I’ve been talking about complementarity, equality and freedom. The implication being that unless people treat each other fairly – as in consider the others as being equal, and equal with themselves – none will be actually free. Free to fully complement each-other. Free to ‘boldly go where no one has yet been’. Together. What’s keeping us from doing it? To figure that out, we need first to understand how we got here. ‘I’ve been talking about…’ To talk about something means the talker is aware about the existence of that something. They may not fully understand what’s going on but they have already noticed that something’s afoot. Furthermore, for a human to attempt to communicate about something means that that human considers there’s at least a small chance that others will understand the message. That others understand the language used and that those others already have a modicum of interest in that matter. In other words, any attempt to communicate means that those involved are not only aware that something’s afoot but also have reached a certain degree of consciousness. That they are not only aware of something being there but also aware that they, together, can/should/must do something about it. They key word here being “together”. Why bother talking about it when/if you’re able to deal with it on your own? Which brings us to ‘war’! How many do we need to be in order to ‘deal’ with this ‘thing’? How many of us will be able to ‘feed’ themselves after this ‘thing’ will be dealt with? How much will each of us have contributed to the whole process? How will the spoils be distributed among ourselves? How will we deal with the ‘loose cannons’ among ourselves? How will we know who will do what? Who will lead? Who will be responsible for the whole thing? This is the moment when I’ll remind you that this is a blog about the consequences of our limited consciousness. A blog where I gather my attempts to understand the limits of our ability to make decisions – as individuals, and the manner in which different societies have come up with different methods to mitigate the consequences of those limits. Happy reading, every one.
War and chess have a lot in common. Most strikingly, the different manners in which both of them end.
The king is captured. Or the other side gives up.
A tie is nothing but the prelude for an encore, not a real end.
Even the roads to the end are very similar in both cases. While at the start of the game/’joust’ everything is ‘possible’ – nobody knows what the other side might be doing next, as the end nears each of the combatants are more and more limited in their currently available choices by the consequences of their previous decisions. By the very path they had followed since the beginning. Which path becomes more and more evident for everybody present. Opponent as well as spectators.
Finally – but not the least important, the similarities go even further. Deeper? The king is the most ‘important’ piece but not the most powerful. In fact, the king cannot do much by itself. It can help the other pieces achieve their common goal but when left alone it is basically powerless. The only thing it can do is run. But only as far as the board allows it to go… A pawn, if it manages to reach the eight rank, gets to be promoted. To become the new ‘right hand’ of the king. The new ‘most powerful member of the team’.
‘OK. And the real point of your post is?’
Putin cannot win this war – cause war it is, by himself. Hence he needs to preserve the loyalty of his henchmen, to instill enough fear into his opponents to make them quit and to convince the ‘spectators’ that their efforts to help Ukraine are too expensive.
Now! Are we smart enough to understand that we, each of us, are ‘next’? That each time a bully gets his way, all other (would be) bullies present become even more bullish? Are we smart enough to understand that the most meaningful thing we can do in this situation is to separate Putin from his power base? From the ordinary people who see no other alternative and from those who, for various reasons, continue to support Putin’s misconstrued ‘vision about the world’? Are we smart enough to understand that no matter how hard it is for us, the Ukrainians have it ten times harder?
Democracy is about every body having the opportunity to speak up their minds. To speak up their minds, not to kill their neighbors under the pretext that there is a difference of opinion between them!
“We didn’t invade Ukraine,” he claimed. “We declared a special military operation because we had absolutely no other way of explaining to the West that dragging Ukraine into Nato was a criminal act.” “Russia is not squeaky clean. Russia is what it is. And we are not ashamed of showing who we are.”
Are you trying to figure out what’s the real meaning of Lavrov’s words? Let me translate for you this fine example of NewSpeak.
