Saturday, August 16, 2014


The Artic, Russia and WW III: A Dialogue Between Me and R

Me: The tie-in between the Arctic and Middle-East (as Pepe Escobar puts it) "pipelineistan" completes the circle. So, here is the plan, keep the Russians and Iranians (unless, of course, they fall into submission) from supplying Europe and China, seize the Arctic  and so save the petro-dollar and control all of Euro-Asia to boot. So says Zbignew Bryzinski in the pages of the Grand Chess Board. The problem for the US is that the Russians and Chinese are excellent Chess players. Whatever interests Putin serves, he and the rest of the Russian leadership are head and shoulders above the likes of Obama, Nuland, Power, Kerry et al. Probably can say the same for the Chinese. Ours is simply a bunch of brutish, un-polished gangsters in comparison. To bad only some of us are listening.

R:  The U.S. can't seize the Arctic. The longest shoreline is Russia's. It would take WW III. I don't believe we're going that far.  But there will certainly be a tussle about oil fields in the Arctic.  I agree that the Russians and Chinese are good chess players.  We just barge in and bomb places.

Me: Well Renate, I wouldn't be so sure about WW III not coming off. Don't make the mistake of believing the game or the players (especially on the U. S. side) are entirely rational. As both world wars showed, things can take a course of the their own once a trigger or series of triggers are tripped. An insider, or at least former insider, like Paul Craig Roberts certainly sees the dangers ( and so do others ( and Remember, I also mentioned in our conversation, Noam Chomsky book "Hegemony or Survival" in which he too explains the go for broke mentality of the U. S. Infused as the U.S. has always been with Christian eschatology combined with Manifest Destiny and Exceptionalism, it may decide to take the Samson route; destroy the un-believers even if it means our own demise.

R: Everything is possible. But the long Cold War never led to hot war; cooler minds prevailed. I agree it's a toss-up, but can't help my optimistic bent.  Must be in the genes.*:)

Me: I sure hope you're right. I'd like to see my wife before I turn into a pop tart. Below is the tact the Russians seem to be taking which bolsters your optimism:

(from Mike Whitney) Russian politician and economist, Sergei Glazyev, summarized Moscow’s approach to the US-Russia conflagration in an essay titled “US is militarizing Ukraine to invade Russia.” Here’s an excerpt:

    To stop the war, you need to terminate its driving forces. At this stage, the war unfolds mainly in the planes of economic, public relations and politics. All the power of US economic superiority is based on the financial pyramid of debt, and this has gone long beyond sustainability. Its major lenders are collapsing enough to deprive the US market of accumulated US dollars and Treasury bonds. Of course, the collapse of the US financial system will cause serious losses to all holders of US currency and securities. But first, these losses for Russia, Europe and China will be less than the losses caused by American geopolitics unleashing another world war. Secondly, the sooner the exit from the financial obligations of this American pyramid, the less will be the losses. Third, the collapse of the dollar Ponzi scheme gives an opportunity, finally, to reform the global financial system on the basis of equity and mutual benefit.

R: This isn't really clear to me; maybe it's the translation.  Saying the financial losses will be less than another world war doesn't sound entirely optimistic to me.

Me: Think about it R. In philosophy there is an argument as to whether or not existence is a right.  Kant thought not. He convincingly, in my view, showed that existence is not a right in itself but the pre-condition for all rights. In that same vein, to allow for the suffering of financial losses, one would have to exist in order to do so. Existence is thus a  pre-condition not only for rights but for losses and recuperation. Put another way, would you rather suffer financial losses, even if heavy, and live to fight another day or be turned into a pop tart that perhaps only the rats can feed off. Keep in mind there is no middle ground.  Be broke but alive or be dead. I thinks this is where the Russians are coming from and I agree. Once you are alive there is a remedy. You can claw your way back to material well-being. But if you are dead all the paper dollars the US treasury could print mean nothing. Ironically, I may have to put that theory to the test as I may find myself financially broke but alive. Thousands of farmers in India however chose death after finding themselves rendered destitute by the cheap agricultural imports that killed off their income. For them hope is forever gone. So again, the optimism hinges on the alternative. Beyond that there is a positive note in that Glazyev wants or at least claims that "the collapse of the dollar Ponzi scheme gives an opportunity, finally, to reform the global financial system on the basis of equity and mutual benefit.” Whatever truth to the claim, it does points to something better. A mutli-polar world free of a crazed, violent and over-bearing hegemon. It would be better if was under the auspices of a socialist or some sort of egalitarian system but I guess you take what you can get and fight for the rest over time. But you have to exist!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?