‘We – those who are currently running Russia, will do whatever we need to do in order to preserve our power. In order to achieve that, we first and foremost need to convince the ordinary Russians to continue to obey our orders. In order to achieve that, we need to convince the ordinary Russians that you are the enemy and that their only chance lies with us, their current masters. Hence each time we destroy an Ukrainian apartment block and any of you says ‘Russians are savages’ we’re one step closer to our goal. Each and every time any of you declares ‘Russia has to pay for what it has done in Ukraine’ we tell them, the ordinary Russians, ‘See? This is what they plan to do to you once we’re are gone’.
WWI had lasted until 1945. We have the opportunity to end the Cold War now. The war in Ukraine will reach a conclusion. Let’s make it so that after the war will have ended, Russia will fold in the family of ‘civil’ nations.
Those nations that choose to live in peace! Not because they cannot win wars but because they have learned that winning wars it’s not enough. Those nations which have learned, the hard way, that war has but one winner while for peace to last every body must be a winner.
An embassy is a conduit. It brings information back and forth between the ‘host’ and the ‘sender’.
A spy ring is (intended to be) a ‘one way pipe’. It gathers information about the ‘host’ and transports it to the sender.
They have in common the fact that the bulk of the information is gathered from ‘open’ sources. From the media, that is. Newspapers, TV, radio, internet…
Imagine now the following situation. There is this planet. Let’s say ours. Inhabited by us, the human people. And you have some other people. One or more species capable of interplanetary travel. Who have found out about this planet and want to learn more about us before making contact. Since they haven’t yet conquered us – as per our knowledge, and since there’s no evidence of any galaxy wide conflict raging on we may presume the aliens are fundamentally peaceful. Either naturally ’empathic’ – hence in no need whatsoever of being governed, or having such a ‘natural’ form of government that they’re very happy with it. In their attempt to learn about us and to understand our situation before engaging in any way with us, the aliens have sent an ‘undercover’ fact-finding mission on Earth.
Right now! When a country capable of yielding almost half the (self) destructing power available on Earth ‘happens to be’ at loggerheads with a coalition of countries which controls most of the other half of the destruction power already mentioned above.
The local agent employed by the fact-finding mission compiles two news articles which, in his opinion, summarize perfectly what’s going on on the planet.
“Medvedev alleged that some in the West would like to “take advantage of the military conflict in Ukraine to push our country to a new twist of disintegration, do everything to paralyze Russia’s state institutions and deprive the country of efficient controls, as happened in 1991.” “
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ‘planetary divide’,
So. Forget, if you can, about the war in Ukraine and about the US mid-term elections. Let’s pretend you’re the head of the alien fact-finding mission. What recommendation would you send back to those calling the shots in your organization after reading the two articles I mentioned above?
After reading this interview for a second time, I asked myself: ‘Why are you paying so much attention to this guy?!? After all, he doesn’t say anything new…’
Then it hit me!
“Russia” and “we” are two different things.
Russia, the country, cannot indeed afford to “lose”. To ‘lose it’, to be more precise. Russia will survive, no matter how many more ‘mistakes’ the morons currently running it will commit.
“We”, on the other hand, are the ones who can. And eventually will. Lose. Everything.
And the longer those “we” are allowed by Russia itself to run the Kremlin, the worse it will be. For everybody. Us – the rest of the world, included.
‘But when will this nightmare end?’
That I don’t know. All I know is that it will eventually do that. End.
Look at the picture above. When have you seen anything more British than that? OK, fake British. Make-believe British. But British nonetheless.
That was which hit me. That during its entire history, Russia had tried to emulate Britain. The Russian elite has for ever tried to rise itself to ‘British standards’. From Peter the Great to Putin. All the while convincing the Russian People that the road they were trundling on was unique…
The sooner the ordinary Russians will figure out that they have been misled – and enough of the elite will understand that British-ness is good only for the Brits, they will make peace. Among themselves. With the their Ukrainian cousins. And with the rest of the world!
When Mario de Andrade found out that he had but one life, he had set for himself a certain goal. To live his second life in a certain way. In the way he considered worthwhile.
We’re about to find out that we have but one planet.
nicichiarasa 